Sunday, 15 December 2024

Christian “TheoBros”
Do you think that Trump is a genius?
Someone referring to themselves as something doesn't mean that they are that thing.
If people aren't genuinely trying to follow Jesus, they aren't Christian, by definition, even if they describe themselves as such.
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with religious authorities who weren't actually following God - so it's ironic how many people resent "Christianity" because of the behaviour of people who aren't practicing it, and thus ignore Christ, who would criticise the behaviour.
Christians should police themselves. I'm not Christian and will lump then all together until they decide to oust their pedos, thieves, hatefulness. As long as "real" Christians allow them to remain and speak the loudest, all Christians will be judged accordingly.
Jow are we supposed to stop other people calling themselves "Christians"?
But you've missed my point - it doesn't matter if you "judge" us, "accordingly" or otherwise. What matters is your relationship with Jesus (apologies that probably sounds weird)
 
 
THANKYOU for posting about this. I don't know why it gets so little attention typically. In case anyone reading this hasn't already, I recommend checking out https://debtjustice.org.uk/
NB, I love that the Catholic Church is making noise about this - bur to clarify for anyone unaware, the concept is Biblical, as opposed to being specific to Catholicism. God calls for people to be released from debt (and most significantly, in one of Jesus' parables, He uses debt as an analogy for how we've all become indebted, not in a monetary sense but through our wrong actions, yet we're offered freedom fro that debt through Him)
Our government should be restoring the Aid budget - but they should also address the unjust, exploitative debt that's crippling some of the most diadvantaged countries and which is almost all under UK jurisdiction.
 
 
Victims of the child grooming gang scandal say they’re looking forward to seeing the damning report from the national inquiry announced this week by Keir Starmer, and then nothing happening as a result of it.
PS - the Government, both this one and the last, have also doomed some of the world's very most disadvantaged girls to child marriage (and thus rape) by cutting Overseas Aid (which can prevent this horror incredibly cheaply)
Dealing with the indescribable evil of the Grooming Gang scandal needs to be less about politicians' posturing and more about actually listening to and helping victims, as well as preventing future cases.
'Overseas aid', that those on the right who use the grooming scandal, crime, and victims for their own political ends, say we should not be paying, and cut when they were in power under Johnson? 
Yes. Demonstrating that though they bang on about Grooming Gangs obsessively, they probably don't actually care much about girls. 
 
 
"Coming for"? "Political Right"? It sounds like you're opposed to a ban - why???
It's not Right wing to ban it, particularly since cousin marriage causes suffering to disadvantaged people.
suffering for disadvantaged people? Care to explain? Are they more likely to have successive generational marriages? 
The communities in which this happens are economically disadvantaged, and the girls pressured into these marriages as well as the resulting children are definitely disadvantaged. We should care more about their wellbeing than about cultural relativism.
 
    
The Bible is really not keen on spiritual statues BTW....
Jesus calls us to truly turn to Him, offering salvation to anyone who genuinely does so - He doesn't ask for cultish observance where people fawn over His image as though it has magical powers, He wants us to actually seek and follow Him with our hearts/minds (including, for instance, using resources to help the poor, not to build statues)
you have literally NO idea what Jesus calls on people to do. It was mostly compiled decades after his existence, if he did indeed exist. Very scant contemporary evidence of it being so. Irrespective, the "bible" was chopped and edited with vast elements removed. You can, of course, lead a healthy, meaningful life, assisting others without the emotional blackmail of getting into some kind of heaven. But what would be the fun in that? 
That's OK thanks, I've encountered those misunderstandings many times before. I haven't time for a debate, but you could start here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
And https://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm
Have a good Friday 

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
Martine Croxall recently while doing a News segment about heat related deaths , was prompted to say "pregnant people" but swiftly changed it to "women" ..
As Christian women how do you feel that we should deal with this kind of situation ??
Kudos to her for her bravery and for stating facts whilst reporting the news. From a Christian perspective I think it's a tad more complicated ....On the one hand, we know that we aren't just male and female highly evolved animals, we've been designed by an infinitely wise loving Creator, so we should support His design (and have compassion for women who are harmed by such things as erasing the word "woman" etc).
But I think there's also a risk of (ie, I see some people) getting slightly too caught up with this issue. That women are the half of humanity who can, sometimes, carry babies and give birth is *not* The Gospel, and yet some "Christian" groups want to spend all their time moaning about the trans movement. The Gospel is that Jesus offers anyone who chooses to truly repent and turn to Him eternal life, *that's* what we need to be telling our world. Much of the public already agrees that only women can have babies etc, but they don't know God. Additionally, we need to keep in mind compassion for those who are confused, and avoid aligning with those who are hateful.
 
 
For frick's sake. Slam him instead over hoarding $billions whilst there are human beings in our world who are literally starving,
(NB though he^ can do so much more, we ourselves can make an impact for several of the world's poorest people, since each £ makes far more impact for them than it can make here, cancelling an Amazon subscription could buy hundreds of meals)
 
 
Yaweh doesn't support all of Israel's actions. People should revisit what the Bible actually says.
And ultimately, the point of the Bible is to point us towards Jesus, He gives us the clearest guidance about how to behave (including that we should love our "neighbours" - people from elsewhere)
Yahweh literally commanded this destruction in the Bible , men, woman, children… all for clearing out the “promised land” for the chosen people. It’s very clear and in context…. And it is pointed to and referenced by allot of people in Israel and the US. And the New Testament doesn’t refute that. In fact it says “every jot and tiddle must be followed 
The situations in the OT are very specific, God is wiping out tribes in which rape, infanticide and torture are normalised, reducing future suffering.
It's Jesus' teachings that show most clearly - outside of the nuances of specific situations - how God wants us to treat others.
(The jots and tittles are those of *law*, not the OT's historical records)
 
 
Most important is whether a person chooses to genuinely turn to Jesus in repentance and follow Him. Our (British) values derive from Jesus' teachings, having been widely believed here in the past - but our country has been gradually abandoning Him over the last century, and changes such as this evil bill RE abortion are demonstrative of that - though the biggest tragedy of all is people not knowing Jesus, as opposed to society (which isn't eternal as life with Him is) falling apart.
 

(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
We put dogs out of their misery if someone wishes to not suffer i think we should have the compassion to help them stop suffering
I personally feel if I can't fathom someone making a choice then I should firstly, pray for them and acknowledge it's not my life or choice and secondly, be grateful that God has never put me in a situation whereby I need to make those choices.
Sometimes people make hard choices and criminalising them for it just adds to the stigma.
We are not dogs.
Some things, such as murder, should be criminalised. It's not compassionate to have no justice system.
when my mum was dying of cancer she was begging for her pain to stop she's been a Christian her entire life and she was begging us to help her she was terminal and there was nothing we could other than watch her in pain If Someone is going to die and there's nothing more to be done medically they should have the right to die with dignity  I'm so, so sorry about your Mum.
(And apologies if there was any misunderstanding, it's late-term abortion (when there's no medical reason) that I was referring to when I said that some things should be criminalised)
In saying that we aren't dogs, I was probably being too blunt, but my point was that we have an entirely different dimension of thought and value.
Because - unlike dogs - we can feel that we're a burden. Having personally often felt that I shouldn't be alive, as well as that I MUST do certain things once they become possible even if I don't want to (things aren't as simple as having "choice"). I'm extremely worried that other people will feel compelled to end their lives now that this bill is coming in (and feel painfully guilty until they do). I'm so, so blessed to have supportive family, and to know that God can have a purpose for life even whilst I feel unworthy, but there are many people who aren't so privileged - and in places where Assisted Dying already exists, more people end their lives because of feeling like a burden than because of pain (though the doctors I've spoken to about this have also said that improving palliative care means few people need to be in pain at the ends of their lives).
Also, we aren't dogs in that we're created in God's image to have a relationship with Him. The end of a dog's life (though sad, obviously) is insignificant as compared to the end of a human life. Some people, amidst the weakness at the end of life, turn to God and find eternal life.
 

The UK and its NATO allies have agreed to increase spending on defence and related areas to 5% of GDP by 2035 
That the government has already cut Aid to spend on "defence" is truly evil.
What are we "defending" if "British values" allow for denying food for starving people, or reducing access to infant vaccinations? Aid can make many times more impact per £ than other spending, and cutting it is making the world more unstable.
 
 
Many people are unaware that there are actually rational reasons for concluding Christianity to be *true*, and resent unChristlike behaviour by some people who call themselves "Christian" (though this is not a logical reason to ignore Christ Himself) 
 
 
At least the Water companies etc have been receiving some criticism - banks and corporations that are grossly exploiting the Global South are ignored. How often do we hear about vulture funds stealing from some of the world's poorest countries? Or the brutal extraction of natural resources from Africa? 
 
 
Evil as Iran's leadership is, if Trump and the leadership in Israel think that Yaweh (God) will support them whatever they do, they really need to revisit His word.
 
 
"Go forth and multiply" was a command given to Adam and Eve, it's not repeated elsewhere in the Bible, and now the population is 8 billion. God's commands to us are to help the poor - such as those in nations so impoverished that women lack maternal healthcare and children are stunted by malnutrition - and to share The Gospel. Having babies is a blessing and privilege (one that some people long for and don't receive - for them, headlines like this^ are grossly insensitive), not a duty. 
We should recognise this article and author as attempting (invalidly) to 'Christianise' the Project 2025 political agenda - one aspect of which is to increase the population of 'x country first' for nationalist reasons. We should not be seeing this stuff as 'Christian' in the slightest - and anyone in any doubt can now see what the absolutely value free, ego driven regime in the US has been for the past few months. We should reject vociferously the idea this stuff is 'Christian'.
Generally, if anything, the world could do with less people, rather than more. There is some terrible theology out there re early genesis - evidenced in this article - which is obviously off beam once we do very basic context and language analysis. So 'go forth and multiply' relates to a world with not very many people in it!!
We should recognise the really poor situation with hardline nationalism being vile to incomers yet promoting birth rates for nationals. That is outright morally repugnant. If you need more people, accept immigrants - noting many of those are Christians - and indeed the UK church has been strengthened significantly by Christians from other countries at a time it needed some help!
I don't know to what extent Miriam Cates personally supports the concerning ideology (to which I think you're alluding?) of those pro-natalists who seem motivated by a desire for there tot be more white people, but indeed this movement is a huge concern and wholly unChristian (and yes this article may be bolstering it inadvertently). At the very least, she is indeed entirely missing the point of what God calls us to. And her urging of mothers to stay at home really irks me - most don't have that option.
And obviously, rather than saying "Christians should go forth and multiply", she should be thrilled by the Christian faith of so many who are coming here from elsewhere.
 
 
We - the West - have benefitted from the extraction of wealth that's contributed to this instability (though some Middle Eastern states and Russia are now fuelling it). We aren't *personally to blame*, we didn't ourselves decide that Western leaders and corporations should exploit Africa - but we have a responsibility to care (and perhaps donate), I hate how our media and politicians essentially ignore people facing such horrendous situations 
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
I'm not Catholic, but I've been extremely concerned about this for a while - and it's barely ever discussed. Unjust and stupendously high interest debt means that the world's poorest countries are being horrendously exploited - and numerous Biblical teachings oppose this injustice.
Various social justice groups have been trying to get countries to cancel the debt for at least the 30 years I’ve been involved with them. The Vatican had a similar theme for the millennial Jubillee. But social justice is apparently a dirty word for a certain kind of Christian 
Indeed. The millennial Jubilee rightly got attention, and it made an impact - but our society seems not to care now. And I constantly (when I raise Global poverty online) have people bang on about Band Aid - ie, "we've done our bit, and it didn't work", lazy and ignorant of the realities that Global poverty has been reduced but that there's still more wealth being extracted from impoverished countries than is given in Aid. 
 
 
Indeed, and contrary to what some presume, it's not due to immigration. We (white Brits) are abandoning values that previously supported a positive society. 
that's because mass migration has destroyed social cohesion
No, it isn't. The presence of people from elsewhere doesn't compel us to be selfish rather than self sacrificing, or to fundamentally disregard what we believed previously about deep metaphysical questions. 
 
 
I realised over the years how much VeggieTales had nudged my developing brain to aim at positive values - kids media can have a huge impact on the young mind, and increasingly kids are surrounded by useless content rather than programmes which will help them and the society they're part of. These^cuts will have ripple effects for decades. 
 
 
2 Timothy 3:1-9 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" Repent of your self worship, your pride, your arrogance, your self righteousness and accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, he who sacrificed self to save us
I agree that we all need to repent, and that society is a mess as scripture warns, anxiety about body shape is not as simple as "self worship, pride" etc. And you're only going to deter people from finding out more about Christianity by writing like this.
Please take a moment to reflect on your own self-righteousness and pride.
the word of God does deter some people from Christianity and it convicts others, it convicted me and showed me that I have no self righteousness.  
"the word of God does deter some people from Christianity"? I wasn't referring to the word of God, I was referring to your words. And that God's word is good and right doesn't mean that you can pull any part of it out of context in an attempt to back up your personal, uninformed opinion.
"showed me that I have no self righteousness"? That's hilarious.
 
 
How is it "Christian"? Nationalists are not following Christ.
Christian Nationalism is a "movement" not a Christian religion. They believe that America should be Christian only.....so, sad 
Indeed - my point is that they are, by definition, not Christian - calling oneself something doesn't mean that one is that thing, like Trump calling himself a genius.
Jesus (who actively taught against racism in the Parable of the Good Samaritan) died to take the consequence for our sin, and it's our sin that's our enemy - not politics we don't like nor folk from elsewhere. Nationalists and the "Stop the steal" cult are entirely missing the point
 
 
It's awesome that children are safer from the Gender movement than they were - but ending programmes that helped the world's very poorest children means Trump has doomed many children to death. 
 
 
I'm pretty sure that the events add to the hatefulness that exists towards LGB/T folk. Those who are disdainful look at the parades and see them as evidence of a supposed take over, as well as resenting some of the flesh exposure. 
 
 
Trump is doing so many evil things - keeping biological males out of female sport is not one of them. Give more attention to how his killing of USAID is costing lives (unless you think sport and self ID are more important than human beings in the world's poorest communities?)
NB - I mean no disrespect to trans folk
 
 
This is not news - and you're contributing to how she'll struggle long term with having grown up under the microscope and fed the lie that beauty and attention are what matter. If she develops mental health issues, you'll be partially responsible, Mirror.
You're also encouraging the pervy men who follow this page to stare at a teenager.
sadly she only has this sort of look to sell. 
Indeed, but she shouldn't be trying to sell anything, but all of her life our tabloid industry has been sending the message that posing for cameras is how to earn money and attention. I don't know whether her other should be blamed also, or seen as a victim - maybe both - but for Princess, having been *born* into this mess, there's plainly exploitation going on. 
 
 
MPs voted to decriminalise abortion 
This is evil. How can you possibly support allowing women to kill babies? And they *are* babies past 24 weeks (I would not use the phrase for all abortions). Why should we be allowed to "choose" to kill a small human? Why don't you think that a human baby has rights? 
Because a fetus is not a baby. Babies only acquire rights once they can survive independently of the mother. The limit has not been removed by the way. What has changed is that abortion is no longer a criminal act. It is not evil - the mother has a natural right to decide if the environmental conditions are suitable for raising a healthy child. This is in the interests of the mother (whose life takes precedence over that of her offspring in the natural world) but it is also in the future interests of her children, who need the right environmental conditions to survive and thrive. Sentimentality and religion should never play any part in the fundamental right of mothers to choose when to give birth to offspring. What is evil is to take away this natural right. 
Foetus simply means offspring in Latin. Past 24 weeks, it's a premature baby. Other premature babies are rightly earnestly kept alive. They have functioning brains, they are human beings. On what basis do you think that killing is not evil, and that opposing it is?
It's not a matter of the woman's life taking precedence, we aren't talking about cases of the woman's life being at risk (in which case abortion was already allowed)
 
It is only turns into a baby after birth. 
Where's the science in that? It sounds like magic "turns into" 
1 in 475 pregnancies go unnoticed until at least week 20. That only gives someone 4 weeks to decide a life changing event. 
If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, adoption is available. 
Waaaaa. Sounds like you should have been aborted 
 
 
Whilst it's plainly the case that some governments can be tyrannical and use surveillance for nefarious motives, we shouldn’t be overly anxious about this. I see some Christians who are obsessive opposed to government, but our ultimate enemy is sin, including that in our own heart - Jesus has the victory and God's plans won't be hampered by governments.
A lack of privacy could serve to remind us to be careful with our words at a time when social media can lure us into hasty and unChristlike argumentative comments.
Surveillance is likely to be an increasing concern, but right now we should utilise the freedom we have to share The Gospel, and support (through prayer and through Christian anti-persecution charities) those in parts of our world where Christians aren't so privileged.
 
  

"Resists"?
yes that's what it's called when a subjugated people fight back against their oppressors 
That isn't what happened. 
that's what's been happening for decades
"Resists" has been happening for decades?
On October the 7th Hamas attacked innocent people, not oppressors. If they'd attacked soldiers or politicians, your initial comment might have made some sense.
every Israeli is a soldier, a former soldier, or a future soldier, they have mandatory military service even for women. Are some people under the impression that this conflict started with the oct.7 attack? What an adorable ignorance of history you have 
So if it's mandatory, why are you blaming them? Hamas attacking civilians is not fighting "oppressors", it's murderous racism.
It's funny how you're defending rape and child murder but presumably think that you're on the side of morality.
 
