Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
It’s like a non pyramid shaped pyramid.
ISTR watching a travel show and seeing that it's quite nice on the inside (cf Liverpool Catholic Cathedral).
Though not actually as nice as an actual York/Durham/Ely type cathedral. Just nice in a 'ooh, pleasant enough in here, not as horrible as the outside led us to believe' way.
I’ve just been looking at lists of ‘world’s ugliest buildings’ and there’s a lot of hate for the MI6 building on the Thames. Which I actually rather like. Holyrood gets a kicking as well
Most of the lists are too old to feature the Edinburgh Turd building, which must be in anyone’s top 3 worldwide
Tories humiliate Labour as they’re forced to abstain on their own anti-sewage debate A niche piece of Commons procedure meant Labour MPs ended up unable to vote in favour of reducing sewage discharges.
The Labour Party was left humiliated by the Government in the House of Commons this afternoon after Conservative strategists devised a plan to force Labour MPs to abstain on their own anti-sewage motion. The result was that Labour MPs ended up refusing to vote in favour of reducing sewage discharge. It's claimed a senior Labour MP was overheard saying "We've been made to look like t**ts".
In a final moment of humiliation for Sir Keir’s party, Tory MPs will now be able to claim Labour MPs refused to back plans to reduce sewage discharge, as their own motion originally called for.
The Sun claims the farce resulted in senior Labour MP Jim McMahon being overheard saying: "We've been made to look like t**ts".
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
It's bizarre to base the architecture of a RC cathedral on that of a ritual structure from an unrelated and pretty distant civilisation, and a completely different belief system. And then to do it in such a proper minging way.
It's like claiming Preston Bus Station was based on The Valley of the Kings.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Labour Party Conference last year voted overwhelmingly for it.
SKS doesnt do Party Democracy though
Or Socialism for that matter despite being leader of a Democratic Socialist Party
As much as it might surprise you Labour membership != the public or even Labour voters.
This has long been the critical flaw at the heart of Corbynite thinking.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
I think the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy applies.
Unitarians are closer to Muslims than Christians. They believe in God and see Jesus as Prophet and Messiah but unlike Christians don't believe Jesus is also God and in the Trinity
Genuinely one of the oddest things I've read on here.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Labour Party Conference last year voted overwhelmingly for it.
SKS doesnt do Party Democracy though
Or Socialism for that matter despite being leader of a Democratic Socialist Party
As much as it might surprise you Labour membership =! the public or even Labour voters.
This has long been the critical flaw at the heart of Corbynite thinking.
Opinion polls actually show a majority in favour of ditching FPTP and switching to PR, so BJO is more in tune with the public than Starmer on this.
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
It's bizarre to base the architecture of a RC cathedral on that of a ritual structure from an unrelated and pretty distant civilisation, and a completely different belief system. And then to do it in such a proper minging way.
It's like claiming Preston Bus Station was based on The Valley of the Kings.
Lol. Tho I really like Preston Bus Station. A rare example of Brutalism done well
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Quite a large proportion of the electorate favour it.
It's the actually the fanatical defenders of FPTP who are the truly odd ones.
The answer to "where is it coming from " is perhaps the generally shitty nature of government we've endured under FPTP. But I speculate.
I am talking about where is the demand for it. Actively wanting it as opposed to thinking "oh, yeah, that is a good idea" when prompted.
For example, if you ask people if they support the license fee far more do not support it than support it. Yet there is no mass movement to move away from it.
It is just not a pressing issue aside from a few hardcore obsessives. In both cases.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
SKS to blame
Get over yourself
Never ceases to amaze me how many self-declared lefties will do anything they can to keep the Tories in power.
Funny old world.
Then get the system bloody well changed. Frankly, if we're going to be stuck with FPTP, I'd prefer there to be no manifestos.
Because the Big Two run on either "Keep them out" or "Kick them out," and if you don't endorse one of them, you're regarded as effectively endorsing the other one.
Yet whoever wins a majority of the seat (on a sub-majority plurality of the vote) then pretends that all their votes were a direct endorsement of everything in their manifesto and claims everything in them is now democratically legitimate. So it'll be a little more honest to not claim that, thank you.
Of course, given that actual electoral competition is suppressed down to one shade of shit versus another shade of shit (as many people view them) we end up with "Vote for us or Corbyn gets in - oh, dear, you've now endorsed Johnson and a hard Brexit," or "Vote for us or Johnson stays in - oh dear, you've now endorsed Corby and whatever hard-left stuff he's come up with."
