Size isn’t important, it’s what you do with it that counts, just ask Jeremy Corbyn

Good morning everyone.

Betting Post

F1: I mentioned this before but there's a long time and the odds haven't changed yet. Lawson each way at 26 (boosted to 29) in Australia is worth backing with a little stake. The car matters most and I expect him to do a decent job, at least to start with.

Strange times indeed.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the LDs. Their vote was much more efficient at the last election.

Do they get more efficient still at the next election, where they are incumbents and it is now clearer where they were in second place?

Or do they get mauled in a three-way media dogfight between Labour, Reform, and the Tories?

mwadams said:

Foxy said:

PBers sometimes question the idea that Badenoch is both prickly and thin skinned, but her tweet illustrates the truth of it.

I am encouraged that she clearly dislikes Farage and Reform though.

Incidentally, why would anyone join Reform? It's not a party that decides policy democratically, but rather by the Fuhrer.

It is rather like buying your replica football shirt. You're unlikely to be picked for the squad, but you're showing your allegiance.

Reform Party members = Full kit wankers?

Foxy said:

PBers sometimes question the idea that Badenoch is both prickly and thin skinned, but her tweet illustrates the truth of it.

I am encouraged that she clearly dislikes Farage and Reform though.

That would be more encouraging if she didn't also dislike practically everyone else too.

mwadams said:

Strange times indeed.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the LDs. Their vote was much more efficient at the last election.

Do they get more efficient still at the next election, where they are incumbents and it is now clearer where they were in second place?

Or do they get mauled in a three-way media dogfight between Labour, Reform, and the Tories?

I would imagine in that situation it might be quite sticky. LD voters will be the most opposed to (and appalled by) Reform. There are almost no LD/Lab marginals, so they won't leak votes in that direction. There must be a chance that some ex-Cons will be tempted to shore up the Tories against Reform, but only if they are firmly opposed and can credibly rule out co-operation in the event of a hung parliament. If you are worried about Reform in an LD/Con marginal, surely returning your LD MP is the safer bet?

Foxy said:

Azerbaijan government sources confirm to Euronews:
1) Russian air defense missile struck the plane.
2) Russia forbade the damaged aircraft from emergency landing in Russia and ordered it to fly across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan.
3) Russia jammed aircraft navigation over the Caspian Sea.

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3lea4umglgc2b

Is there any reason for this particular episode of violent aggression?

South Korea impeaches president (another one): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj30234e0djo

Morris_Dancer said:

Foxy said:

Azerbaijan government sources confirm to Euronews:
1) Russian air defense missile struck the plane.
2) Russia forbade the damaged aircraft from emergency landing in Russia and ordered it to fly across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan.
3) Russia jammed aircraft navigation over the Caspian Sea.

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3lea4umglgc2b

Is there any reason for this particular episode of violent aggression?

I think incompetence more likely, and they misidentified the incoming flight as a long range Ukranian drone, like the ones striking oil refineries etc.

Then covering up their mistake with barbarity.

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Foxy said:

Azerbaijan government sources confirm to Euronews:
1) Russian air defense missile struck the plane.
2) Russia forbade the damaged aircraft from emergency landing in Russia and ordered it to fly across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan.
3) Russia jammed aircraft navigation over the Caspian Sea.

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3lea4umglgc2b

Is there any reason for this particular episode of violent aggression?

I think incompetence more likely, and they misidentified the incoming flight as a long range Ukranian drone, like the ones striking oil refineries etc.

Then covering up their mistake with barbarity.

I certainly wouldn't want to be on a plane routed anywhere near Russian territory. This won't be the last such mistake.

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

mwadams said:

Foxy said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Foxy said:

Azerbaijan government sources confirm to Euronews:
1) Russian air defense missile struck the plane.
2) Russia forbade the damaged aircraft from emergency landing in Russia and ordered it to fly across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan.
3) Russia jammed aircraft navigation over the Caspian Sea.

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3lea4umglgc2b

Is there any reason for this particular episode of violent aggression?

I think incompetence more likely, and they misidentified the incoming flight as a long range Ukranian drone, like the ones striking oil refineries etc.

Then covering up their mistake with barbarity.

I certainly wouldn't want to be on a plane routed anywhere near Russian territory. This won't be the last such mistake.