 
It'd be awesome if the Iranian leadership, which so oppresses innocent Iranians, were defeated - but some Israeli leaders assert that God is on their side as they seek more and more dominance in the region, and in fact they're ignoring God's commands (I'm well aware that most Westerners don't believe in God anyway, you don't need to tell me)
 
 
I wonder if the people saying "LEGAL immigrants!" think that the Europeans who migrated to establish America in the first place had egal permission from the existing residents(?)
 
 
It had been the case, for several generations, that more and more people resented unChristlike behaviour amongst some who called themselves "Christians", presumed Christianity to be myth and thus disregarded it. Increasingly, there are people discovering that there's in fact a rational case for concluding God's existence, and Jesus' resurrection, to be realties, as unfathomable as that seems - and people are finding that turning to Him can give inner peace in the midst of our mad world.
 
 
I think it's peculiar that our culture doesn't tend to explore what happens beyond death. What if Jesus's message is true, and demonstrated by an actual event? https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection
 
 
The Conservative Party leader appears determined to search for voters that don't actually exist
The Tories emailed today wishing "Happy British Beer Day" - so much for conservatism supporting The Family, on Father's Day they choose to claim that the day is about booze

 
Putting wealthy celebrities on pedestals isn't helpful
Many Honours are given for luck in sports etc, which there are already trophies for and which don't "make Britain a better place" at all as much as unglamorous workers helping the sick, teaching children, cleaning the streets, manufacturing things we need etc etc.
 
 
I just wish some of the other crises in our world could have some attention too. Everyone is already aware of Gaza (as they should be), but the world's biggest current humanitarian crisis, where people who happen to have more melanin are facing genocidally motivated brutality and starvation, gets no attention. 
 
 
Reddit 
I was raised Christian and still consider myself to be Christian today. I understand the teachings of the Bible but I've never been able to fully wrap my head around Jesus. I believe Jesus existed. I believe he was a prophet. I need help understanding why he was the son of God, why he needed to be a sacrifice, what was his sacrifice, etc. Why did Jesus need to be sacrificed if God could just allow people to go to heaven? What exactly did Jesus sacrifice if he rose from the grave and went to heaven? Wouldn't it only be a sacrifice if he spent an eternity in hell?  
It's awesome that you're exploring!
Though some of these things are debated by theologians since they're beyond our experience of life/nature and thus difficult to get our heads around or put into words.
Jesus endured suffering unimaginably beyond anything we could fathom, unbound by the Earthly constraints of our experiences (hypothetically even time),  since it was a spiritual experience of our sin being placed upon Him (not a physical execution alone).
But for me personally, what's most significant is that there's a good case for concluding that He actually rose (I only came to believe this after reading extensively, esp the book Who Moved The Stone, but here are a few points https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection), therefore I can trust what He said about defeating death/eternal life even whilst it's hard to comprehend.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group) 
Hello ladies, this week is sports week at my wee ones school. Yesterday they did yoga. Iv heard as Christians we should not do this. After reading I really feel strongly about this. Am I over reacting? Any opinions? 
The school should not do this, and no one should choose to do yoga. (If your kids can opt out, or just sit and not do the poses, that would be ideal) But as a school activity that kids are tasked with participating in, I wouldn't worry too much. Your kids aren't taking part because of a choice to turn from God towards other spiritualities, which is the ultimate issue with yoga. And they aren't going to be captured by some magical force and separated from God's power and love by a lesson.
Maybe USE it as an opportunity to talk with your kids and pray with them against the spiritual confusion in our world? HE made their bodies, if they do a pose with the arms and legs that HE made and in a school lesson and pray to Him, how could anything hurt them
 
 
What do they think that will achieve?
If we're actually trying to follow Jesus, what should matter to us is pointing other people towards Him, not their relationships.
Why would we expect people who don't know God to follow His guidance RE sex and marriage? And why would we think this matters as compared to whether or not they find the eternal life that Jesus offers?
God loves humanity and has ultimate wisdom, so he's not given guidance out of disdain for those with same sex attraction, He loves them - but it's not our job as Christians to control other people's behaviour.
 
 
In certain parts of the Global South there are workers labouring in brutal conditions (for long hours, paid a pittance) providing things that we get to enjoy (such as by mining minerals for our tech, harvesting cocoa beans, etc) - yet they're barely ever discussed.
 
 
Muppets. How does rioting help? They're just leaving police with even less time to address sexual assaults, and damaging the property of innocent people
 
 
"Not Christian"? Sure it's not, Christianity means personally choosing to follow Christ, and most Westerners aren't interested (presuming it to be mythology without studying the academic arguments). But if it were, that wouldn't be a reason to call people "illegals" quite the opposite.
The migrants entering the US are generally more Christian than the US population itself.
 
 
She's cut Overseas Aid, which will cause unfathomable suffering (and make far more impact, £ for £, than any UK spending/cuts) - because apparently there's no money.
But she somehow has money to help pay - in no small part, for fossil fuel corporations - to warm up the 10 million spare rooms the over 65s have.
(I am, obviously, not suggesting that all over 65s are rich or that there shouldn't be winter fuel subsidies for some)
 
 
Racial preferencing in university admissions “long ago became glaringly unfair in practice,” 
Here in the UK, students from non-white backgrounds are pulling ahead of white students, since (on average) they're more determined.
In the least privileged, least white parts of our world, children and young people are absolutely eager to learn and take up careers that help society - yet they lack opportunities.
 
 
Awesome - but in many parts of our world, girls are still seriously disadvantaged. I highly recommend sponsoring, it's amazing how much impact we can make for very little cost when we facilitate a girl's education  
 
 
Seriously guys, the melanin levels of future generations are not going to hurt you.
NB everyone is *replaced*, we die and more human beings are born.
 
 
If she and others like her rightly want to say "NO" regarding human suffering, why is it only Gazans who matter to them and not also others in our world who are suffering beyond comprehension? She could use her platform to raise awareness of those suffering amidst war and famine who, unlike Palestinians, are being ignored. 
think I'd rather be ignored than starved. Maybe that's just me
You think that Gaza is the only crisis in our world right now in which people are starving? Why are you choosing to *ignore* others? 
because Starmer and his Tory friends are continuing to supply weapons to the evil Butcher Benjamin Netenyahu and his Nazi government 
Right, so you've demonstrated my point. I asked why starving human beings are ignored, and you replied by showing how much you hate politicians (FTR, I'm disgusted with Starmer too, and obviously I'm against weapons). So the movement to support Palestine is not primarily about humanitarianism.
We shouldn't only care about, raise awareness of and donate towards people who are suffering if their situation is connected to our government, human beings deserve our compassion either way. But FTR, the suffering in Sudan and other parts of Africa IS significantly connected to our country.
I agree with you. And nobody should be ignored. So if you want to protest against the Sudanese government nobody should be allowed to stop you. Likewise if I want to protest against the Nazi government in Israel then I should also be allowed to do so 
I didn't say that you can't protest (though I'm afraid I'm not sure many protests have an impact). I wondered why Dawn French and others only give attention to one group of suffering people in our world. If she and others used their platforms to raise awareness of those suffering in Sudan, Congo, etc, there'd be more donations and more pressure on politicians to act, it would save lives. Our government cutting Aid will cause more suffering and death than its weapon sales, but hardly anyone is talking about it. 


I popped in yesterday, having stopped going often since the discount section ceased to offer significant reductions. I was reminded that it's not worth going. Some of us don't buy ourselves such expensive food - meanwhile the CoOp near me had a tonne of ham about to go off which was plainly not going to sell having barely been reduced (that's a lot of wasted protein and carbon) 
  
There are human beings in our world who are literally starving to death. Being wealthy enough to go on holiday and then complaining like this is not rational. 
 
 
On average, older people have more wealth than younger generations, it makes no sense to pay all members of an age group that's already richer rather than targeting those within the age group who are actually in need.
PS, over-65s have 10million spare bedrooms, clearly there are far more sensible ways the government could be helping retirees than fuel payments for all.
 
 
The historicity of the texts of the Bible is largely unknown to much of the public. People mistakenly think that the Bible is myth and/or has been repeatedly altered. 
Nobody knows whether the texts are accurate or not, scrolls such as these may be recording myths. The alterations arise from differences in translation and interpretation completed over the centuries. Exactly the same with the Quran 
Textual analysis shows that the texts aren't written as myth (though the beginning of Genesis is allegory/poetry, not literal), and other history supports key events. There's a lot more to write about all of this, but I don't have time for a back-and-forth. Have a nice day 
 
 
She's right. Often when the word "poverty" is used it's referring to *relative* poverty, which is based on average UK income - but elsewhere in our world there are people in *extreme* poverty, who are literally starving (no food banks), and Reeves has slashed Aid to them, even though it can make many times more impact than money spent here 
 
 
Why this situation, and not one of the others in which people are starving and which is receiving far less attention? Other conflicts, and climate change, are contributing to starvation, and unlike Palestine, those crises are overlooked, she could make a real difference.
Obviously, I desperately want for Gazans to receive Aid, I just don't understand why other hungry war victims in our world (such as in Sudan) are being ignored(?)
 
 
My concern is that the musical itself might, even subconsciously, buttress people's mistaken idea that Jesus is a fictional character. But we might be able to use the public conversation about the show to tell people about Him. 
 
 
Hawksmoor restaurant asked Tommy Robinson to leave - because others felt uncomfortable 
The far Right complains that they're terribly deprived and oppressed - that they feel 1 man not having the option of 1 restaurant chain is *such* a catastrophe (see Twitter - or, rather, don't) belies their victim narrative. Snowflakes, eh?
Some of us (us as in Brits, ofc, not the far Right) never eat out (or go to cafés, or get takeaways, etc) at all without moaning, and we're all immensely privileged to be able to buy food we like from supermarkets, much of humanity could only dream of this, and some are literally starving to death.
 
 
I don't understand why there's money for this, and for weapons, but the Aid budget - which can help the world's very most disadvantaged people - has been slashed. Aid can make many times more impact, £for£ to reduce human suffering and enable progress, than money spent here.
And why not instead help older people by improving insulation and supporting downsizing? (over 65s have 10 million empty bedrooms, adding to heating bills)
because we care more about our grannies than people in other countries. Of you don’t understand that, you cannot be helped
If people cared about grannies our society wouldn't have them living alone where many are lonely and they're at increased risk of declining health (exacerbated by loneliness), falls, scams and more.
But no one's stopping you helping *your* Granny, what makes no logical sense is why you think that a human being in another country matters so much less than a human being here (who are *both* unknown and unrelated to you), when each £ can make far more impact for the former.
well that’s the goalposts moved. My granny is dead but I’d sooner that other peoples’ grannies got some benefits than some corrupt overseas quango any day of any week. 
I never suggested giving money to corrupt overseas quangos. 
well that’s where it goes. I want my tax to pay for what happens here. The state of our services is all I care about. Feel free to donate to CARE international from your disposable income 
"well that's where it goes"? How much? According to what source?
I'm well aware that *some* Aid isn't well spent, and that needs addressing - plenty of spending within the UK is also wrong, not least giving winter fuel payments to wealthy people, and pensioners are (on average) wealthier than the rest of the population of our wealthy country.
But instead of fixing the fractions of Aid that aren't well spent, cuts are being made that include essential help for vulnerable girls.
 
 
Water Sector Failing 
There are people in our world who don't have clean drinking water, and who have to walk for hours to access the water they can. So we're privileged (and we can make an amazing impact for those who aren't).
But it's outrageous that our water infrastructure has been so mismanaged, and particularly that private companies have been allowed to own it.
 
 
Absolutely.
PS whilst we have next to nothing as compared to billionaires, we're incredibly rich as compared to much of humanity, we can make a difference for some of those in our world who are the very poorest. The cost of a takeaway could sponsor a child for a month, for instance, and being sponsored transforms a child's future.
 
 
Indeed it's a right (and should be nationalised), so why don't we talk more the fact that some people in our world are forced to walk for hours and drink dirty water?
 
 
As a fellow Aspergian, I wish I could have urged Musk and Cummings not to try to compensate for our social awkwardness by supporting big personalities into power.
 
 
A man who mocks women wants to oppose our legal status
Drag Kings exist to who mock men, get over yourself, seriously.
That's sheer whataboutism. When you say "get over yourself", I take it you mean that women should just be quiet?
oh lord get a grip a drag queen or king is entertainment that’s all not mocking anything. Your whole page is you whining about Jesus, most lgbtq peoples pages isn’t constantly about drag or pride it’s normal life. Stop pushing your views on to us like you complain us doing to you.
Why do you feel that commenting on a public page is "pushing [my] views onto you"?
What does the balance of content on personal timelines have to do with this?
Many things on my timeline are in fact about Global poverty, but I don't post to it often - and the reason I post about Jesus is that I desperately want for people not to miss out on what He offers, why wouldn't I?
 
 
IMO what's frustrating is that the musical itself is likely reinforcing, in some people's minds, the weirdly common misconception that Jesus was fictional.
MAGA should study Jesus themselves (and see that His teachings are opposed to their ideology) rather than being hateful.
 
 
Well of course Musk would say that, but why would anyone believe him? He's been lying about USAID for months https://www.factcheck.org/.../sorting-out-the-facts-on.../
Of course waste should be tackled, but the reality is that Aid also does monumental good (incredibly cost effectively, $ for $), and now millions of human beings will die.
 
 
The government is making the world less safe by transferring (Aid) money that could be spent (amazingly cosy effectively, £ for £) on helping the world's very most disadvantaged people to profiteering arms companies that waste vast £amounts and pay out dividends to shareholders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/09/uk-wastes-billions-defence-firms-investors-taxpayer-weapons
 
 
Blocking of the boat is outrageous.
But why this situation, and not one of the others in which people are starving and which is receiving far less attention? Other conflicts, and climate change, are contributing to starvation, and unlike Palestine, those crises are overlooked, she could make a real difference.
Obviously, I desperately want for Gazans to receive Aid, I just don't understand why other hungry war victims in our world (such as in Sudan) are being ignored(?)
what have you done for anyone ? Any child eh Christian - what part of Gods commandments allow killing theft starvation?
Do tell
Why should I list all my donations and advocacy here? 
just list the commandments you adhere to ? Utter hypocrisy
Sorry what? That makes no sense in the context of this thread. 
you are a Christian - so let’s see how “Christian” you are - starving kids - no Starving parents - no
No housing - not interested No hospitals - not interested No water - no infrastructure- no schools- no university.
…..but Sudan???
Commandments Kill Steal  Covet
There - I got you started “Christian”
Explain how in Gods creation - you think you are a Christian with such a lack of compassion?
"Not interested"? What? You don't know me, you're just imagining that I'm not interested.
I'm constantly concerned about people in severe poverty.
no - you dismissed Gaza. Saying other crisis are overlooked - 20000 dead kids at least.
Same amount of mothers - some Christian. Try another virtue signalling effort.
I didn't dismiss it. I was simply trying to raise awareness of human beings who are also suffering yet, by contrast, are being overlooked. 
you mean like Lebanon Israel USSyria Israel U.S. Yemen Israel US Iran Israel US Gaza  West Bank Israel US?It’s the same disease
I'm well aware that some governments are evil, but my concern is that we should be raising awareness and support for people who are suffering, not merely hating politicians. I'd so love for those who have a platform and audience (like Greta) to remind people of human beings who we could help, I'm donating and advocating as I'm able but I'm pretty useless myself, no one's listening to me. 
 