Neither Sunak nor Starmer really excite us, yet both of them want to fossilise the system of "If not him, then me." Free market competition is great for the Tories - right up until they have an effective monopoly in which case we can all sod off, they're in as the only alternative to Labour.
Fairness is great for Labour - right up until they have the ability to close down any option to move away from the Tories but themselves, in which case we can all sod off, they're the only option other than the Tories.
All of the "But FPTP is the way you get whoever you locally want as your representative," and "All votes reset to zero after the election and anyone can win," fly out of the window. Vote for us, or else (you're regarded as endorsing them).
Great post. Manifestos and the mandate for them is a load of nonsense. Oppositions dont not oppose something because it was included, nor would a lack of inclusion mean a government could not or should not do something. And everyone knows few people recall everything in there and dont agree 100% if they do.
Ultimately it's much simpler than all that, as you note.
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
It’s like a non pyramid shaped pyramid.
ISTR watching a travel show and seeing that it's quite nice on the inside (cf Liverpool Catholic Cathedral).
Though not actually as nice as an actual York/Durham/Ely type cathedral. Just nice in a 'ooh, pleasant enough in here, not as horrible as the outside led us to believe' way.
I’ve just been looking at lists of ‘world’s ugliest buildings’ and there’s a lot of hate for the MI6 building on the Thames. Which I actually rather like. Holyrood gets a kicking as well
Most of the lists are too old to feature the Edinburgh Turd building, which must be in anyone’s top 3 worldwide
Its immediately recognizable and distinctive, which is a plus. It's not that bad.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR, and the SNP who would see their representation go go down with PR.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost. Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Quite a large proportion of the electorate favour it.
It's the actually the fanatical defenders of FPTP who are the truly odd ones.
The answer to "where is it coming from " is perhaps the generally shitty nature of government we've endured under FPTP. But I speculate.
I am talking about where is the demand for it. Actively wanting it as opposed to thinking "oh, yeah, that is a good idea" when prompted.
For example, if you ask people if they support the license fee far more do not support it than support it. Yet there is no mass movement to move away from it.
It is just not a pressing issue aside from a few hardcore obsessives. In both cases.
As we saw with the AV referendum, and with the north east assembly referendum, any vote on something like that is massively open to the “let’s spend £xm on better things” challenge, and also represents a free hit against the government. As such I think any referendum on PR would always fall, and any move to PR would need a referendum. Add in the fact that neither the Tories nor Labour would ever be in favour in office, and I just assume it will never happen.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR, and the SNP who would see their representation go go down with PR.
To be fair given the SLab surge and SNP collapse in the polls, the SNP are soon approaching the crossover point when they do better under PR than FPTP. Same may apply to the Tories now on current polls
Coventry is a modernist cathedral and works in its own way, whereas Guildford is a cathedral built by Bryant Homes.
Exeter is rather a nice one too, as is Gloucester.
Acoustics are important too, though. I like them to be as echoey as possible. Some of the best looking cathedrals have quite muted acoustics with poor resonance because of their narrow vertical shape, huge screens and sequestered choirs. The ones - like Hereford - with wider naves and no screen tend to echo more.
The most resonant acoustic I ever sang in was a church in Poznan. Plainish interior, gothic arched roof but quite wide and no aisles just one space. The echo went on for about a minute.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
I think the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy applies.
It would be interesting to know whether HYUFD thinks there were any Christians before the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the late second century!
Maybe the idea is that Jesus was just too modest to mention it.
Well as Jesus is and was God by definition if you followed him you were a Christian.
Do you ever think before you write?
Do you remember saying a short time ago that someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity isn't "really" a Christian?
A rather severe position, but same basic principle of religious factionalism that's played out through history. How many nestorians or arians or monophosytes are there now?
(some of those might be the same, I cannot remember)
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Is a baptised person who doesn’t believe in God more “in the club” than a non-baptised person who does?
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost. Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'
Adult baptism only? Not really a free choice otherwise.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church.
If you reject the Trinity however as an adult, then you are not a Christian
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
It’s like a non pyramid shaped pyramid.
ISTR watching a travel show and seeing that it's quite nice on the inside (cf Liverpool Catholic Cathedral).
Though not actually as nice as an actual York/Durham/Ely type cathedral. Just nice in a 'ooh, pleasant enough in here, not as horrible as the outside led us to believe' way.
I’ve just been looking at lists of ‘world’s ugliest buildings’ and there’s a lot of hate for the MI6 building on the Thames. Which I actually rather like. Holyrood gets a kicking as well
Most of the lists are too old to feature the Edinburgh Turd building, which must be in anyone’s top 3 worldwide
Its immediately recognizable and distinctive, which is a plus. It's not that bad.
