Sunday, 15 December 2024

Thank you for covering this, the tragedies in Sudan have had far too little attention
70 people found in a church in the Congo, bound and decapitated, no MSM reports that I can see.
The media generally ignores Africa. As much as they might claim to be progressive, they seem to think that the suffering of human beings with the most melanin warrants the least attention.
 
 
Farage rightly asserts that Christian values have declined in Britain ("Britons must have more children to save Judeo-Christian culture", 19th of February). This is, for instance, one of a multitude of reasons for increasing fraud, shoplifting, knife crime and antisocial behaviour. It's also demonstrated by Farage's own subsequent comment that children should, essentially, be taught to love money; and his boasting moments prior of personally putting "family, community and country" above all - both of these sentiments are contrary to Jesus' teachings. The antipathy towards our Global neighbours evident amongst some of his most staunch devotees plainly contradicts the anti-nationalist message of the Parable Of The Good Samaritan. The decline of Christianity in the Britain is, however, being mitigated by migration, with incomers from many parts of our world being more committed to Jesus than the vast majority of my fellow "native" white Britons.
When I tried to raise Christianity in conversation with Farage a few years ago (on LBC), he was demonstrably disinterested.
Perhaps my bias against Reform is showing - but the point I'm wanting to make, following so much I've seen in our country in the last year, is that Christianity does not belong to one political tribe. It impacts politics, but it does not fit neatly into any space on the political spectrum - and Jesus is ultimately about something infinitely more important and exciting than any political issue.
But why save it. Surely if it was backed by the Almighty then it wouldn't be on the decline. Are you trying to save it for your own vanity Grace?
LOL, what does this have to do vanity?
"Save" what? Christianity in Britain? Because I want people to know Jesus who offers eternal life (and deep joy in this lifetime) - and Farage's ideas about keeping Britain British (and white) have nothing to do with it. Each person decides for themselves whether to follow Christ - it's not a matter of policy or tribal identity as some seem to think. No, being "backed by the Almighty" doesn't prevent its decline, because God allows people to choose for themselves, and most of the native population now chooses to ignore Him.
Of course, additionally, as I wrote, the decline contributes (alongside other factors) to crime etc (which is, obviously, not to say that non-Christians can't be utterly fantastic citizens!), but my primary concern is that I want people Jesus.
 
I think politicians are using christianity to hark back to some imagined "better " time. They'll use anything to get what they want. We should be very cautious.
It's clearly been a trend with US politicians for decades, but I hadn't seen much of it here - until recently. When America sneezes, we catch a cold. I'm extremely concerned about people on the side of the political spectrum to which we've been referring mistakenly thinking that they're already Christian and in fact missing out on Christ, and also extremely concerned about those on the other side of the spectrum being deterred from Christianity (as clearly happens across the pond to an extent). 
 
 
Why not give more attention to those actual children in Sudan who are suffering horrendously? Why do you spend so much time on daft individual instances, when significant numbers of people are overlooked?
 
 
The people who want to make this all about immigration are disregarding the thing that had made the Western world somewhat (internally) peaceful in the first place. 
 
 
I thought people were being overdramatic in presuming that Musk was deliberately enacting a Nazi salute - but by closing down USAID, he's choosing to kill millions of people of other ethnicities. And much of the electorate seems supportive.
Yet most of those same people will tell you they don't understand how people let Hitler rise to power.
I think they presume themselves automatically morally righteous because they've been born into a country that fought Nazis
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I'm on an over 70s friendship group and someone has just posted about seeing spirits, hearing voices etc. Dozens of people have said they do. I want to be able to tell them that these things are not good but I know I will be ridiculed and will probably leave the group. What should I say?
I'd aim to begin with positivity and points of agreement - "Thankyou to those who shared their experiences, I think these things are so interesting! Though sometimes people have experiences like these that turn out to have a natural explanation, it seems that there must beyond nature. But I'm not certain that all of these things are necessarily good(?) Personally I'm captivated by Jesus, who demonstrated *supernatural* things clearly, to crowds - and also showed revolutionary goodness. Perhaps the fascinating experiences people have shared are a clue that we're created to look for deep answers to big questions(?)"
 
 
FTR, to clarify, plenty of theists believe in evolution - and young Earth ideas are partly a result of American culture wars.
first time I hear that… can you explain?
Which part?
that Young Earth ideas came from American culture wars.
Not solely, but Young Earth ideas have been popularised/stoked by them. It's evident from here in the UK, where this is mostly a non-issue. I've been understanding this better over the course of a few years, so it's hard to pin down one source to cite. There's some fun conversation about it in The Holy Post's back catalogue, as a starting point, for instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9QauqFApak
"The Language of God", by Dr/Prof Francis Collins (who's been in charge of The Human Genome Project and, in recent years, the NIH) is about DNA, and he's an example of a proponent of Theistic Evolution.
Ultimately, though I love biology and my Degree is in it, the details of precisely how life came into existence aren't the very most fundamental issue.
  
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
This [modest swimwear] seems modest..what are your thoughts? 
They're great
But because I'm a pedant, I feel compelled to point out that "modest" in Paul's guidance for women's dress is about avoiding being elaborate/haughty. Of course, I'm not suggesting that you weren't aware of this! But I know some aren't. Obviously it's *also* good to be "modest" in the sense of not showing off too much flesh, but because of the different meanings of the word some people miss out on original meaning of the text prior to its translation into English.
 
 
 
As much as this seems funny, it's likely demonstrative of Musk's own attitude being regurgitated. He doesn't have respect for other human beings - and millions (particularly in some of the world's poorest places, following the end of USAID) are going to die as a result.
 
 
A few years ago he was (evidently falsely) claiming to be Christian, he's a great lesson in not trusting that everyone who claims to be as such actually is.
Hitler claimed to be a Christian and we all know how that ended.
Right, lots of people who claim to be Christian aren't, actually. And Jesus Himself spent a lot of time arguing with people who feigned religion for the sake of appearances.  
Dude! The catholic church was an ally of Nazi Germany. Just check the Reichskonkordat of 1933. How the church decided not to criticize and just kept its relationship with the Nazis in exchange for keeping its properties. And by the end of the war, the churches saved the escaping nazi officers and helped them move to South America. And the protestants were even worse. Among them, the nazi party got higher vote average compared to rest of the Germany. The whole history of Christianity is anti-semitic because they think Jews killed the God, i.e. allowing Romans to kill Jesus. Throughout the history white europeans have been killing and prosecuting the Jewish diaspora but Arabs have been paying for the consequence of their actions.
As I wrote, plenty of people falsely claim to be Christian whilst not actually following Christ.
And my point is there is no such a thing as pretend Christians who are antisemites and real Christians who are not. Antisemitism is woven into the very fabric of Christianity.
No, it isn't. I've never witnessed antisemitism from Christians, they're generally pro Jewish, feeling an affinity because of the shared history and God. It's not logical to blame all Jewish people for what a few *other* Jewish individuals did - and it's fundamental to Christianity that Jesus died to take the punishment for our sin, He wasn't simply a victim of those who opposed Him.
 
 
There have always been misogynists. But for a while, to some extent (though plenty of men till chose to be greedy and sexist), our culture was influenced by the aim of following a man - Jesus - who treated women with respect that was unusual for His time. That aspiration, the idea that the ideal male role model is that caring, peaceful individual, is now disappearing. Young people are instead raised surrounded by advertisements telling them that are entitled to have what they want.
(NB, I am, obviously, not suggesting that atheists et al can't be amazingly respectful, kind etc, I'm thinking about changes in our culture's prevailing worldview)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
A question for everyone.....what should our christian response be, to the fact they have allowed the ISLAMIC FLAG TO FLY ABOVE WESTMINISTER ABBEY. Should we as the Christian Church not raise an objection and fight against this? I am very concerned that the Christian Church as a body in Christ is just seeming to just sit back and let Islam, by stealth advance in our country....very disturbing. 
Could you please let us know where you heard this?
The first thing that comes up when I Google for it is a rebuttal:
Ultimately I'm not sure difference it would make to anything(?) Most white British people choose to ignore Jesus, Islam isn't the issue. It's only advancing because Muslims come and have babies - there are a few Brits who convert *from having no religion* to Islam but people *aren't converting from Christianity*. We urgently need to be telling people about Jesus - the problem is rejection of God, it's not Islam.
And our faith is not dependent on a building either way.
 
 
Hotel owners are raking it in, as are middle men. https://archive.ph/HljIa
And some of this money is coming out of the budget for *international* Aid, it should be providing essential food and medicine for humanity's very most disadvantaged.
 
 
Such people are totally missing Jesus' message. The enemy is *our sin*, we are in a battle against that, not against other human beings, who as it happens are also offered salvation through Christ.
 
 
Plenty of Trump's claims about USAID have been shown to be nonsense - and even if they weren't, they'd still only represent a small % of the department's spending, which itself is less than 1% of the budget. And US spending on humanitarian/development Aid is - was - just 0.16% of GNI, despite the fact that the US is rich in no small part because of taking from elsewhere, and far more money comes TO the developed world FROM the developing world than is given in Aid https://gfintegrity.org/.../new-report-on-unrecorded.../
Note too that a $ spent in the poorest parts of the world can do many times more than if spent in the US.
And seriously, why object to Sesame Street? Do you not think that children born into dire situations should receive educational content? Why be so heartless? Jesus told us to love those of other nations (see The Good Samaritan)
 
 
Trump is antithetical to Christianity.
And though I think that people should be allowed to *peacefully* oppose abortion etc, anyone genuinely following Jesus should recognise that these issues *aren't* what's most important. Some are far too obsessed with arguing about abortion and sexuality/gender, we should be concerned about sharing and emulating Jesus
 
 
LOL, no, this is not remotely accurate. It is indeed utterly outrageous that she's^ been treated as she has - but her situation is not representative of life for most Christians, the statements above are blatantly false. I mentioned my *Christian beliefs* on BBC London Radio a few hours ago, and often manage to bring up Christianity on this or national radio stations roughly twice each week - Brits are not stopped from publicly expressing Christianity. (I've also spoken against abortion on air, even some of the presenters have expressed concerns)
We need to stop thinking of ourselves as victims and get on with telling the world about Jesus.


I'm despairing even more after recent days - so many arguing with me that USAID is definitely all wasted because Trump said so. I can't get my head around how so many people have become so sycophantic and irrational - meanwhile millions of people in the poorest parts of our world will die.


(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Kanye West has been giving a helpful reminder that we must be discerning regarding public figures asserting Christianity. It's so exciting when a celebrity makes proclamations of faith - but unfortunately these aren't always genuine.
Please be aware those who are coming out the occult and witchcraft do not have a easy time after they give their lives to Christ. Kanye admitted to being involved in such things, alongside being married to Kim who is suspected to also be involved in witchcraft.
I dont think Kanye has a genuine relationship with Christ anymore but I believe at the start he was actually trying and instead of growing and being dicipled he was sat with the wrong circle of people, had a ton of spiritual warefare and ritual abuse coming out of the occult and on top of that had a ton of media attention waiting for him to screw up so they could discredit his recent confession to Jesus being Lord.
We all have a different journey and I bet if there were cameras and media attention in spaces where we thought no one was watching we ourselves would give people a reason to condemn us with our own shortcomings.
I should hope we are all still praying for him, the kingdom could with someone with his influence
I think this raises an impossible quandry - behaviour is some complex combination of one's own will, one's mental state (influenced, potentially, by trauma or mental illness) and spiritual forces. As observers, how can we tell which of these factors has been paramount is determining someone's actions?
It's been annoying, as someone with Autism, observing that the murderer of Elianne Adnam, and the Southport murderer, tried to use Autism as a defence - and the families of the Nottingham killer are seething about him only being convicted of manslaughter (rather murder) due to his Schizophrenia. So when it's so difficult to distinguish between will and diagnosed conditions, how much more difficult when the possibility of spiritual forces is considered? It's simultaneously possible that Kanye is under spiritual attack, and that he's inexcusably evil. I don't' think we ourselves can know. But my greatest concern is not only for him as an individual, it's that because he linked himself to Christianity a few years ago, multiple individuals observing what he's doing now might be deterred from Christianity to some extent.
It's right to highlight that, as Christians, we show clearly to wider society that we have no tolerance of behaviour like this - but you're also right, that (though we might not discuss it with non Christians) we could consider the possibility of factors we don't fully understand and can pray about.


(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Across the pond, they've just had their annual cardinal sport event (Superbowl). This in itself is of no interest whatsoever, but for the last few years one of the astronomically expensive advertising slots has been bought by a Christian outreach group, prompting lots of debate amongst Christians. I'm really not quite sure what to think about this year's iteration... https://youtu.be/g6ObkYnfVL8?si=Sk8WU4mHfjAEsuiw
Can anyone who remembers life before Christianity comment on how this ad might come across to non (not yet...) believers? I think that it might be positive...but I also have some concerns
I mean, it's vaguely "heartening" but I don't think it would have made me think much about Jesus. Itbdoesnt say very much at all. I also might be laughing they chose that song literally.
You're right, it doesn't really say anything. I think that, in the context of fractious America, there's a real need to remind non-Christians to associate Jesus with love (in the face of so much nastiness on display from self identified "Christians"), but there's really not a clear enough emphasis on Jesus Himself.
And whatever Johnny Cash believed, I think that the song is indeed unhelpful (and I personally associate with Marilyn Manson, having seen him cover it - as a child watching Top of the Pops, I think - before I knew of the original)
If it acts to counter a modicum of the negativity that some feel towards Christianity, and this ultimately leads them to thinking seriously about Jesus, that'll be awesome - but I'm just not sure there's enough about Him for it to truly contribute to anyone genuinely turning to Him.
At the same time, seeing the hate coming from so many conservative Christians for the ad makes me all the more worried about the state of Christianity in the US.


(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Ladies what do you think of these "Jesus " plush toys , honestly I'm not sure about them ..
I think, in the 21st, it's concerning. *Why* make Him so white? It could be argued that artists in Europe centuries ago were unfamiliar with people of colour, so they depicted Him as white to make Him as relatable as possible (though I still don't think that they should have painted Him as white) - but *now*, making this choice makes me seriously suspicious.
wrong colour...which I think does a lot of damage. Which is one of the main reasons I wouldn't.
It's hard for those of us who are white to get our heads around that damage, and we have a responsibility to think harder about it.
I really want to ask the designers, "WHY??? Why choose white over beige NOW??? What possible reason could you have for actively making that decision today???"
The nativity set we've had most of my life is African ebony carving. A few years ago I was given a set that are essentially little bean bag people with wooden beads for faces - then last Christmas my sister bought a nativity set which is knitted mice, and I can't help feel weird about that...
Whatever the colour, I've hypothesised for a while that the inaccurate cartoonish images on Christmas cards might contribute to subconsciously to the presumption many people have that Jesus is fictional. That He was real is fundamental - and part of that reality is that He was brown. I'm deeply concerned, for multiple reasons, that the creators of these plushies are actively choosing to reject a fact of reality.
 
 
The Church of England Has Spoken: No, You Can’t Have Gluten-Free Communion Bread 
Also that the wine can't be non-alcoholic. Here in Britain, I'm angry. The media are reporting it, mostly with headlines that neglect to mention that it's specifically the CofE, so the public gets the impression that Christianity in general is both dogmatic and unconcerned for individuals with particular needs.
The point of Communion is to reflect on what Jesus has done for us, not the details of the drink - and if the CofE is so eager for Communion to be like the original Last Supper, why use tiny paper like wafers that are so far removed from the bread Jesus broke?
I've grown up in the Baptist Church - we always have non-alcoholic grape juice, and I think it's worthwhile in case someone comes who has complicated feelings about alcohol (because of addiction - theirs or that of a loved one, because of coming from a Muslim culture, etc). When I was in CofE highschool and had Communion wine I was so disgusted by the taste I've had no interest in trying any alcohol since 
 
 
Assisted suicide laws will enable people with anorexia to end their lives 
I'm so blessed that I'm far healthier than I was (when I was sectioned for anorexia), but I don't see how I can ever be free of my eating disorder. I'm thus utterly failing at life and feel unworthy of existing.
But I have an amazingly caring family, and a relationship with God, so I'll stick around - but I can really, really see how others with eating disorders might wrongly feel *obliged* to die if AD is introduced.
 