 
I agree that the BBC should show far more about humanitarian appeals. But why don't we talk more about them? The biggest humanitarian crisis ATM is in Sudan, and it's essentially never mentioned, in spite of the reality that each £ we give could buy multiple meals for people dying of starvation.
classic whatoboutism 
No, not classic. Classic whataboutism is mentioning something else because of not wanting the original topic to be discussed - by contrast the reason I bring up Sudan is that I'm horribly concerned about it and it's not getting attention. Can you not fathom wanting those suffering people to be given some consideration?
 
there are desperate humanitarian situations that are unsolvable, because they're due to climate change. I suspect Sudan is one such.
There are other situations driven by ethnic cleansing, super-Nazi style.
Its especially obvious in the case of Palestine - which is exactly equivalent to California and Florida - the land being stolen is worth 100s of $billions, possibly a $trillion or more.
You're proving my point. People *don't know* about what's going on in Sudan, it's as though people think that only Gazans matter and human beings with more melanin can be ignored.
You're right that climate change is a factor in various conflicts, though that doesn't mean that we shouldn't support the victims.
I am not proving your point - there are sad accidents (and we can only examine and avoid what caused them) and there is profitable crime which will be likely repeated bigger and bigger by the same people unless we stop them.
Sudan is in the first category (though we're ignoring the lessons because there's nothing we can do) and Palestine is in the second.
Sudan may be repeated in other places into which the Sahara is expanding - nothing can (currently?) be done to stop it expanding.
However, Palestine is a blazing fire which will Holocaust 6 million (may have got there already, if we count all those dying in camps) then 60 million then 600 million (40% of all the Muslims in the world).
You are proving my point - why do you think that the war in Sudan is merely "an accident"? And even if it were, why should the cause mean that we disregard the victims rather than calling for Aid?
No, it's not an "accident", it's war (as is the situation in Israel/Gaza), and it's connected both to a history of colonialism (including by our country) and to violent racism by some people of Arab heritage against people of Black heritage.
(I really don't understand your comments RE numbers of Palestinians, the death toll is utterly horrific it's no where near 6 million - and there *aren't* 6 million Palestinians, let alone 600 million)
I stand by what I've said - Sudan is probably natural, herdsman from the margins of an expanding Sahara (armed from Gaddafi's vast armoury broken open by us) who have been forced to encroach on the lands of the struggling and near-starving farmers of land becoming marginal.
If I'm right, there is no solution to Sudan.
Now, there is another possibility - the situation in Sudan could have been caused by mining companies (arming local criminals to depopulate an area and dig it up).
That's a crime we can never expose or stop. Its a complete waste of time to attempt even to expose it, it's far beyond our ability to stop it.
Of course, to see sense you must also recognise the migration is an evil and those luckiest to live on still-productive land must fight to stop it being over-run.
If you're not prepared to accept what I've said about migration then you're not only useless in politics but could be a real danger to your neighbourhood.
The situation in Palestine is quite different - pure robbery. That is something we could and should stop.
PS - if you count the number of Palestinians who have died in displacement/concentration camps then the number probably approaches 6 million. Could already be more than that.
If you refuse to accept what I'm saying then you're in denial that Anne Frank is a victim of the Holocaust.
Think about it - Anne Frank died (exclusively as best we know) from a) deliberate displacement b) non-deliberate neglect and c) non-deliberate starvation.
Palestinians have died (in many millions) from the same thing.
"the number is probably" according to which source? And what does that have to do with the 600 million stat you gave? Ultimately you're making things up rather tan observing reality - it's amazing to me that you're straightforwardly denying the realities of the situation in Sudan, and also asserting that if people's suffering is connected to climate change we shouldn't bother giving them Aid. You exploit Anne Frank's name (no, I'm not "denying that she's a victim of the Holocaust") because she's a victim of a genocide, meanwhile you're denying a current genocide.
why have you deleted at least two, possibly three of your own postings above?
I'd not previously looked into Sudan - but I see that the Wikipedia calls it genocide - but then explains it in exactly the same as I've done.
>> "Throughout the history of the Darfur region, a combination of environmental, economic, and social factors contributed to the escalating tension that eventually resulted in the 2003 genocide. The region, home to six million people and numerous ethnic groups, historically contained two main communities with differing lifestyles and territorial claims.[3] One group identified as Black Africans and primarily practiced sedentary agriculture, while the other identified as Arabs and tended to lead semi-nomadic, livestock-based livelihoods. Both categories include numerous sub-groups and have interacted for centuries through trade and shared governance structures.[4]
>> "Environmental changes in Darfur during the 1970s led to periods of severe drought and desertification. Many scholars consider the violence in Darfur to be the result of the region being one of the first "climate change conflicts" given the rising tensions over land and water resources between ethnic groups.[5] As fertile land became more scarce, disputes between the herding and farming communities increased. especially when traditional systems for managing land access and migration routes became strained.[6]
I haven't deleted any of my comments. Are you unfamiliar with Facebook doing this? Sometimes changing the setting to "All comments" from "Most relevant" resolves it, though not always.
"but then explains it in exactly the same as I've done"? No, you've been denying that it's genocide, insisting it's only about environmental changes and that because of this you don't think the victims should be discussed and helped. As I wrote - acknowledging that climate change is contributing to wars - it's a conflict linked to history and racism. And again, whatever the roots, the suffering human beings deserve Aid - just much as Palestinians.
 
the one and only reason you will ever hear about sudan in western media of any kind is zionists trying to do whataboutery to discredit the palestinian cause
if i didn't know better, the wording you've chosen here would lead me to believe you're doing the same
you're absolutely right that more should be done. but you asked why nobody seems to talk about it at all, and that's why
Why on Earth do you think that I or anyone else wouldn't want to talk about Sudan other than to discredit the Palestinians cause? Why can't you fathom I or someone else caring about the people suffering in Sudan? Why do you think about "the Palestinian cause" and not other causes? 

I have heard it on BBC World service but hardly on radio 4
It constantly annoys me that the BBC don't present their coverage of the biggest crises to their biggest audiences. Their main TV news programmes almost never discuss crises in the Global South, but they give plenty of time to treating British crimes like soap opera storylines or to football.
 
 
Metro, I really think that you're making things worse for LGB/T folk. Then again you are connected to the Daily Fail, so I guess it's deliberate. 
Genuinely interested to know what makes you say that, given that Metro very frequently writes about "LGB/T folk"(sic). Didn't know they were connected to the Daily, though.
I think (actually I'm completely certain) that the frequency with which they write about it, and the attitudes of some of the writers, is contributing to many people who didn't really care either way feeling irritated and in turn becoming (albeit irrationally and inexcusably) hostile towards LGB/T people. I encounter so many people who say things like "I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms, but they should stop shoving it in our faces", and Right wing politicians and journalists mocking LGB/T folk by referencing things like Metro's content.
(Arguably, it's also just promoting people being divided/segregated)
Metro just wants attention - ie money - and doesn't care if LGB/T folk are bullied by idiots who see Metro's constant coverage and react to it with anger as though they're being imposed upon.
 
 
I find it interesting that protesters against abortion restrictions like dressing up as Handmaids. In The Handmaid's Tale, women aren't only having babies that they wouldn't choose to, they're also in servitude, and they're continually raped, thus suggesting that having restrictions on abortion means being a Handmaid implies that servitude and rape are of no significance.
 
 
The job we have as Christians is to point people towards Jesus, trying to put posters of the 10 Commandments up isn't going to achieve anything. Each individual must ultimately decide for themselves what they believe (and many mistakenly think that Christianity is based on myth and power lust)
it was created to control foolish people who are scared of death, every religion is the same, simply a way to control people and make them do what you want.
No, Christianity is fundamentally different from other "religions", and it's not about controlling people because it's about following Jesus, not a priest.
 
it was created to enforce a patriarchy, in pagan days women were leaders and worshipped.
Christianity? Created to enforce patriarchy? No. The first witnesses of Jesus after His resurrection were women, women are fundamental. That many sexist men have misappropriated it doesn't change the facts about Jesus.
Try harder... Jesus was sexist as hell. Or he was gay. Twelve apostles and not a single woman to write à Gospel? You can be sure he was more than just friends with his buddies.
No, in His culture it would have been seen as suspicious to make women apostles - but there were women who followed Him, and He engaged with women even when others disapproved.
NB why should I "try harder"? I have things to do with my time other than argue on Facebook.
of course you'd make up something to gloss over the removal of the matriarchal society  be oppressed harder. 
Sorry, what do you think I made up?
well as the whole Christian religion was made up. Let's just go with the whole oh women are important in the religion... You're not you are worth 50shekles if you are spoiled and only to the rapist or you'll be stoned to death
You seem to be referring to a misinterpretation of a part of the OT, which isn't what Christianity is.
honestly please hear me through the indoctrination they probably did to you as a child, start questioning absolutely every! They tried to get me to believe until age 11 but even as a child I saw what lies it was, how damaging it is to society. Please just try to look for other ways
I don't believe because of anything I was told as a child. I realised, in studying science, that there must be a Designer (God), and later studied the accounts of Jesus' resurrection and concluded that it happened. And no, people following Him is not "damaging to society", it's contributed to innumerable charitable initiatives and positive social movements (including the abolition of the slave trade and so much more).
In Jesus' time, He argued with people who pretended to be "religious" as a way to justify themselves and to assert dominance whilst they were actually trying to follow God - the same thing has been going on throughout history, it doesn't change the facts about Jesus.
 
 
What matters is Jesus - will this move people closer to Him? I think that for some people it will - but there's always a risk, for anyone, of being moved by the music alone and not setting our hearts on God. We are called to share The Gospel, we should utilise appearances of Christianity in popular culture, not let such phenomena make us complacent.
 
 
There are also other victims of horrific conflict and starvation in our world right now, in addition to those in Gaza - and the government has slashed Overseas Aid. It's hypocritical to (rightly) criticise the suffering of Gazans whilst increasing the suffering of others.
 
 
Had the people who go on about nothing else noticed that fewer people have been coming in? No? So maybe their concerns aren't wholly based on the reality they're living in(?)
 
 
Some "Christians" think that we should always side with Israel - they're theologically (as well as morally) wrong. In the Bible (including parts which are shared with Judaism) God states that the land cannot belong to the people of Israel if they disregard His laws, and His laws include treating those from elsewhere fairly.
Of course, Jesus commands us to love "neighbours" by which He is referring (see the Parable of The Good Samaritan) to people from nations other than our own.
Jewish scholars dispute what the majority believe regarding the land of Israel in the biblical sense. Islam calls Jesus a prophet not the messiah so there is perhaps more in common between Christianity and Islam? I was brought up Christian going to Sunday school but was never really interested in it all and am now buddhist. However I am friends with ppl of many different faiths
Interesting points.
Christianity is about following Christ, who died to take the punishment that our wrongdoing deserves - it's significantly different from Islam in that Islam (in addition to following Muhammed, who lived very differently from Jesus) teaches people reach Paradise through their own actions. We believe that we *can't* earn forgiveness and Heaven, but it's offered through Jesus. Of course all this probably sounds daft, I only came to believe after I'd read deeply on the accounts of Jesus' resurrection (which led me to conclude that He did rise, as much as I can't get my head around it, therefore I can trust what He said about His victory over our sin and death) so I don't expect anyone reading a comment here to believe me (but here's an into from an Oxford professor and former atheist https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection)
 
Free the Nigeria , the Sudan , the Congo , the Ethopia from radical Islamic terrorist . From the year of 2002 , to date , more than 63 000 dead in mass genoside through burning churches and villages , burning peoples alive , beheading , cutting off limbs with mashete, killing the babies and the women with child in womb , killing men and children. Taking the female tenegers for sex. If one don’t bow to the god of radical Islamic terorist , that one will be murdered. No outcry from usa , no outcry from UN, no outcry for Black Africa, no coverage from the media . Only if you are are muslim like in Gaza , there are the outcries and the protests . But nothing for the countries because of Blackness. To Blacks in Africa , we can see Black African Christians have no value in the western churches anymore , only Muslim lives matter .
YES!!! Every day I say this (talking to my family, shouting at the TV news etc) - suffering within parts of Africa (I'm aware that it's very varied, and there are many people who have a good standard of living) is continually ignored, it makes me so angry! I don't understand why some people are so concerned about Gaza but not about the people suffering within Sudan, Congo, parts of Nigeria etc (I do, of course, think that we should be heartbroken and loud about Gaza, but not *only* Gaza)
But please know that many Western *Christians* actually do care, there's a contrast with wider secular Western culture - and God cares.
because it’s African Christian and black African messianic Zionist Jews murdered in Africa . The world loves terrorists and hates Christian’s and Jews . And Africans are too black , these is the truth , these is the way the world looks at Africa . And nobody can put the blame on the Jews in Africa genoside . If it was Mr Netanyahu doing this to us , it would be the world wide news . And these is the truth . The evidence has been right in front of our eyes . Big Media only focuses when it can blame the Jew . But will never ever blame the radical Islamic terroris ts whenit’s killing Africa
I see many people assert, as you say, that the imbalance in coverage is due to the desire to blame Jewish people - and I think that this is part of the issue, but *also*, as you say, many people don't think enough about human beings with the darkest skin. Subconscious racial bias means that even many people who consider themselves anti-racist liberals are predisposed to give more consideration to people whose pigmentation is closer to their own. I'm constantly painfully frustrated about it, I passionately believe that our media, and campaigners (like those who speak and march about Gaza), should massively increase the attention given to the places within Africa where there is suffering.
A few weeks ago, I saw a performance (of singing and dance) by children from a Christian project (which helps orphans and single mothers) in Uganda. I was crying tears of happiness - I saw so clearly (though I already had some idea) of how they persevere in spite of the injustice of our world. They talked about God giving them joy, and they showed such talent sand optimism (that most people here in my country, Britain, don't have). I know that, even whilst my society doesn't care enough about Africa, God is going to keep on doing things there that will matter beyond this llifetime.
 
 
No, in English adding "ness" to the end of a word simply means the state of being of that description. Therefore whiteness is simply a noun referring to the state of being white.
Racism against people of colour is a real issue, attempts to redefine words don't do anything to address it.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
...he identifies as a transgender man. He had an experience with one priest who told him that he could never be loved by God because he’s trans, that he’s going to hell for his sin, whatever it is (we don’t know his full story, but my wild guess is he committed no sin whatsoever)....one comment in particular that I had to respond to, which came from a fellow who stated that one can either be male or female, nothing more. I explained to the fellow that while I absolutely agree that what God originally created you to be is final (a woman who knows she is a woman cannot go out and live like a man, since she’s not created to be a man), at the same time we must also recognize that this world we live in is a broken, imperfect and complex world, and with an imperfect world comes imperfect people. No one has become trans on purpose; maybe what this trans man is going through is due to some biological factors that were beyond his control. In response to my reply, another fellow noted that God is a perfect God, thus He can never make mistakes. That for sure I agree with—- God has created us originally perfect, no flaws whatsoever. Nevertheless, I explained, you do realize that we still have to deal with the reality of this imperfect, post-Adam and Eve world we live in. I was created to see from the womb, but due to certain factors that were beyond my control, I was born blind. Similarly many children have been born with missing limbs, brain chemical imbalances and other physical defects, and God has been using them for His own glory and unique purpose; trans people therefore shouldn’t be an an exception. Now, I can understand that if the case were of a woman—- as in woman for real, who knows God made her woman—- that just joined the group and announced, “I hate my gender. I don’t wanna be a woman anymore. Too many changes in my body, too much expectations to fulfill; I’m transitioning to become a man now”—- then of course it is rightly appropriate to point out to her that yes, she is sinning against God, for she’s purposefully making a decision to live totally opposite what God has created her to be. But in this case of the transgender man in question, this is a whole different scenario altogether: the fellow is simply on a lifelong journey into discovering who he is and where he fits in God’s big wide world. Have I done the right thing in explaining the fellow’s situation and working toward shedding light on what the issue on the whole is all about? 
 Sorry, I don't see the distinction(?) How is "this [trans] fellow" a "whole different scenario" from a "woman for real"?
That the individual *feels* that they're "on a lifelong journey into discovering who they are" does not mean that God didn't intend for them to be a woman, God has created them female, so that is His plan, and it isn't superseded by the feelings of being a man that this individual has. This is *crucial* - for any of us, a feeling is not necessarily proof of reality or of God's will, "who we are" is a matter of God's design, not a "journey" into our feelings.
BUT it is totally foolish, uncaring and unhelpful for someone to say that a trans person is going to hell for being trans. A trans person, like any other person, can be saved if they turn to Jesus, (and not by accepting their biological sex). We should be telling trans folk about Jesus' love for them, not debating their gender.
What you see on the outside don’t always reflect what’s really going on. This is where we need the spirit of discernment for real. We need to learn to listen more to the stories of such folk. It’s not just enough to look at the obvious outward symptoms and signs, otherwise we’d be prescribing the wrong kind of medicine.
Sorry, I'm still not sure what you mean(?) This isn't a matter of external appearance vs what's inside. Other than in a few extremely rare genetic conditions, God has created each person either male with XY chromosomes or female with XX chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in all of our cells (other than mature red blood cells and gametes), not inside or outside only. And the "inside" feelings don't override the reality of God's design. Sometime what's inside a person is a desire to, for instance, have an affair - this is obviously NOT equivalent, but my point is that feeling something doesn't mean that it's right. The Bible tells us that our hearts can be wrong. And as Detransitioners will tell you, reinforcing a person's trans identity doesn't help them.
There's no risk of "prescribing the wrong kind of medicine", because it's not us who should be prescribing. We don't need to tell people what we think they should do RE gender - and whether they continue to transition isn't what we should ultimately be concerned about - we should simply treat them with compassion and point them towards The Healer (and by that, I'm not referring to Jesus healing their gender identity, though He might). That they choose to follow Him is what matters.
NB - I've been slightly getting to know a trans "man" on Twitter, and had a long chat with them when they invited me on their podcast. My belief that they shouldn't have transitioned is irrelevant, as are most people's opinions about other people's personal decisions and cosmetic surgery. I need to show kindness to a fellow human being, and pray for them.
 

I really do not understand the annual moaning that Britain should quit the competition because of the low scores. Genuinely, why on Earth do you care? Why do you think that a number on the screen matters? The whole show is just a great quirky mashup of entertainment. The scores don't change that.
I suspect that the scores indicate that Europeans don't like us much, but quitting the ESC would only make us more isolated (and frankly, why worry about being disliked anyway?)
Whilst some tragic events in our world are in the minds of some voters and protesters, we've had the privilege of watching several hours of silliness (in safety, with friends, eating snacks...), we have a lot to be grateful for
I wonder if, for some people, there's a desperation to win that's indicative of the desperation of secularism, though I know I'm probably overthinking  More broadly is a component of the over obsession of some people with football teams or National identity demonstrative of a lack of something bigger? I'm thinking out loud, sorry.
 