MI6 or the Poo Building?
The poo building has no redeeming features at all. It desecrates one of the worlds most handsome cities. It’s like putting the Walkie Talkie in Venice
Because he's a uniquely duplicitous politician? Never before has somebody stood for election to lead a party with a policy platform the opposite of what they intended to do after winning. We all have our priorities I suppose and barefaced lying not a problem for yourself?
Coventry is a modernist cathedral and works in its own way, whereas Guildford is a cathedral built by Bryant Homes.
Exeter is rather a nice one too, as is Gloucester.
Acoustics are important too, though. I like them to be as echoey as possible. Some of the best looking cathedrals have quite muted acoustics with poor resonance because of their narrow vertical shape, huge screens and sequestered choirs. The ones - like Hereford - with wider naves and no screen tend to echo more.
The most resonant acoustic I ever sang in was a church in Poznan. Plainish interior, gothic arched roof but quite wide and no aisles just one space. The echo went on for about a minute.
You really notice this in Howells' Evensong settings. He wrote for the building, so his Gloucester Service is echoey and reverberant, whereas the New College Service is brisk and crisp.
Sadly I'm cursed with a very dry acoustic in our current church (and a choir who generally aren't up to Howells, but that's another matter).
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR, and the SNP who would see their representation go go down with PR.
The SNP position is an interesting one. I suppose PR is very bad for them in purely Scottish seat terms but in theory better for them on an all UK basis because there would be more hung parliaments.
Coventry is a modernist cathedral and works in its own way, whereas Guildford is a cathedral built by Bryant Homes.
Exeter is rather a nice one too, as is Gloucester.
Acoustics are important too, though. I like them to be as echoey as possible. Some of the best looking cathedrals have quite muted acoustics with poor resonance because of their narrow vertical shape, huge screens and sequestered choirs. The ones - like Hereford - with wider naves and no screen tend to echo more.
The most resonant acoustic I ever sang in was a church in Poznan. Plainish interior, gothic arched roof but quite wide and no aisles just one space. The echo went on for about a minute.
You really notice this in Howells' Evensong settings. He wrote for the building, so his Gloucester Service is echoey and reverberant, whereas the New College Service is brisk and crisp.
Sadly I'm cursed with a very dry acoustic in our current church (and a choir who generally aren't up to Howells, but that's another matter).
Gloucester's an example of a cathedral with a screen but also good acoustics. I sang there many times as a lad.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
Interestingly, the Liberal support for PR goes back to the 1910s, when they themselves were in Government. Despite knowing it would affect their own representation. Unfortunately, they did not have a majority themselves (ironically, I suppose) and were reliant on Unionist support, but still set up the Speakers Commission and tried to push it through.
If any individual party wants a majority of elected representation after PR, they should try to get a majority of electoral support. If they can't, they didn't have majority support.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR, and the SNP who would see their representation go go down with PR.
The SNP position is an interesting one. I suppose PR is very bad for them in purely Scottish seat terms but in theory better for them on an all UK basis because there would be more hung parliaments.
Though it's also conceivable that a more democratic Westminster electoral system might weaken the case for independence.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
"A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower."
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Also, for clarity could you please let me know what the difference is between:
Coventry is a modernist cathedral and works in its own way, whereas Guildford is a cathedral built by Bryant Homes.
Exeter is rather a nice one too, as is Gloucester.
Acoustics are important too, though. I like them to be as echoey as possible. Some of the best looking cathedrals have quite muted acoustics with poor resonance because of their narrow vertical shape, huge screens and sequestered choirs. The ones - like Hereford - with wider naves and no screen tend to echo more.
The most resonant acoustic I ever sang in was a church in Poznan. Plainish interior, gothic arched roof but quite wide and no aisles just one space. The echo went on for about a minute.
You really notice this in Howells' Evensong settings. He wrote for the building, so his Gloucester Service is echoey and reverberant, whereas the New College Service is brisk and crisp.
Sadly I'm cursed with a very dry acoustic in our current church (and a choir who generally aren't up to Howells, but that's another matter).
Gloucester's an example of a cathedral with a screen but also good acoustics. I sang there many times as a lad.
If you want great acoustics go here. It is famously magical
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Is a baptised person who doesn’t believe in God more “in the club” than a non-baptised person who does?
At least it makes more sense than predestination and unconditional election.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Also, for clarity could you please let me know what the difference is between:
1. Eternal; and 2. Everlasting.
With thanks
Same as 'forever and ever' innit? Always makes me think there is a bit of a doubt there, otherwise just 'forever' would be enough.