 
Trying to kill USAID is sheer evil (and the fact that so many people have bought into the fallacy that it's all wasted is a terrifying demonstration of the lack of critical thinking skills in Western society right now).
Trump referenced God in his inauguration, but his attitude and the actions of his administration are antithetical to Jesus' teachings.
Humanitarian/Development Aid makes many times more impact per $ than other spending (but it's only been 0.16 % of US GNI). In instances where chunks of funding are being poorly spent (as happens in all departments and businesses), they need spending better, rather than destroying the entire department.
That so many people have seen attention-seeking claims about misspending and presumed these to be both accurate and representative of the entire department is demonstrative of how irrational and unwanting of evidence people have become.
 
 
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with some of the religious figures around Him, because their religiosity was a charade and they weren't actually trying to follow God (as evidenced by their actions), but instead misappropriating religious institutions in order to assert power over others. He also warned about false prophets and fake followers.
Yet allowed a book with lots of contrasting views and impossible to decipher meanings, to define his views to guide his flock.
Seems a bit strange.
 IMO we're supposed to keep on discussing it, trying to understand it better and engaging our brains. If it were wholly straightforward, we'd be complacent/bored - as one might be with an easy text one doesn't feel inclined to re-read - and not continue digging.
So. The scrolls hidden by men.
The ones chosen by men to be included.
The numerous different iterations.
The numerous translations and retranslations.
Don’t worry you atall.
It’s all true. Right down to the talking donkeys.
You're raising various points about archaeology, which could take a lot of discussion - but I'm not wholly sure what your objection is(?) All ancient history is known via texts with complex histories of their own, but the accounts of Jesus' life and resurrection are - odd as it sounds - remarkably reliable, see for instance https://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...
Some texts included in the Bible are not wholly literal, but the Gospels - unlike some other Bible books - are written as accounts of events (rather than poetry, allegory etc)
So you get to choose which parts are real. And which parts aren’t.
You completely ignore the known hidden scrolls. That could. For all you know. Have a front page. That simply reads.
‘All of the events in this book are fictional, anything that seems like it correlates to actual events. Is just coincidental’
You have no idea. Because men chose what went in. Men in power. Wanting to remain in power decided.
"you get to choose which parts are real. And which parts aren’t" - no, not at all. One needs to study the original context and language, as one should with all other text/literature. Why do you oppose that?
What do you think hypothesising a "front page" shows?
You seem to be insisting it's all made up by power hungry men - but you're basing this in presumption rather than evidence. And in fact the message of the Bible is that men (and women) are flawed and our ultimate guide is God rather than human leaders, so it's *not* what power hungry men would have creared.
It’s exactly what power hungry men would use.
Don’t do it because I tell you. Do it because this stolen Canaanite god says so.
So that’s that argument done.
You also don’t address all the stolen and plagiarised content.
You agree you have absluryno idea what the hidden scrolls contain. Yet argue that they don’t matter.
It’s crazy.
Again, you're simply making presumptive assertions (and seem to be referencing conspiracy theories, unless you want to be clearer)
Because you refuse to address the issues I’ve raised.
You do what you need to do.
Ignore the facts.
The fact that your god was stolen from Caananites after they were slaughtered (slaughtered at the command of your god, according to your book) or maybe it was allegory.
No, I don't "know what I need to do", and I'm not "ignoring the facts", you're trying to have an argument about a theory of yours and not anything I mentioned (rather, you've ignored what I wrote earlier).
That you referred to examining the language and context of Biblical texts as "choosing" suggests that you're not interested in exploring history as accurately as possible, but want to affirm your existing presumptions.
I'm afraid - honestly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful - I really don't have time to argue back and forth about your personal interest, my commenting on a public post doesn't mean wanting to do that. Bye.
Except it’s not a theory.
Your god was a Canaanite god first.
You have Christmas on your profile. A stolen pagan holiday.
I mean. Ofcourse you don’t want to debate the facts. Because they destroy your stance. And beliefs.
Maybe consider that before writing on a public forum in future.
No, I just have other things to do, have you not *considered that*?
"A Canaanite god first"? There's one God, all sorts of people groups have had different ideas about Him - but we see The Truth whe we look at Jesus.
"A stolen pagan holiday"? LOL, I'm well aware that pagan festivities have long existed in winter. Christians decided to mark Jesus birthday then, I'm not sure what you think that proves. 

So you’re fine with current texts about our ancient history, such as dinosaurs ?
The history that actually comes with tangible proof?
Of course I am, why do you think I might not be?
There’s no “of course”. Because religions such as Christianity (and Islam) often don’t accept the concept of dinosaurs.
They either believe that dinosaurs never existed or that they existed at the same time as humans or they are a [planted] hoax.
These views fly in the face of reality… and hence so do their advocates.
Perhaps religions… no, perhaps just Christians to begin with, should get together and agree one story first, before trying to sell it to a wider audience.
I can't control what other people think (and note that the views you refer to are fairly specifically American, not reflective of Christianity itself), and the topic is wholly removed from my comment. But I agree with you, people shouldn't reject dinosaurs, nor other science.
 
 
A proposed law in Washington state would require priests to violate Catholic Church law by breaking the seal of confession
The Bible doesn't say that crime should be kept secret.
it does say that we should repent of our sins, and breaking the seal of the confessional not only violates the 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion (and Canon Law is part of our church), but it would serve to chill the ability to receive full forgiveness and penance through our most sacred sacrament.
Forgiveness isn't dependent on telling a priest, it's determined by repentance to God - and if a person wants to hide their crime from authorities, are they actually repentant?
Freedom of religion doesn't mean absolute freedom to do and cover up anything. And the Bible tells us to submit to the authorities (obviously one should not submit if it involves violating another of God's laws, but that exemption is not applicable here)
 
That's true but but targeting Catholic "confession" as a means to trap those who violate laws in definitely gov't overreach and also probably unconstitutional.
But what's the trap? What crime do you think should be hidden? 


Most of the public hasn't even listened to/read what sober academics who believe in God have to say (regarding why it's rational to conclude He exists), maybe this should be a public topic of conversation before papers about getting off one's head?
 
 
‘A Very Christian Concept’ - The faith’s mandate is more arduous than J. D. Vance’s account seems to allow.
Vance is so, so wrong.
He could have simply said that, as VP, he puts Americans first - but he wholly falsely tried to misappropriate Christianity to score points with some who like to think that they're Christian yet who aren't following Jesus.
It's a *primitive instinct* to have preference for those like ourselves - Jesus taught The Parable Of The Good Samaritan to counter that instinct, showing that those of us who want to follow Him need to oppose any feelings within ourselves of bias on the basis of national background.
We in the West are far wealthier than most of humanity, largely because of injustices that have left others poor - if we follow Jesus we should be seriously concerned for those elsewhere in our world in the greatest need.
 
 
Archbishop of York has rejected calls to resign insisting he is ­“determined to play [his] part in making change happen”
No, he needs to go. So many people ignore God in part because they resent ungodly behaviour by some individuals connected to Churches. Cottrell is part of that problem because of his unacceptable negligence, he has to quit.
 
 
Absolutely. But IMO there's generally a disregard for the Black present - I'm continually wondering why serious situations within parts of Africa are given so little attention, and I reckon that it's partially subconscious racial bias. Loads of discussion about Gaza - and not wrongly, of course, it's a tragedy - but barely any about Sudan, where a far greater number f people are suffering unimaginably amidst conflict and starvation.
As Westerners we are beneficiaries of injustices and exploitation - not only historically but today also (such as via mineral extraction for our tech) - that have contributed to the difficulties faced in various parts of the (albeit large and diverse) continent.
FTR, obviously I'm not disputing that the achievements of folk of Black heritage living within our Western countries should also be discussed (and Trump's misappropriation of MLK during his inauguration was utterly abhorrent)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Absolutely. Though it's also imperative that we think very carefully about how we discuss this, keeping in mind that many people presume disagreement on this issue (or the issue of sexuality) to be hatred. And many trans folk are very fragile, most will have experienced traumatic things in life either contributing to their idea that they need to transition or resulting from being trans. The *most* important thing is that they turn to Jesus (if, hypothetically, we could end the phenomenon of people transitioning, but didn't move anyone closer to God, it wouldn't matter in eternity)


(In Eastenders Facebook Group)
Why is Phil so depressed?
The biochemistry of his neurological state is producing a recurrently deeply low mood. There are things in his life to be depressed about - particularly no longer living with loved ones - but depression doesn't need life circumstances to generate it, it's an illness. Some people may have fantastic life circumstances, but be trapped in a painfully low mood.


Plainly not actually a Christian. Plenty of people like to call themselves things (see, for instance, Trump calling himself a genius) but that doesn't mean that they fit the definition - her actions show that she wasn't trying to follow Christ.


Though I don't think one should deliberately offend as this guy sought to surely the police should spend their time on fighting crimes that hurt people?
 
 
"In truth, I suspect we all know that we need to order our loves in some way." Are the Vice President and Rory Stewart selectively using the Bible to justify their politics?
What Vance said was outrageous. He tried to misappropriate Christianity to justify racism and selfishness.
I think Rory's also misleading people about what scripture teaches to justify his politics too though. Ordo amoris, in some form, is Biblical, even if it is badly used to justify wrong.
I'm not concerned about Ordo amoris, what matters is what Jesus says. Jesus shows us - particularly via the Parable of the Good Samaritan - that we should *not* put those of our own nation above those from elsewhere. It doesn't mean that there need to be open borders, or that people shouldn't care for their *family* - but the instinctive, tribal preference that many have for those like themselves is not a "Christian principle" as Vance asserts. Politicians will always prioritise voters, claiming it's "Christian" to put fellow humans from other nations below those from one's own nation is nonsense. Obviously, the greatest love of all is that of Jesus in His sacrifice for humanity - that transcends any politics. But on the issue Vance raised, Rory Stewart is correct, he's not "misleading" "to justify his politics"
Right now Trump is cutting humanitarian Aid to the world's poorest people. The ideology Vance espouses is going to kill countless people - and is rooted in selfishness (and, likely, subconscious racism), not "Christian principles"
It's very clear that we are to love everyone. Ordo Amoris asks/answers the question 'in what way?' If Trump et al are failing to love at all, you're absolutely right. And I raise that possibility. What if Jesus' words (of scripture) do teach some form of Ordo Amoris though?
"Some form of" meaning what exactly? Again, Ordo Amoris is not what we should be talking about, the fact that Vance tried to use his interpretation of it as a target to aim for is part of the problem. We should be aiming to follow Jesus Himself, OA is a non-sequitur.
But the point is roughly that God does not call us to love everyone equally - i.e. in the same way. This is very clear from countless scriptures, and is reflected in the teaching and actions of basically every Christian.on the *surface*, Vance is right. Is he using that, though, to justify actions that are badly wrong/evil etc.? My article isn't trying to make a case either way on that - you have made your point very strongly.
"Countless scriptures"(?) Where does Jesus say we should love our compatriots more than other human beings? I'm not sure by what you mean by "God does not call us to love everyone equally - i.e. in the same way"(?) God obviously puts people in families to care for one another, but it doesn't follow from that that one should care about those of one's nation more than those elsewhere. Most people do, and when Vance says it's "common sense" he's referring to the instinct we have to hold preference for the familiar over those who are different from ourselves - but that "instinct" is not a "Christian principle" (nor is it actually logical - people elsewhere are just as human as our compatriots are), Jesus subverts it with The Good Samaritan. No one doubts that politicians will put their voters first - but for the rest of us to care more about those who are closest is not "Christian" as Vance claims. He's seeking to justify an attitude that facilitates extreme exploitation and poverty in our world. 
The implication of lots of scriptures is that those natural obligations exist even among Christians and are right. E.g. do good to all, *especially* the household of faith. But lots more, including family and nations. None of us can care for 8 billion people equally. None of us refuse to feed our family until every other person on earth is fed. The place of the nation in that hierarchy is debatable as is how it applies to presidents. But I think we all believe it at some level. And you're obviously right that this can all be an exercise in self justification - just like someone completely selfish, lazy person might talk about self care - a valid principle but wrongly applied to their situation.
Paul instructing care for fellow members of the early Church might potentially be argued to partially situation specific, it was imperative that The Gospel continued to be shared at a time when few had heard and followers were being eliminated. But either way, he's talking about fellow Christians, not about compatriots, so it doesn't support Vance's argument. In fact, hardly anyone here in Britain is Christian (as much as many like to label themselves as such for cultural reasons), there are far more of the Household of Faith in The Global South, even China. And those outside of the West who don't yet know Jesus are often more open to Him than our fellow Brits - so we can be used by God to share The Gospel to listening ears when we show love to those far away geographically.
I'm not sure what's meant by "not caring for 8 billion equally"(?). Perhaps this has to do with different "ways" you've mentioned(?) Again, no one's disputing that we particularly love and care for family, and it's great to have friends and to offer practical help to those local to us. But why would one not care (emotionally) for folk in another country as much as folk in this country? They are every bit as human - created in God's image - and feeling. And there are many  people in our world who need our care more than our fellow Brits do -  indeed we can't care actively for 8 billion, but why not donate to those  in the most severe deprivation, for whom each £ ,makes the most impact?
Again,  no one suggested not feeding one's family, that's a Red Herring.  Vance's comment was not ultimately about family, it was about nation.  He's trying to misappropriate Christianity. He could simply have said  that, as VP, he wants to prioritise Americans. Instead, to feign  righteousness, and to enable those who don't care about people unlike  themselves to feel Holy (so that they like him and vote for him) he's  invoked Christianity and implied a supposed general moral principle  (beyond politics). Most concerning, of course, is that some believe that  "Christian" is a tribal identity, and miss The Gospel.
Apologies  for rambling. As we discussed in 2018, matters of Christianity and  society are continually in my mind, but I should learn to shut up


As evil as his actions were, this isn't actually our business. It's odd how the public feel so entitled to know about things that are nothing to do with us, as though people like making themselves feel noble by obsessing over individuals who've done worse than they ever would. 

 
It's so ironic - anyone with any intelligence knows that IQ is not a comprehensive measure of all aspects of intelligence, as well as that one cannot know a stranger's IQ by reading a tweet. Rory Stewart commented a seriously erroneous comment that Vance made regarding Christianity - Vance was wrong, theologically, and Rory Stewart's IQ (whatever it may be) is irrelevant.
Contrary to Vance's claim, it is not a "Christian principle" to put your immediate community before folk from elsewhere - were it so, Vance should have provided scriptural citations, not an immature estimate of a stranger's IQ. In reality, Jesus' parable of The Good Samaritan clearly teaches that our "neighbours", whom we should love, include people from other/opposing national backgrounds.
 
how do you figure? He cited a whole Christian doctrine that goes back to the early church. What have you got? Goosebumps and gas?
The idea we should put our immediate community before those from elsewhere is not Jesus' teaching - Jesus *countered* this presumption with The Parable of the Good Samaritan.
you need to google the word “Subsidiarity” immediately. The Bible is abundantly clear that authority to solve problems belongs to those who are closest to the problem. A man has authority over his household, not over someone else’s household.
This isn’t rocket science. Even the phrase “love your neighbor as yourself” while not exclusive of those who do not live close to you, immediately invokes your responsibility to love those who are closest to you.
LOL, no, the point of the parable is that the neighbours we should love AREN'T just those from our own nation.
No one disputed a man caring for his ow household, this isn't about that.
 
 
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with some of those around Him who claimed to be religious, because their religiosity was a charade and they weren't actually trying to follow God (which He pointed out was evident in part due to their lack of compassion for the disadvantaged). He also warned about false prophets and fake followers.
Maga cultists defy most gospel teachings and god’s commands, they practice more what god said to oppose.
If there is a heaven and hell, according to the christian bible, if you wear a Maga Hat when you die you’ll see pitchforks and goat-legged fellows instead of clouds and pearly gates
Indeed, Trumpism is antithetical to what God instructs.
FTR, some commonplace ideas about Hell, such as goats and pitchforks - or the idea that people there continue to exist, experiencing endless torture forever - aren't actually in the Bible, they derive from medieval art. Of course, I don't think Trump's super fans have studied the Bible.
absolutely, and the medieval art was likely inspired by the narratives at the time - narratives which were created by the hierarchy, so people would conform to certain beliefs that allow the hierarchy to continue to dictate.
Making people believe in things that aren’t real to the point they think they are, goes back centuries.
Indeed. Personally, I found that, as daft as it sounds, the case for concluding the Jesus actually rose is strong - it's frustrating to me that many presume it to be mythology without examining the topic for themselves (partly because they're deterred by the nastiness and daft ideas of some MAGAts) 


Trump referenced God in his inauguration, but his attitude and actions like cutting humanitarian Aid are antithetical to Jesus' teachings.
they have problems in their own backyard to fix before they help anyone else
Have you read what Jesus said?
NB, America is not starving.
so there isn’t 100s of thousand homeless people in America? What about the fact they are like 30 trillion in debt?
Their homelessness is not because of national poverty, nor is it helped by cutting Aid
you seem to not understand how things work.
America is over 30 trillion in debt and it’s only climbing higher.
I would rather help a sick person in my house then give money to a sick person next door it makes sense to help your own people before helping others specially when you are swamped in debt.
You must still live with your parents
It's very ironic that you accuse me of not knowing how things work and then demonstrate that you don't understand how national debt works. That the US has national debt, like other countries, doesn't change the fact that it's the richest country.
And there are so many fallacies in that attempted analogy...
 