It isn't, is it? Similar 'accident' a few years ago near the Ukranian border.

mwadams said:

Strange times indeed.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the LDs. Their vote was much more efficient at the last election.

Do they get more efficient still at the next election, where they are incumbents and it is now clearer where they were in second place?

Or do they get mauled in a three-way media dogfight between Labour, Reform, and the Tories?

I haven't looked at this in detail, but my impression is that the Lib Dem vote was almost too efficient at the 2024GE. This means that they have quite few second places, or even strong third places, and so their electoral performance leaves them in something of a cul-de-sac.

They don't have enough "wasted votes" that could be the basis of a push towards 150 seats.

For example, the seat with the 100th highest vote share for the Lib Dems was Kenilworth and Southam. The Lib Dems came third with 19.6% (C:36.4;L:24.1). Their 125th seat was Clapham and Brixton Hill with 14.4%, second behind Labour (56.5) and 393 votes ahead of the Greens. Their 150th seat was Newcastle upon Tyne North, where they were third with 12.2% (L:50.3;C:13.7) only three votes ahead of Reform.

To make any further progress the Lib Dems need to be making waves in the national political consciousness.

Foxy said:

Azerbaijan government sources confirm to Euronews:
1) Russian air defense missile struck the plane.
2) Russia forbade the damaged aircraft from emergency landing in Russia and ordered it to fly across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan.
3) Russia jammed aircraft navigation over the Caspian Sea.

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3lea4umglgc2b

As much as I like to think the worst of Russia, and am rarely disappointed, I am slightly sceptical about the second point.

Allegedly air defences were triggered by an incoming Ukrainian raid (this does *not* make the incident Ukraine's fault). In which case, the air defences would have been on high alert. The order to cross the Caspian Sea may therefore not have been to let it crash in the sea, as some have claimed, but simply to get a damaged plane out of an area of danger as there was likely to be more missiles and guns fired into the sky.

In addition, according to Ryan McBeith, one of the alternative airfields was in a mountainous area, and the other might have had poor weather conditions. Crossing the sea might have been the 'best' alternative of a very poor lot, and indeed, it might have been the crew's choice as well.

The CVR and FDR will be able to tell us more. I have the Khazak authorities are more open and transparent than Russia's have traditionally been.

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

I would find an excuse not to meet up.

Explain that you are wanting to continue attending, and therefore open to his ministry, but not wanting a one to one.

There is also the risk that you could precipitate a crisis of faith in him, with continuing ramifications. He may well be headed that way already, but doesn't need a push.

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

Hmmm. I reckon you're getting a bit too deeply into this. The vicar clearly fancies a challenge, but I wonder whether the two of you would be better off discussing cricket (or whatever) than religion if you fancy trips to the pub.
I think c) is your best option, to be honest. Obviously I think you should respect your wife's views but I doubt very much whether anything she or the vicar say bis going to shift you, or indeed anything you say she to herbs going to shift her!
I would wonder, too, if constantly harping on the subject, especially with a third party involved, could threaten your marital relationship.

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

Thank you for supporting your wife. It seems to me that an option for (d) might be to meet him as planned and approach it with the intention of listening to him rather than discussing anything. It may be that he might need a listening ear to help him process his own issues, even though he's probably not aware of it.

Whatever you decide, it sounds as though it will be a good decision.

And good morning everyone.

maxh said:

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

Option b.

I think you're trying to take too much responsibility for his reaction to these talks, but you've got to let him make his own mistakes. Option b feels like the option that is truest to yourself, while being polite and respectful.

OldKingCole said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

Hmmm. I reckon you're getting a bit too deeply into this. The vicar clearly fancies a challenge, but I wonder whether the two of you would be better off discussing cricket (or whatever) than religion if you fancy trips to the pub.
I think c) is your best option, to be honest. Obviously I think you should respect your wife's views but I doubt very much whether anything she or the vicar say bis going to shift you, or indeed anything you say she to herbs going to shift her!
I would wonder, too, if constantly harping on the subject, especially with a third party involved, could threaten your marital relationship.

There seems to be an utter lack of respect from the vicar on this. MaxH is doing a good job; respecting his wife's faith and even bringing their kids up in that faith. In attempting to convert him like this, the vicar is showing f-all respect for MaxH's views.

IMO, if MaxH is going to turn to the faith, it will be a journey he makes inside himself.