Because he's a uniquely duplicitous politician? Never before has somebody stood for election to lead a party with a policy platform the opposite of what they intended to do after winning. We all have our priorities I suppose and barefaced lying not a problem for yourself?
That’s the (unimportant) personality side of politics you are dwelling on. What’s your main policy differences with Starmer’s? That’s what we are interested to hear, if you have all this time to spam us with posts.
1) You would prefer a stronger support for trans rights?
2) More clearly calling out Israel for terrorism and apartheid?
3) More anti-capitalism rhetoric, clear commitments and policy for nationalisation? Policy for higher taxes on the wealthy earners, land and property owners?
4) a clear commitment to revisit the Brexit deal or hold a 2nd Ref?
5) a clear commitment to abandon the UK nuclear armament?
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Also, for clarity could you please let me know what the difference is between:
1. Eternal; and 2. Everlasting.
With thanks
Same as 'forever and ever' innit? Always makes me think there is a bit of a doubt there, otherwise just 'forever' would be enough.
Actually I do wonder if there’s a slight difference between “eternal” and “everlasting”. Don’t have a proper non-internet dictionary with me but intuitively I’d say “eternal” implies “has always been there and always will” while “everlasting” implies “I just finished it and it will last forever”.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
It's the actually the fanatical defenders of FPTP who are the truly odd ones.
The answer to "where is it coming from " is perhaps the generally shitty nature of government we've endured under FPTP. But I speculate.
Agreed. The reason the AV referendum in 2011 was lost however (baby steps, baby steps) is that the opposition parties (Con AND Labour, though EM to his credit was in favour) simply said:
"We use FPTP, same as the USA (best democracy in the world) and India (biggest democracy in the world)." and "AV allows Nazis to vote twice."
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
Celestial bureaucracy. Apparently Heaven is the equivalent of the DVLA in Cardiff - morals and belief do not matter so long as you have the right paperwork!
Because he's a uniquely duplicitous politician? Never before has somebody stood for election to lead a party with a policy platform the opposite of what they intended to do after winning. We all have our priorities I suppose and barefaced lying not a problem for yourself?
You're not an SKS fan???? Fuck me - after that bombshell I need a lie down.
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
In my experience even atheists in cities with great Medieval cathedrals like Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, St David's, York, Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
Well, in the case of Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, York and above all Lincoln they literally dominate the city. They are still the tallest and largest buildings and the site of many major and important events including concerts and plays.
(You could have added Lichfield, Ely and Hereford to that list, by the way.)
Ely for sure; the ‘Ship of the Fens’, One can see it for miles.
There must have been many a weary traveller far from home on the M25 whose spirits were raised by the distant sight of St Albans.
There's a great spot on the M11 when you can suddenly see London's cluster of skyscrapers on the horizon, always a welcome sight on a long drive home from the North.
Crossing the M25 from the outside always lifts my spirits.
Driving down the A36 from Salisbury there is a spot where the refinery at Fawley hoves into view. Beautiful.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Also, for clarity could you please let me know what the difference is between:
1. Eternal; and 2. Everlasting.
With thanks
Same as 'forever and ever' innit? Always makes me think there is a bit of a doubt there, otherwise just 'forever' would be enough.
Actually I do wonder if there’s a slight difference between “eternal” and “everlasting”. Don’t have a proper non-internet dictionary with me but intuitively I’d say “eternal” implies “has always been there and always will” while “everlasting” implies “I just finished it and it will last forever”.
I think that's right. At least eternal implies that it has always existed and everlasting doesn't. But then either everlasting is already covered by eternal, or it contradicts it, so still a slightly mysterious expression.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
Celestial bureaucracy. Apparently Heaven is the equivalent of the DVLA in Cardiff - morals and belief do not matter so long as you have the right paperwork!
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
Baptism is like your safety belt. You can act without it but best to just in case.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
It's the actually the fanatical defenders of FPTP who are the truly odd ones.
The answer to "where is it coming from " is perhaps the generally shitty nature of government we've endured under FPTP. But I speculate.
Agreed. The reason the AV referendum in 2011 was lost however (baby steps, baby steps) is that the opposition parties (Con AND Labour, though EM to his credit was in favour) simply said:
"We use FPTP, same as the USA (best democracy in the world) and India (biggest democracy in the world)." and "AV allows Nazis to vote twice."
Unfortuantely, the public believed them.
Ha ha. Keep kidding yourself that.
Nothing to do with AV potentially being less proportional than FPTP, of course or people preferring the status quo. Just people being duped.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Also, for clarity could you please let me know what the difference is between:
1. Eternal; and 2. Everlasting.
With thanks
Same as 'forever and ever' innit? Always makes me think there is a bit of a doubt there, otherwise just 'forever' would be enough.