 
We rarely hear about the world's most disadvantaged people, though money spent helping them can make many times more impact than any other spending. Trump referenced God in his inauguration, but his attitude and actions like cutting humanitarian Aid are antithetical to Jesus' teachings.
 
 
These tests are fairly useless, we each buy the items we like, not the set test basket.
FTR, Though food prices have generally gone up, we're incredibly fortunate to have more access to food than much of humanity.
 
 
Apologies on behalf of Britain for this guy, and thanks for taking him off our hands.
Even if he wasn't intending a Nazi salute (I think he was making a joke about how ridiculous he thinks it is that Musk was accused of Nzism - but there's nothing funny about Nazism), I'm so sick of people misappropriating Christianity as he does.
I was very honoured to be blocked by him^ when I criticised his misuse of an image of Jesus to sell merch a few months ago.
Here in the UK, he was fired from our most absurdly Right wing news channel for defending extreme perversion and misogyny. I reall don't think he's tying to follow Jesus.
 
 
It sounds like that to me too. And a lot of the ideas we have about it are based on medieval art. But I found that when I read deeply RE the accounts of Jesus' resurrection, it appears it actually happened, as much as I can't get my head around it - so I trust what He said about life beyond this one. Laugh at me all you like. 

 
Uploading: 56714 of 56714 bytes uploaded.
Just as MAGAts describing themselves as "Christian", North Korea describing itself as "democratic", and Trump describing himself as a "genius", Nazis describing themselves (via the word Nazi) as socialist doesn't mean that they are.
 
 
He referenced God in his inauguration, but his attitude and actions are antithetical to Jesus' teachings.
Didn't Jesus also say "“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).
I'm not sure how you think that counters my comment(?)
In case it wasn't clear, He's obviously not *instructing* "a sword", He elsewhere opposes sword use and tells people to love their enemies, but He's rightly predicting that His followers will be hated.
Love thy neighbour is part of the Ten Commandments and the Jewish laws. Jesus was a Jew, born a Jew and was murdered by the Romans along with hundreds of charasmatic Jews. He was not a Christian as that religion was created after his death.
I'm well aware that Jesus was Jewish, why would you think I didn't know?
No, Love Thy Neighbour is not in the 10 Commandments, it's one of Jesus' teachings (but I'm not sure why you raise it?)
Of course He was not a "Christian", "Christian" was the name given to His followers - again I'm unsure of your argument(?)
Love thy neighbour IS the second of the Ten Commandments and was also Jesus or Yoshua's teachings because he was a Jew who followed Jewish teachings. Who are the Christians then if they follow the Jew Jesus's Jewish teachings.that is my question. If his teachings were worth following why make a new religion. That is my question. I am not arguing with you I just want to know your view.
Sorry (really, I'm not wanting to be argumentative) according to what source? (RE our assertion that "Love thy neighbour IS the second of the Ten Commandments ")
Jesus didn't come primarily to teach or establish a "religion", He came to make salvation possible. He took our sin upon Himself on the cross, suffering not only agonising death, but also the spiritual penalty that our sin accrued. All those who choose to genuinely repent and turn to Him can therefore spend eternity in God's presence (Heaven), though we don't deserve it and had made ourselves tainted in relation to God's Holiness. (but note that if a person truly has turned to Him, they'll *want* to follow His teachings, so no one can simply claim to have become a Christian, then do evil for the rest of their life and end u n Heaven).
Many of the "religious" folk around Him had ceased to truly seek to follow God, and were instead obsessed with rules (including many that they'd made up rather than receiving from God) - He argued with them, and taught both that we must love our neighbours etc and that ultimately it's through Him (not following commands) that we have salvation with God. Personally I trust His claims because He proved Himself by rising from death (and I came to believe that truly happened - though I can't get my head around it - after reading extensively on the historical accounts, particularly the book Who Moved The Stone)
 
 
Most aren't 'attacking', many people are genuinely concerned about the erosion of shared understanding, about children suffering, and about women's safety. Indeed actually attacking, or genuine hatred, would be wholly unacceptable. 


Kids will ultimately decide for themselves what they believe, there's no need to freak out.
Here in the UK, Church schools do better than other schools, so lots of parents lie about attending Church in attempts to get places.
At the Church school I attended (my parents actually were attending Church FTR) there wasn't any imposition of beliefs. I came to conclude that God exists as I studied science.
 
 
I really don't think they're helping the cause (which I completely agree with). If we want to fight problems, we need to give thought to what the actual results of our actions are - and I think stunts like this mostly just make those who aren't yet eager to reduce emissions more stubborn.
 
 
Multiple reasons. One thing that strikes me is his boastfulness, which is counter to the humility I was raised to believe one should aim for.
I'm furious about how he's hurting the world's poorest people by quitting WHP and freezing USAID programmes.
He referenced God in his inauguration, but his attitude and actions are antithetical to Jesus' teachings.


Trump Brings Back ‘Global Gag Rule’ on Abortion, Restricting Reproductive Health Care for Millions
Interesting how you evidently deem the opportunity to kill tiny unborn humans in developing countries to be more important than folk in developing countries having access to medicine and Aid (which he's also cut)
Interesting how you value the unborn over the born.
Do explain why you think my comment indicates that.
You view women’s health care through the lens of “the unborn.”
Abortion is almost never healthcare, it's almost always choice rather than medical necessity. Actual healthcare - via WHO and USAID - has been cut, but Jezebel doesn't care.
 
I find it interesting that you read “girls” in that quote up there and weren’t immediately appalled at them getting impregnated in the first place, much less carrying inherently dangerous pregnancies to term. Ending those pregnancies IS medicine. (Not to mention, what sort of a god impregnates an 11-year-old and has followers who are just sort of fine with that? That god sounds like a real asshole.)
Who said I'm not appalled? And it'll happen all the more because of cuts to USAID - but Jezebel's headline suggests that it just wants to end pregnancies, not mitigate the circumstances that lead to underage pregnancies.
I don't know why you're bringing up and blaming God.
 
 
God works in mysterious ways. And He hates Trump's attitude and actions.
Trump's behaviour is antithetical to what Jesus teaches - but there are all sorts of reasons God may have for Trump not having died in July. Many things in our world that are awful are ultimately part of what leads people to turn to God and find greater/more eternal joy than they would have had otherwise.
your being self righteous and claiming to know Trumps heart. God used many a sinful man and called them to himself. Moses and David were murders for example
I didn't claim to know Trump's heart, and of course God can use sinful people (I just said that). But again, Trump's attitude and actions are antithetical to Jesus' teaching - and see Luke 6:45, for instance.
Attitude and action implies heart. God chooses who he chooses. If Trump is Gods elect only God knows not you are I. Trump is the most conservative and friend to biblical principles and he was the only one in the world who could have defeated the corrupt evil government powers. He’s supported by conservative Christians in America.
You said that we can't know his heart, but we can see his attitude and actions. And again, see Luke 6:45, or John 7:24 where Jesus says "judge correctly." referring to assessing in accordance with God's word rather than simply not judging anything at all as you and others imply.
I didn't say anything about whether or not Trump is of the elect.
I'm well aware that there was corruption in the prior administration, there's corruption throughout human institutions (there's corruption in Trump's admin FTR), and I'm painfully aware of how many Americans who claim to be Christian support Trump, that's the biggest problem.
 
 
Nigel Farage is a 'PARASITE' who 'FEEDS' off pessimism - 'Reform are a bunch of MISERABLE doomsters'
Parasitic indeed - they pretend to care about the horrifying murders in Southport to get attention, but they want to cut Overseas Aid, so more children will suffer and die. 


Pastor who led the benediction at Donald Trump’s inauguration, is turning heads after launching his own memecoin
I'm probably too cynical, but he appears to be an opportunist rather than wanting to serve God, but I hope I'm wrong. And the misappropriation of MLK's words seemed pretty distasteful.
I'm also angry about what Franklin Graham said at the inauguration
 
 
"the Christians"? Some noisy people who claim to be Christian perhaps, not those of us who actually want to follow Jesus. Here in Britain, our main Christian media outlet has just shared an article in support of her (which has also been shared by the Christians in Politics organisation here) - part of what you're witnessing is US tribalism.
 
 
CNA - China has invested billions in ports around the world. This is why the West is so concerned 
"The West", like China, is not one mind. Personally, I'm anxious about Chinese investment into developing countries because the government seems evil, but I'm not opposed to Chinese people otherwise or about our part of the world having less power. Leaders from my part of the world (the West) who colonised the world were evil in doing so, now it seems leadership in Russia and China want to colonise.


“There is a strange idea in some environmentalist circles that human population is the main cause of ecological breakdown, and that humans have an *intrinsically* negative impact on ecosystems. Both claims are incorrect.”
The Earth is pointless if there are no humans on it.
And the carbon footprints of sone humans is many, any times that of others - so the solution is that thevformers' lifestyles become less carbon intensive.
wow! What a bizarre take. The earth was pointless for 99.993% of its existence
No, because humans were going to arrive (and the length of time doesn't matter, no one ws around to get bored waiting...) 
what a wonderfully anthropocentric view. I'm guessing you are a follower of one of the gods?
I've concluded that science indicates there is a Designer, yes.
How do you determine whether the Earth was pointless if there's no God and no huma
life carried on quite happily before humans appeared, sure it will potter on long after we've gone, possibly even until the Sun runs out of fuel in some 5 billion years time.
That's what the scientist would say. The question of wether there is a 'point' to it all is for the lovers, the artists and the philosophers to answer. In my opinion
I know that life existed and will exist without humans, but what's the point? (That some think humans are a scourge on the planet implies that the planet without humans must have some purpose or goodness)
I know you don't use the word "happily" literally, but it's an interesting word choice - who's "happy" if there are no humans? And is there meaning if there are no entities capable of conceiving of meaning?
this is a great conversation for the pub, bit harder and more laborious to convey nuance on a screen.
Think only humans need meaning or purpose to go on with life, forests have been cleared to provide paper for thoughts on the matter. Animals have pined to death before but I'm not aware if any have passed away from existential angst.
Indeed fascinating how certain cases of non-human animals pining as you assert - though I'm hesitant to anthropomorphise. It often seems presumptuous to impute to animals thought processes that can't be conclusively/empirically analysed, particularly when they're lacking likely requisite neural architecture.
Most animals conveying a semblance of emotion are carnivores - so were the Earth to be rid of humans because of our destructive impact (as those referred to by Jason Hickel might deem ideal), there'd still be destruction enacted by many of the supposedly more conscious animals.
And I still wonder how one determines goodness/purpose if materialism is all there is - on what basis, if it came about by unthinking chance alone, does it matter if ecology breaks down? Who's to say that the breakdown is negative (not us if we're not here, obviously).
I'm too Aspie for the pub or to have any skill in conveying nuance  but it's been a fun chat. Have a good evening.
 
 
She was right to speak up for the vulnerable (and wrong in what she implied about children - it's not loving to reaffirm dislike for their own bodies). Though it's also fundamental that we believe Jesus offers *everyone* who chooses to turn to Him eternal life, so if we love our neighbour we shouldn't talk *only* about resolving issues in society. We should hope that others will know the greatest joy. 
 
 
What AR did is evil beyond words - but I don't see how the politicians calling for him to be executed are actually making the world better themselves. It seems as though they're using the tragedy as an opportunity for political point scoring, and to pretend that they're personally noble. The Reform MPs demanding the death penalty should reflect on the fact that their own policy - of cutting Overseas Aid - will lead to innocent children suffering and dying.
because we as the taxpayers have to pay to house these criminals
Sure, but I've not heard most of those demanding the death penalty actually mention this, and they're the same people who call for *more* imprisonment of other criminals. Personally I think a way to cut prison spending would be to shorten the sentences of some who are sex offenders or violent, but to castrate them so that the public isn't at risk.


He previously *claimed* (presumably for marketing purposes) to believe that Jesus is Lord - but Jesus told us not to store up wealth (of course, Jesus would also object to many other things Kanye's been getting up to) 

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I couldn't find a single verse in the Bible that men's role in the family is to be provider. But there are so many verses that goes about them being leaders, and loving their wives as themselves.
So why is modern church is so focused on providing but never love? If it's mentioned it's always by the way you should do this.
This is a good point - but it might be argued that in the Bible's setting, a husband being a provider was such an established expectation it didn't need saying (and some pastors today might feel that the idea people should be loving in so ingrained in our culture now, which it wasn't millennia ago, that they don't need to bring it up). When, for instance, God commands that a man who rapes a woman must offer to marry her, it seems nuts to us, but the point is that a husband had to provide for his wife's needs.
But ultimately, any Christian husband should be studying God's word, not only pastors' opinions, so the commands to love that you mention should be foremost in his mind.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I'm wondering how many of you know anything about two bills currently going through parliament?
I have no intention of starting a political debate, but I do want to raise awareness that there are some grave concerns about them that affect us as Christians (although it is not obvious), and encourage you to join me in writing to your MPs or submitting information to the committees.
I'm not a big conspiracy person, but there is so much potential for these bills to be abused, that I'm super concerned.
It seems to me that these bills undermine God's design for families and children. It really seems to me that the government believes local authorities, social workers, schools, the NHS, Police, etc can do no wrong, and parents can do no right. But I'm sure we can all think of occasions when that has not been the case. Nonetheless, that is the mindset that pervades these documents.
There is a possibility that these bills could put Christians at risk, they undermine the family unit - God's design for parents to make decisions and be responsible for their children. I'm sure we can think of stories that have hit the headlines of parental failures, but then also consider the amazing job that many parents do.
How exactly do the bills "undermine God's design" or "put Christians at risk"? I've asked this of others in Christian Facebook groups and no one's given an answer.
I don't see how anyone's asserted that state services "can do no wrong". But how many times in recent years have you heard of children being killed by social workers? By contrast (whilst obviously most parents are loving) I could list many names of children killed by family. The government is right to aim to reduce the risks of further such tragedies.
Children are not the property of parents, they are independent human individuals whose own rights to safety absolutely supersede parents' rights.
What exactly are you "super concerned" that the bills will prevent parents who do an "amazing job" from doing?
I'm wondering how many of those children you could name who were killed by their families were home educated and not already known to social services? Zero. There has never been a case of a child being killed when they were home educated where they weren't already known to socials services. In Sara Sharif's case her dad was known to be violent before he was given custody by an unknown judge.
How many home educated children have deregistered because school was not safe? Do you know the statistics on children attempting suicide, or who develop serious mental health issues because of what has happened in school? Do you know the numbers of children who leave school with no passes in GCSEs? Do you know the numbers of teachers who are banned from teaching every month, mostly for to violence or sexual reasons? Did you know that local authorities break the law every day, by failing to provide an appropriate education for children in their area who have SEN, or send threatening letters that are in direct contrast to current legislation? Thankfully a lot of parents are really clued up and fight these injustices.
God put children within families to be nurtured, disciplined and taught. That's the Biblical mandate. Do you remember the ghastly case of a girl a few years ago who had perfect attendance apart from missing one half day for her mum's funeral - she wasn't included in the attendance awards at the end of the year. Is it really right that she should be penalised for attending her mum's funeral? Was it wrong of her father to let her go to the funeral?
I have sat and cried with countless parents who have sought my advice on how to get the school to see what is going on with their children, or supporting them as they tell me all the vile reasons they simply could not keep sending their child to school, and the fear of the damage done to the child whilst they attended. But then I have seen those children two years later flourishing and really being successful.
This bill means that children who attend special schools (ie children with very significant impairments of some kind) have to seek permission from people who don't know them (the LA) to deregister. If the LA refuse (with no guidance provided to the LA regarding reasons to permit or deny, or regulations about who is qualified to make such a decision), that child has to stay in school for 6 months before they can apply again. What if they have a life limiting illness, or are suicidal - that's a very long time. Then there are cases where a child has significant physical nd communication difficulties, but they are extremely bright academically. The school cannot provide work that is academically stimulating enough, so the parent decides they want to remove the child, the LA says no. That's it. Decision made.
Whether the children killed whilst being home schooled by parents unknown to social services is not the point - and you didn't answer my question.
The bill isn't going to stop home schooling, so again, what exactly are you concerned about?
If you're going to bring up teachers sexually abusing students (I notice that you haven't provided data), we'll have to weigh that up against kids being abused by family members, do you really want to go there? And why do you think the bills would actually increase the abuse you refer to?
I developed serious mental health problems in school, that doesn't at all mean that school was the cause (and note that mental health problems have a significant genetic component - they're also influenced hugely by other things going on in *households* and wider culture). During my GCSE year, I was made to stop school because I was so ill - ultimately being taken out of school entrenched some of my issues. I'm not sure what your point about "numbers of children who leave school with no passes in GCSEs" is(?)
"failing to provide an appropriate education for children in their area who have SEN"? Sorry, what? Councils plainly cannot afford specialist provision for every child with a diagnosis. That doesn't mean that they're being harmed, or that these bills are wrong.
Children attending school doesn't change the fact that they're in families and nurtured/disciplined/taught by parents.
Interesting how you refer to not getting an attendance award as "ghastly" in the same conversation as discussing a girl who was tortured and murdered.
Good grief, if a child is "extremely bright academically", they're not in danger. Besides, they can pursue their gifts in lunchtimes and after school.
It looks like putting individualism before safety.
 