(My parents brought up their three kids as non-religious. There was no religion in the house; it was not banned, just not present except when religious relatives visited. Religion was an irrelevance. My dad said something like: "There are many different faiths; you have to choose for yourselves what you want to believe." Both my brother and sister became Christians. I did not, but I am agnostic. I'd argue that's a good strike rate for a hands-off approach.)

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

Azerbaijan government sources confirm to Euronews:
1) Russian air defense missile struck the plane.
2) Russia forbade the damaged aircraft from emergency landing in Russia and ordered it to fly across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan.
3) Russia jammed aircraft navigation over the Caspian Sea.

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3lea4umglgc2b

As much as I like to think the worst of Russia, and am rarely disappointed, I am slightly sceptical about the second point.

Allegedly air defences were triggered by an incoming Ukrainian raid (this does *not* make the incident Ukraine's fault). In which case, the air defences would have been on high alert. The order to cross the Caspian Sea may therefore not have been to let it crash in the sea, as some have claimed, but simply to get a damaged plane out of an area of danger as there was likely to be more missiles and guns fired into the sky.

In addition, according to Ryan McBeith, one of the alternative airfields was in a mountainous area, and the other might have had poor weather conditions. Crossing the sea might have been the 'best' alternative of a very poor lot, and indeed, it might have been the crew's choice as well.

The CVR and FDR will be able to tell us more. I have the Khazak authorities are more open and transparent than Russia's have traditionally been.

The plane had reportedly been diverted by fog, which may have left the local air defence out the loop. But shoot first, cover up a civilian airliner later still requires a mass of answers.

Russia should now be an aviation destination cut off from the world. Surely the insurance industry could refuse to cover any plane with a Russian destination?

El Al have stopped their Moscow route.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/el-al-pausing-flights-to-moscow-for-a-week-after-passenger-jet-said-downed-by-russia/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky

MarqueeMark said:

Carnyx said:

In happier news: drone remains unfried:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/27/nasa-probe-safe-parker-solar-spacecraft-closest-approach-sun

It'll never catch on in Scotland then.

Our clootie dumpling for Boxing Day dinner was unfried ...

#Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis

Carnyx said:

MarqueeMark said:

Carnyx said:

In happier news: drone remains unfried:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/27/nasa-probe-safe-parker-solar-spacecraft-closest-approach-sun

It'll never catch on in Scotland then.

Our clootie dumpling for Boxing Day dinner was unfried ...

#Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis

Presumably you had it fried for breakfast this morning though

Good morning

I hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas

This was the first Christmas in 62 years my wife and I did not have family lunch, but really enjoyed the family coming round in the morning and the grandchildren opening their presents before we had a pleasant rest and a quiet time for the rest of the day

I looked in and am amazed at how good posters are on the crossword [I am hopeless at them] but quickly logged out when catching up on Trump's idea of annexing Greenland, Canada, and the Panama canal.

Also, I really cannot be bothered with the childish games Farage and Badenoch are playing over who has most members.

I can understand it tickles Farage's self importance but really does Badenoch need to engage with him ?

With Labour's unpopularity, Badenoch needs to take the fight to Labour and leave Farage to swim in the wake of Trump and his idiotic ideas

And to @maxh I would be polite but try not to become too involved.

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

Hey Max

Depending on how much time you have on your hands, or how seriously you want to take this, there is another way out:

You could actually read John’s Gospel and then point out all the conflicts with the synoptic gospels, asking if that doesn’t undermine the Vicar’s argument as it’s clearly meant to be an allegory for living a Christian life based on Greek ideas of Logos and Stoicism, and not a study of the life of Jesus.

(Anyone wanting to do the latter should start with Mark, which is a straightforward biography of Jesus and is very different from John.)

Harrington wrote several short and readable books on this including this one:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Spiritual-Theologian-Jesus/dp/1856072681

But, depending on what resources you have access to, unit 3 of the Edexcel A-level RS is New Testament Studies and includes John as a case study. You may find your school already has some stuff (or can get it from ZigZag) that you could just skim quickly.

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

Give the vicar the choice of a) b) or c). He'll go for b) or c) depending how strong his faith is. Only he knows.

Carnyx said:

Scott_xP said:

Carnyx said:

MarqueeMark said:

Carnyx said:

In happier news: drone remains unfried:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/27/nasa-probe-safe-parker-solar-spacecraft-closest-approach-sun

It'll never catch on in Scotland then.