 
We're privileged - the water companies are evil, but we still generally have the water we need, on tap, some people in our world could only dream of what we have
 
 
When I visited Mozambique, I saw a little boy wearing a gay pride T shirt from the 90s. Our fast fashion gets dumped on those in our world whose nations have been and are continually ravaged by Western greed, whilst other disadvantaged people suffer in sweatshops.
There are more than enough clothes in existence already, and buying from charities (inc online, see Oxfam's website and others, ebay for charity etc) helps people in need as well as avoiding the serious environmental impact of the clothing industry.
yes. And what you saw in Mozambique is part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. People who buy fast fashion then hand them over to charities may not realise where their clothes go. I work as a charity shop volunteer here in the UK, as well as having done voluntary teaching in adjacent Zimbabwe, so have seen the beginning and the end of this chain. At home, some people donate soiled and torn clothes to us, which we sell to ragging companies for 4p a kilo. Except they aren't ragged. They're sold on to dealers who ship them out to sub-Saharan African countries. The so called charity workers get first dibs and eventually the worst of this stuff is sold to the poorest of the poor for prices averaging $5 an item. That's for a garment which has to be washed and repaired. I was appalled to see these heaps of rags on tarps in market squares and roadsides.
Sorry, what? I'm well aware that what I saw is part of the problem, that our cast-offs, including things that charity shops can't sell, are ultimately dumped on the poorest people, that was the point of my anecdote. I don't know why you think I'm unaware of what you're telling me.
 
 
IMO celebrities *should* use their platforms to raise awareness of the biggest causes of suffering in our world (and what's happening in Gaza is indescribably awful) - but if Lineker and others are motivated to talk about Gaza purely by humanitarian concern, why is there not humanitarian concern shown for other crises (particularly since Gaza is already much discussed, without needing Lineker to bring it up, and other situations aren't)? Why did he not talk about other human beings currently afflicted by horrific conflict and starvation?
I think it is obvious why. Let me explain. Why are you so determined to deflect from Gaza. This is the point. Too many want to deflect from Gaza, which is the reason people like Gary continue to put more focus on it.
Gary, I am sure, has concerns for the hardships other countries face. There is a clear and distinct bias against the Palestinian people, and a clear bias in favour of Iraelis.
"Why are you so determined to deflect from Gaza"? What? I'm not, I'm trying to raise awareness of other human beings who are suffering horrifically, who *unlike Palestinians* are ignored. Gaza is discussed continually, and I'm not objecting to that in itself, but there are also other people in our world who are experiencing comparable agony yet are overlooked. I suspect that it's because they have more melanin. 
 
tell us where else in the world is starving children happening ? 
thanks for proving my point so well.
welcome but you haven’t said where else should he have mentioned that he hasn’t already? Has mentioned Ukraine in the past
I'm genuinely wondering why you don't know, and why you don't look it up. This was my point - Gaza gets lots of attention (and I'm not saying that it shouldn't, the situation is horrific beyond words), but there's a lack of awareness about other crises. There's starvation in a number of places, but perhaps the biggest crisis ATM is in Sudan (it's the biggest humanitarian crisis on the planet right now).
Our government and others are slashing Aid, and the mess is connected to the exploitation nations like ours have carried out.
I do know about Sudan for many reasons and I do know people have spoken about that however I would suggest that the focus is on Gaza sadly because it is not civil war. The plight of Sudan children is awful but sadly the reality is in social media it’s about immediacy and impact. I don’t see the point of critiquing actions of one person for not mentioning every awfulness in the world
Why does the fact that it's civil war matter? Human beings aren't less worthy of our concern or Aid on the basis of the politics of a conflict. And Gaza is already much discussed (again, not wrongly), if Lineker raised awareness of Sudan it could add to pressure on our government to reverse Aid cuts (or encourage the public to donate), and ultimately to address ongoing exploitation of Africa connected to our institutions.
That you say "sadly the reality is" really makes me wonder why you think it's right to talk about one group of suffering people but not another, many people who actively support Israel are right now saying about Gaza "sadly the reality is....that civilians die in war".
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I was reading a Christian book recently where the female author made an observation about a passage in Luke 17:
34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken and the other left (NRSV)
Apparently, in v 35 the words 'one' and 'the other' are feminine in Koine Greek so 'two women' has been correctly translated. However in v 34 the same words are masculine in Koine Greek so that verse should be translated 'there will be two men in one bed' as seen in the Amplified Bible (Classic Edition):
34 I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 There will be two women grinding together; one will be taken and the other will be left.
While we may not be able to tell the nature of the relationship between the 'two men in one bed' (at night), we can see the lengths that translators will go to in order to pander to their own biases rather than bring us the truth. And this begs the question: 'Is the Bible, when translated into English, perfect and without error?'
So, in contrast to the claim that the Bible's prohibition of same sex relationships is only condemning men having sex with boys (according to this claim, the Bible's authors didn't have cognizance of consensual sexual relationships between men), in reality same sex relationships between men were well known in the cultural context.
OK, I'm being a bit audacious making this point, and probably shouldn't as I really don't want to argue 
I wouldn't say that the Bible in English has "error", but we should certainly should study the Bible deeply, including looking at original words' meaning, so thankyou for reminding everyone to do so
 
 
MAGA is antithetical to Jesus' teachings.
NB, Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with people who feigned "religion", but weren't actually trying to follow God at all - He pointed out that they were just misappropriating the institution for their own opportunities to hold power over others. Trump similarly tries to associate with Christianity - because it helps him to do so - yet isn't actually following God at all.
“’These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." (Jesus, Matthew 15:8)
if my memory serves me well as my Sunday School days a long ago - I recall a very angry Jesus throwing them out of his Father's House. As I recall it was the money lenders - however I feel there are many who call themselves 'christians' he would be calling out today.
Indeed, He was furious with the moneylenders in the Temple. But He also argued with Pharisees. I find it ironic that, today, many people ignore Him in part because of frustration with people behaving like those He was opposed to.
 
 
ChristianNationalism is a counterfeit faith
“Christian Nationalism” is an oxymoron, one cannot be following Christ and Nationalism. In addition to the attitude of dominance that's antithetical to how Jesus taught us to have, it creates a false God, idolatry of tribal identity and of the self. People seem to think that it's their job to fight for "God" against society, as though God is weak and they want to take pride in themselves - but the victory is Jesus' and our job is to point society towards Him.
 

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal." (Jesus in Matthew 6:19-20)
*This is, obviously, not to dispute that the crime was abhorrent nor that she deserves empathy for the trauma
 
 
In addition to the racism of some Reform supporters (I'm NOT accusing all Reform supporters f racism, at all, but some plainly are), there's a dangerous faux-"Christianity" on the rise. For instance, Farage said, during the ARC conference, that we need a return to Judeo-Christian values, then contradicted 2 of Jesus' teachings in the same interview. Increasingly, i'm seeing people refer to themselves as "Christian" as a tribal label they think is part of their Britishness - and they're completely missing Jesus Himself.
 
 
What *exactly* do Farage et al mean when they say that our country needs Christian values? Why are they simultaneously so opposed to migration, given that migrants are more often Christian than we native white Brits are?
How can Reform UK claim to be on the side of Christianity, yet support cuts in Aid to the world's very most disadvantaged people?
 
 
Meanwhile, the very most disadvantaged people in Africa are literally starving and Trump's cut off Aid.
(Yes, I'm very aware that only some of those in Africa are starving, it's a diverse continent - but those who are the very poorest can be helped amazingly cost effectively, cutting Aid is daft)
how does money stop the alleged genocide and horrors??
Those fleeing conflict end up starving in refugee camps, they need Aid. And sometimes (within the Sudan conflict, for instance) women are raped when they try to reach food, so it should be given directly to them.
Additionally, fighters can be recruited when the man in a family has no other way to put food on the table, so getting food to families is essential to reducing recruitment.
 
that aid was a paper-thin front for the american intelligence services, so it's far closer to the supply side of african genocides than the relief side
How is it "closer"? I'm well aware that Western governments have selfish motivations for Aid, and they ought to be addressing the ongoing exploitation of the Global South, but that doesn't mean that there weren't programmes within USAID genuinely helping vulnerable people (who'll now suffer from the withdrawal)
 
 
IMO we really need a restructuring of society. Some of the older folk receiving care do need nursing support, but some could thrive if there were more communal living and intergenerational house sharing (with agreements RE care tasks, helplines, safeguarding etc) - the individualism of our culture that's created both a housing crisis and a loneliness crisis needs questioning. (of course, the way things are is super profitable for landlords etc)
 
 
(In UK Immigration & Visas, Work, Spouse, Care, Visit, Student & More Facebook Group)
I've just seen a comment (on a post in this group) that the streets (in the UK) are paved with gold. They were presumably joking (the saying, in case it doesn't translate, isn't literal anyway - it's a saying referring to a rich place), but it reminded me of something I often think about - so far as I've seen, many people want to come to Britain because they think that they will be able to get rich here, and I'm desperate for people to know that this is NOT TRUE. And the idea (that you can get rich by coming here) is often spread by liars looking to EXPLOIT potential migrants. Of course, there are a few who have come and been very *lucky*, but no one should presume that means that they too will be lucky. Britain's wealth is *tied up*, largely in the bank accounts of the super rich.
I have read so many accounts of people who have spent money trying to come here, and ended up losing money or worse. Some of the stories are heartbreaking, and I don't want this to happen to more people.
I'm so grateful to those who have come and done important work, and I also think that it's important for my country (Britain) to help people fleeing extreme violence - but if people come simply because they think it will improve their lives, they may well have been misled and/or regret it.
 
 
"Sex sells", so media like Vice have been trying to manipulate people into thinking that sex is necessary for being a complete human being and enjoying life. This is a con.

 
Please remember, whilst this is an important issue, it's incomparably more important that people are nudged towards Jesus.
 
 
All of us - in developed countries - are rich compared to swathes of humanity. Some people in our world don't have clean water or are literally starving - but we can help some of them. 
 
 
I'm confused, everyone one doesn't yet know is a stranger, why would folk from elsewhere be more so than folk from here? And why not befriend strangers?
"Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers" (Hebrews 13:2)
"You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself" (Leviticus 19:34)
 
 
I was intrigued to discover that the Pope is from a suburb that shares a name with my family. But of actual importance, is that he's demonstrated a heart to share The Good News with the disadvantaged via his extensive mission work. He was correct, earlier this year, to state that JD Vance was wrong in asserting that it's "Christian" to love those nearer to ourselves in priority over those further away - whilst the Bible rebukes those who neglect to care for immediate family, the notion that we should prefer our compatriots to humanity elsewhere flagrantly contradicts Jesus' teaching in the parable of The Good Samaritan. My curiosity is also piqued by Pope Leo's previous writing on Mathematics, having myself concluded God's existence on the basis of arguments from probability (in relation to universal parameters). Many are unaware that there is an academic rationale for Theism, tradition and "bells and smells" are not exhaustive of Christianity.
I hope that Pope Leo eschews debates regarding sexuality and similar matters so far as is possible - that Jesus offers each individual the choice of turning to Him in repentance and receiving salvation is of incomparably greater importance (as much as "sex sells").
I'm not Catholic, but I heartened by what I've observed of Pope Leo thus far. The faux religion plaguing America (epitomised by Trump's allusions to God) - and now increasingly infecting our shores also - must be countered urgently (though the feigning of religiosity for power is a scourge that was roiling Jesus Himself millennia ago).
 
 
Why does our media spend so much time exploiting horrific individual murders, as though it's trying to *profit* from curiosity in true crime, and spend so little time raising awareness of situations of mass death in our world that we could take action on (such as the current crises in Sudan and Congo, or the issue of *extreme* poverty?)
 
 
Pope Leo says AI is main challenge for humanity 
What ultimately matters is The Gospel (as opposed to institutions) - that Jesus died to take the punishment for our sin, and rose again (unfathomable as this seems https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection) so that if we choose to truly turn to Him, we can have eternal life ("heaven").
Our world's problem is people being greedy and cruel (which is *sin*, rejecting God's guidance), AI is just a new and efficient way to do so.
 
 
I can't help feeling that much of this is about hating Israel, rather than about care for suffering humans in Gaza (in part because, if the motivation were humanitarianism rather than hatred, why wouldn't people also speak up about other situations of extreme suffering in our world?) 
Because the Genocide in Gaza is the biggest Human Rights atrocity of the 21st century. It is quite literally the most important thing happening on the world stage.
Your argument is absolutely ludicrous. If an ethnostate engages in hyperviolent war crimes, bombs medical clinics, assassinates journalists, and executes ambulance workers and attempts to bury the ambulances to cover it up, you're gonna earn scorn.
In fact, if you DON'T actually hate that, I really have to question your ability to emotionally comprehend what exactly is going on and it makes me question you.....
 "biggest"? There's a far bigger number of human beings suffering in Sudan, so why are they so much less important? (I suspect I know, and I have things to do other than argue with you)
And no, I didn't say I don't hate what's going on in Gaza, nor does it matter what you think of me.
 
 
He's right. USAID was flawed, but contrary to Musk's lies, much of it was doing amazing things helping the very most disadvantaged human beings. Musk terminating it means unimaginable and unnecessary suffering.
 
 
Trump risibly asserted that international trade entails other countries take advantage of the US - in fact international trade involves nations such as America and Britain grossly exploiting some of the already very most disadvantaged nations in our world. I wish our politicians would address this - after all, they claim to care about "working people"
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Some people seem to think that God needs us to fight for Him - but He already has the victory. The glory is His, yet some people seem to want to feel proud of themselves for opposing our society. The problem in our culture is not people who don't yet know God, the problem is sin, including our own - our task is not to go to war with those around us, our task is (with God's help) to go to war against the sin in our own hearts and to share the Gospel with those around us.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Matthew 19: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. (NRSV)
What did Jesus mean by a eunuch who was 'born that way'?
Who said that it *should* be forced?
You actually know this. Despite both Jesus and Paul mentioning celibacy as a chosen path, the majority of Christians impose it on a certain section of the population even when they long for a committed, faithful, loving, life-long intended relationship.
Know this? I knew the point you were trying to make, but it's fallacious. No one said that people should be *forced* to refrain from gay sex. Believing that someone should do/refrain from something is not, by any means, *forcing* them (nor does it mean believing that they should be forced).
Following God doesn't mean doing only what one wants to do anyway by choice (as your original comment suggests), we should avoid doing things that God prohibits out of love for Him, not only because we'd want to avoid doing them either way. And each person still has choice, other people disapproving doesn't mean that people are being imposed on.
Maybe 'forced' is the wrong word but certainly many gay Christians I know have felt pressured into staying single or even into heterosexual marriage due to the majority Christian opinion that romantic gay relationships are wrong. Things like 'herd mentality' and 'conformity bias' come into play; it's hard to dissent from the majority view when you know you'll be subject to criticism, maybe stripped of certain duties in your church, and told you're destined for eternal conscious torment. That theology, in the name of a God who is love, is abhorrent to me. And of course I disagree with your premise that God prohibits loving, faithful, life-long intended gay relationships which the Bible never addresses.
"Pressured" how exactly? If you disagree with something I do, I might potentially feel pressured not to do it, but that wouldn't mean that you'd actually pressured me, and you'd have the right to your view - particularly if you were trying to follow God's guidance. Ultimately, each person decides for themselves what they believe and what they'll do - if a gay person decides not to have a gay sexual relationship, how are you to know that - even if they claim it's because of "pressure" - it's not because deep down they don't think that God is OK with it?
Again, the Bible prohibits same sex sexual activity, that some relationships are faithful doesn't change that (and contrary to your argument, there *were* monogamous/committed gay relationships at the time in which the Bible was written).
If you think that disagreeing with gay sex is merely "herd mentality", you've not looked at the rationale behind it. You should try this site, written by same sex attracted Christians https://www.livingout.org/.../what-does-the-bible-say... (and one could even more easily argue that support for gay relationships results from wanting to *conform* to current societally normal views)
The concept of eternal conscious torment isn't one I've memory of hearing mentioned more than once at my Church, it's mostly discussed across the pond - and IMO it's not Biblical, so I hope we can agree on that
I once held your position on same-sex sexual activity which I inherited from the Church, but some years ago I felt called by God to look at the subject for myself and subsequently changed my mind. I made sure I listened to and read material by Biblical scholars, on both sides of the debate, who understood the ancient Biblical context, culture and languages. And I became aware that the Bible, taken in context, condemns same-sex activity which is cruel and demeaning. Therefore I can't take the linked article by Sam Allberry seriously - he is not qualified to make those judgements and even I can see it's full of errors. I'm glad you don't believe in ECT but I'm here to tell you that many people do even on this side of the pond.
My view is not "inherited from the Church", I looked at the subject myself, at the writing of Biblical scholars, at both sides of the debate, at the ancient Biblical context, culture and languages. And as I've said, the Bible *doesn't* refer specifically to cruel same sex behaviour, the original wording (from the NT) translates as "men who have sex with men".
To say that he's "not qualified" - when he's studied theology (at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford), IS same sex attracted and is a pastor (and successful author) is not a valid point. Nor is it an argument to assert that the article is full of errors without saying what they are.
And there are other same sex attracted theologians who've corroborated his exposition. I even have a gay family member who's remained single and celibate (as have I, FTR, though I'm not gay) and is now in his 70s, demonstrably not lonely or unhappy. It's a lie propagated by our culture, in which sex sells, that a person needs sexual relationships to be content - do you not believe that God can sustain a person?
The New Testament Greek words used to describe men engaging in same-sex intercourse are arsenokoitai and malakoi; the respective names of the active and passive partners in same-sex intercourse. Which position the man adopted depended on his place on the social hierarchy and did not change. So a high born man was always the active partner and he could penetrate his wife, male and female slaves, prostitutes and anyone else deemed to be below him on the social hierarchy. This was socially acceptable and consent was not sought or required. 3. I am aware of Sam Allberry's sexual orientation and credentials. 4. I'm not saying everyone needs to be in a sexual relationship - I know people who are called to celibacy. I'm saying that we should not deny two people of the same-sex who are in love, the opportunity to marry (sex is optional) if they so wish. Unlike the ancient Biblical world, these relationships would be loving, consensual, faithful, life-long-intended and between two equals.
Again, arsenokoitai literally means "men who have sex with men" - it's *not* a matter of age or power dynamics - and references to the active and passive parties doesn't indicate abuse.
So, on what basis is Sam Allberry "not qualified", yet you are? It seems to me irrational and insulting to claim that same sex attracted theologians have fabricated their position. And you claimed that the article is full of errors, yet haven't shown any
If you don't think sexual relationships are essential, why are you having this argument? I really think we've wasted enough time on this.
 