 
Even the trans person I know is seriously concerned about this. If children hate their body, affirming that their body is wrong is not caring. We need to address stereotypes and let kids know that they can be individuals rather than having to conform to aspects of their biological gender they don't like - but their biology is not wrong.


Jesus was likely slightly more brown/less pink than this, but otherwise this^ is good. Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with those who feigned a connection with God whilst demonstrating that they weren't actually following Him.
And the “my God is the only true God” fallacy continues to this day.
Pity there wasn’t a get together with all the theists and an agreement on which actually is the true one.
What does that have to do with what I wrote?
You effectively claimed that your God is the only option… (and the unscrupulous such as Dump, were only feigning a connection… of which that part is true).
No, I didn't. Trump, and the faux-religious folk Jesus argued with, falsely claim the same God, I'm critiquing their assertion of following Him.
FTR, I think "your/my" God is an erroneous description, I think that many people have sought to understand The Creator/s, and some of the things believed about The Creator can be true but not all (and there are particular reasons why I believe the things RE God that I do) - but that's another conversation (and I don't have time to argue back and forth about it).
 
 
She's very wrong to refer to "trans children", but otherwise indeed it's right to speak up for the vulnerable.
are trans children not vulnerable? Do they not need the love of Jesus rather than the hatred of Trump?
Indeed, all children need love, and indeed Trump's hatefulness is wholly unacceptable and antithetical to Christianity.
But to quote my trans friend, there's no such thing as "trans children". It's not loving to reaffirm a child's discomfort with their own biology. In the context of this speech, I'm certain that Budde was referring to prohibitions on children competing against those of the opposite biological sex in sport, and or using changing facilities with, and or receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Those are not loving things at all. If a child feels that they've been born in the wrong body, to support that feeling and to damage the child's development with hormonal interference is not love or mercy (nor is it loving to make girls change clothes or compete in sport with biologically male peers) - and almost all children who identify as trans cease to do after going through puberty if their new identity isn't regurgitated by those around them.
 
 
It's ridiculous- but no one actually *needs* his fish and chips, or even restaurant/takeaway food at all. We're so, so privileged that we can buy food we like from supermarkets - elsewhere there are folk in our world who could only dream of what we have (and we also have the privilege of being able to hugely help those who are literally starving - if one bought fish and chips from a supermarket rather than a Chippie, the money saved could fund dozens of meals for starving children) 

 
This is evil. Some of the world's most disadvantaged people are at risk of diseases we never have to worry about, but have none of the healthcare we do. Organisations working to help them make an enormous difference (incomparably more impact per £ than healthcare spending here or in the US).
Trump said "we will not forget our God"....but God commands care for the poor and sick
 
 
I was watching here in Britain, feeling angry. He says "we will not forget our God", yet acts exactly as God tells us not to. 
Not your country, not your issue
I don't care only about my country, I care about humanity. Trump is going to hurt the world's poorest people, "my issues" are irrelevant.
But no, it is our issue, America significantly impacts Britain.
And this is the internet - the invention of which frequently attributed to a British scientist FTR - where we can all comment.
 

(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
With trumps inauguration today and with the backing of some Christian celebrities do you think we are going to see some good changes for America ?
It's deeply concerning that some are so fervently supportive of Trump (as opposed to merely thinking him the lesser of 2 evils and voting for him, though personally I still wouldn't do that) in spite of his being so antithetical to what Jesus taught. I'm worried that he'll worsen climate change, but most of al I'm concerned that he deters people from Christianity. 
climate change is a big hoax, Trump is just aware of that. Jesus Christ is the only way, however I'm well aware God sends those who are capable to make change, Kim Clements prophesied all of this
No, climate change is not a hoax, and as Christians we should care about the vulnerable people it's already affecting. https://skepticalscience.com/
[after much arging with others in thread] we have to sometimes agree to disagree, this is one of those occasions
I commented and you argued, with me and others (and the scientific consensus)
answering and acknowledging is not arguing, I also acknowledged others, it's called conversing not arguing, I have absolutely no desire to argue however if someone says something and there's a discussion I have a choice to say to one person let's agree to disagree whilst continuing the conversation with others, if my truth is different to yours that does not equate to arguing, it's just different and that's ok. Our Father gave us the ability to talk and discuss things. Have a beautiful day ahead.
Replying to another person's comment to disagree is arguing. And I'm not trying to be argumentative right now myself, you have every right to argue with me - but I personally highly recommend generally not replying to other people's comments (ie, one can just write one's own view on the OP), I've been trying to train myself on this front and I sometimes can't resist the temptation, but so far as I manage it really saves a lot of time and stress. And you specifically referred to "agreeing to disagree" - but responding to my comment as you have done is contrary to agreeing to disagree.
Also, you use the phrase "my truth", but truth is not subjective. You absolutely can have the *opinion* of personally not believing in man made climate change, but there's only one *truth*. Please look at the site to which I linked, it addresses the reasons people espouse for not believing in climate change (I'm well aware of these arguments, and studied them whilst learning science). Note that ultimately I'm not trying to be bitchy - I'm exorcised because there are people in our world who are suffering horrendously.
Thankyou for the sentiments RE having a beautiful day, I hope that you've had a beautiful day yourself
 
 
 
As much as I dislike Trump, this attempt at a take down isn't logical. Indeed early embryos don't have sex organs, but that's a non sequitur, and a zygote at conception doesn't have any other organs either. It has a genome (which remains the same throughout life), and this defines the biological sex to which it belongs.
Your biological sex is determined at conception by your genes but you have obviously never heard of spontaneous mutation or reduction to homozygosity etc etc etc.Thanks...a geneticist.
The discussion wasn't about highly rare exceptions, the discussion was about typical development. And again, those rare phenomena are not the basis for the self identification that's become a political topic. 

correct, but the genome doesn’t always create the typical phenotype. I guess he should be DNA testing all citizens now
Sure, but that's extremely rare (and not the basis for trans or non binary identification). Personally I'm furious with Trump about many things, but given that the trans person I know supports him, I don't think he's a threat to them.
 
 
I can't begin to imagine how awful it must be to lose one's home to fire. But LiveAid happened to support human beings who were literally dying of starvation. I don't understand why celebrities, appropriating the name of LiveAid, would think it more important to raise money for such a wealthy neighbourhood whilst there are people dying from famine right now in part of East Africa (and note, each $ can make incomparably more impact there - also, there's not the insurance nor government support available in LA)
Again I'm not disputing that the situation in LA is horrific - unfortunately much of the loss of things that money can't replace.
PS - I never claimed that everyone there is super rich (and those who are could help their neighbours rather than call for the public to donate), that replies to my comment are insinuating I did demonstrates ignoring the world's very poorest people.
 
 
Awesome. Everyone hates the indescribable evil that was done, but the extent of fixation on fury is not helping. It feels as though people are obsessing to make themselves feel noble, but it's not acheiving anything. 
it's not wanting to be noble.any decent person would be heartbroken.and angry over it.
Everyone is. That you feel the need to say "any decent person" demonstrates my point, this is performative.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
There have been a few posts recently (and I’m very much not criticising them, I wholly understand the concerns of those who posted) expressing anxiety regarding things to which kids are exposed. Having seen some of the replies, I felt compelled to remind folk that we needn’t be *fearful* - children won’t have their relationship with God damaged by those things (wrong as they are in themselves, and we might lament what our observations are emblematic of). What’s imperative is that we help children to know, in our post-Christian society, that we have conclusive reason to believe in Jesus - praying and encouraging them to choose to turn to Him for themselves. Of course, kids need to be protected from things that are *harmful* (including porn), but keeping them away from things that are *offensive* won’t in itself help them to know God (that doesn't mean that I'm saying kids shouldn't be kept from them, only that doing so won't precipitate what's paramount).
And on a hopeful note, whilst Christianity has very much been abandoned as the norm in Britain (replaced by apathy, not Islam as certain public figures claim), there’s a very slight shift going on. My Generation (Millennials) were immersed in The New Atheism in our formative years - but that movement is now very much diminished. Gen Z are more seeking, some are taking an interest in false spiritualities (paganism), but a few are taking an interest in facets of Christianity. Kids - Gen Alpha (though new babies, as of New Year, are Beta, so far as I’m aware) - are growing up without some of the baggage that I see has impacted the views of people in prior generations. I'm hoping that more of them can be nudged towards Jesus Himself (without the resentment of faux Christianity that many in my generation and above have).
Absolutely crucial is having kids so grounded in the word they are equipped to recognise the problematic things AND having a relationship with them such that if thry do see or experience something "off" they can come to us.
I don't have kids, but I've often had thoughts just like these - I see so much of people desperately trying to keep children away from awful things (like porn) and I really hope they succeed - but ultimately kids need to *know* that it's wrong and to understand that it's better for them to avoid it. Certain attempts at prohibiting children from seeing things could lead children to feel all the more curious and defiant, and ultimately they'll eventually find a way to access things. And it could be problematic if they don't feel that they can talk to parents about awful things they've seen (intentionally or unintentionally).
Some of my generation, particularly in the US, were brought up in the Church but eventually felt eager to rebel. Insulating kids from wider culture won't save them, they need to know *why* we follow Jesus so that they can love Him for themselves.
 
PS - whilst The New Atheism was being fed (via YouTube etc) to teens looking for answers to The Big Questions whilst I was growing up, teens today looking for answers today are increasingly listening to more theistic views. It's monumentally exciting that, recently, scores of teenage boys (and young adults) will have heard a discussion about the historical foundation we have for believing in Jesus and that He rose https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=HwyAX69xG1Q
I remember feeling very unsure of God's existence as a child, and increasingly questioning things in my teens - whether or not young people see things that are offensive to God or which relate to other religions - whilst serious - won't be as significant in eternity as whether they find out about the reality of Jesus whilst they're seeking to understand the world.
 
 
And folk need to keep in mind that many of the difficulties in our world are connected things that have made us - the West - wealthy.
Wrong, it's religion. The rich use religion as a tool to control. They have no power when reason is the conversation but it's always about beliefs. That's why the middle east always was and always will be a shit show. Japan doesn't have these problems, Sweden doesn't have these problems. When these problems come, religion is the precursor. As long as superstition guided you, your mind will easily be controlled by manipulators.
Sorry, what? I was referring to colonialism and the ongoing extraction of natural resources (which fuels conflict as well as poverty).
I'm not sure what you mean by "religion", but colonialism is antithetical to what Jesus taught.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Girls! Right now I am so glad I don't have children. My niece (my cousins daughter but my cousin is like my sister) told us last night about a game children are playing - She did say she didn't play it as it's a stupid game called skibbidi toilet. It's when a man/child comes out of the toilet and says I am the alpha and omega and I am the one to judge.
Not sure what happens after though.
This does not sit right with me as there is only one Alpha and Omega who has the right to judge. That is our father in heaven. Please talk to your children about this game and tell them why they shouldn't play it. If their friends play it, doesn't mean they have to.
I don't have kids either, I'd been shown a snippet of skibidi toilet by a boy I was nannying. It's a a YouTube clip, and ridiculously popular, with spin-offs and merchandise - but I wasn't aware that it said those words or that kids were making a game out of it (but I guess that's inevitable).
I'd presume that virtually all children haven't heard "Alpha and Omega" otherwise. They wouldn't have any idea that misuse of this phrase is problematic. I'd say that, whilst it's indeed obviously tragic when God's name is misused, this is an opportunity to talk to a child about God.
A child won't be cut off from God, doomed to more sin, or somehow supernaturally cursed, if they say it - but kids NEED to hear about the actual Alpha and Omega, and how Jesus offers salvation from judgement. I reckon there are ways one could turn this into a constructive conversation. For instance, "Skibidi toilet is very silly, isn't it? Do you know what 'Alpha and Omega' means? [Insert brief explanation suited to child's age]".
It must be tough being a parent and trying to keep tabs on what kids see online - particularly since their peers will show or tell them about things even if one kept one's own child from seeing them on their own device. The threat of kids seeing porn is terrifying. I suspect that parents need to find ways to genuinely deter a child from watching harmful things rather than simply chastising them if they coming across awful things (though I'm not accusing anyone of the latter), note that if one tells a child that something is simply forbidden they'll likely be all the more eager to find a way to access it.
 
 
The flag is a St George's cross - but St George wasn't white. Nor was Jesus, because of whose death in our place St George used a cross as an emblem (and Jesus taught against Nationalism, though this teaching was contrarian at the time)
 
 
Why do you think that some children should miss out on the National Curriculum? For kids to know the basics is more important than school leaders' "freedom" or feeling offended for not being "trusted"
 
Why is Metro so keen to go on and on about sex rather than to raise awareness of actual news worthy issues in our world?
You aren't making the world a better place - LGB and TQ are more likely to be bullied because of content like yours. You could actually do good by raising awareness of the world's very most disadvantaged people, since they're mostly overlooked yet we can make a difference if we give and speak up (to our MPs) for them.
 
 
It's irrational to buy something to "copy" a celebrity. NB there are folk in our world whose suffering is worsened by our culture of buying things we don't need for the sake of trends.
 

It appears to me that many who'd describe themselves as Christian actually have Capitalism as their primary "religion" (and Capitalism is pretty contrary to what Christ taught)

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Where did it all come from? Where did matter, energy, order, beauty, specificity, diversity, and time come from? How did our universe come to possess complexity and structure when all we know about our existence moves to decay, disorder, and death? By faith, we know it came from the articulated design of our Heavenly Father! Out of chaotic nothingness, God spoke into existence all creation. Sadly many evolutionists won't believe that God created it all. But, when they're asked where did the first microorganism come from to start evolution, they can't answer that question. That gives them food for thought.
There are different theories amongst scientists regarding the 1st microorganisms, but mathematically there are far too many mutations necessary for life to have evolved by chance alone in the time span of the universe's existence (14 billion years), and the biological world is full of interdependence(including at the molecular level, rending chance directed progressive evolution impossible.
 
