What is in Kelvin's Head?

Politics Just Became More Interesting

26/05/2014
There’s a lot of soul searching going on in the UK over the European Election results. Here’s my take on it all…
- Those complaining most about the low turnout need to think about what they want to do in order to stop low turnout. The best thing to do is to join a political party and work to get people to the ballot box to vote for what you believe in.
- Trouble is, I don’t find a party I want to belong to.
- The above 2 points are the problem. (Or at least, they are my problem with politics at the moment).
- The media coverage from the BBC seemed particularly biased. I don’t like criticising the Beeb because I love it but it really did seem to have become the UKIP Broadcasting Corperation and I still can’t quite fathom why.
- I don’t think I know a single person who has told me they were supporting UKIP. Now – is that because I’m in a little bubble and I genuinely don’t know anyone who votes that way or is it because voting that way is not socially acceptable?
- Nick Clegg made a number of strategic errors in taking on Nigel Farrage in TV debates. Firstly it got Farrage even more coverage and allowed him to appear to be an equal when he wasn’t. Secondly Clegg failed to merge the UKIP and Tory brand. (People like me wonder whether he is opposed to the Tories at all – he just doesn’t come across as disliking what they stand for and someone in his position needs to be able to convey something a little stronger than dislike). Thirdly, he didn’t really do it well enough – die-hard party members were impressed by him but that’s not what the exercise is all about. Keep it Simple is still effective. (One of the posts that I had up recently which got lots of traction was about why I’m supportive of the EU because of mobile phone roaming, oh yes, and because we don’t tend to go to war in Western Europe with one another as once we did).
- Policywise I hope that political parties concentrate on those who didn’t vote rather than those who voted UKIP.
- I fear they won’t.
- I was surprised that the SNP did not increase their share of the vote.
- I wasn’t surprised that the Lib Dem vote collapsed.
- I feel for the Greens who were struggling to get a word in edgeways. I kind of wish that I could vote Green but the trouble is, they’ve got their policies.
- The Liberal Democrats are not going to do better until they have a change in leader and until there is obvious contrition. It is going to get worse before it gets better.
- I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but I can’t take the leadership of the Labour Party in Scotland seriously.
- Thank God there was no “Christian” party on the ballot paper.
- Politics just got more interesting because people don’t know what it all means and don’t know what comes next.
- That’s the best politics in the world.
You got your own take? Share it in the comments below.
election, EU, politics, Scotland

7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”

Darren Moore

05/09/2013

I try to stick to the policy, whilst commenting on it.

Most of it pretty understandable/standard. But,
1.using Scripture as a weapon/quoting isolated verses. To a point I agree, but surely as well as the whole has to be understood as part of the whole, the whole is made us by parts. People misuse the Bible by taking a verse out of context, but they can easily be shown up. Otherwise we can’t use the Bible at all, other than saying – read all of it – there’s something that relates to what I’m saying.

2. How does the disclaimer square with not being able to comment on PSA? Is that a given (i.e. that it’s nonsense)? Are other opinions banned? Like Roman Catholic views. Even if (highly unlikely) it’s a minority view, are other historically minority views banned (charismatics, baptists) and non-Christians and all liberals – as there views are pretty minority.

3. Likening gay people to murderers. Unpleasant I agree. Although if (if I may quote a verse – but not to prove a point), this a reference to the 2nd 1/2 of Romans 1, the list includes people who disobey parents and the greedy. Presumably they’re still fair game?

Just not sure this quite stacks. It’s why people ask, “What are you afraid of?” when it comes to PSA?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  05/09/2013
  
  Darren – thank you for your interest. However. the question is not whether you think this commenting policy quite stacks but whether I do.
  
  Reply
John Sandeman

05/09/2013

Kelvin,
When reading about theories of the atonement, there is a real risk of continually reading things that have been said many times over – as you point out. But can I credit you with something reasonably original? “We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it.” I have never worked out how to determine the proportions of Christians who believe the various atonement theories. Is there some research out there?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  06/09/2013
  
  Thanks John – I’m not aware of any research though I’d be interested in any there was. When I wrote that, I was thinking not simply of who believes what now but also of Christians through time. The history of these various ways of understanding the (or an) atonement is fairly well attested and it is clear that some have risen and fallen through time.
  
  My presumption is that most of the people in the great blocks of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches (both now and through history) don’t believe in penal substitution – or at least, don’t believe it in the same way that a classical evangelical might believe in it as doctrine which must be personally accepted in order to lead to individual salvation. However, as you rightly point out, who believes what may not be so simple.
  
  Reply
Darren Moore

07/09/2013

There are a few bits of research on this, but mostly from the context of PSA
E.g. Chapter 5 of “Pierced for our Transgressions”, by Jeffery, Ovey & Sach (IVP), which is a quite survey of theologians, east & west, a dozen of which are pre-reformation, starting with Justin Martyr.

Henri Blocher, “Biblical Metaphors of the atonement”, in the journal of the evangelical theological society, 47 (2004), pp629-645
“The divine substitution: The atonement in the Bible and history” by Shaw & Edwards (Day One).

I get the your blog, your rules. Just doesn’t sound like decent is welcome.

Reply
1. Darren Moore
  
  07/09/2013
  
  Bit of a PS,
  Robert Letham’s, “Through Western eyes”
  Looks at the differences & common ground with E-orthodoxy on lots of things, including salvation. Letham (Reformed), thinks there’s lots to get from the East re:-Trinity in worship, incarnational stuff, divination (rightly understood), but still holds that his “Reformed”
  
  Reply
2. Kelvin
  
  07/09/2013
  
  Well, Darren, I’ve found that there are quite a number of people who do want to meet and chat without the Atonement Thought Police stepping in to correct them all the time. In fact, though I expect you’ll be surprised to hear it, to those who don’t believe that particular doctrine, comments rather like your own can appear to be quite aggressive and verging on bullying.
  
  So, you may not feel welcome to behave exactly as you like here. You are not. And there’s a comminity of folk who like it that way.
  
  Reply

Politics Just Became More Interesting

7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Previous Posts

Marriage again

The Madness of Strangers

The Two Widows – Scottish Opera

Here we go again