Our clootie dumpling for Boxing Day dinner was unfried ...

#Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis

Presumably you had it fried for breakfast this morning though

No, none left!

You mean it wasn't big enough to start with...

Gadfly said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

My Christianity waned after having our first child baptised, and I was decidedly agnostic when the later children rocked up. Mrs Gadfly was keen to have them christened but I struggled with the concept to publicly declaring something that I didn't believe in. I requested a meeting with the vicar, in the hope that he could guide me through my quandary. However, during that meeting it materialized that the vicar was a far greater agnostic than myself. The christening went ahead :-)

It reminds me of a conversation with an elderly member of my congregation in a study group. She had thought she wasn't a good enough Christian to officially join, but after a while she realised how imperfect the church elders were, so it wasn't a problem after all...

Foxy said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

I would find an excuse not to meet up.

Explain that you are wanting to continue attending, and therefore open to his ministry, but not wanting a one to one.

There is also the risk that you could precipitate a crisis of faith in him, with continuing ramifications. He may well be headed that way already, but doesn't need a push.

Thanks everyone.

With respect to @Dura_Ace's no prisoners approach (which is probably closest to my own instincts) the consensus is with @Foxy and others. I think I'm in a bit too deep and can only disappoint by meeting again.

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

You've said he has no hope of changing your view, and I'd assume the reverse is also true, since his vocation and living depend upon it. So what's the objective of getting into a heavy discussion with no hope of resolution?

Says a poster on PB…

True. Although the discussion here is regularly educational and if not that, then often entertaining. I doubt that arguing with what sounds like a narrow-minded vicar about one of the gospels is going to deliver the same.

The OP could insist the vicar reads some Richard Dawkins in return, for a more balanced deal!

I think arguing from such fixed views is unlikely to progress, but much more likely to further entrench views. The same comes from arguing politics with relatives with polar opposite views over the festive season.

Better is to find things to agree on, and to build on that common ground. I recently listened to an interesting book on this from a liberal agnostic daughter of a MAGA pentecostal preacher:

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/1705277306?source_code=ASSORAP0511160007

She does a great TikTok too, indeed that's where I found her book.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdkFrx25/

Dura_Ace said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

I know when I have marital issues rooted in existential questions of faith, the first place I go is the arse end of the Internet populated by a collection of obsessives, malcontents and the deeply boring.

b) is the obvious answer but is also the biggest pain in the dick. You know what you have to do, soldier.

Terrific answer.

Never change. This place would be all the duller without your rapier like wit.

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

It is interesting that it was John that he asked you to read. John, unlike the 3 other gospels, contains the story of doubting Thomas, the man who needed physical evidence. It says, "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

The minister who brought me into membership of the Church of Scotland was very taken by that passage. He talked of "the leap of faith" which we, in these benighted times, had to take before we could be "blessed".

My own faith died a long time ago, falling into agnosticism and even beyond. I would meet with him and engage fully but of course respectfully. He is no doubt a decent man with a genuine belief that wants to share the benefits it brings him. Unless he changes your mind it is an entirely respectful (which you need given your wife's faith) to say that you are not ready to make that leap of faith, even if there is much to admire in the teaching.

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

You've said he has no hope of changing your view, and I'd assume the reverse is also true, since his vocation and living depend upon it. So what's the objective of getting into a heavy discussion with no hope of resolution?

Says a poster on PB…

True. Although the discussion here is regularly educational and if not that, then often entertaining. I doubt that arguing with what sounds like a narrow-minded vicar about one of the gospels is going to deliver the same.

The OP could insist the vicar reads some Richard Dawkins in return, for a more balanced deal!

Jeezo, you wouldn't want the rev to open another front with Dawkins' cultural Christian bolleaux.

'Come for the hymns, stay for the muddle headed hypocrisy and the acceptable kind of noncing!'

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

You've said he has no hope of changing your view, and I'd assume the reverse is also true, since his vocation and living depend upon it. So what's the objective of getting into a heavy discussion with no hope of resolution?

Says a poster on PB…

True. Although the discussion here is regularly educational and if not that, then often entertaining. I doubt that arguing with what sounds like a narrow-minded vicar about one of the gospels is going to deliver the same.

The OP could insist the vicar reads some Richard Dawkins in return, for a more balanced deal!