 
Trump is antithetical to Jesus, it's ironic that someone who sang "Jesus take the Wheel" will now sing whilst someone so unlike Jesus takes control
 
 
This is so, so not what Jesus taught at all
I agree. I wonder sometimes if the church is teaching(preaching from) the Bible these days or if a lot of churches have just turned into a Christian rock concert. Somewhere the people can stand, swing their hips and wave their arms in the air. It seems like a lot of people who attend church haven’t learned what is actually in the Bible. There are lots of examples in the Bible where God allowed people and their leaders to make terrible mistakes.
I'm a Brit, just observing the US from across the pond, so it's hard for me to gauge, but I'm sure you're right about some Churches. Of course, Churches vary endlessly, the US Church I listen to (The Village Church Resources) certainly does teach the Bible - but it's also clear that there are plenty of people in the country for whom "religion" is a tribal identity and they've missed the point, as indeed happens repeatedly in scripture.
I find it interesting how I often see non Christians on the Left in the US pointing out to the Right various things Jesus said that they (on the Left) like, yet they seemingly don't want to explore Him further because they're so angry with self described Christians who are on the Right(?)
I would call that pointing out hypocrisy. But..I can’t tell you how many of my Christian friends who would normally stand on the right side of the political spectrum and did so for decades until Trump came into the picture are disgusted with what is being called the ‘right’ at the moment. There is anger among Christians on both sides of the isle toward the group that claims to be Christian, but is aligned with leaders who say and do incredibly unchristian things. The same crowd goes to Trump rallies and cheers for his speeches full of morally corrupt messages that go against the core values of Christian belief.
BTW..I’m an American living in Germany..so I’m also watching the horror unfold from across the pond
Yes, I've seen the anger, from Christians on both sides of the political spectrum, about MAGA. And here in Britain, most people are so disconnected from Christianity they're unaware of how actual Christianity contrasts with MAGA, so Trump has an international impact in misleading people - meanwhile our Nationalists are now beginning to erroneously misappropriate Christianity in a way I'd not seen previously, frequently demonstrating connections to MAGA. As you've said, in the Bible God allows His people to make mistakes, some will eventually learn from the resulting mess. I'm wondering how to nudge people towards understanding Jesus Himself - rather than being deterred by faux Christianity - in the meantime (but I don't think I have the wisdom to be able to do so!),
 
 
So you support the killing of small humans at 24 weeks gestation? Or you hate Christians?
(FTR, I don't like Farage and I hate people like him misappropriating Christianity whilst not following Christ's teachings)
It's sad that a supposedly Left wing publication is more supportive of killing small vulnerable humans than of helping the most disadvantaged humans (that is to say, you have time to write this^, when did you last give any time to writing about the victims of Global poverty? Or the war in Sudan? Or modern slavery?)
they don't support forcing women to follow their idea of morality around issues such as abortion. If you don't want to have an abortion, they support your right to decide that. If someone else does, and there is often a biological reason which could kill the mother or both of them, they support that too. They support the right to have the freedom to choose.
"often a biological reason"? No, hardly any abortions happen for reasons of medical necessity - and those that are necessary are still allowed anyway. "Ideas of morality"? Would killing a newborn be simply a matter of "ideas of morality"? You're saying"If you don't want to kill your child, don't, but don't stop other people killing theirs".
you are missing the point completely.
My argument is that it is up to the mother to decide. Your argument is that it is up to your religion (and there are many, many religions and denominations) to decide.
Good grief no, I never said it was about "religion", it isn't. It's about the fact that it's wrong to kill a small human, irrespective of whether or not a parent wants to do so.
it's legally a child at the point of birth.
This is an emotive issue and the women who wish to have an abortion have to have it cleared with two doctors, I believe, in the UK. It's a serious medical step and is taken seriously.
The law is that is is allowed up to some point, 24 weeks, and it is still possible after that in extreme cases but probably requires legal intervention to allow it.
So, this is the law of the land.
The religious comment relates to your original statement.
Whether something is currently legal is not the issue, plenty of things have been legal which are not moral. And asserting that someone has taken something seriously or is emotional about it doesn't change the reality (nor does your assertion that the baby is "legally a child at birth" - they are a human being, and at 24 weeks more developed than some premature babies). In fact, the emotion is the result of this being a tragic thing to do, but our culture has lied to women about it and women suffer as a result.
Which "original comment"? I mentioned Christianity (not religion) only because of what Byline Times - which plainly does not understand Christianity - has written. They could simply refer to a position on abortion, but they've chosen to include the word "Christian", implying that Christianity is, in their view, nefarious.
 
 
Our NHS is struggling hugely - yet most of humanity has less access to healthcare still. It's amazing how much impact things like this^ (or donations to Médecins Sans Frontières / Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Mercy Ships, The Leprosy Mission Great Britain etc) can make, huge kudos to him.
 
 
I followed Trump on here (Facebook) before he was kicked off so that I could understand him better by seeing his own words (as opposed to only following media reporting on him) - I was struck by how antithetical he is to everything I've been taught, growing up learning about Jesus, that we should aim to be like. I cannot get my head around some "Christians" being super fans of Trump, he's everything Jesus tells us not to be.
 
 
They said they don't want God and mocked him, they have to feel his power and punishment.
God uses all sorts of crises to help people to find Him (and the eternal life - incomparably better than life on Earth free of difficulties could be), but crises are not judgement.
"...those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no!..." (Luke 13:4-5)
 
 
(In Unbelievable Facebook Group) 
So Vladimir Putin is a Christian. That's what he identifies himself as. The leader and head of Russia's Orthodox Christian Church (with millions of members) claims Putin's decision to invade Ukraine, resulting in the avoidable death of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people, is necessary in order to fight back against Western liberal values, and to re-assert Christian values.
No True Scotsman would conclude these Russians are being driven by Christianity's objective moral values right?
No, calling oneself something doesn't make one so. Putin demonstrates by his actions that he's not trying to follow Jesus.
(being a Scotsman - and I see people misusing this fallacy constantly - is not analogous, since it's doesn't determine behaviour, following Jesus does)
The head of Russia's Orthodox Christian Church has publicly declared Putin's invasion as divinely inspired
Russian civilians are brainwashed 
Brainwashed? Millions of Christians are brainwashed? I'm shocked.
Whether or not they're Christian is a non-sequitur, Putin has conned his citizens.
Have other Christian leaders conned the billions of followers, or is that somehow different?
And saying that Putin is not a Christian is a perfect example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Yes, to urge people to turn to God (asserting that He should be who people defer to) is very different from seeking political power for oneself. Of course there have been many corrupted religious leaders - and Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with them - but those who want people to have a relationship with God have a different motivation from those wanting dominance.
It's remarkable how often people misunderstand the No True Scotsman fallacy. Its point is that a trait such as being born in Scotland doesn't determine one's behaviour - but genuinely wanting to follow Jesus does.
 
 
It's not faith in humankind that we need. So far as I understand, Carter had faith in God - and God calls us to care for humankind (specifically including those in the world's most disadvantaged places - Carter rightly recognised them why are they otherwise ignored?)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Elsewhere online I've seen some Christians assert that the fires in LA are God's judgement, particularly on Hollywood (such as for the blasphemy at the recent Golden Globes). Sentiments such as this circulating publicly (as opposed to within private Christian groups like this one) deter folk who don't yet know God from wanting to explore Christianity - but I'm also concerned (given some comments made here occasionally, concerned in the sense of sympathy, that is, not criticism) for those who feel that tragedies they face in their own lives are punishment or judgement from God.
Though God may, because of His love, sometimes discipline (Hebrews 12:7), in Luke 13:4-5, Jesus references a recent local (for His audience) crisis "...those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no!..." (Luke 13:4-5). So I hope that those for whom it feels like life is going up in smoke know, just in case it needed saying, that it's not karmic punishment. God can have complex reasons for things, and can utilise tragedies for good (good which may not be apparent to us for a while - but may count in eternity). He has plans that we might not be able to fathom - though I know this could sound trite to those in the midst of agony, so my apologies!
Anthony Hopkins, who had a home burn up, wrote "As we all struggle to heal from the devastation of these fires, it's important we remember that the only thing we take with us is the love we give."
This sounds both lovely and slightly counter-intuitive (in the juxtaposition of take and give). But it somewhat brings to mind Jesus words Matthew 6:19-21 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth..." "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal"; and Paul's in 1 Corinthians 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing"
Crucially though, unlike some (I don't know about Anthony Hopkins) who use the word "love" in expressing sentiments, we know a love that truly does last beyond this lifetime.

 
By cutting Overseas Aid, the Tories have increased the number of girls who are raped.
how so? Tories are all vermin but how does cutting Aid have the effect you claim?
Aid cuts led to education programmes that enabled girls to go to school were axed. In some of the very poorest communities, some parents feel they have no choice but to marry off their daughters in childhood, being unable to feed them otherwise - when girls can go to school and receive school meals they have a future, but the Tories cutting Aid means more will be made to get married under age (and thus raped).
If people here who endlessly bang on about the evil of paedophilia actually wanted to have a positive impact, they'd sponsor girls in our world who are at risk - but their obsession with child sex abuse is actually just a front for their racism and a way to make themselves feel as though they're on the side of what's right despite not doing anything.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
My 7 year old attends a c of e school today they... had a muslim lady in who had them all using a prayer mat
Though this is indeed grossly unacceptable on the part of the school, please remember that they can't separate your son from Jesus. His relationship with God is ultimately determined by whether he chooses to follow Jesus, and this outrageous school lesson won't change that. You can talk with Him about why we know that Jesus, not Islam, is The Way. He's so blessed to have a mum who knows God.
If I were writing to the school myself. in addition to stating that *practice* is not necessary for learning *information*, I might point out that they've actually appropriated another religion's sacred practice (though obviously this isn't actually your main concern)
 
 
I wish you'd give more attention to some of the world's biggest issues. Why do you only share coverage of crises in the Global South from your Global Development page, as they aren't news worthy of the general public's attention, but platform celebrity interviews and lists of luxury items to buy from your main page?
 
 
I can't believe it's been 4 years since the riot... Here in the UK I was watching live on BBC News, and it was the maddest thing I've seen since 9/11. Particularly mad was that some people had flags referencing Jesus - Jesus would never have endorsed them.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
What’s the age accountability is it 13 years of age ? Do babies or children below a certain age go straight to heaven?
I naturally worry about my children’s salvation. ( please forgive me- I  have Chemo brain)
The Bible doesn't reference a specific age of accountability, nor a "certain age" for going "straight to heaven".
I grew up in a great Christian environment - but I didn't believe until I leant about the reasoning - relating to science, history and philosophy - for concluding it to genuinely be reality (Apologetics).
I am so, so sorry about the worry, and the cancer. Please remember that God has awesome plans (more long-term and complicated than we realise), for instance, any person may end up finding salvation after our contact with them ends but God might use things that we've said to them. God loves your children more than imaginable.
 
 
What I don't get is why we don't also care about Black babies elsewhere in our world(?) There are little children dying in certain regions within Africa (though the continent is obviously endlessly varied) - such as those communities that don't yet have clean water, or in Sudan where there's horrendous war - yet our media/politicians/influencers essentially ignore them, despite the fact that we *could* make a real difference. I suspect that subconscious racial bias is at play.
(PS who's the nurse?)
but that’s not what we’re talking about. Again, changing the subject doesn’t make it any better. Your statement is equivalent to “All Lives Matter.”
"All Lives Matter" is about deflecting from the important discussion about the priceless worth of Black lives, which is not what I'm doing. I'm suggesting further evidence of the problem of racial bias.
 
 
Everyone should live frugally. As 21st century Westerners we have far more than most humans beings ever have, and our culture encourages wastefulness (which is destroying the planet)
What's unfair is that there are people in our world who literally starving - even though we could help them.
 
 
She's both a victim of our over sexualised culture, and perpetuating it. The ideas that sex is just recreation, and that everyone should be having it, are pushed not because of "progress" from "old-fashioned" attitudes, but because *sex sells*, and so many people are ultimately hurt by the greed of media tycoons who've profited from saturating society with it.
 
 
There are scores of people who obsess about the indescribable evil of paedophilia because it makes them feel noble whilst they're not actually doing anything helpful.
If people who endlessly bang on about the evil of girls being forced into sex actually wanted to have a positive impact, they'd sponsor girls in our world who are at risk - but their obsession with child sex abuse is actually just an irrational* front for their racism and a way to make themselves feel as though they're on the side of what's right despite not doing anything.
Musk (who is clueless) is whipping this up to win new fans. He once said that he'd use some of his wealth to end world hunger - if he actually did, he'd end the horror of some parents in extreme poverty feeling that they have to marry off their daughters because they can't afford to feed them. But he doesn't actually care about vulnerable girls, so he's not doing that.
*(irrational since race is not the issue
Race is an issue on the grooming of young girls. It is mainly Pakistani men. A new inquiry would of bought to light those that covered up the abuse. We now know it is still going on and 50 councils want help in dealing with it. Sadly, race does have s lot to do with it!!!
"Pakistani" is not a race.
what then???
It's a nationality. Race is about genetics. Come on, you know that those monsters abusing girls because of their DNA or being brown - no race is inherently pre-disposed to such perversion. The issue is *culture* - in addition to being personally individually evil (as are plenty of white people) they had grown up immersed in the idea that relationships with underage girls are OK, that's not *race* and it's not fixed. Plenty of Pakistani people are fully aware that it's wrong, and within any culture, individuals vary endlessly, with each person ultimately choosing and being responsible for their own actions - but again, it's a component of culture that's contributed to the issue, no one is dangerous because of race.
And consider how varied the beliefs and behaviour of white Brits is - so we can't (though I'm not saying that you're doing so) make presumptions about any individuals from any other race or culture.
 
 
It's frustrating when TV programmes show serious misinterpretations of Christianity, and then swathes of the public think that these are what Christianity is. The way that that^girl was treated by supposed Christians was not Christ like (nor how any of the Christians I know would have treated her)
yes Christianity is very different now but back in the 70s it was very different
Christianity hasn't changed, actual Christianity is, by definition, to follow Christ - but all human beings are flawed; and additionally, throughout history, there have been people who misappropriate "religion" to assert dominance but who aren't actually trying to follow God, Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with such people.

 
If people were genuinely desperately concerned about girls being raped, one thing they could do to actually make a difference would be to sponsor a girl in a part of our world where she might otherwise at risk of being married off in childhood - but in reality people are mainly obsessing over this issue to score political points.

 
IMO the *obsession* with grooming gangs isn't motivated solely by a desire to protect children. Sexual abuse of children is evil and abhorrent beyond words, we don't need to be won over to agreeing with that - I think that some people discuss it *constantly* because other factors are at play.
Obviously, some of them are partially motivated by racism - and they sometimes give away the fact that they fail to differentiate between an idea and an ethnicity, ie if some men from a culture believe that a certain evil is acceptable it tells us nothing about all of the other people who share their heritage, but racists can't get their heads around that. If they were genuinely desperately concerned about girls being raped, one thing they could do to actually make a difference would be to sponsor a girl in a part of our world where she's otherwise at risk of being married off in childhood - but they don't do that, because they think that only white girls matter and they wouldn't give up the cost of a monthly takeaways to change a non British life.
I also think they obsess over paedophilia in part because it's the one evil they'd not do themselves, so they can make themselves feel noble (whilst perhaps not bothering to try to be a good person otherwise) by banging on about the one particular crime.
 

Cult. 
right not a cult they are Christian’s with Christian values. Unlike the anti British Labour
no, they absolutely do not have Christian values.
yes they do heaven has borders hell does not
Which verses are you referencing? Even if that were true, it doesn't tell us how to relate to our fellow humans on Earth - but still, I'm not even arguing for open borders, I'm pointing out that Reform's principles are unChristian (merely having borders isn't all that they're about).
what verse ? God has 10 commandment and Jesus blood to be holy. God holyness kills us sinners.
Everyone is welcome to hell we all sinners.
Question what party do you follow Christian is Rightwing Labour is left see what they done towards groom gangs just evil and Torysmiddle wing
"God has 10 commandment and Jesus blood to be holy" - that neither makes sense grammatically nor in answer to my question. The 10 Commandments and Jesus' blood have nothing to do with borders. Seriously - I mean this, I'm not saying it in an attempt to argue or to insult - please read the Bible.
God is holy Jesus said no one goes to the father except though me. We need to accept Jesusblood to be righteous (Holy) because we all sinners and unrighteous . God holiness will kill us with out Jesus being dead on the cross. Like to be save from the angel of death in Egypt the people that put sheep blood indoor way was not killed. We need Jesus blood
*Why* have you written that as a reply? We do need Jesus, who died for our sin - but that has nothing to do with borders or Reform, other than that Jesus' teachings are *opposed* to Reform (see, in particular, the parable of The Good Samaritan)
I am saying all that because we are a Christian country of the free slowly being taken over by Islam religion where they do not respect our laws making there own up . We need our borders protected from this . 
"We are a Christian country"? Being Christian means personally choosing to commit to Jesus (which those who have no empathy for non Brits evidently haven't done). It's not about the country. No one is Christian because of the country they're born in. And Christianity is not British - it comes from the Middle East and in our world today the places with the highest proportions of Christians are in Africa and South America.
Our country has very few people who take Jesus seriously - and that's nothing to do with Islam. Most white British people today choose to ignore God.
 
 
Musk is ignorant. There's been much done - including by Starmer - to attempt to address child abuse, yet opportunists want to feel virtuous by moaning about it and appropriating the issue for their own political ends.
 
Also, people look at things from a limited perspective - the Western world has become richer (though - crucially - it's grossly unequal), which is not the same as better, but in the process the lives of people elsewhere in our world have been devastated.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
How do you love those that annoy you and, manipulate people around you so see you as not good enough. I want to love them because the bible says so but don’t know how as they are making it difficult for me to love them…This person lives with me (living with physical disability) and require me to take cater for their daily needs.