People (here in the UK) had, for decades, increasingly been led to think that belief in God was irrational, unaware of the logical reasons for concluding His existence, and the resurrection, to be true. Some people are now seeking answers, and some are seeking the peace that turning to God can bring.
 
 
I don't disagree with the point being made, but I feel compelled to be obtuse and point out that, we *should* wear extra layers rather than use more fossil fuels than necessary. Coffee shops are an unnecessary expense (but if we can afford to spend on coffee, we should aim for Fairtrade/ethical coffee).
And living with parents (of course they choose the rent level) is awesome if one is fortunate enough to have nice parents (I'm aware that not everyone is so privileged) - and means a lower per person carbon footprint. Generations have a lot to teach each other. Independence is good but comunity is better.
 
 
Some are. Jesus matters incomparably more than anything else, and some people are focussing on the tribalism of other issues too much. Our foremost mission is to share the Gospel, not to go to war over politics or sexuality (as important as those things are)  


As much as I hate it too, I think that protesting only (I don't see what good it does - and God doesn't need us to defend His feelings) serves to give people the impression that Christians are snowflakes or killjoys. We should focus on how we can point people towards the real Jesus instead.
 
 
What if, instead of spending money on parades (NB, I mean no disrespect to LBG or T folk), corporations used that money to ensure that labourers in the poorest parts of our world are more fairly paid? Corporate spending on parades has been a facade to feign concern for humanity.
 
 
As a child I thought it would be awesome to go there, and we never did. It was fine. I have other very happy memories. Holidays/day trips are about enjoying time with family, not giving money to corporations. Happy memories don't require DisneyWorld, even if it looks awesome.
There are children in our world who don't even own any toys, it was a better experience whilst I was growing up to send gifts to them than it would have been to go to expensive resorts.
 
 
I am continually enraged by this, and it's ubiquitous. The tripe like "charity begins at home" I see constantly has me wondering if people are evil, stupid or both. Why does our country care so little about the human beings in the world's most extreme poverty, or modern slavery? If we care about people using food banks, why not about those who would dearly love food banks and are instead literally starving? Per £, our money can have many times more impact on the world's poorest people than it can if we spend it on ourselves here.
Those who talk about charity at home don't support it there either
I sometimes look at their profiles, and they often have fundraisers for animals. IMO they *enjoy* the cuteness of animals themselves and lack selflessness for humanity.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group) 
Jesus was woke
The word woke has been entirely corrupted. It refers to awareness of injustice, and has been used as such for the best part of a century - but in recent years certain public figures have misused it to refer to anything connected with progressivism (including many silly things, wholly unrelated to the original meaning), seemingly unable to utilise the English vocabulary to find accurate words for their criticisms.
 
 
We are lucky to be in a country where we have clean water on tap. Some human beings are forced to drink dirty water, and to walk long distances for it - though we have the potential to make a real impact in addressing this issue (funding clean water access is, in terms of average spending here, extremely cheap)
 
 
He *claims* to have become a Christian - in theory this could happen, as anyone can turn to Jesus (and we all need, and are offered, forgiveness through Him, even though most of us have sinned far less severely than Russell Brand. But his actions since, and failure to apologise for the way he objectified women (even if the sex assault charges are unwarranted) imply that he may be lying about the conversion. 


As a Christian (in Britain, where we don't dogmatically obsess about "separation of Church and state"), I really wish other Christians would remember that turning to Jesus is a decision each person must make for themselves, trying to impose Christianity doesn't achieve anything. They should consider how to explain to our society the reasons (as advanced by various academics) why we can conclude God's existence, and Jesus' resurrection, to be reality, so that people can make up their own minds.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
My daughter has been through alot of trauma and doesn’t believe in god. When ever ive tried to talk to her about god she just say i dont believe in him because if he was real then he wouldn’t of let all that stuff happen to me! How do i even answer that?
We aren't *only* evolved compilations of molecules (that's not to say that evolution is untrue), we have a sense of what is good and bad because we have been created by a God who hates evil. He loves your daughter and empathises with her pain. On the cross, Jesus took upon Himself suffering beyond anything we could imagine (since, in addition to physical agony, sin was placed upon Him).
When she was small, you likely took your daughter for routine infant vaccinations. She would have felt a moment of pain, and not known why you were letting that happen - but you had incomparably more understanding and wisdom than she did at the time, and you cared for her. God has incomparably more understanding and wisdom than we do as adults - whilst we can't fathom how He could allow pain in our lives (just as an infant doesn't fathom the reason for a vaccination), He loves us (more than human parents) and He knows our life path, He knows which events will optimise the probability that we will ultimately choose to turn to Him and receive *eternal* joy.
(Of course, in addition, difficult circumstances in life can lead to good things in this lifetime - they might change the course of events for ultimate good, such as in the film Sliding Doors; or cause us to develop stronger connections with loved ones; or give us greater appreciation of life/ingenuity/empathy/patience etc etc - many people who achieve amazing things have gone through tough experiences)
"...intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives" Genesis 50:20
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" Romans 8:28
 
 
If people want to advance equality for women, they should spend on ensuring that girls in the world's poorest places access education and healthcare (it costs a tiny fraction per child of what education and healthcare cost here), not on rocket trips for celebrities.
 
 
What if those who claim to be concerned about inequality actually did something useful, like donating to help the most disadvantaged people and urging fans to nag their MPs, instead of spewing hatred that makes the Right more unwilling to listen to the Left? They aren't helping those suffering in Gaza, nor the poor, they're just trying to get attention for themselves off the back of other people's suffering.
you are wrong. Too many of us are being silenced over Israel’s genocide. Any attention to their horrific actions is good. Governments all over the world are trying to suppress us. Well done kneecap, but those in power are going to make you suffer because you are an easy target. Free Palestine!
Any attention is good? They're not bringing attention to Gaza, they're bringing attention to themselves. And everyone is already aware of the situation in Gaza, it's victims of conflict in places such as Sudan and Congo who haven't had attention. And Kneecap haven't improved anything for the people of Gaza, they've just made people here less willing to listen.


You guys enabled more and more public money to be siphoned off by contractors. Public services have decayed because tax payers' money is ending up in private pockets - and it's those services that people need most, not more shopping.


I find it so odd that this is a "fundraiser" - whilst these multimillionaires are spending insane amounts of money to show off, there are many human beings in our world who have to wear the rags that we in the west throw away. If only funds could go to them instead.
 
 
Or you - Vice - make money from content about sex, so you're eager to brainwash people into thinking they need more of it to be happy. It's a lie.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
He also never said Allow perverts and criminals to invade your county , rape your children and try and turn a Christian country into a Muslim one .. being a Christian does not mean being a woke pushover
You really ought to look up what woke actually means and use accurate vocabulary to convey your concerns. Also stop swallowing far Right propaganda.
And no, our country is not being turned from a Christian one into a Muslim one. What do you think that "Christian" means?
it means that you are saved by accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour and open your eyes and look around the UK is turning into a filthy third world country , undocumented criminals flooding in from countries our young white girls being raped , look at London .. are you blind ?
Good grief.
"Undocumented criminals" - you're clearly swallowing a bunch of American tripe.
"Filthy third world country"? Meaning what exactly? You view non-white, impoverished people as "filthy"? If you accept Jesus, you don't view other human beings like that. Sure, actual rapists deserve castrating and locking up (NB, there are plenty who are white, most recently in the news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89g293zj2ko), but that you implicitly lump migrants together as you have is irrational. And FTR, the "third world" is underdeveloped in no small part because BRITISH people and other Europeans went there and enacted grotesque barbarism, as well as stealing resources (and this is STILL going on, far more wealth comes to the developed world from the developing world than is given in Aid)
"Look at London" LOL, I live in London, and always have. Again, you're just credulously lapping up propaganda. And was the "open your eyes" comment intended to be connected to your comment on accepting Jesus? As though you think worrying about the country is a fundamental part of accepting Jesus? Indeed we should have open eyes (such as looking at news outlets across the political spectrum, not only far Right tabloids and tweets) - and if you did look at our country you'd recognise that it's long been the case that the vast majority of people do not accept Jesus, the white population of our country has been rejecting Christianity for decades, not "turning Muslim" (in fact migration is *increasing* the % of Christians in our country, migrants are more often Christian than native white Brits are). Our concern should be *that* - we should be upset first and foremost about people not knowing God, instead you're acting as though God is powerless and wants you to fight, and as though the problem with humanity is brown people rather than sin.
 
 
 
This is nothing about evolution nor wokeness. The placard on the right is just reinforcing people's belief that Christians reject science, it's a deterrent. Woke, as much as some people have misused it in recent years, means awareness of injustice, and that's absolutely not unChristian. We're called to share Jesus, not fight culture wars.
 
 
 
What would that achieve? Prayer is about a heart communicating with God, you can't make children do it meaningfully. What kids need is to learn about the reasons for choosing to turn to God, so that they can make an informed decision for themselves rather than presuming God to be myth as our culture tells them.  
 
 
Indeed, it's bonkers. But no where near as bonkers as the fact that millions of Congolese people who are, by contrast, innocent, are suffering in a horrific conflict - fuelled by the trade in minerals that we benefit from - and we ignore them.
 
 
I wish Christians (are they actually Christian?) would realise that this is not what Jesus calls us to. We need to explain to young people (and others) why we can conclude God's existence, and Jesus' resurrection, to be realities (not myth nor exclusively "faith"), and to follow Jesus' teachings about loving our neighbors.
they're as much Christian as you are. If you choose to wrap your identity in that you have to own that part of the group you identify with does all these things you deem horrible. Same as I don't get to say I'm a not an American anymore just because I loathe the current administration. This is exactly why identify politics is such an issue.
It's not a matter of "owning" anything (all the more so since I'm not even in/from the US). It's not analogous to nationality, and it's not about what anyone thinks about me.
It's following Jesus that matters, and I don't think that this action is doing that. He didn't call us to tribalism.
 
 
It's several different things happening at once. Some are being drawn into *false* "Christianity" for culture war reasons. Some are seeking community. Some are discovering that there's actually rational reasoning for concluding God's existence and Jesus' resurrection to be realities. And Jesus would be turning over tables if He saw some of what's going on.
 
 
This is historically unaware. See the work of Tom Holland, for instance. Our society's belief that women are equally precious as human beings, and shouldn't simply be dominated, came here through Jesus' teachings - prior Western civilisation didn't recognise our humanity.
 
 
Perhaps. But I really wish that we could be more concerned about the young people in our world who can't access school or clean water than about how easily we can travel around Europe.
 
 
Sometimes God allows leaders whose attitudes and actions He despises, as part of His plan. This is made clear in the Bible, yet still some Christians think that Trump being in power means God supports him 
 
 
Sure, though God's plans are not necessarily worldly success. Winning something doesn't show that He favours the winner over the loser, particularly since He values humility. If someone's life is going wrong, God may have good reasons that aren't clear yet.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I've been trying to get my head around the ruling that a 'woman' is, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, one who is biologically a woman. But what does that mean in practice? Are trans woman not allowed to use any women's spaces? Or is that up to the service provider? How will trans women go to the loo in public spaces if they get kicked out of men's loos and can't use women's? Whose going to police this - how will anyone know if it's a trans woman or not? Also, are there any biblical references you can point me too please?  
We need to have compassion for those who feel that they were born in the wrong body (and some of the reactions to trans folk lack this). But God made us as the biological sex that we are, it's not caring to endorse people disliking their biology. It's also not caring that some people obsess over this issue rather than trying to share The Gospel, as though people will get to Heaven by knowing what a woman is.
Do you know of any Bible references that back up your opinion please?
You don't think that God created our biology?
"Jesus answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female"" (Matthew 19:4)
But he creates intersex/DSD people too. Some have sexual characteristics which are so atypical that they are not assigned a sex at all (Office for National Statistics). Also, 'male and female' may be a merism like 'day and night' meaning God made all the bits in between.
Oh indeed, I'm well aware of intersex/DSD folk - but that's not what this is about. Transition is, by definition, seeking to become something other than one's biological reality.
so how does “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female" (Matthew 19:4) mean they're forbidden to identify as another gender? And if an intersex person is not assigned a gender at birth, is that their 'biological reality', do they have to stay that way for life too? I'm not trying to be awkward, I just think it's more complicated that it first appears and I'm trying to understand.
Again, this isn't about intersex/DSD folk.
God made us as the sex/gender that we are, if I were to claim to be a man I'd be opposing God (though I don't mean to imply that trans folk are deliberately sinning). If I were to affirm another woman in disliking her female biology, it wouldn't ultimately be loving (though I know that most people who do so are trying to be loving)
I'm using intersex/DSD people as an analogy. You say that if God creates someone as a man, he has to stay as a man, otherwise he's opposing God. I am asking you the question: If God creates an intersex baby with atypical sex characteristics (genitals, hormones, chromosomes), does that baby have to stay that way too in your opinion? Would allowing the baby (or adult if appropriate) to have surgery, HRT etc, be opposing God too? Or do we view them both as part of a broken world and do what we can to help them?
It's a false analogy. I'm aware that many DSD folk are opposed to babies having the procedures you refer to, but if they do (or if an older person with DSD does) the purpose is address what might cause them difficulty, just as other surgery, or HRT for menopausal women, address a difficulty. A trans person's natural body is not a difficulty.
If a trans person has gender dysphoria, they experience extreme and persistent distress and dissatisfaction with their biological sex. They may detest their genitals and secondary sex characteristics, they may fear entering puberty, they may have a pre-occupation with living like the opposite sex. Their rates of depression, anxiety and suicide are higher than average. For a person with gender dysphoria, their 'natural body' presents a huge difficulty. It's not clear what causes gender dysphoria but a medical institute in Australia recently found that it includes a difference in genes which are involved in a pathway that processes estrogen and androgen.
Citation?
Discomfort with one's body doesn't mean that the body is a problem and should have (harmful, costly) hormone treatments and surgeries, it's the thoughts that are an issue. And it's horrifying that so many young people have undergone "treatment" that they needn't have had, particularly since the vast majority of gender dysphoric young people are OK with their natal sex post puberty if a trans identity is not reinforced, and the "treatments" don't help in cutting self-harm or suicide
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
A friend of mine has started saying “God inshallah” and claiming God and Allah are the same? Please can someone give clarity on this? I’m confused 
This is a perennial question, and I honestly think that it can't be answered definitively.
As an albeit flawed analogy - if I hear a noise outside and think it's a fox, whilst you think it's a cat, are we both hearing the noise even whilst we believe different things about it and only one of our thoughts can be true?
It's certainly not the case that what Muslims believe about "Allah" is the same, nor adequately similar, to what we know about God, there are fundamental differences - but they're looking for The Creator (God), so one *might* argue (I'm not saying that one should do so) that they have the same God as us and they're simply much mistaken about Him.
Note, "Allah" is simply "God" in Arabic, so there are some Christians in other parts of our world who use the word.
But I don't understand why your friend has started saying "God inshallah" - I'm pretty sure that means "God God willing" (ie, it doesn't make sense) - and I wonder why they've started using this word(?) Have you asked?
she has started becoming friends with some Muslim men and she’s asked me a few times if my God and their God is the same. I explained that they’re not but I’m struggling to find the words to explain it to her when she’s basically saying “Allah is God in Arabic so therefore they’re the same people”
I think that, when we want to win someone over (on all manner of issues), it's most helpful to start with positive points of agreement, so that they feel like you're affirming/supporting them somewhat and thus are on their side - for instance "INDEED we and Muslims share a belief a belief in The Creator of the universe. And we share a belief that He revealed Himself to Abraham. However, Muslims reject some vitally significant things that we have reason to believe about God - most importantly, there's good historical reason to believe that Jesus died and rose, but Muslims reject the reality that He was even crucified. We follow Jesus, Muslims follow Muhammed, and those 2 men did very different things"
 
 
I have Asperger's (I'm aware the term is outdated, but it's been part of how I think about myself since I was diagnosed nearly 20 years ago). It's a subtype of Autism and called what it is because Asperger, a Doctor during the Nazi's rule, kept some Autistic people from being murdered. I'm horrified by the Trump administration.
Trump's comments RE other folk with disabilities earlier this year, and previously, as well as his tripe about Haitians, are genuinely disturbing.
 