Actually I do wonder if there’s a slight difference between “eternal” and “everlasting”. Don’t have a proper non-internet dictionary with me but intuitively I’d say “eternal” implies “has always been there and always will” while “everlasting” implies “I just finished it and it will last forever”.
Because he's a uniquely duplicitous politician? Never before has somebody stood for election to lead a party with a policy platform the opposite of what they intended to do after winning. We all have our priorities I suppose and barefaced lying not a problem for yourself?
BREAKING NEWS
BJO is NOT, I repeat NOT part of a fan club dedicated to a man known as SKS. No-one, not even BJO himself, really knows why
SKS fans please explain
(In other surprising breaking news it is revealed that Boris Johnson is not very honest, Jeremy Corbyn is not very clever and the Pope is, very probably, Catholic)
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
Celestial bureaucracy. Apparently Heaven is the equivalent of the DVLA in Cardiff - morals and belief do not matter so long as you have the right paperwork!
Does that make St Peter like Border Force?
I actually don't know where the idea of Peter being a kind of doorman who meets you at the gates comes from, though it's a common imagery in many comedies for a start. Sounds hellish for him.
Coventry is a modernist cathedral and works in its own way, whereas Guildford is a cathedral built by Bryant Homes.
Exeter is rather a nice one too, as is Gloucester.
Acoustics are important too, though. I like them to be as echoey as possible. Some of the best looking cathedrals have quite muted acoustics with poor resonance because of their narrow vertical shape, huge screens and sequestered choirs. The ones - like Hereford - with wider naves and no screen tend to echo more.
The most resonant acoustic I ever sang in was a church in Poznan. Plainish interior, gothic arched roof but quite wide and no aisles just one space. The echo went on for about a minute.
You really notice this in Howells' Evensong settings. He wrote for the building, so his Gloucester Service is echoey and reverberant, whereas the New College Service is brisk and crisp.
Sadly I'm cursed with a very dry acoustic in our current church (and a choir who generally aren't up to Howells, but that's another matter).
Gloucester's an example of a cathedral with a screen but also good acoustics. I sang there many times as a lad.
If you want great acoustics go here. It is famously magical
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Heretics!
But seriously, who on earth are you to say who counts as a Christian and who doesn't? Nasty.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
“The Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief”? So all Christians are compelled to think as they do and have no free will? It’s a cult then….
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
Because he's a uniquely duplicitous politician? Never before has somebody stood for election to lead a party with a policy platform the opposite of what they intended to do after winning. We all have our priorities I suppose and barefaced lying not a problem for yourself?
You're not an SKS fan???? Fuck me - after that bombshell I need a lie down.
I hope you are still in a prone position because I have to admit.... I am not that keen on Boris Johnson
apart from Guildford (which like the Cambridge University Library is the sort of building where it's nice to go there because once you're inside you can't see the outside), did any of the new 20th century dioceses get a new-build cathedral, rather than upgrading a parish church?
Neither Portsmouth or Chelmsford impose over anything (which is one of the things that cathedrals probably ought to do) but are otherwise rather lovely. Whereas a lot of 20th century archetecture aspires to "meh" if we're lucky. To be fair, if you have to build a big box all at once, it's harder than letting it grow over decades/centuries.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Also, for clarity could you please let me know what the difference is between:
1. Eternal; and 2. Everlasting.
With thanks
Same as 'forever and ever' innit? Always makes me think there is a bit of a doubt there, otherwise just 'forever' would be enough.
Actually I do wonder if there’s a slight difference between “eternal” and “everlasting”. Don’t have a proper non-internet dictionary with me but intuitively I’d say “eternal” implies “has always been there and always will” while “everlasting” implies “I just finished it and it will last forever”.
eternal - lives for ever
everlasting - lasts for ever
So my bottle of Lea & Perrins is everlasting, not eternal is what you're saying?
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
Celestial bureaucracy. Apparently Heaven is the equivalent of the DVLA in Cardiff - morals and belief do not matter so long as you have the right paperwork!
Does that make St Peter like Border Force?
I actually don't know where the idea of Peter being a kind of doorman who meets you at the gates comes from, though it's a common imagery in many comedies for a start. Sounds hellish for him.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
I think this isn't the first time you've said this. Why do you say it?
I know tactical voting is a thing, but this isn't true. In a Lab/Con marginal, a vote for Labour would add one to Labour. A vote for Con would add one to Con. A vote for someone else DOESN'T do either, but it doesn't support either side either. It's a wasted vote (but then again, a lot of votes are wasted aren't they?).