(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Scripture says out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks A cursing/swearing Christian is a contradiction
It's true that words in general can tell us about a person's heart.
But RE swearing: what if a swear word has no meaning in the person's heart? They may say it simply because they've been living in a household or community where they're used to hearing it, it doesn't feel significant to them, so their voicing it doesn't actually tell us anything about their heart.
IMO what's actually a tragedy (I do mean a tragedy, I'm sad for - not judging - them) is when people use God's name (or Jesus') in vain
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
YES. Our culture now is obsessed with the quasi religious dogma of "listen to your heart", it's nonsense. (IMO in addition to sin, the idea is fuelled in part by capitalism - telling people to follow their hearts sometimes means telling them to buy things they don't need but want)
 
 
Yes. Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with people who feigned religiosity but weren't actually seeking to follow God (as demonstrated, He pointed out, by their refusal to help others), people falsely asserting "religion" has been going on for millennia.
RE Carter, I'm SO thrilled that he did so much to help people in far poorer parts of the world, not only those he shared a country with (and Jesus' parable of The Good Samaritan emphasises that we should be helping people of other nations), if only more politicians cared about humanity rather than potential voters or book buyers.
 
 
*Ending a tax exemption.
It's unfair to give children such differing life chances by having the rich cosy up to each other so much. It's also unfair that some children in our world can't access school at all - one could transform the lives of dozens of them with the cost of a single private school fee.
British kids should grow up learning about kids from other backgrounds, private schools add to the disharmony of society. Mixing with those from very different families from mine in high school was a helpful experience.
 
 
The world's least wealthy are unable to access vaccines and other healthcare, whilst here in the wealthy West conspiracy theorists with the privilege of access to medical science have been rejecting it.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Is a Christian living an excessive life a bad testimony , in excessive I mean expensive cars , large houses ect
Is it even possible? "If anyone with earthly possessions sees his brother in need, but withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God abide in him?" (1 John 3:17)
I'd query whether a person who spends a lot on cars or homes is actually trying to follow Jesus (ie, I'd doubt that they're Christian, even if they claim to be). If you love Jesus, why would you want to buy luxurious cars and homes rather than spending that money on sharing Him with our world? It's incomparably more exciting to fund ministry and practical help for the poor than to buy a flashy car.
And in answer to the original question, yes it sends a *catastrophic* message, the extravagance of some *so-called* "Christians" *is* something that plenty of npn-Christians cite as a reason for rejecting Christianity.
I think it depends on how much wealth the person has in the first place. If they can afford a luxurious car and house and still have surplus money to help the poor then I don't see the issue.
(Apologies if this sounds argumentative!) the issue is still that they're still spending a huge sum on a car that could transform lives.
Again, I honestly don't know why a person who loves Jesus - who calls us to love others - would *want* a flashy car, the ministry that could be done with whatever they're spending on the car is so much more exciting.
And as I wrote, people observing Christians with lavish things are deterred from Christianity, deeming it hypocritical (I see comments to this effect daily).
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
 
 
 
 
I get so exasperated by the people who assert that the super rich "earned it". I'd like to know why, if those people defending the super rich think the one can become a billionaire simply by "working hard" they don't work hard and become billionaires themselves.
Also, let's not confine this to the West - some of the human beings who work the hardest are those in mineral mines, tea/coffee/cocoa/cotton etc plantations, or sweatshops - labouring for unimaginable hours, some of them to produce things WE buy, and being paid so little they have to subsist on rice.
 
 
Since Meghan's been an advocate for World Vision USA, years ago I'd really hoped that she and Harry would use their position in the royal family to raise awareness of some of the world's very most horrific injustices. The charity is working with victims of forced labour, and of famine, people who are continually overlooked - it was exciting that there might at last be some attention given to those in the greatest need. It seems such a shame that this hasn't happened, even when H&M were provided with such a great platform to highlight issues.
They do, through their Archewell foundation.
Whenever I've looked at its site, it's looked as though all Archewell does is enable Harry and Meghan to ride the coat-tails of other people's efforts.
If they wanted to make an actual difference, they could use their social media, and Spotify/Netflix deals to raise awareness of Global poverty, instead of the lavish lifestyle they've chosen to indulge in.
Huh? Archewell is a private foundation, meaning it’s THEIR money. They don’t have social media, until Meg’s two days ago, and their charitable work is well documented.
What exactly is "their money"? Their report seems to show they've given far less than they've received (for their foundation).
NB the many $millions they have personally are mostly the result of Harry being born into the Royal family (who accrued wealth by grossly unjust means), and Spotify/Netflix paying them daft $amounts *because* they're famous on account of Harry being Royal (I'm well aware that Meghan was already an actress, but not famous enough that Spotify/Netflix would have been so desperate)
"don’t have social media"? Of course they did, they just didn't use it often, but they could have done - and made a real impact raising awareness of the poorest people in our world. Instead there was a post about "American Riviera Orchard"
Wow. They don’t solicit donations or fundraise. The vast majority of funds in their foundation are their own. Archewell has a website, but no social media, and Harry cannot help he was made internationally famous from the moment he was born. Be glad he chooses to do something good with that fame, like his mother did. He certainly doesn’t have to.
But they *do* receive donations to their foundation, it's documented on the website.
I didn't say he chose, my point is that it means nothing to say that it's "their money". Some of it ultimately came from the slave trade.
Again, they COULD have been using social media - and their Spotify/Netflix shows - to raise awareness of those in extreme poverty, who are continually ignored. Instead the podcast was chatting with celebrities, and the new show is evidently showing off their mansion.
 
they are doing fine for all the charities they support you really should not take notice of gutter press rubbish.
I don't trust a thing The Express says, it's the epitome of trash (and it should stop bullying Meghan), but from what I've seen by looking at their own activities and foundation I'm sad that they aren't using the amazing opportunity to raise awareness of the very poorest people as I thought they would. Instead of using the incredible platforms of Spotify and Netflix to remind our wealthy Western world of those human beings who are *literally* starving (without even having access to food banks) and how we can make an impact, Harry and Meghan are mostly making content about themselves and celebrity friends. They could use social media to inspire scores of Westerners to, for instance, sponsor a child in one of the poorest parts of the world (something the charity Meghan previously advocated for organises), instead the only thing Meghan's apparently posted about in recent years on social media is "American Riviera Orchard". I'm genuinely disappointed about the good that I thought might be done not happening (I'm not supporting the press, nor the monarchy). 


Yes - but please note that what people need MOST is The Gospel (even more than wisdom RE gender, sexuality, end-of-life issues and abortion)
 
 
Why should he? He clearly has no regard whatsoever for God's word. Franklin Graham's sycophancy is nauseating, he holds leadership of a fantastic charity, that helps some of the world's very poorest people, yet he obsequiously supports a president whose actions will exacerbate their suffering.
And why didn't Franklin Graham use the amazing platform he had on Monday to share The Gospel with the innumerable viewers around the world watching the inauguration? People need to hear about Jesus, and it's thrilling when we have opportunities to tell them - FG had one of the greatest opportunities ever, why did he waste it?
 
 
Why does our society have so many elderly people living *alone*? It's a problem in so many ways.
are you insane?
What do you think is insane?
you wondering why many elderly people live alone. Why is it a problem? Many wish to be alone.
It's clear why it's a problem, they're struggling with bills. They're also targeted by scammers, at risk of being left alone if they fall, and some are lonely (additionally, reduced social interaction is a key contributing factor for dementia). I could go on.
you have a very dim view of the elderly.
"Dim" how?
These points aren't comprehensive as my "view of the elderly", there are many other things that I think about the elderly, such as that they have priceless accumulated wisdom and that most of them have character attributes which I think our society now is lacking (such as frugality and selflessness). But the points I made are real issues, causing suffering, do you think that they don't matter?
just because someone is older doesn't mean they've lost control of their faculties. We are all open to scammers. I'd much prefer my own home than being shoved into an institution.
I didn't say, at all, that "just because someone is older they've lost control of their faculties". And of course we can all be scammed. But scammers particularly prey on those who are senior. I don't know why you oppose me being upset about that.
"An institution"? I never suggested that.
 
 
Who said that it is a science book?
Go to any Jesus-leaning FB page and post "Thank God for giving us the Bible to give us a guide to true science! God is great!" And see how many people give you "Amens!" and "Blessing from God!
There might be a few people who respond like that (particularly on your side of the pond), but it's not representative of the Christian community as a whole, nor does Christianity actually teach this.
You haven't seen an American political campaign. Nevertheless, yes, it's what your Bible, and the Abrahamic faiths teach, and have commanded for thousands of years.
Right, so the issue is with a part of American culture, not actual Christianity itself (and that applies to other issues too, such as the ideas spouted by some televangelists).
"it's what your Bible, and the Abrahamic faiths teach, and have commanded for thousands of years" - what?
 
I know someone who recently told her mentally ill son, with bipolar disorder and in a crisis, to "read the Bible and pray." Not "see your doctor" or "Get professional help." How does a person possibly think that reading the Bible will be effective "treatment" compared with medication and counseling?
An awful false dichotomy. I really hope he's ok.
Christianity doesn't oppose medical help (and some Christians feel keen to work in the healthcare field in part because being committed to Jesus increases a preexisting desire to help others. I used to work for a Christian Medical fellowship)
thank you for your kind wishes for my mentally ill acquaintance.  Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I'm not convinced that I have presented a false dichotomy in this specific case. I'm simply stating something I have observed, that is, a case when a person presented the Bible, and only the Bible, as a solution. This person is recommending using the Bible INSTEAD of science as a treatment for a mental health crisis. And I think it's pretty obvious that there is nothing in the Bible to treat the chemical imbalances in bipolar disorder. If I had made the claim that treatment could only involve one or the other then it would be a false dichotomy. I understand what you mean, however, because I realize that some people use BOTH religion and science. I am not convinced that being committed to Jesus, or any religious beliefs, increases "preexisting" desire to help others. As an atheist, I believe that we should make our current existence pleasant for everyone BECAUSE I am not religious and I do not believe in an afterlife. I am very motivated to help others and to enhance everyone's enjoyment of life BECAUSE I believe that our existence and conscious awareness ends completely when we die. While being religious may motivate some people to be helpful and kind, I also see where it causes some people to rationalize NOT sharing or helping others because they seem to believe that suffering and poverty will lead to greater favor in getting into "Heaven." Or, some people seem to believe that unpleasant circumstances and events are "part of God's perfect plan" and offer prayers as a solution instead of taking real action. I can concede that in some cases, religion (and belief in Jesus's teachings) may encourage good behavior, but it's also a contributor to people being judgmental and controlling. Granted, those people seem to be misinterpreting and distorting the teachings of Jesus. At the end of the day, I am not convinced that ANY form of religion is necessary for making the world a better place for everyone; in fact, I suspect that it sets us back overall because it puts authority and responsibility on a "higher power" that is likely a construct of the human mind and wishful thinking.
You weren't creating a false dichotomy, the false dichotomy was what the woman said to her son.
The Christian speakers/thinkers/writers I follow make clear that professional help *and* the Bible can help. Though I am aware of one well known Bible teacher who is stupidly dismissive about mental health - as Christians we need to avoid taking what a Bible teacher says as Gospel (pun intended), we should continually seek to be discerning and to have better understanding (and the Bible says often that we need to aim for wisdom). From a Christian perspective, we should only ultimately "follow" Jesus (rather than idolising a pastor) and be conscious of our own ability to misunderstand; and whilst many Christian leaders have a lot of wisdom, all are flawed (and some are actually con artists). The Bible doesn't say that people shouldn't get help from doctors.
FTR, my own experience (with mental health problems) has been that professionals don't help (of course, that doesn't mean others shouldn't try). For me getting closer to God has helped a bit and medication helps a bit but I don't think I'll ever be without my eating disorder (having been in hospital against my will during a previous Christmas, I'm grateful at this time of year to be managing).
You say that you're "not convinced that being committed to Jesus, or any religious beliefs, increases "preexisting" desire to help others" - I wouldn't expect you to be. Note though that, as an atheist, it's an unknown, just as I don't know how it feels to be American so I can't say either way what I'd feel like if I were. Honestly, I find it almost impossible to get my head around anything "spiritual", so I'd be inclined not to believe the claim I've made either - but my *experience* has been that getting closer to God has made me feel more keen to be helpful and compassionate than I was previously.
It's *not* that Christianity teaches people get into "Heaven" by helping people (though I know plenty of people feel like this, and some denominations have implied it) - it's only because of Jesus we can get into Heaven, we don't earn it. But when one loves someone, one wants to do what makes them happy, so when we love Jesus we feel added desire to do what He taught (and if the Holy Spirit exists, He acts to change our feelings towards empathy).
Since you mention "some people use BOTH religion and science", I find them complementary - as I've written, I can't get my head around "spiritual" things, but as I studied science I began to see that there could be a Designer (and I subsequently observed how aspects of physics and biology imply that things couldn't have come about by chance) - but I know this might sound mad.
 
 
I desperately wish that more politicians would, like Carter did, act to help human beings in the most disadvantaged parts of our world. I'm so grateful to him (Carter) for representing Christianity more accurately than most US politicians who claim to be Christian.
good works does not just represent Christianity. People of all denominations, etc. do good things for humanity. However, I do agree with your point.
I didn't (and wouldn't) assert that doing good is unique to Christians (though those of us who choose to truly follow Jesus find that our desire to do good increases).
My point was that the actions and attitudes of some who call themselves Christian imply that in fact they *are't* actually committed to Jesus (since whilst we don't *earn* salvation - only what Jesus has done can achieve our salvation - being committed to Jesus causes one to *want* to be humble and compassionate). In Jesus' own time, there were similarly some people who feigned being "religious" since it enabled them to attain power, but Jesus argued with them because He knew from their failure to help the disadvantaged that they weren't actually trying to follow God.
 
Well he was properly Christian. Many Ayn Rand types seem to think Jesus was a prosperity gospel type who wouldn't be radical and divide wealth fairly on the planet and in the USA .Alqays baffled me when I lived in Reno1981-3 that ppl there tended to hate Carter & loved Reagan. Seemed obvious to me Carter was far better.
Jesus made it very clear that we should help those in need and reject greed - I don't know how a person could be genuinely committed to Him and not aim to follow His teachings. Personally I've found that as I've developed my relationship with God, I've felt a stronger desire to support justice for the poor than previously.
An interesting thought experiment to try to reverse-engineer the idea of a god who enjoins us all to get Alltwen cash we can, care nothing for people who can't boost and enrich us...and behave like, for example, the disgusting rich Christians like that oaf Pat Robertson and the obviously fraudulent televangelists. They ARE very funny...then you realise "People BELIEVE this rubbish!" 
I wonder if they *want* to believe it, so they convince themselves(?)
I've seen quite a few non-Christians claim that Christianity is invented as wishful thinking - in fact Jesus' teachings (such as that we should give up things of ours to help others) are challenging, not things people would invent out of wishful thinking, but some televangelists *have* misappropriated Christianity to tell people things they want to hear (so that money can be made)
 
 
There are plenty of academics who are Christian, and who can explain why we can conclude Christianity to be true from their expertise in fields other than writing. Folk should try listening to, for instance, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Alistair McGrath, Francis Collins, Hugh Ross...
 
 
There are people in our world who are literally starving (without foodbanks etc - though we can fund meals for them incredibly cheaply). Anyone who chooses to buy themselves fish and chips is seriously privileged.
 
 
IMO, the reason they didn't want her to attend is similar to the reason that many people today don't care that some of the children in our world with high melanin can't access school. The world's most disadvantaged people are generally ignored - and I reckon that subconscious racial bias is part of why.
Huge kudos to those linked to this page who support education in India BTW
 
 
Our capitalist culture has (because sex sells) conned people into thinking that sex is just recreational and people should be as liberal with it as possible. People have been misled.

 
(in Eastenders Facebook Group)
I've just been catching up on earlier episodes, and wanted to comment how great it was to see Yolande finding joy in Jesus again (though obviously, He's not white like the image she was looking at as she contemplated Him).
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with corrupt religious authorities, who - like Clayton - weren't actually following God. Unfortunately there have, of course, continued to be some men who misappropriate "religion" for their own selfish ends, and aren't genuinely seeking Him.
Prior to His movement spreading through the Western world, it was often presumed (such as in Ancient Roman society) that powerful men are entitled to sexually those with less status - what our culture now knows to be wrong was shaped by His teaching.
He came into humanity, as we remember at Christmas, to make it possible for anyone who chooses to turn to Him to have eternal life (heaven) freed from evil and the pain it causes. And He entered normalcy - not a position of wealth nor power - since each person matters to Him (irrespective of status); He endured immeasurable mistreatment, so He can relate to those who've been mistreated.
(Of course, I wholly understand that this might also sound daft and/or hollow to those who are victims of abuse, I can't apologise enough if I seem trite)
I'm well aware that most people presume that Christianity is fiction, you're free to laugh at me. I truly hope you're having a great Christmas either way 
 
 
Sure, but how would that actually help the people of the Global South? (And the Indian folk I've seen discussing this say they'd rather the jewels stayed here, since Modi would pocket them otherwise - though I'm not presuming others would necessarily agree). What the people need is for the *money* that's been extracted to be invested in their infrastructure, not a few gems. And they need for Western corporations and banks to cease the *ongoing* exploitation and wealth extraction.
 