Why? Dawkins is an ignorant buffoon whose work has been generally ridiculed even if it's popular. It would be like advising somebody to read William Lane Craig for balance on the subject of biology.

Gadfly said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

My Christianity waned after having our first child baptised, and I was decidedly agnostic when the later children rocked up. Mrs Gadfly was keen to have them christened but I struggled with the concept to publicly declaring something that I didn't believe in. I requested a meeting with the vicar, in the hope that he could guide me through my quandary. However, during that meeting it materialized that the vicar was a far greater agnostic than myself. The christening went ahead :-)

Interesting. We are both atheists so didn't have a church wedding or a baptism for our children. My sister in law did the full works for her children so it was a surprise to find out she was also an atheist. She did it because she thought it important to recognise the event and get everyone together for it. We had a nice wedding, but I regret we didn't have a naming event for our children. Never crossed our minds to do so.

Of the 4 Gospels, I tend to prefer Matthew. Mark is a bit terse, Luke a bit more lovey-dovey, but John is a bit too ethereal. Matthew has an edge of harshness that sets off the story well. Perhaps it's my inner Calvinist at work.

It was something that I thought about when writing my PB header on US Evangelicals in October. One theme of the piece was how Evangelicalism in the USA transformed in the postwar period to embrace capitalism, consumerism and show business thereby meeting people where they were and not requiring too much change in their lives.

I think too that applies to those of us who chose a religion or tradition that we are not born to. We choose a sect that comes closest to our worldview rather than one that challenges it too directly. Hence I am in a non-heirarchical Nonconformist Church with a strong strand of environmentalism, so pretty similar situation in many ways to the consumerist US Evangelicals.

Dura_Ace said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

I know when I have marital issues rooted in existential questions of faith, the first place I go is the arse end of the Internet populated by a collection of obsessives, malcontents and the deeply boring.

b) is the obvious answer but is also the biggest pain in the dick. You know what you have to do, soldier.

You are likely one of very few people who can happily follow your advice, though.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Reform aren't the equivalent of Labour in the early 20th Century, they're the equivalent of the SDP/Alliance in the 1980s.

Not as strong as the Alliance by a long way. The Liberal Party had a good base in local government in the early 80s, and in terms of organisation the SDP were the icing on the cake.

Isn't Farage on the point of being taken over by Musk, and from there by the Chinese?

Centrist Dad Rory Stewart on why Rachel Reeves has been a disaster

https://x.com/benobesejecty/status/1872370270679544308?s=61

algarkirk said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.

Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.

The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.

If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.

All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.

Question - who do you reckon was the first “modern” historian? In the sense of sourced, academic grade writing. As opposed to “my opinion, which is right.”?

maxh said:

My initial reply was far too swift - thanks for the very interesting replies everyone! Once I'm not chasing boisterous kids around I'll read and absorb replies properly.

It was a very interesting question, Max, and kind of seasonal in its own way. It deserved the intelligent response it got.

Good luck.

On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.

Dura_Ace said:

On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.

How can she and her advisers not see this !!

Malmesbury said:

algarkirk said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.

Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.

The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.

If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.

All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.

Question - who do you reckon was the first “modern” historian? In the sense of sourced, academic grade writing. As opposed to “my opinion, which is right.”?

That we know of, Herodotus.

Whilst there are plenty of tall tales, it’s clear that he studied records and interviewed eye-witnesses to write his work.

Taz said:

Dura_Ace said:

On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.

How can she and her advisers not see this !!

Because they are the CONSERVATIVE PARTY. They are RIGHT. They are SERIOUS. Who are these Reform idiots to presume that they are more popular than HER Tory party. Don't they know who she is???

Etc

algarkirk said:

maxh said:

PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:

My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).

My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.

My reaction to all of this is twofold:
1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend.
2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).

Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I
sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).

I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I
(a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time;
(b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting;
(c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife;
(d) Do something else?

Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.

(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.

Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.

The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.

If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.

All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.

Maybe get off the agnostic fence...And become an atheist..😏

Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.

It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.

For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.

This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).

Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.

Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.

We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.

We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.

Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November.
1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars.
24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.

Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.

No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!

In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.

This is my photo for 27th Dec: fried Christmas pudding with leftover riast potaties for breakfast. (Yes, I am half Scottish - though it was actually someone from Norwich who introduced me to the benefits of frying Christmas pudding.)