 
Though I agree that they shouldn't be silenced, I'm also very concerned about some street preachers (very much not all). Those with placards about sexuality or evolution are absolutely missing what's most important and they're deterring people from Christianity.
I do some street preaching and totally agree with what you say.
My Mum does some, I'm totally for it when it's helping to direct people towards Jesus (I'm just concerned about some individuals I've seen recently who are doing the opposite of helping)
 
 
George had a cross on his shield because Jesus died on a cross. He died for our sin - so it's absurd to be "proud".
But we are lucky to be English, we've been born into a country with far higher living standards than most.
 
 
This was so odd, I've been connected to Church all my life and never heard of an "Easter Garden". And "traditions" like this are really, really not what matters - in fact Jesus got angry with people obsessing over customs. That Jesus died for us and rose is what matters.
What a strange turn of phrase. Easter Gardens have been a thing for hundreds of years.I suspect your "connection" to church is a fleeting twice a year thing.
No, my parents (who met at Bible college and who are massively involved in the Church) took me every week. Then I learned that there's actually reasoning to conclude that Christianity is truth, not only "faith", and I've continued attending. I was also at a Church school.
Why do you think that this "thing" is what matters?
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Yesterday I attended a performance by the Watoto Children's Choir at a Church near me (the Church minister also comes from Uganda, and spoke of seeing first hand the places the children came from). I'm a very unemotional person (esp on account of SSRIs), I can't remember the last time I felt such a big and involuntary smile on my face, let alone tearing up. It was just so awesome to see how joyful they were (in spite of having experienced such difficult circumstances previously).
Knowing that there's such poverty in some parts of their homeland (more severe than what's meat by "poverty" in the UK) continually breaks my heart, seeing the children sing and dance so brilliantly was very moving (apologies, this probably sounds awfully patronising!). The evening included a lot of discussion about the need - but also about how Jesus offers hope, and they invited all of us to have hope in Him in our own lives.
That people turn to Jesus is more important than anything - it's also hugely exciting how much practical impact can be made when we donate. The cost of sponsoring a child is an amount that many people here would spend on a takeaway - yet in an economically disadvantaged country, that £amount can do so, so much. Hugest kudos to Gisele Sterrett for also doing fantastic work in Uganda
 
 
Western MSM continues its shameful cover-up of Israel’s war crimes
There's far more MSM coverage of this than of other crises in our world. It appears that you and the MSM think African people suffering horrific violence (in Sudan, in Congo, in Mozambique, in parts of Nigeria) are far less important than Palestinians.
 
 
Andrew Tate has openly boasted about dominating, exploiting and attacking women. If someone likens JKR to him, they're insulting victims of abuse by insinuating it's only as significant as tweeting.
 
 
Tate is absolutely antithetical to Jesus' teachings.
And Jesus is not about "dogma" nor about not thinking for oneself.
Christianity is all about giving up thinking and questioning.
Why do you believe that?
Doubting Thomas for one thing. Millions of evangelicals for another. I guess it depends on what flavour of belief you hold
Doubting Thomas? He *did* think and question.
The word "evangelical" has been massively misused in the US for decades, and now that misuse is creeping over here. This is an explanation of the history, from an American Evangelical who podcasts about the crisis that is Trumpism etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiiRnO7UTTk
Evangelical derives from "Evangel", meaning good news - that good news being what Christ offers - but in America it's been co-opted as a label for political tribalism. It's wholly different from the Evangelical community I grew up in - which is not political and which is very diverse.
Though I grew up being taken to Church, I didn't see how belief in God made any sense - then, in studying science, I started to realise that there are logical reasons (such as the interdependence within biochemical processes) for concluding that things couldn't have come about by chance alone, thus there's a Designer. I became more certain as I read and listened to various academics addressing such questions - I wasn't "giving up thinking" (though I'm not offended/complaining about you asserting this, and I get that theism might initially appear irrational)

yet Christianity is taught to children as fact at an age before they develop critical thinking. They are brainwashed in to accepting it without question.
You don't think people are capable of thinking for themselves as they grow up? As we all do in figuring out all manner of things?
I do, but it makes it harder. Studies have shown that religious children are less able to distinguish fantasy from reality. These affects can be long lasting, especially when brought up in a religious household and community where one's access to outside perspective is limited.
Citation? Even if so, correlation is not causation.
More to the point, "religious" can mean wholly different things - for instance, bringing up children hearing about God is not the same as pressuring them to believe or to participate in various rituals. Personally, I was brought up with Christian parents, but I didn't believe it - until, in my teens, I independently reflected on academic arguments for God's existence. One of my siblings is also Christian, the other isn't a theist at all - being in a Christian family doesn't stop people from making up their own minds. And being connected to a Church was *beneficial* - I was bullied at school, but Church meant that there was a place where I was surrounded by friendly people and felt confident.
And wouldn't it be better for young people to grow up with Jesus as a role model than Andrew Tate?


Good grief. Christianity is nothing about "wanting our country back". Actual Christianity means to choose to truly commit to Jesus, who opposed Nationalism.
He took our sin upon Himself on the cross - that is infinitely more important than national identity, your disdain for migrants, or love of British culture.
 
 
Elderly women suffering from the cold and from falls are some of the most vulnerable people in our country. Our society should be normalising women building and maintaining muscle
 
 
Pope Dies
More significant than "religious" institutions (which are sometimes infiltrated by power hungry or perverted individuals seeking to dominate other people) is Jesus (and it's remarkable that ahistorical conspiracy theories, such as that He didn't exist, have become so widespread).
But Pope Francis did some good work in encouraging people to care about the world's most disadvantaged people, as Jesus calls us to.
Hello, I gave up on religion some 30 odd yrs ago. No one could introduce me to their god. They would say he made that person better, but asked to prove no evidence but they believed which they still had no proof to show me. Religion now days mean sex involved but not in the proper place and not with right age groups or sex. It appears to be getting worse now in most religions and females not reporting but hiding their males. What a mess.
I know that it can all *seem* like myth. However, though it's not discussed often in church, but there *is* plenty of rational reasoning for concluding God's existence, and Jesus's resurrection, to be true. You could start here, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning for instance (though it's the huge topic, I'm not looking for a debate). I'm not quite sure what you mean about "religion today", but note that the actions of people who choose to join institutions don't change anything about God.
 

Jesus died because of the sin of humanity, and it's also that sin that causes poverty, hunger and war (though most of our sins seem milder)
that is of course right for you but maybe others see it less charitably?
Any event either did or did not happen, events aren't "right for some" and not others - but of course each person is wholly free to decide for themselves what they believe, I didn't suggest otherwise
exactly. As a non believer in the whole “Jesus” story or indeed almost everything contained in the “books” it’s not for me to critique.
You can critique if you want to Though I tend to find that critiques are connected to misunderstandings (I used to think myself that the "story" was myth, for instance)
 
 
First world problems. We're privileged to have access to chocolate, and we certainly don't need branded, let alone luxury, Easter eggs. It's far more exciting to buy cheap chocolate and spend the difference on meals for those human beings in our world with none.  

 
Clearly he did some great things, and it's tragic that he died - but Jesus didn't say we should idolise "saints" like this. There's compelling reason for concluding that Jesus rose - there doesn't seem to be reasoning for taking bits of pericardium on tour.
 
 
The council is paying £50k a year (+taxi fares?) and she's complaining? (FTR, I'm autistic myself, and attended state/comprehensive school, on foot) Is that fair on people grappling rising council tax?
What's wrong with 1.5 hours in a taxi? Most people have longer journeys with less luxury. One can get some reading or homework done 
(Apologies if this comment seems uncaring, I don't mean it as such, I'm genuinely confused)
 
Nope. Christianity means personally choosing to turn to Christ. Our country's norms RE morality, such as the idea that the vulnerable should be cared for, arrived via Jesus' teachings - but each person must choose for themselves whether to actually repent and follow Him, our "culture" and nationality are comparatively irrelevant. Various actions of Jenrick's suggest that he himself *isn't* trying to follow Jesus (though this is none of my business)
 
 
Tony Benn delivered a lecture...in which he looked into the revolutionary history behind Christ’s message and its relationship to socialist thought
Love this. I grew up with Christian parents, but came to feel it seemed like fantasy - then, in studying science and subsequently the history of the resurrection accounts, I came to conclude that God's existence and Jesus' rising are actually true, as much as I can't get my head around them. Since then choosing to follow Jesus, I've found that my longing for poverty eradication in our world has increased (though Christianity teaches that we *don't* earn "heaven" by doing good - rather I've experienced a change in how I feel).
In Jesus' time, He argued with those who feigned "religion" to attain power over others but who weren't actually trying to follow God - and people are still doing this (see abusers, MAGA etc), they don't represent Christ.
 
 
First world problems. We're privileged to have access to chocolate, and we certainly don't need branded, let alone luxury, Easter eggs. It's far more exciting to buy cheap chocolate and spend the difference on meals for those human beings in our world with none.
 
 
It's not the approach to migrants alone, so many things about the Trump administration are an affront to what Jesus taught. Millions of vulnerable people will suffer and die because of the end of USAID.
Love the anti - Trump virtue signalling with no data on board. Last year's State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report found that up to 733 million people globally suffered from malnutrition in 2023, an increase of 152 million since 2019. This sharp rise underscores the escalating crisis of hunger and food insecurity worldwide. Perhaps this is the reason why it was cancelled?
You think that more hungry people is a reason to cut Aid?
And why are you unaware of the reason the number's gone up? It's not a secret.
I think AID is not distributed as it should be. There is enough money and resources to feed the world but it's not reaching its target. This is why Aid is stopped. Last year's State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report found that up to 733 million people globally suffered from malnutrition in 2023, an increase of 152 million since 2019. It's Democrats term.
Based on....?
Some is poorly managed, most isn't - and the solution to misspending is to fix t, not scrap the entire department. There's misspending in all Gov departments, they don't get shut down. And again, you really ought to know why hunger has increased, that you don't demonstrates being entirely unaware of Aid and Global affairs.
 
 
This is really trivial as compared to the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Church should be more concerned about the public being misled into thinking these events are myth than about the date of Easter. https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection
Most of the public is not Christian or from a Christian based religion sect, and a lot of Christianity’s “history” is based on secondhand information retellings and “editions” that have been proven to be taken from actual Hindu beliefs and texts as well as Egyptian discoveries as of late have also added to this theory of Christianity being a made up religious belief in order to justify order and control
The idea that Christianity is based on other religions is a popular meme, but it's not grounded in historical reality. And Christianity is not about control, we're called to follow God and to love of others, not to venerate leaders.
 
 
That's nuts.
More seriously, wouldn't it be nice if attention and money were expended on addressing exploitation within chocolate supply chains, instead of on trends...
 
 
No, the perpetrators of those evils, even if *claiming* to be Christian, were not following the teachings of Christ. People of any heritage are entitled to seek Him if they wish, it seems oddly patronising for a white guy to object.
 
 
Not agreeing with trans folk identifying as women is not in itself phobic. She's become argumentative and combative as she's had vitriol and death threats aimed at her. 
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
concerning our attitude as Christians towards the LGBT+ community, how we can work towards a healthy balance between staying faithful to our convictions while also showing love, grace and compassion to them. In light of the fact that homophobia—- and I’m talking about real homophobia— is increasing more and more by the day, I shared of the need for us to use wisdom in our dealings with such people, that way our gospel preaching draws them to Jesus rather than away from Him.  
We absolutely need to focus more on pointing people towards Jesus, rather than focussing as much as some people do on LGB/T issues. God has a perfect design RE gender and sexuality, so we shouldn't celebrate the rejection of it - but what ultimately matters is whether people turn to Him. It's problematic that some Christians obsess quite so much as they do about the LGB/T movement instead of The Gospel.
[Not OP] "It's problematic that some Christians obsess quite so much as they do about the LGB/T movement instead of The Gospel." Whether of not this comment was directed at me - I 'obsess' about LGB people because I'm determined that children who are awakening to their same-sex orientation will not enter the closet where so much psychological and physical harm happens. Sometimes even suicide. When we stop conflating loving relationships of the 21st century with the same-sex violent and non consensual encounters of the ancient world, and stop telling our gay children they are abominations, maybe they will believe us when we tell them God loves them. And that is at the very heart of the Gospel!
Yikes, no I was not referring to you at all.
The idea that the Bible's prohibition is referring only to abusive same sex relationships has been debunked.(for instance, see this article by a same sex attracted guy https://www.livingout.org/.../evaluating-the-top-biblical...) - and The Gospel means we can have greater love than sex/romance offer (FTR, I am, always have been and always will be single and celibate - our culture's insistence that people need sex/romance is wrong)
But my comment was referring to those who give the impression they think conservative standards for relationships are the most importsant thing.

As Christians, I think we need to discern how to avoid LBGB/T folk feeling unloved whilst we support God's design (that sex should be restricted to straight marriage) - too often some Christians (I'm not referring to anyone here particularly) have failed to give enough consideration to the feelings and humanity of LGB/T folk. Our priority must be to be used in directing people towards God.
Your use of the word 'folk' implies the inclusion of adults. In fact it is mostly children who awaken to their same-sex sexuality during puberty, around 12 years old. There is lots of research to support this. They then hide in the closet where harm happens. How does anyone convey God's love to them when nobody knows they are gay and they're suffering in silence with nobody to talk to? How likely are they to open up to a parent who vocalises singleness and celibacy as the only choice for them when they long for relationship?
No, folk doesn't specify an age - but the issue is sexual relationships, so we should be talking about adults. I presume that you aren't, I presume that you're thinking about young people who develop feelings of same sex attraction - but it's only sexual activity that the Bible gives guidance on. A parent not celebrating a child's potential future sexual relationships would not be a reason for emotional turmoil and self harm - unless they're worried about *other* reactions or they're experiencing *other* emotional issues. In fact it's incredibly important that young people can cope with others not supporting everything they do, let alone might do, particularly their parents. My parents have fervently opposed some things that I do, and I know that doesn't mean that they don't love me (in fact it's because they love me that they oppose these things) - and this is a reflection of God's love, He hates some of the things that we do yet still loves us so much that Jesus died for us.
Very many children enter the closet, many suffer and some die there. I use the word children because the vast majority are under 18 when they become aware of their homosexual orientation and not in a sexual relationship. I have read your previously suggested material so please read mine - Google 'Lizzie's Legacy' - the story of a 14 year old Christian, from a Christian family, who took her own life because she was gay and believed that she was an abomination and God could not love her. Her death was caused partly by anti-gay rhetoric from the church; there are plenty more like her and it must stop. 
Again, if a child feels self hatred, it's because of other reactions or other emotional issues, not simply because their parents don't support same sex sexual activity. I'm already aware of Lizzie's story, indeed it's utterly horrific - but she'd been misled, God's plan for sexuality, that sex should be restricted to straight marriage, doesn't mean that a gay person is an abomination. It's not necessary to endorse or celebrate gay sexual relationships to let a person know that they aren't an abomination. If her Church had said that gay people are an abomination, that's indeed grossly wrong - that doesn't mean we need to say that gay sex is right, we need to let people know that God simultaneously loves human beings and calls us to flee sin.
(also, RE your other comment, to say that "It's common for anti-gay theology to be adopted by conservative / fundamentalist Christians as an identity marker" doesn't prove anything. That you write "there are increasing numbers of Biblical scholars who have... determined that male same-sex activity in the ancient world was always about ...." implies that you've not read the points made, including by some gay folk, debunking this argument)


No. Woke means awareness of injustice, the Right needs to find accurate vocabulary to describe other things (such as the gender debate)
Jesus does call us to care about the vulnerable, mocking everything remotely progressive is not Christian. Most importantly, He died for our sin - RE rather than seeking political victories over others, we should have humility and gratitude that He offers us undeserved salvation though we, like our political opponents, have done wrong.
 
 
There are women in our world who have no access to healthcare, or who have to spend hours walking for water - and we're supposed to think that sending celebrities on a ride is somehow progress for humanity because they're women?
This is such an insult to female scientists.
the technology offshoots from the aeronautical and satellite industry are used by everyone everyday. Including the Internet you used to write that comment.
I'm absolutely not dismissing all space exploration, I'm well aware that satellites and more are essential - but celebrities are not progressing space science. It should be qualified astronauts/engineers in this rocket.
 