It really depends on the day on what is the most important issue for you, and what the state of your seat is.
For me, the most important issue is likely to be the introduction of Proportional Representation (as it has been for most of my GE voting intentions). I would therefore vote Liberal Democrat. I do not think it will help, or hinder, in my constituency, because Labour will get 20billion votes, and the others will get 1 vote each (the candidate) and the Lib Dems will get 2 (the candidate plus my vote).
It's the actually the fanatical defenders of FPTP who are the truly odd ones.
The answer to "where is it coming from " is perhaps the generally shitty nature of government we've endured under FPTP. But I speculate.
Agreed. The reason the AV referendum in 2011 was lost however (baby steps, baby steps) is that the opposition parties (Con AND Labour, though EM to his credit was in favour) simply said:
"We use FPTP, same as the USA (best democracy in the world) and India (biggest democracy in the world)." and "AV allows Nazis to vote twice."
Unfortuantely, the public believed them.
Ha ha. Keep kidding yourself that.
Nothing to do with AV potentially being less proportional than FPTP, of course or people preferring the status quo. Just people being duped.
I don't kid myself. I KNOW AV *can* be less proportional than FPTP. I think this very site as proved it. In generally, I think its a little more proportional.
But any purists in 2011 who voted No to AV because 'I want PR, and it isn't PR' is equally deluding themselves. The Conservatives took it as a 'Everyone loves PR, we're never asking again." answer.
Tactical voting! Weren't we just talking about it? Vote for a slightly less shit option in the hopes it'd spark a debate to move us on further.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
Who on earth are you to tell someone if they are a Christian or not? You sound like some kind of fanatic. And a minute ago you also said they had to believe in "Christian scripture" whatever that means.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
More like the passive immunity babies get from their mothers, I think.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
“The Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief”? So all Christians are compelled to think as they do and have no free will? It’s a cult then….
No, just the presence of the eternal God and his Holy Spirit within them ensuring belief in the eternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the true saviour of mankind
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Heretics!
But seriously, who on earth are you to say who counts as a Christian and who doesn't? Nasty.
I am quite happy to define who counts as a Tory or not, so this is no different
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
Who on earth are you to tell someone if they are a Christian or not? You sound like some kind of fanatic. And a minute ago you also said they had to believe in "Christian scripture" whatever that means.
Eh? I merely said that to be a Christian you have to believe in the Christian God. Only on PB could such a statement be deemed fanatical.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
99.9% of Christians, regardless of denomination, believe in the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
Who on earth are you to tell someone if they are a Christian or not? You sound like some kind of fanatic. And a minute ago you also said they had to believe in "Christian scripture" whatever that means.
Eh? I merely said that to be a Christian you have to believe in the Christian God. Only on PB could such a statement be deemed fanatical.
At least you've dropped the need to believe in 'Christian scripture'. That didn't take long. Maybe if you talk to some Christians who don't believe in God you could drop that bit too.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
Who on earth are you to tell someone if they are a Christian or not? You sound like some kind of fanatic. And a minute ago you also said they had to believe in "Christian scripture" whatever that means.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
Celestial bureaucracy. Apparently Heaven is the equivalent of the DVLA in Cardiff - morals and belief do not matter so long as you have the right paperwork!
Does that make St Peter like Border Force?
In some eschatologies he's also some kind of grim reaper: ..Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store..
apart from Guildford (which like the Cambridge University Library is the sort of building where it's nice to go there because once you're inside you can't see the outside), did any of the new 20th century dioceses get a new-build cathedral, rather than upgrading a parish church?
Neither Portsmouth or Chelmsford impose over anything (which is one of the things that cathedrals probably ought to do) but are otherwise rather lovely. Whereas a lot of 20th century archetecture aspires to "meh" if we're lucky. To be fair, if you have to build a big box all at once, it's harder than letting it grow over decades/centuries.
Actually yes. Truro is essentially a new build cathedral (with a tiny medieval bit attached). It’s gothic revival, finished in 1910, and rather lovely and it soars above the little city, as a cathedral should
I unfairly maligned it earlier. @cookie set me right. It just lacks the poetic patina of age. But that can’t be helped
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
99.9% of Christians, regardless of denomination, believe in the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
There are few things that mark someone out as a first class objectionable wanker better than when someone tries to mock someone for their religious faith.
Well done for notching up yet another "first class wanker" indicator
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed.
It was interesting however that when it came to the supernatural elements of Jesus then the podcast hosts said nothing as that was out of bounds for a history podcast. Which I also understand but seems a little strange, given that the whole point of him is that he is supposed to be the son of god, rose again, was a very naughty boy, etc.