 
Yes - the Gospels (the accounts of Jesus' life) compel us to love those who are different from ourselves. Those complaining about the speech, whilst also claiming Christianity are seriously mistaken.
Though unity isn't the *primary* point of Christmas - fundamental is that Jesus came to live amongst humanity so that He could ultimately make it possible for us to have salvation ("heaven").
 
 
Irrespective of "traditions", there's "cheer" - and so much more than that - because Jesus came to humanity, albeit that it wasn't necessarily on December 25th.
(And I'm well aware this sounds daft to many people, I only came to believe in Him myself after reading substantially about the historical accounts - and I'm not going to spend this afternoon debating with those who like to argue) https://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...
 
 
It's about Jesus coming to humanity. And whilst certain people presume Him to be mythical, there's ample historical evidence to the contrary.
Unlike your earlier comment, which was absolutely spot on, there is in fact basically zero evidence that Jesus existed.
That's not me arguing 'Jesus didn't exist', and in fact it would be more surprising if there were any evidence he did - the vast majority (well over 99 per cent) of people who have ever lived throughout human history did so without leaving any evidence of themselves whatsoever.
But there is effectively zero historical evidence of Jesus' existence.
Why do you think that?
Because there isn't any. What evidence do you believe exists?
Whilst I know it may sound daft, I think that the texts which have been included in the New Testament count. They weren't written in the genre of myth, nor, as those who discount them seem to presume, to sell books, they're historical texts, with more reliability than other history. https://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm
I think that the existence of Christianity is evidence - the new movement that began and spread in spite of such opposition can't be accounted for if He didn't exist.
And there's evidence for Him from non-Biblical historical sources https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/
But there's far more that ought to be expounded, and I didn't believe in Him myself until I'd read far more than could be summarised here, so I know I can't change your mind.
 
The Bible is based on a fictional 6,000 year-old Earth where Neanderthals never existed. In the real world, most people have some Neanderthal DNA because our human ancestors mated with Neanderthals. Further evidence is the fact that Africans whose ancestors have never left Africa have no Neanderthal DNA. But religion still survives and thrives because of its very real attributes for its many powerful, wealthy vested interests i.e. mega cash-cow and powerful tool of political control. While the majority of religious believers are good and sincere in their beliefs, the powerful, wealthy religious institutions are firmly embedded with the ruling elites in every religious country. 
No, the Bible doesn't say that the Earth is 6000 years old, nor does it deny neanderthals.
Note that the creation account in Genesis is not literal, it reflects linguistic conventions from the time.
Indeed there are greedy and corrupt individuals within some religious institutions - Jesus spent much time arguing with such people.
 
 
Religion is defined differently by different people (it's misused by folk who are power hungry, but that doesn't prove Atheism to be correct - Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with corrupt religious authorities). More specifically RE the existence of a creator - what if the reason we crave the things that Marx mentions is that this hunger was part of the design for us? 
 
 
Outside of the West, there are many places in our world where Christians are persecuted (far more severely than having a tree burnt - but this incident will be causing concern about terrible things to come). Part of the reason they persist in following Jesus is that they have supernatural experiences of Him (mad as I know that may sound) 
 
 
To make for serene festive imagery? But indeed, it wasn't a Christmas card - what's awesome about the incarnation is not a pretty picture, but that divinity chose to come into the mess of humanity.
 
 
Best of luck to them!
I'm continually bemused by the dearth of scrutiny on evil corporations exploiting folk outside of the West. Many of my fellow Westerners mostly seem to think that Israel is the only entity to complain about, but there are other injustices we should be protesting.
 
 
History cannot be repaired, and those who've been hurt and passed away cannot be compensated. But we *should* be addressing the severe injustices and suffering that exists now, much of which is linked to the past. The Church should be helping the world's poorest people and victims of current slavery - including those in countries that were left unstable by the transAtlantic slave trade.
 
 
Churches do many awesome things in communities. But they vary endlessly, and some ate being run by folk who are interested in power rather than following God. Jesus spent a lot of His time arguing with "religious" folk like this in His day.
The awful things that happen in some Churches aren't a reason to disregard Him.
 
 
In England, roughly half of local authority spending on adult social care goes to support people aged 65 and above - how does GBeebies propose caring for the elderly?
How about using the foreign aid budget instead of squandering it abroad?
It's not squandered.
Of course it’s squandered, it’s not being used to help people in this country who actually generate the money in the first instance. it’s the answer to a proposal you asked for.
Much of the wealth of our country has come from elsewhere. Mitigating the most severe suffering is not "squandering", particularly given that far more impact can be made with a given amount of money in poorer countries than it can here.
We’ve been giving £billions upon £billions to other countries for decades and those ‘poorer’ countries haven’t even tried to better themselves because they know that idiots like us will continue to throw money at them. Charity begins at home and there are currently millions of people here who need help. We can’t solve (only salve) the problems of other countries around the world by borrowing then putting ourselves in debt, that is a crazy notion. We have differing views on this subject and that’s fine, you believe we should continue to give borrowed money away, I believe we should use it on the very people who have to help pay the debts incurred.
There are always "charity begins at home" comments - why? Says who?
It's not a statement of fact, or a logical argument. Why not do as much as possible to reduce suffering? That means helping the people whose agony is most severe; helping the people with fewest opportunities; and helping the people for whom, £ for £, donations make the most difference.
There are many programmes helping the homeless, and indeed, more should be done to help them (and there should be higher taxes on the super rich to fund it, not a reduction in the tiny 0.5% of GDP given to the world's poorest people). But in war torn and developing countries, there are people who could only dream of the access to food banks; shelters; job centres; welfare state benefits and the NHS that people have here.
And we can make a huge difference - educating a child in a developing country, for example, costs roughly 1/10th of what educating a child costs here. For the amount that many of us would spend on a meal out, tools or a goat (to milk) could be provided to make a family in one of the poorest parts of the world far more able to support themselves. Just £4 can feed a starving child for a month. Why would we not?
Consider also, that our country is far, far wealthier than most because of centuries of exploitation and injustice, which is ongoing. https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor... - countries have not been refusing to better themselves in spite of being given Aid, they've been continually exploited.
Oh dear, quoting the Guardian, you’ve given away your true identity. Let people from other countries dream, let them do something about changing their lives in their own homeland. No matter how much money we send abroad things never change, we can’t save everyone on this planet. The U.K. gave many countries democracy, railways, civil service, roads, schools, hospitals etc, building blocks to self govern but that is never mentioned, only what we took out; it was a quid pro co arrangement. You asked who says charity begins at home - it was me in this instance and something I firmly believe in. In my opinion we should only proffer assistance abroad to underdeveloped countries during times of natural disasters only. Again, this is my personal view that foreign aid should be stopped and used at home. Thank you for your exchange of views and have a lovely Christmas.
"Quoting the Guardian"? So you just reject information because you don't like a newspaper, and don't look at the source it's citing? It appears you simply want to stick to your existing "opinion". Feel free to read about the issue from other sources.
I'm well aware that Britain contributed in some positive ways to other countries - but our banks and corporations have also pillaged vast natural resources from them, and enabled the most unpleasant individuals in these countries to take power over their compatriots (who, born into far more severe poverty than we are and without the state services we have cannot simply "better themselves" as you seem to expect). Ultimately your assertions imply to a presumption that human beings of a different heritage from us are intrinsically lazy, ignoring the historical and present day realities.
It's not true that "things never change" - as you'll see if you look up the data on the %s of people starving, without water etc - but issues have not been wholly eradicated because institutions such as UK based banks continue to exploit former colonies (and the conflicts that have been stoked, and exacerbated by Jihadism and Russia, prevent innocent civilians from progressing as they otherwise might). Here's one example of how corporations from outside of Africa have continued to both take resources and fuel bloody conflict - https://www.politico.eu/.../totalenergies-mozambique.../
So it's not the case that Aid is "squandered", just as the fact there are so many sick people in the UK doesn't mean that all NHS money is "squandered" (though some is misspent - and note, again, that £ for £, far more impact can be made with spending in the poorest parts of the of world than here).
Having said all this, I genuinely hope you have a lovely Christmas yourself
 
 
As much as she's a victim of our pornified culture, she's also worsening it. She needs to stop both for her own wellbeing, and for the sake of women who suffer via men seeing them as objects due to content like hers.
 
 
Capitalism generally has plenty of immoral greed in it - but adverts aren't immoral for showing things that people won't have, one just learns that seeing something doesn't mean getting it. It's very important to learn that one is not entitled, nor well advised, to attain what's advertised. The items in Christmas ads are out of my price range, but why would I care? I don't need them, I don't feel sad.
The real moral issue is people in poorer parts of our world being exploited in the supply chains of items we buy.
 
 
This has nothing to with theism vs atheism. You're simply reinforcing the harmful misconception the Christianity is anti-science (perhaps specifically antivax)
no , I think they are just saying fact. You don't need to be a Christian to see this. If anyone with any intelligence and not a Christian does digging they will discover so many assumptions, brushing over, selected answers amongst many discarded against the agenda or direction wanted by the person paying for the results....which likely will benefit them personally etc
I'm well aware that there are issues in some science, and I specifically remember one of my University professors talking about incidents he'd observed -but this meme is not addressing any actual error (or lie, or misuse of data, etc), it's just flat -out implying that science as a whole is to be opposed. In the context of the debates of recent years, it brings to mind rejection of Covid measures or climate science, both of which are seriously un Christian positions (in that they're based in putting selfishness above concern for the vulnerable).
And what do you think the impact (or point) is? Folk who already feel suspicious about science may like this meme, but what does that achieve? Meanwhile nonChristians who see this, in this group about opposing atheism, will think that Christians disdain science because of a desire to disregard those affected by our actions.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I saw a comment recently by someone about occasionally feeling suicidal. Given the time of year, I was reminded of It’s A Wonderful Life (although it’s ages since I’ve seen it. NB, there’s also a VeggieTales version🤣). And as Christians, we know there’s a deeper reality than a Hollywood film.
It crosses my mind sometimes that I shouldn’t be alive because I’m such a failure - but God has a purpose for each of us. I’m well aware that this doesn’t eliminate the real pain that suicidal folk feel, and our neurochemistry can render it seemingly impossible to assuage painful emotions even if our circumstances are awesome or if we focus on joyous truths - but it’s worth trying the latter nonetheless.
In the film, the protagonist discovers that many things would be worse in his absence. I’m blessed to live with family who I hate to see cry enough that I’ve no intention of hurting myself ; but even if one doesn’t have the privilege of great family or friends - or the achievements of the lead character in the film - God has reasons for your life. Again, I know this doesn’t stop the hurt of depression, and hugest apologies that I likely seem trite, patronising and cliched - but I think it bears repeating that God has reasons for the life of each person reading this, even if they don’t currently seem wholly apparent.
The Nativity reminds us of God’s choices to include those who weren’t highly esteemed; shepherds, for instance, were seen as lowly in their society - yet have a vital role in the revelation of the incarnate God).
If anyone is feeling really, really low, please reach out for help - God wants you here.
I don't watch The Chosen myself, but there's an episode imagining one of the shepherds that's nice. Our culture luxuriates in spending and celebrity at Christmas, but the Nativity reminds us that Jesus came to folk in unglamorous circumstances, and that He uses all variety of people.

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Yesterday someone posted here asking for toys for their children. She said that her partner had abandoned her with 8 children, and she needed pre-loved toys so that there’d be something for them for Christmas.
Requesting things for oneself is not the purpose of this group, this group exists for us to build one another up in our walk with God. And for clarity, no I'm afraid a post appearing in the group does not mean it's been validated (though we try to monitor what has been posted).
One of the other Admin team members kindly put time into trying to understand this woman’s needs, and another eventually discovered proof that it was a scam.
Since at least one person in this group had been keen to give to her, and since scams are so rife ATM, I wanted to warn you guys to please, please be careful. It is so brilliant that some want to be generous! God calls us to help the less fortunate. But unfortunately, some selfish individuals can take advantage of this generosity - and they come up with schemes to override our caution (for instance, this particular scammer said that she’d provide “proof” of her 8 children). I’d personally recommend using any resources that you can afford to instead donate to a trustworthy organisation. I also want kids to receive toys - I do this via Operation Christmas Child (the charity that began the shoebox scheme, though others now do similar things), which takes boxes of gifts to children elsewhere in our world who may not have any toys otherwise, whilst (when possible) also telling them about God’s love for them. If anyone’s interested in supporting OCC, you can now provide a shoebox by packing virtually (choosing the items online) and/or donate towards the shipping costs of the scheme (and I could give tips about buying toys and packing boxes IRL for next year, I’m obsessive about it🤣).
There’s a (albeit secular) charity called Teddy Trust which can take any teddy bears (in very condition, obviously) you’d like to go to a new home to children in serious need (including refugee camps. Hospitals and projects for homeless children). Of course, if you have other toys you want to rehome, you could take them to a charity shop (ideally as soon as possible, they might be used a Christmas gift) so that the money raised will help a cause, or connect with local projects etc (and your local neighbourhood Facebook groups may be a good place to ask about these - but again, please be careful, as anyone looking to scam a generous person might contact you looking to take advantage).
Another well established Christian organisation working with children is Compassion (and I’ve received many letters from children via them, including about what they’ve received), some might like to give to their Christmas appeal or buy an alternative gift. Christian charity Embrace The Middle East has alternative gifts including books and pens for children in that part of the world, as well as crafted items you can buy (raising funds) to give to your own loved ones. The Leprosy Mission also sells items that we can give as Christmas gifts whilst raising funds to support folk who desperately need to know that Jesus loves them. Of course I could go on and on, there are many other great Christian charities! And it’s remarkable how much impact we can make. We can steward resources God has entrusted to us to share His love with our world. 
It might also be kind to enquire if a person is in need where they are located and point in the direction of avenues of support.
It's all well and good saying only support reputable charities but A) Jesus didn't play by those rules. B) not everyone is captured by the charities.
Perhaps a group resource could be cobbled together for areas of support.
If a person that was in genuine need were to read this post, they may well be put off asking for help.
Of course scams exist and diligence is necessary
But compassion at the point of need is also important .
Apologies I seem argumentative (truly!), but surely Jesus didn't play by those rules because such organisations didn't exist at the time (and nor did scammers like this one). If a person is in genuine need as you say, why should (as you imply) they ask for help by posting here? It's not what the group is for (and is against the rules) - and they can contact Admin, or organisations local to themselves (which will be far better placed to pass on items).
What is "compassion at the point of need"? A Facebook post does not prove that a person is in need. There's a real issue whereby some folk who are themselves not very well off *feel compelled* to give - and their compassion can all too easily be exploited. Each of us has a finite supply of resources to give, we can be effective with our compassion if we direct it through the right channels.
Again, apologies if I seem argumentative, and it goes without saying that folk who want to can give to people on Facebook if they want to - but evidently, we need to warn against scamming.
for some, this may be the only place they can think to ask help. Not everyone has a real life community or is even linked uo to local places.
I think when the emphasis is on following a rule rather than displaying the model of care Jesus has left for us it's a slippery slope.
Scammers have always existed. People will always fall for it. Of course warn. I'm not suggesting we all give willy nilly.
Just not all need looks the same and not all are able to seek support from the avenues you suggest.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the model of care Jesus has left" - He called us to help the poor, not to help everyone who *claims* to be poor. "Rules" in this case are necessary to prevent vulnerable people being taken advantage of.
This can not be "the only place they can think to ask help" - it's a group to discuss Christianity, not to ask for things (and the reason that individuals like yesterday's scammer will be particularly keen to target groups like this is that they know Christians could be duty bound to give to them). There are many local area Facebook groups, and other forums, where people can seek items - ultimately if they want advice, they can contact Admin for guidance (and some of my fellow Admin members *have* sent items, such as kids coats, to women who've asked, carefully looking into requests and protecting vulnerable group members from being preyed upon).
Again, genuine apologies if I seem argumentative - my concern is simply that folk avoid the many scams that are around, and that the generosity folk have instead makes a great impact for people in real need.
I think you're missing my point.
Jesus helped those that approached him and those that were around him.
When the lady sure of her own faith touched his hem in Mark 5: 21-34 , she was healed.
When the crowds in Matthew 14: 13 - 22 he didn't turn people away because they could feasibly eat elsewhere, he just fed them
That's what I mean by his model.
Love first.
I'm not suggesting that people would only have this group as a means to request help. Just that if we let worldly suspicion skew our perspectives we may miss someone that is in genuine need.
Caution in this world is necessary but care is paramount.
I'm not disputing that love and care are paramount - but again, we have a finite amount to give, and we should want it to go to those who are truly in need. It's not "worldly" to be prudent with what God has entrusted to us, and the Bible repeatedly calls us to be wise.
Again, Jesus was not being approached by scammers as we are. And there are people who cannot approach us, because they're born into a poorer country, who warrant our help.
 