 
That's not really the issue. Everyone who turns to Jesus has previously done things that aren't in line with God's guidance (though often not so significant as this^). But their current actions and attitudes demonstrate that they aren't trying to follow Jesus, quite the opposite.
Jesus does welcome people who have broken God's laws - we all have - but if a person actually comes to Him, they'll *want* to try to adhere to His teachings. Trump and Musk plainly aren't trying to do so.
It's fake Christian Nationalists in charge now. They are weaponizing Christianity for their prosperity.
I know, they're like those who Jesus got angry with (for misappropriating "religion" in the pursuit of dominance or wealth, not actually seeking God), and He warned that there'd be fake Christians.
you sound as if you've actually read a Bible and didn't cherry-pick or distort to justify some very non-Christian behavior.
Since I'm not in your shoes, I see no widespread anti-Christian bias, but plenty of antisemitism and Islamophobia. We could always pull some some crime statistics.
Saying "happy holidays" instead of "the reason for the season" doesn't count.
The Founding Fathers were very clear that there was never to be a national religion - that's part of what they were fleeing. Christians are by far the most populous faith, fake "christians" also. The majority, by definition, shouldn't be threatened by minority beliefs, including non-belief, Buddism, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, paganism, Wicca, and even Satanists. This USED to be a "free country".
I'm British (and have always lived in London), there's certainly a degree of bias in our society here. But I'm fed up with certain people obsessing about this, it's utterly unimportant as compared to Jesus. As mad as it sounds (and I used to think it was) when I read deeply about the history of the resurrection, I came to conclude that Jesus truly does have victory over death. So why worry about people hurting our feelings? What we should be upset by is other people missing out on the joy He offers. And we should be trying to emulate Him, not being tribal and pugilistic.
 
 
That oligarchs hold power over others was long accepted in the West., the ancient Greeks and Romans thought it fine for powerful men to exploit the vulnerable. Jesus' teachings, that the weak and powerless should be cared for, spread through the West, and we came to instinctively view respect for humanity as normal. But now the foundation of our world view is being abandoned.
 
 
Judge Lord Hodge emphasises that trans people are still protected by law after the Supreme Court ruled that stating “woman” refers to biological sex
It actually is possible to disagree with someone - such as about their claim to be the opposite of what their genetics say - and also treat them with decency as fellow human beings. Some people, such as those wishing Rowling dead, or those mocking trans folk just for the sake of it, seem to have forgotten that.
IMO, science suggests that there's a Creator (as summarised in the later paragraphs of this, from TIME magazine https://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/) - so we aren't *only* evolved arrays of atoms, and our value is not determined by gender or opinions.
While science does not rule out there being a god, it also does not rule out their being a china teaset orbiting the moon (look that one up). What it does absolutely rule out is the god of the Bible being that creator. Every single bit of the Biblical creation myth is provably false. And if you base your moral code on the barbarity that follows in the rest of the Old Testament - which is where most Christian so called morality on sex and sexuality comes from - then you are a barbarian as they were. 
Oh my, you've much misunderstood my point about science, why not try the latter paragraphs of the linked article?
The Biblical creation account is not literal.
My moral code is based on aiming towards Jesus.
There are masses of people here who do think its literal. But if its just a moralising fable then the Bible tells us preciselt nothing about whether there is a creator god, because it is then essentially silent on creation aside from fairy stories. And what sicience does say is that there is absolutely no need for a creator even if one is not entirely ruled out. The likelihood there is a creator is low, and the probability the Bible identifies the creator given all the competing claims is as close to zero as makes no difference. The moral code of the Bible is truly horrific - the religoius celebrate genocide (Jericho). mass extermination of all life (Noah) and an all powerful god so not all powerful he has to kill his son to forgive men - I find I can forgive without killoing anyone at all. The mission we need today is to save people from Christianity. And Judaism. And Islam. And set them free. 
"and what science does say" according to who?
That some people think the creation account is literal is a non sequitur, as is your misunderstanding of other parts of the Old Testament.
Science isn't a matter of opinion. Its a matter of verifiability. The scientific consensus shifts as we know more, but what we know know is known because it has been verified, tpyically repeatedly. Science is very clear that the Biblical creation story is not fact - but you have already said its not. The question then becomes what does science say about the need for a creator - and the answer is nothing. There is no scientific theory that requires one.
I didn't say that science is a matter of opinion, you expressed an opinion ("and what science does say....") and I asked your source.
Again, the creation account is not literal, so your statement "Science is very clear that the Biblical creation story..." implies that you've misunderstood.
Why are you refusing to look at the point I made originally? (ie as summarised in the latter part of the linked article)

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
n
They forgot to mention illegal . Big difference
Nope. God calls us to help those in need. Some who come in small boats aren't actually fleeing hardship - but plenty are, and whether we show them care is not dependent on whether they've been able to apply before coming (in fact refugees are legally allowed to seek asylum when they arrive, so they aren't illegal as you assert)
 
 
Jeremy Vine Show Radio 2 (read out)
As a woman (who feels insecure about not being stereotypically womanly enough), I'm glad that the court has affirmed a definition of woman based in biology. But on both sides of this debate, some individuals have neglected to bear in mind the humanity of other people.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Today the British Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, essentially stating that ‘trans-women’ are not women. This is a victory for common sense!
How can we find ways to point people towards He who made humanity male and female? I'm really glad about this ruling - yet victories like this in themselves won't bring salvation for anyone, perhaps we can create opportunities in this discourse to remind people that all human beings are created and precious, even if we disagree with each other?

 
As a Christian (in Britain, where we don't dogmatically obsess about "separation of Church and state"), I really wish other Christians would remember that turning to Jesus is a decision each person must make for themselves, trying to impose Christianity doesn't achieve anything. They should consider how to explain to our society the reasons (as advanced by various academics) why we can conclude God's existence, and Jesus' resurrection, to be reality, so that people can make up their own minds.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group) 
The Primary School that changed its Easter plans was back in the news this week since, apparently, people from a Church went and protested. I am appalled, and frankly angry (with the protesters). But on a more constructive note (more than me being angry), it's reminded me to post about of Church Easter events in our local area Facebook groups and on Nextdoor. Since there are evidently (evident from certain media and social media) many amongst the general British population who are outraged about a school not holding an Easter service*, let's make sure people are reminded that they're free to attend a Church Easter service (and take their kids) themselves 
There are also other events, such as the free play/performance (RE Jesus' death and resurrection) in Trafalgar Square
*Apparently the Primary School *will* mark Easter, in assembly instead - so more children will hear (than would do with a separate service)
I'll add, for some observers, "Christians" protesting will, albeit irrationally, bring to mind the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church. We need to think HARD about how people in our society will receive what we say and do - we might have good intentions, but if observers misunderstand us because we've not bothered to consider how our cultural context has impacted the lens through which they see things, we could do more harm than good. Various statements of Paul's come to mind....
Why are you angry with the protesters??
Why wouldn't we be angry with the protesters? They're treating other people's children as pawns in a fallacious, unChristian culture war, and sending the message to our country (since this has been covered in the national news) that Christians are territorial, tribal, pugilistic snowflakes.
Protests are about harm or injustice, neither of which are happening here. Children absolutely should hear about Jesus - but whether or not they do is not at all determined by whether or not their school holds an Easter service, with bonnets, in a Church. They should hear in RE lessons and they will hear in assembly, going to a Church building and partaking in a service is nice (I'm not saying that I support the service cancellation) but is ultimately not going to be what leads them to make personal decisions to turn to Jesus. It's also not the responsibility of a school that children come to Jesus - but that they come to Jesus is what the protesters should be thinking about, instead they (and those I've seen on certain media channels and social media moaning about this school) are clearly angry because they see this as offence against "British culture". How many of the Brits moaning actually go to Church services themselves, as they're free to do? Why don't these protesters instead run events over Easter and do more to invite local families, instead of creating a despicable sight of hostility outside a *primary school*? What on Earth do they think the impact will be? I guarantee they've just made some people who aren't yet Christians even more resentful of Christianity - especially some of the small children at the school (but also people around the country reading about this).
And how many schools hold services at Easter anyway? My primary school didn't, so this school's much reported decision is hardly a modern aberration. My high school didn't either - though it was a C of E school. We did have Communion services at a nearby Church once a term, which was nice but no one seemed to be taking it seriously. We had presentations in our end of term assemblies, one of which - that introduced the concept of grace using Creme eggs - has remained firmly in my memory. It's not traditions, buildings or bonnets that matter. What matters is that people, of all ages, hear that Jesus died for their sin and rose, defeating death and offering eternal life ("Heaven") - and we need to find ways to be used by God in sharing this message.
Easter is about the indescribable thing Jesus has done for us - yet the vitriol over the primary school plainly demonstrates (peruse the tweets about it) people ignoring that and instead imagining we need to fight. It's Jesus who has won victory, yet people want to feel like they get to play soldier against people with whom we should be sharing The Gospel.
 
PS, has anyone been watching The Apprentice? Several weeks ago, the task was to create an Easter Egg. One of the teams decided to create a character for theirs("Easter Edd") since, the team leader said, it's great that there's a Christmas character (Father Christmas) who influences children to improe their behaviour. There's no one like that for Easter, they said .
Cluelessness about Jesus is rife in our country - the issue is not a school ceasing its Easter service for supposed "diversity" (of course, this is absurd given that the UK's people of colour are *slowing* the decline of Christianity), it's far deeper and longer term. We should be *upset* about that, and seeking to address it - not *angry* with a primary school.
 
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. This country was born from Christian values and should be upheld. No one was using their kids as pawns. The fact of the matter is, there’s an anti Christian movement happening all around us. Look at London having a Ramadan event! They’re trying to erase Christianity and good Christians everywhere are standing up.
They ARE using other people's kids as pawns. As you've just indicated, this part of a wider issue, and the protesters are using this school as an opportunity to protest, though they aren't the parents of the school's pupils.
"Absolutely nothing wrong"? There's very much something wrong here. A protest took place outside of Primary School, by people from a Church. That WILL contribute to observers - including the people around the country who read about it in the news (it was in The Times, for instance) - feeling that Christianity is pugilistic and tribal. Protest is inherently confrontational and aggressive -it can absolutely be necessary in some (political) situations, but this isn't one of them. Have you not observed the negative reaction from most of the public to Eco protests? Seeing people standing around with placards does not make people feel that a cause is friendly and welcoming.
"What you believe in"? Serious question - what is that exactly? How does this protest in any way support it?
No one is going to be moved in the direction of Jesus by this protest, they WILL be moved away from Christianity. Jesus didn't encourage His followers to behave like this.
Sure there's some opposition to Christianity in the UK, but marching doesn't help anything. It's not a territorial battle. Each person must decide for themselves whether they want to follow Jesus, and seeing the "standing up" that you refer to doesn't achieve that at all. We are not warriors who Jesus needs to fight for Him in a culture war, the victory is HIS, against OUR SIN. We should be trying to find ways to get those around us to think about Him, not raging at them for not knowing Him yet.
 

I *think* this is good(?) but can't help feeling slightly uncertain, particularly after seeing Carrie Underwood singing at the inauguration. Christianity mustn't be misappropriated for people to attain fame/wealth/cultural ascendancy (the name "Idol" in itself worries me), and sometimes (esp in the US), it plainly is. But I'm probably being far too cynical, I'm certainly not saying that this^ event shouldn't happen - I hope God uses it
I agree this is unlikely to have much to do with "worship" or God, it's a big corporate money spinning exercise. It's exactly the kind of thing that caused Jesus to flip tables. As if Simon Cowell has the slightest interest in worship!
I wouldn't worry too much about the word idol. The word has been subject to semantic bleaching over the years and in common parlance no longer means what it once did.
Indeed, I'm not taking the word idol too literally - I guess it serves for me as a reminder of how our culture worships the false gods of fame, celebrity and beauty.
 
  
Money should instead be spent on tackling current suffering linked back to colonialism, and on tackling modern slavery. There are human beings in some parts of Africa going through horrors that are connected to the history of folk from our part of the world greedily exploiting the continent and its people, as well as horrors resulting from modern supply chains and financial injustices that we benefit from. But giving money to people here in the West, on the basis of their ancestors' experience alone, won't make sense.
I agree with you on two points—on tackling modern slavery, and investing elsewhere. But what do you mean by 'horrors connected with the past'?
Psephizo poverty and conflict within Africa have been contributed to by interference and exploitation by some Western leaders and institutions. For instance, Western weapons have been put into the hands of those who turn on their fellow Africans, and actions such as categorisation of human beings and the Scramble for Africa have been precipitating factors (alongside, as ideology on the very Left often neglects, the universal - not race specific - reality of human sin) in the violence that's devastated lives and stymied development.
People alive now are not, as the Reparations argument often implies, the victims of what was happening in the past - but what happened in the past has impacted what actually is happening now (including the reality that we're born into a country of relative wealth - I do not mean that this is wholly due to colonialism or slavery, rather I mean that we are fortunate and should consider how we can help human beings born into less fortunate situations). I was interested when a prize was won by an economics paper looking at differences between facets of colonialism and how these have had long term ripple effects https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/press-release/
But whilst BLM et al emphasise history, there's a dearth of discussion of how corporations and banks have been *continuing* to leech vast wealth out of LEDCs https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/new-report-on-unrecorded-capital-flight-finds-developing-countries-are-net-creditors-to-the-rest-of-the-world/ I don't know why they don't discuss the debt crisis https://mediacentre.christianaid.org.uk/africa-experiencing-worst-debt-crisis-in-a-generation-report/ or the human beings suffering in the supply chains of our tech, jewellery, beverages etc. The past cannot be *repaired*, but some current suffering could be alleviated were there adequate pressure on power holders (as there was with the abolition movement), but there isn't, since present day issues are overlooked.
As an aside, I think that one factor in the Reparations push could be a differing view of ancestry. Whilst many of us (white Westerners) feel little or no connection to our ancestors, spiritual connection with ancestors is part of many non Western worldviews, and to some extent this filters through. For instance, I've seen tweets about Love Island happily attributing the success of Black contestants to "ancestors" (as much as I presume this isn't wholly serious). I suspect this differing perspective could be one component in the disagreement over Reparations, but perhaps my hypothesis is nuts
 
 
The people who are (aside from victims) most eager to pour their time and energy into showing off their anger about grooming gangs (as though everyone else isn't horrified) are often the same people who want to end overseas Aid, which leads to indescribable child suffering (including child marriage and pregnancy) - which makes me wonder whether they're truly motivated by concern for young people, or whether their focus on grooming gangs has other motivations.
(also, isn't it time for exploration of the idea of castrating those who commit crimes like those of these gangs?)
 
 
It's vitally important that employees in the UK with non British heritage are treated fairly - but what are corporations doing about the workers in their supply chains who aren't in Britain? It seems that corporations are keen to show that they supposedly support Black and Brown staff here - but they aren't resolving the reality that some products they sell us rely on horrendous exploitation of Black and Brown people elsewhere in our world. 

 
Evil. The situation that folk there are facing is horrific (and barely reported).
As if it's not abhorrent enough that Trump has chosen to precipitate immeasurable suffering by terminating USAID, now this - this administration is indisputably inhumane, malicious and racist.
NB plenty of the difficulties faced within regions of Africa are ultimately linked to Western interference and exploitation (and many times more wealth comes TO the developed world FROM the developing world than is given in Aid)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I see the 3rd temple as a hypothetical building. I believe we, born again believers, are in fact the 3rd temple. We are the temple of the living God. At the Crucifixion Christ said the temple would be destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days, that is His resurrection. Yes, in Thessalonians and other scriptures it says that the man of lawlessness will sit in Gods temple, it doesn't say the 3rd temple.
This reminds me of my gripe with those, such as health/fitness influencers, who say that we should strive to be super healthy on the basis that one's body "is a temple". Obviously it's good to be healthy if possible, and it may well help us to have the energy to serve God - but I'm pretty sure, particularly given the wider context, that Paul is talking about God working in and through us - rather than only in a specific building - not bout what our bodies are like.
I worry that those who focus excessively on forthcoming events - such as a new temple being built, or something happening to whoever they think is "the beast" might not be focussing on our need to share The Gospel with our world right now. As your comment implies, we have a role.


(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
You are 13 years old and a Christian. You have awakened to the fact that are strongly romantically attracted to the same sex. You are too afraid to tell your Christian parents or anyone in your church because they disapprove of any kind of same-sex relationship, view it as a sin, and you think they will be shocked. You find yourself in the closet dreaming about having a romantic relationship with someone special of the same-sex. When, over several years, this seems impossible you become distressed and feel hopeless. You begin self-harming and eventually start planning to take your own life.
The closet is a dangerous place. What can we do to prevent this scenario happening?
If someone thinks that not having a romantic/sexual relationship means that they won't be able to enjoy life, they've been lied to. Our culture has an idolatry of sex, and young people are misled into thinking it's essential for a full life.
A person who self harms because they think that they won't have a relationship is not only being impacted by unhelpful or bigoted messaging around them, they're suffering from mental ill-health (as I have), they need more comprehensive support.
And of course, a young person needs to know that they're always loved by their parents and by God. God has given humanity guidance prohibiting gay sexual relationships, but He loves gay people (and a life with Him gives greater joy than any human relationship)
 
 
Christianity means choosing to follow Christ, it's not primarily a matter of tradition or of tribalism against Islam. Most adults in the UK choose to ignore God, many presume that the events of Jesus' life are myth without studying the history for themselves. A school having its Easter commemoration in an assembly rather than in a separate service with bonnets is a non-issue.
 