Also the funny thing (to me) was that they used throughout the disciples' anglicised names. What was eg Paul or John or Luke's actual names (reminds me ofc of the Eddie Izzard sketch).
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
“The Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief”? So all Christians are compelled to think as they do and have no free will? It’s a cult then….
No, just the presence of the eternal God and his Holy Spirit within them ensuring belief in the eternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the true saviour of mankind
Compulsion. Brainwashing by the sounds of it. This “Holy Trinity” group sounds dangerous. Definitely cult leader with some terrorism indicators.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Heretics!
But seriously, who on earth are you to say who counts as a Christian and who doesn't? Nasty.
I am quite happy to define who counts as a Tory or not, so this is no different
Yes, you are consistently similar to Islamic State on these issues.
Because he's a uniquely duplicitous politician? Never before has somebody stood for election to lead a party with a policy platform the opposite of what they intended to do after winning. We all have our priorities I suppose and barefaced lying not a problem for yourself?
Maybe he's actually lying to the country now, and he fully intends to implement the policy platform he promised to the party when he was running for leader.
Would that make him more or less duplicitous? Or is it moot if you get what you want?
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
99.9% of Christians, regardless of denomination, believe in the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
Comments
Most of the lists are too old to feature the Edinburgh Turd building, which must be in anyone’s top 3 worldwide
A niche piece of Commons procedure meant Labour MPs ended up unable to vote in favour of reducing sewage discharges.
The Labour Party was left humiliated by the Government in the House of Commons this afternoon after Conservative strategists devised a plan to force Labour MPs to abstain on their own anti-sewage motion. The result was that Labour MPs ended up refusing to vote in favour of reducing sewage discharge. It's claimed a senior Labour MP was overheard saying "We've been made to look like t**ts".
In a final moment of humiliation for Sir Keir’s party, Tory MPs will now be able to claim Labour MPs refused to back plans to reduce sewage discharge, as their own motion originally called for.
The Sun claims the farce resulted in senior Labour MP Jim McMahon being overheard saying: "We've been made to look like t**ts".
It's like claiming Preston Bus Station was based on The Valley of the Kings.
This has long been the critical flaw at the heart of Corbynite thinking.
However, FPP are the rules whether I like them or not – ergo I play by the rules that are rather than what I wish they would be.
For example, if you ask people if they support the license fee far more do not support it than support it. Yet there is no mass movement to move away from it.
It is just not a pressing issue aside from a few hardcore obsessives. In both cases.
Ultimately it's much simpler than all that, as you note. And that threat is another reason why they pick Trump. The base love him and could destroy the party if he wants.
All parties who would see their representation go up with PR, and the SNP who would see their representation go go down with PR.
https://members.parliament.uk/member/1447/voting
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
Exeter is rather a nice one too, as is Gloucester.
Acoustics are important too, though. I like them to be as echoey as possible. Some of the best looking cathedrals have quite muted acoustics with poor resonance because of their narrow vertical shape, huge screens and sequestered choirs. The ones - like Hereford - with wider naves and no screen tend to echo more.
The most resonant acoustic I ever sang in was a church in Poznan. Plainish interior, gothic arched roof but quite wide and no aisles just one space. The echo went on for about a minute.
(some of those might be the same, I cannot remember)
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
If you reject the Trinity however as an adult, then you are not a Christian
The poo building has no redeeming features at all. It desecrates one of the worlds most handsome cities. It’s like putting the Walkie Talkie in Venice
Because he's a uniquely duplicitous politician? Never before has somebody stood for election to lead a party with a policy platform the opposite of what they intended to do after winning. We all have our priorities I suppose and barefaced lying not a problem for yourself?
Sadly I'm cursed with a very dry acoustic in our current church (and a choir who generally aren't up to Howells, but that's another matter).
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12020771/Tragic-moments-girl-three-carried-away-raped-murdered-betrayal.html
My god. It is bleak. Be warned. I cannot see any reason why the death penalty should not apply here
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Unfortunately, they did not have a majority themselves (ironically, I suppose) and were reliant on Unionist support, but still set up the Speakers Commission and tried to push it through.
If any individual party wants a majority of elected representation after PR, they should try to get a majority of electoral support. If they can't, they didn't have majority support.
Of course George Osborne is already being tipped as next BBC chairman...
@richardosman
Am hearing it's between Lineker and Raab for new BBC Chairman.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
How do you know that they don't believe?