I am never keep to deal with big charities because the amount of money ceos etc make. I also believe charity starts at home and like to support those around me too.
"charity begins at home"? Jesus never said that, He specifically told us to help those who *aren't* part of our own country (see The Parable of The Good Samaritan). Folk born into poorer countries are no less human than our fellow Brits.
I agree that some CEOs are paid far too much - but not all, and it's still a tiny % of charities' income.
home being thay I can physically go and do go for said charity not big companies. I've did shoe box appeal and helped other "communities" through the church but I'm less likely to give to big organised charities
That’s *volunteering*, and it’s awesome to undertake it if able 
The topic has been *donating*.
Please consider:
Charities’ sizes are not correlated with their distance, there are small and large charities here and overseas.
A charity being large doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t give to it. And sometimes larger charities have benefits such as more experience and the ability to utilise resources more efficiently (as thy can buy supplies at scale).
All charities have to spend some of their income on fundraising and admin - but the % spent on these is not higher for large overseas charities, in fact the list of charity gifts suggested by Martin Lewis today (as an example) shows the charities working in poorer countries spending a lower % of their income on fundraising than charities working in the UK.
If we only helped the people we can physically get to ourselves, the people *most* in need, and for whom each £ makes the most impact, would be overlooked.
 
 
Does it prompt people to think about something higher?
no empirical evidence of anything higher.
You mean you presume something doesn't exist because it hasn't been recorded with instruments that aren't designed to record it?
yeah that's an exact description of things that don't exist.
So if you couldn't measure heat energy with a wooden ruler you'd presume there's no such thing as heat energy?
we can measure heat , duh .
Again, that didn't answer my question. And you seem to be missing my point.
yes because the heat would set the wooden ruler on fire , ffs what a poor analogy.
Yikes, do you think that classrooms with wooden rules are entirely without heat energy unless the rulers are on fire?
yikes, do you think any would try to measure heat with a wooden ruler .
No I don't, yet apparently you expect instruments to measure God when they've been created to measure entirely different things.
instruments are designed to measure things.that are real , but your correct right now I'm going start inventing a device to measure Leprechauns so I can prove they are real so I can find their pot of gold .
Instruments are designed to measure specific matter or energy. That God is not comprised of matter or energy that instruments have been created to measure does not prove that He is not real, just as a ruler not measuring heat doesn't mean there's no heat.
It's interesting that you have faith in physics whilst admitting not to know about it. Of course, I'm not opposing faith in physics at all, but Mike Goss has just pointed out that physicists (not wrongly) believe in things that they *can't* empirically measure, and you seem to not have understood this.
Leprechauns are not comprised of matter or energy either.
I never said he wasn't real I said there was no empirical evidence that he does exist .
I have trust in the reliable consistency that empirical evidence coninsides with reality, not faith , I'm not a scientist neither are you or MG .
Scientists don't "believe" they research and use scientific method.
How do you know what MG does? And either way, it's an Ad Hominem. I never claimed to be a scientist, but I do at least have a degree in it, how about you?
Again, you're missing the points that MG and I are making. Empirical evidence is vital in many contexts, but it's not always the way something is known. You still seem not be getting that physicists *can't* empirically measure quarks, or dark matter or energy - so, do you reject their existence? Do you think physicists are wrong for believing in them?
I never said that I disbelieve in leprechauns because they're "not comprised of matter or energy", I have other reasons for not believing in them - and there *are*, by contrast, reasons for believing in a Creator (whilst there aren't such reasons for leprechauns).
Ad Hominem is when you attack the person not the argument, I didn't attack anyone personally.
I know you didn't claim to be a scientist , so why use science that you deny in an argument for science.
Empirical evidence is vital for a reliable measure of truth
What other ways are there to know things that are consistent with reality?
What criteria do you use to dismiss the existence of Leprechauns ????
"Science that you deny"? I didn't deny science. And I mentioned that I have a degree in a science (BioMed), why didn't you answer my question about your qualifications?
It was an Ad Hominem, you implied that I and MG are wrong because of the presumption (without empirical evidence) that neither of us are scientists, rather than addressing our actual arguments.
*Again*, do you reject the of quarks, or dark matter and energy? Do you think physicists are wrong for believing in them?
Before I explain why I dismiss leprechauns - a Red Herring - what criteria do you use to dismiss the arguments for a Creator?
I didn't imply you were both wrong I told you were wrong , not because you weren't scientists because you attempted to use science (Quark's ) in an argument against me when I'm not quantum physicist when neither of you were quantum physicists I've HNC in Engineering, I've already said Ad Infinitum because there is no empirical evidence that gods exist and your god specifically exists.
"I told you were wrong"? You think the point about quarks is wrong because we don't work in science? (again, that's a logical fallacy, the point being correct is not determined by the career of the person who makes it) And even if we have higher scientific qualifications than you do?
*Again*, do you reject the of quarks, or dark matter and energy? Do you think physicists are wrong for believing in them?
Saying "there is no empirical evidence that gods exist" does not answer what I asked, which was "what criteria do you use to dismiss the arguments for a Creator"
no I don't " reject the of quarks " or dark matter I just don't know enough about it .
I don't think scientists believe in them .
Oh ffs, the criteria I use dismiss gods is the complete lack of empirical evidence, how many times do I have to say this .
How answer my question what criteria do you use to dismiss Leprechauns !
Good, I'm glad you don't reject quarks or dark matter - but there isn't empirical evidence for them, so why do you reject God on the basis of your presumption of a lack of empirical evidence?
"answer my question what criteria do you use to dismiss Leprechauns" - I really don't have to, I've no obligation to reply to someone who's chosen to start an argument with my comment, but either way, you've still not addressed what I asked.
 
 
I'm in Britain (and always have been), but IMO the West in general has made a mistake in prioritising independence over community/family. In human societies at other points in time/location, there's been far more intergenerational living, instead we have older folk experiencing loneliness (which also puts some at risk from falls and from scammers - and which increases dementia risk), whilst younger folk can't afford homes and miss out on the wisdom of elders.
 
 
Blood thirsty? Whilst I don't endorse the assassination, folk are upset by the figurative blood spilling by the greedy heallthcare system.
 
 
The people who provide our cocoa beans are to poor to access chocolate themselves, and you're moaning because of 1 empty door on an Advent calendar? I bet you didn't even buy Tony's in the first place.
Stop whingeing and read about the children who have to carry out hard labour for our confectionery.
(NB, the amount of chocolate in the calendar will have been on the packaging anyway )
 
 
Prayer doesn't oppose medicine (and plenty of people have had their keenness to help the sick increased by their theism), it's antivaxxers and RFK Jr you should be worrying about.
but all the people who are antivax are strangely also pro gods
No, they aren't. But even if they were, it wouldn't be a rational argument against God.
Rational argument against god? Merriam Webster's defines Faith as a belief in something for which there is no proof. There is no rational argument by definition. Thats why it's called the Christian faith
Apologies if I seem argumentative, but that's a strawman, I didn't mention "faith" (also, I'm not bound by Merriam-Webster)
That is not a straw man argument. That was an academic definition. You don't have a legitimate argument because your argument is a distortion of the terminology to suit your agenda. Your faith is no more Superior than any other faith in the world. Your God isn't any more important than any other God in the world. Your religion isn't any more important than any other religion in the world. You are no more spiritual than any other religious followers in the world
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things "Hoped For"
Hebrews 11:6
Without faith it is impossible to please God
It is a strawman, you're arguing about something I didn't mention, and you're debating your own mistaken idea of what you think I believe.
You don't have to mention it. You said, and I quote "it wouldn't be a rational argument against God"
That is an oxymoron, because belief in God requires faith, not rationality, and without faith it is impossible to please your God. That's why they call it the Christian faith, because it requires you to believe in something even though there isn't a single solitary shred of evidence to substantiate it
Hebrews 11:6
Without faith it is impossible to please God
Trying to rationalize your deity is an attempt to walk by sight, not by faith
2 Corinthians 5:2
"walk by faith, not by sight"
We're really going round in circles, you're arguing about things I haven't written (and effectively misquoting the Bible, in that you've decided "faith" means something other than what the Bible means whilst citing the Bible). Whether or not you're aware of the rational arguments for God doesn't change the fact that the point I referred to, in your quote of me, was not a rational argument against God.
There is no rational argument for God
"you've decided "faith" means something other than what the Bible means"
You are under the impression that the English version of the Bible that includes "faith" is using it's own definition of the word, when the Bible was translated by Scholars who know the English language, and the definition of faith. They are not using another definition of the word.
You told yourself that there's another definition, because you don't know what the Bible is. It was written in ancient Hebrew. What you're reading is the English version. The English version was written by people who speak english. It was written by people who know the definition of the words they're trying to use to reflect what is said in the bible
"There is no rational argument for God" - why do you think that?
The Bible's definition of faith is not the same as Merriam-Webster's (and what you've quoted is itself is seriously incomplete, it also says that it can mean "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" - and Oxford's dictionary is superior). I'm well aware of what the Bible is, thanks - that you say it was written in Hebrew suggests you might not be(?), since plenty was written in Greek. And many words don't translate precisely between languages, so those of us who are serious about it look at the nuances of the original words. See, for instance (and scroll down to the commentaries) - https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm
 

I know it's France, obviously (and I mean no disrespect to the French folk for whom this feels significant), but at a level of Global humanity (and people around the world donated to Notre Dame), as a Christian, I really wish that resources could be expended first on ensuring that human beings have shelter before stupid amounts are spent on elaborate buildings.
 
(in Christian Women Facebook Group) 
does anyone do bible study with their Children/family? I want to start doing this but have no idea how to start. Any tips please?
It's none of my business, and I obviously know nothing about your child/ren, but may I recommend considering introducing Apologetics too? I grew up with committed Christian parents, Church etc - but I started to realise that I didn't really believe that Christianity is actually *true*. Sunday School just presumed we'd all believe the Bible, but I started to wonder why one would do. Eventually, I started to discover the reasons for concluding Christianity to be reality, but I worry about the many young people who grow up in Christian families and then abandon it (including one of my sisters).
Again, obviously I know nothing about your family, so my apologies for being patronising! And I recommend VeggieTales and What's In The Bible
I hadn't heard of apologetics before you mentioned it. Thanks for your comment.
Most people in our society aren't aware of it, it's presumed that Christianity is only faith tradition, in fact there's a whole field of arguments advanced by academics (including former atheists and Oxford University professors) showing why we can be certain that Christianity is true (of course, atheists try to argue against these points, but their rebuttal attempts are flawed)


YES. I have Asperger's instead (and a related eating disorder), but the same issue - I'm desperate not to be so useless, but am rejected for everything I apply for (though I'm only applying for very basic things) and I don't understand why the government doesn't connect those of us with limitations with jobs.
 
 
Prince Andrew's reduced life now from title snub and crumbling home to 'spy' link
He has more wealth and privilege than most people on the planet. Meanwhile there are teenage girls around our world who are exploited, and/or trapped in extreme poverty.
Sponsoring one of humanity's most vulnerable girls (in a less wealthy country) can transform their life and costs very little - he should be moved into a normally sized home, living with typical living costs, and the money saved could change huge numbers of lives.
 
 
I wouldn't have voted for Trump myself, but you insinuating the Black men are obligated to vote for your candidate o the basis of skin colour seems absurdly patronising. Apparently you think that skin colour is all that matters about or to them.
Maybe you should educate yourself on why people voted for Trump.
 
 
(in Christian Women Facebook Group)  
A certain TV personality is in the news bemoaning "middle class women of a certain age". I'm not often massively aware of misogyny, but this has made me really angry (I don't think I'd count personally, but I feel very conscious of not being "young" any more - to quote Miley Cyrus  who was born in the same year as me, I used to be young - and I'm concerned for women he is referring to). Fortunately, most people in our society recognise that this is an utterly daft thing to say (all the more so given that he's older than the woman whose accusation is in the news today, older than the woman whose famous husband rebuked him, etc). But we have even more assurance as people who know God. In the Bible, it's because certain women are no longer young that God can do amazing things through them. We don't only go through the stages of ageing, we walk closer and closer with God, and He can make use of us at all stages of life.
Job 12:12
"So with old age is wisdom, and with length of days understanding"
Isaiah 46:4
"Even to your old age and grey hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you"
Psalms 92:14-15
"They will still yield fruit in old age"
One of the aforementioned women in the Bible is Elizabeth - who, as read in the daily reading, was used by God to display His miraculous power whilst she was *of a certain age*. If she'd been younger it wouldn't have been so remarkable - and being older was no hindrance to God's plan. Our culture can be ageist towards women, but God has far more exciting ideas
Why get so wound up about one person's comments. Come on what do we care. We know who we are. Just ignore it.
I'm not "so wound up". But I commented, because how we feel about ourselves isn't necessarily correspondent with what we *know*. As someone with an eating disorder, I *know* that I don't need to be thinner, but I can't escape the *feeling* that I do. We *know* that appearance doesn't matter, but we can still *feel* anxious about how we look. Knowing that being middle aged doesn't diminish value can't necessarily stop people feeling hurt.
 
 
You've taken a screenshot from The Times (UK), things here are not the same as they are in the US (for instance, "the war on Christmas" isn't really a thing here, and very few people agree with you about trans issues).
Evidence of the class war issue here was most recently demonstrated a rich celebrity from a "working class" background making grossly misogynistic comments about women based partly on their class backgrounds - nothing to do with taxes, and why would you take his side?
 
 
Russell Brand - Why would Jesus say, "Love thy neighbor," unless there was real merit or value in doing so?
NB, His point was not about those who live next to us. Of course, we should do this too - but it's often overlooked that in this parable He's teaching us to love and help those in/from *other* places/ethnicities. Sod "charity begins at home" - we can instinctively feel more connected to those who share our nationality, but Jesus is countering that primitive instinct, countering racial prejudice, and calling us to love those who *don't* share our country. Today, we can support some of the world's poorest people, who don't live near to us but are *neighbours* by the definition of the parable.


The grotesque exploitation of folk in the Global South for their labour and resources, and the disregard of the impact of fossil fuel usage on them (via climate change), are indeed wholly at odds with Jesus' teaching (and other Biblical instruction)
 

(in Christian Women Facebook Group)
How can U deal with bitterness?
God has forgiven us, though we don't deserve forgiveness. Reminding ourselves of this and dwelling on it can help in forgiving others - but we also need God's help, for Him to work in our hearts to enable forgiveness. One could also pray that He illuminates any misunderstandings that have contributed to the conflict - often people don't disagree as much as they perceive, but one party or the other is perturbed by something which s in fact a misconception (though of course, I don't know your situation, so apologies for seeming patronising, I'm just pondering on the conflicts I've observed)


Devastating? How? He's a multimillionaire, who started a farm to avoid tax.
Actually devastating is that there are farmers in the poorest parts of our world struggling to feed their families, or exploited by multinational corporations that sell food to us.
 

The Bible does say that wives should submit to their husbands - but also that husbands must submit to their wives. Marriage entails both parties having sacrificial love for each other - and a man who wants to dominate his wife is not following Jesus' fundamental teaching to love others as ourselves.
'Sacrificial love'??? Have I got that right? It's new to me!
Yes. Giving up always getting one's own way or doing all of the things one might want to. At a basic level, I see my each of my parents put up with having things they don't love on the TV, on the table, or on the calendar because the other of them wants something and they love each other more than personal preferences. Ultimately, spouses might have to change more significant individual life plans to find mutually agreeable plans (in contrast to our culture's notion of always going for what we most want for ourselves) - but if they love each other, they'll want to.
So far as I've read, this "influencer" was reprimanded because she shared a clip suggesting a woman should do everything their husband wants (including wearing Muslim attire) - but a husband like that doesn't love his wife.


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)