1. Eternal; and
2. Everlasting.
With thanks
https://aleteia.org/2021/11/03/le-thoronet-this-12th-century-monastery-is-one-of-the-three-sisters-of-provence/
If you’re lucky your guide will sing for you, so you can experience the reverberations. It nearly made me cry
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
1) You would prefer a stronger support for trans rights?
2) More clearly calling out Israel for terrorism and apartheid?
3) More anti-capitalism rhetoric, clear commitments and policy for nationalisation? Policy for higher taxes on the wealthy earners, land and property owners?
4) a clear commitment to revisit the Brexit deal or hold a 2nd Ref?
5) a clear commitment to abandon the UK nuclear armament?
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
"We use FPTP, same as the USA (best democracy in the world) and India (biggest democracy in the world)." and "AV allows Nazis to vote twice."
Unfortuantely, the public believed them.
***UPDATE***
Thread
Slowly information is coming out about the #Russian Navy ships operating around #NordStream before the attacks. E.g. dr.dk/nyheder/senest…
The presence of SS-750 with a DSRV submersible is **highly suspicious**
1/8
https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status/1651860434251575298
TL;DR Highly likely Russia did it
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Nothing to do with AV potentially being less proportional than FPTP, of course or people preferring the status quo. Just people being duped.
everlasting - lasts for ever
BJO is NOT, I repeat NOT part of a fan club dedicated to a man known as SKS. No-one, not even BJO himself, really knows why
SKS fans please explain
(In other surprising breaking news it is revealed that Boris Johnson is not very honest, Jeremy Corbyn is not very clever and the Pope is, very probably, Catholic)
A majority it might make.
By the way, Farage doesn't support PR. That was just his way (in UKIP) to avoid getting 13% of the vote and 1 seat.
Oh, good timeline for those who want to see the horrors of a UKIP win: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/purple-reign-a-ukip-tl.536564/
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
But seriously, who on earth are you to say who counts as a Christian and who doesn't? Nasty.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
apart from Guildford (which like the Cambridge University Library is the sort of building where it's nice to go there because once you're inside you can't see the outside), did any of the new 20th century dioceses get a new-build cathedral, rather than upgrading a parish church?
Neither Portsmouth or Chelmsford impose over anything (which is one of the things that cathedrals probably ought to do) but are otherwise rather lovely. Whereas a lot of 20th century archetecture aspires to "meh" if we're lucky. To be fair, if you have to build a big box all at once, it's harder than letting it grow over decades/centuries.
I know tactical voting is a thing, but this isn't true.
In a Lab/Con marginal, a vote for Labour would add one to Labour.
A vote for Con would add one to Con.
A vote for someone else DOESN'T do either, but it doesn't support either side either. It's a wasted vote (but then again, a lot of votes are wasted aren't they?).
It really depends on the day on what is the most important issue for you, and what the state of your seat is.
For me, the most important issue is likely to be the introduction of Proportional Representation (as it has been for most of my GE voting intentions). I would therefore vote Liberal Democrat.
I do not think it will help, or hinder, in my constituency, because Labour will get 20billion votes, and the others will get 1 vote each (the candidate) and the Lib Dems will get 2 (the candidate plus my vote). I don't kid myself. I KNOW AV *can* be less proportional than FPTP. I think this very site as proved it.
In generally, I think its a little more proportional.
But any purists in 2011 who voted No to AV because 'I want PR, and it isn't PR' is equally deluding themselves. The Conservatives took it as a 'Everyone loves PR, we're never asking again." answer.
Tactical voting! Weren't we just talking about it?
Vote for a slightly less shit option in the hopes it'd spark a debate to move us on further.
I love grand cathedrals.
I sing hymns, at times, and enjoy many Christian songs.
I like a roast dinner on Sundays.
I celebrate Christmas and Easter.
Am I a Christian?
Or something.
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-65423962
It all makes sense ...
Those who don't are not really Christians
Maybe if you talk to some Christians who don't believe in God you could drop that bit too.
..Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store..
I unfairly maligned it earlier. @cookie set me right. It just lacks the poetic patina of age. But that can’t be helped
Well done for notching up yet another "first class wanker" indicator
It was interesting however that when it came to the supernatural elements of Jesus then the podcast hosts said nothing as that was out of bounds for a history podcast. Which I also understand but seems a little strange, given that the whole point of him is that he is supposed to be the son of god, rose again, was a very naughty boy, etc.
Also the funny thing (to me) was that they used throughout the disciples' anglicised names. What was eg Paul or John or Luke's actual names (reminds me ofc of the Eddie Izzard sketch).
Would that make him more or less duplicitous? Or is it moot if you get what you want?