 
Why? The Bible prohibits gay sex (but it's not our - Christians - place to expect others to follow God's guidance, and we should be worrying instead about our own sin), but it doesn't say anything about simply being gay (by orientation), let alone that it's caused by demonic possession.
the people who perform these exorcisms are not Bible readers. They just pretend to be Christians as a shield for their behaviour.
Indeed. And if they did read the Bible, they'd see that Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with those who feigned "religion" for power, rather than actually trying to follow God.
I know, I never understood why so many in the church just missed this fact. I no longer believe. But if I did I'd be mighty angry about these people co-opting my faith. Especially in the US, but they exist here in the UK as well.
YES, I am constantly frustrated by people misappropriating Christianity - not predominantly because it's important to me myself, but because they deter others from Christianity and I really believe (mad as I know I seem) that those others could find joy in knowing Jesus.
Indeed, this is a particularly big issue in the US, but it's rapidly worsening here. And a bunch of people now wrongly think that "Christianity" just means hating Islam. They're missing the point entirely.
I hope it wasn't such people who led you to no longer believe (?)
the deconstruction of my faith was complex and painful. But essentially yes.
I'm so sorry about whatever you've been put through. And I know deconstruction is very individual and complex. IMO God loves you, and the actions of people who aren't actually trying to follow Him don't change that - but apologies that I must sound patronising!
I appreciate you having made the point that certain people who pretend to be Christian are actually just trying to shield their behaviour, I often get the impression that many people aren't aware of the distinction. Jesus Himself would be telling the hypocrites off, as He did in the NT.
you don't sound patronising at all. You speak from a place of love, like you always do (I see you post quite a bit).
And you're right of course, they are quite reminiscent of the Pharisees I think. All these mega churches in America. It's sad to see, even from the outside.
The Church I listen to sermons from (The Village Church Resources) is arguably a mega-Church (in terms of size) but isn't like that, of course you're right that many are. It's so obvious that, for some people and pastors, "Christianity" is a label they're misusing to feel a sense of pride/identity and/or to make money or (try to) justify their dislike of others. Jesus would be turning over tables.
These people are both disregarding what Jesus taught, and missing out on what, IMO, is actually best. As much as Trump et al have misappropriated Christianity to attain power and wealth, as much as his fans might feel confident in being aggressive towards others, IMO there's greater (and everlasting) joy to be found in Jesus than in pride/tribalism/wealth.
Right now I'm so upset about how certain political forces are hurting some of the world's most vulnerable people, and I hate that some people call themselves "Christian" yet don't care.
Sorry, I'm rambling
it's not rambling if it's righteous anger!! 
The church I used to attend frowned upon judging hope other people do Christianity and deciding who gets to call themselves a Christian. But then I did recently see the youth pastor from that church chatting on about "woke", which was rather upsetting. And I like that certain elements of the church are starting to stand up and call the fakers out somewhat.
I think it may be on account of my Asperger's, I'm annoyingly pedantic and feel instinctively that words' actual meanings can't simply be disregarded. Trump called himself a genius, that doesn't mean that he is one, nor is he a Christian if he claims to be, since he's evidently not trying to follow Christ. Of course, those of us who do try are still seriously, seriously flawed - but it's clear that some people, such as Trump, aren't trying, and there are various teachings' of Jesus (and Paul) indicating that we *can*, to some extent, spot fake Christians. Of course, I'm not actually *stopping them* calling themselves whatever they want - and if they are Christian, what should matter to them is their relationship with God, not my (or other people's) opinions.
I'm also irked by people misusing "woke" (sorry, I'm really moaning)  - some Right wingers decided to use it to refer to *anything* they deemed connected to progressivism (including misreported things that tabloids have lied about), and now the misuse is ubiquitous. Given the original meaning, and the fact that they could have easily looked this up, it feels as though those using it as a prerogative are proud of a lack of awareness - and it's insulting to the community who initially used the word. A Christian youth leader may have things they're right to warn young people against, but empathy for minorities is not one of them.
Yes, there are plenty within the Christian community calling things out - but it feels like other voices are noisier ATM (esp given the current state of politics and social media)
oh I have Asperger's too. Although I feel we're both showing our age there, because I'm fairly sure they don't call it that any more.
Not only spot them, the Bible says what will happen to them as well. Galatians 1:8 says that anybody who preaches a different gospel will be condemned.
I swear most of them haven't even read it. Because they don't seem to be working with the same book that I know. The response that Bishop Budde got from the maga crowd shows that. She just asked for mercy for LGBTQ+ kids, and they acted like she'd performed a human sacrifice on the alter.
Indeed, yet I feel attached to the label (diagnosis) that helped me understand myself better nearly 20 years ago, and I don't like change 
Yes, you're so right, it's a false gospel. And there's more access to what Jesus actually said than the Galatians could have imagined, yet some are choosing to disregard it whilst feigning religiosity.
I was almost too busy being frustrated by what had been said the day before (at the inauguration, particularly by Franklin Graham, who I'm personally perturbed by the sycophancy of since Operation Christmas Child UK is a huge thing for me) to fully examine all of the reactions to Budde, but yes I saw that there was ample disturbing and hysterical criticism. I get that some people were concerned that she was calling for the continuation of treatments that they believe to be harming children, but that doesn't change the fact that the vitriol and hatred were wholly unChristlike, and demonstrative of the tribalism and idolatrous deification of Trump.
yes I clung to it for a while, but now me and my partner just go with tism. But I too am not fond of change!! 
I think the main point about people's anger is that it's unfounded. So however justified it would be if it was true doesn't matter, because there is very little evidence that it is harmful to children, but I know firsthand what damage withholding gender affirming care from trans children can do. Do you see what I mean?
Yes, of course I see what you mean - more importantly, I really hope that the young person you refer to (knowing firsthand) is OK 
Whether or not hormone blockers etc are helpful, many people believe that they are very harmful (including the trans person I know), so their opposition isn't necessarily motivated by bigotry (though of course it can be). But regardless, some of the hatred hurled at Budde was inexcusable - and not demonstrative of someone trying to emulate Christ. And I'm continually frustrated that some "Christians" are so, so obsessed with issues of sexuality and gender.
We (those of us who are Christian, I'm obviously not trying to tell you what you think) believe that God created each human being, in His image - so each human being is precious; and we believe that Jesus offers each human being eternal life in perfect joy ("Heaven"), so why spend more time/energy thinking about sexuality/gender? (rhetorical question of course) Even if one believes that God has instructed sex be restricted to hetero marriage, and that one shouldn't transition in any way, we still believe that there are other ways in which we (ie all humans, very much including us straight people) have separated ourselves from God's holiness - yet each person is offered salvation through Jesus, so we should be concentrating on tackling our own personal sin and on telling others about Jesus' love, not worrying about their sex lives.
(I think that part of the reason some "Christians" do is that they feel the world is changing uncomfortably rapidly, and they need to cling on to how things were when society was more "Christian" - but that's not a justification)
 
 
What? Our priority is to show Jesus to our world. Our world needs to know that Christians are furious about abuse - and Jesus spent plenty of time angrily reprimanding religious leaders.
 
 
Trump Tarriffs
Donald Trump “The most beautiful word... is the word ‘tariff’. It’s more beautiful than love; it’s more beautiful than anything.....This country can become rich with the use, the proper use of tariffs.”
The Bible "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils." (1 Timothy 6:10)
"You cannot serve both God and money.” (Luke 16:13)
(for those who still think that Trump is connected to Christianity)
It was so sickening seeing Trump moaning about the US having been "pillaged", and bemoaning countries including Bangladesh - where the GDP per capita is 2,551.02 USD.
 
 
Film critic explains why "Snow White" is bombing at the box office
She described beauty as a "value". She's not progressive at all, she's propping up the daft idea that pretty people are morally superior. 


Indeed, Christianity ultimately means believing that salvation s through Christ, not adherence to commandments (even if these are very good guidance). And I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that the politicians pushing for the Commandments to be in schools are motivated more by territorialism and tribalism than by a desire to follow Jesus(?)
 
 
NO. He is antithetical to what Jesus taught, and by cosying up to those in the US who *claim* to be "evangelical", he's deterring people from Christianity. We should also be furious about how he's hurting the world's most vulnerable people.
 
 
The head of a charity founded by Prince Harry has accused him
If only "news" media was half as interested in covering the issues the charity tackles as it is in gossiping about Harry and Meghan.
Outside of this^ particular situation, "news" outlets have for years thought it more important to report on Harry and Meghan's lives than on the lives in our world being needlessly lost due to Global poverty.
It's amazing how much impact, £ for £, charities like this one - helping those children in our world who are in the most difficult circumstances - can make. But people forget about humanity's most vulnerable people because our media, even whilst claiming to be "news", is more interested in showing us pointless content RE celebrity lifestyles (inc Meghan's, no disrespect to her)
 
 
What? The unChristlike behaviour of some people who've falsely called themselves "Christian" doesn't change what Christ said and did. It wasn't "the faith"that tried to wipe out or enslave people. Each individual can *decide for themselves* whether they want to follow Jesus, neither their ethnicity nor the actions of others are reasons that they should feel compelled to reject Him. (Is it not patronising, particularly coming from a white male, to pontificate about what POC should believe?)
Also, there was an established Church in Africa before Christianity spread through Europe.
 
 
What do people think Easter is?
I agree that the events shouldn't have been cancelled - but Jesus took our sin upon Himself and died in our place. Then He rose, defeating death and demonstrating that in Him we can have life beyond it (I'm well aware that this sounds mad, there's not space here to explain the reasoning that I came to conclude that the evidence stacks up). So why are people worrying about bonnets?


As a Christian, I'm furious with this woman.
"Sin" is a misunderstood word in our society now, so using it as she did is incredibly foolish, as well as being theologically incorrect.
NB, more important than all culture and sexuality debates is that Jesus died for us because He loves us and we have *all* sinned.


IMO there should actually be more attention (though I'm not criticising the sharing of this polling, I love polling) on how much of the public money is ending up in the pockets of contractors and landlords
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Christianity, prayer and disability. What are your experiences? We know not everyone is healed when prayed for, do you think we should expect this? Do people consder it a failure when prayer doesn't bring healing? ...I have frustrating days... I don't know how I would feel if people insisted on praying
Firstly, I'm so sorry about the frustration etc (also sorry that my writing that probably sounds condescending).
It's so important that everyone can acknowledge simultaneously that God may heal, and also that He may have a reason for not doing so. His plans are beyond our comprehension. So obviously - not that you don't know this - there's no "failure" or lack of faith if a person in not healed.
People who *insist* on praying for others are out of order. It's not dissimilar to those chastised by Jesus for their lofty prayers *to be seen* by others - if they want to talk to God about a person's healing, they could do it privately or at least ask the person in a respectful, non-insistent way (ie "would you like prayer?"). It'patronising but also theologically erroneous for someone to presume that there ought to be healing (in this lifetime), do they think that they know better than God? Can they not hypothesise the endless possible ways through which the situation might be part of His good plan? (apologies that might sound trite, I am obviously not unaware of how painful it can be to struggle with disabilities)
I like how the film Sliding Doors demonstrates how chains of event shows that something we wouldn't want to happen might in fact lead to a preferable outcome (and we'll never know what would have happened in the alternative set of events, in which the seemingly undesirable situation - be it missing a train, or having a disability - did not arise). What if God knows that having a disability will somehow protect someone from something that otherwise might affect their life negatively, or that having the disability will somehow lead to something positive? There are innumerable hypothetical possibilities for this (maybe my Autistic lack of social skills has protected me from getting caught up with someone who, in an alternate reality, would have been harmful?) - but more broadly, disabilities can help emphasise the aspects of humanity that aren't solely matters of ability. Folk with Down's syndrome, for example, often spread joy to those around them. People with all manner of disabilities are of vital importance in showing us - human society - that a human being's value is far deeper than what they're able to do.
  
 
Christian scholars recognise patterns and markers in the Genesis creation narrative that indicate it's poetry according with linguistic traditions of its time - sharing a message but not being wholly literal. The "rib" (not the original word) concept is thought to indicate that a woman is along*side* man as his equal.
Edit - it's remarkable how those arguing with this want to reject cultural history, why do you think that's a wise approach?
(Rhetorical question, I'm not going to spend time debating)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I see that some people (online and on certain channels) are hyperventilating about a primary school cancelling Easter events. I wholly agree that the cancellation is wrong (and based on a fallacious assertion - it's nonsense to suggest, as the headteacher has, that scrapping the events will help children from other backgrounds feel more valued) - but I wonder what some of those getting immensely exercised (some committing blasphemy) think Easter is(?) And I wonder the same when there are perennial protestations about chocolate egg packaging lacking the word "Easter".
Complaints are that our country is"losing its identity" - that these commentators are primarily concerned about this demonstrates that they themselves have abandoned what Easter actually is.
If the events have been teaching kids about Jesus, it's a tragedy that they now won't happen - but that doesn't seem to be the focus of those who are complaining.
Having heard from someone who is familiar with the reality of the case, it seems that the Mail has misreported the truth. I know, I was shocked too, but there we are.
It appears that they won’t be holding an Easter service at the local church, but will instead be holding an Easter assembly at the school instead. Which means that the whole school can take part.
It has to also be said that, having asked lots of other older people, they don’t recall having a school Easter service in church when they were at school, even if they went to a church school because Easter was during the holidays, but, if they attended a church school, they would have had invitations from the church to come for their Easter services and would have had some kind of celebration in assembly.
This is a non story, calculated to drive outrage and cause division and controversy. Let’s not be part of that, maybe?
I'm not sure if the last part of your comment is a criticism of me for posting about this(?) if so, I apologise that it's come across that way. My suspicion was that, as you wrote, it's a non story being stirred up by the tabloids to incite (profitable) rage - but it's so interesting to read more detail (from you knowing someone familiar with the situation). The point that I was trying to make was that people shouldn't be getting angry in the way that I've seen so many are. I'm really longing for people to think more about what we actually remember at Easter and how we might share this news with others - rather than sinking into political culture wars.
It really, really worries me that increasingly many people in the UK seem to think Christianity ultimately means being defensive and angry with Muslims, they're seriously missing the point.
There weren't Easter events when I was in primary school, so this school's decision doesn't in itself represent a *current* society wide change. So far as I remember, we didn't have them in highschool either - other than that (since I was at a Cof E school) during the end of term whole school assembly, the chaplaincy team gave a short message. I remember, one year, the youth leader asked for a volunteer and a little year 7 boy came forward. He was given a (Cadbury) Creme Egg, and we were told that this like grace, because he was receiving something he hadn't earned. As he went to resume his spot on the floor (it was torturous sitting on the sports hall floor for so long😂), the youth leader seemed to change his mind and said that in fact no, this wasn't representative of grace. He told the boy to come back and to hold out his hands, then suddenly poured a bucket of Creme Eggs out. I can still picture the expression on that boy's face.
So we learned something memorable about what Easter is actually about - being offered something unexpectedly awesome that we haven't worked for. It wasn't even in a dedicated Easter service (though I'm certainly not objecting to these) - what matters is what Jesus has actually done for us, not that children observe traditions at school for the sake of heritage (and no one needs Easter bonnets).
 
I feel the same Grace Dalton . I'm not one of those Christians who gets upset about chocolate eggs or thinks Easter or Christmas et C are sinful to celebrate but to me it's about Jesus and it seems the schools like to cherrypick the non essential bits- I think the unchurched children must assume that it's all about eggs and rabbits ... it's sad
This is an interesting different angle! I wasn't thinking about those who deem Easter or Christmas celebrations "sinful" (and I agree with you that this concern is mistaken), rather, what I'm observing is people who show no evidence of wanting to follow God suddenly getting angry and shouting "this is a Christian country!" when eggs don't have the word "Easter" on them. And you're right, children must presume eggs and rabbits are all there are to celebrate.
 
It’s so sad to see our culture being wiped away. In Northern Ireland where I’m from. Religion is still very important. Our churches are always full. The patriotism to Christianity still runs deep in Northern Ireland whether you’re catholic or Protestant. Since moving to England I have noticed a huge drop in Christian values and I keep hearing about Churches being close down. I really hope the people of England can come back to Jesus and stand up for what we believe in.
"culture"?
Indeed, we desperately need people to come back to *Jesus*. Culture is irrelevant, it's Jesus who matters (He has nothing to do patriotism).
Kingdom Culture
The people I've seen raging about this (on Twitter, in parts of the media, etc) absolutely do not demonstrate Kingdom Culture.
 
I agree with the sentiment of your post, many people are still ‘cultural Christian’s’, even the atheist Richard Dawkins calls himself a cultural Christian and these events/marking Christian festivals are important for British culture if we are to stay a Christian country. X
What is a "Christian country"?
And what's "important" exactly?
(apologies I seem argumentative, I'm not trying to be, I'm genuinely wondering)
I'm aware RE Dawkins, and this demonstrates my point - people can like things associated with Christianity yet be entirely missing out on - or rejecting - Christianity actually is.
Hi Grace, I would say a Christian country is where the majority of the people would describe themselves as Christian, even if not practicing. Where our culture is centred around Christian festivals such as Easter and Christmas. For me I would say partaking in these celebrations is desirable than not, even if people are not fully engaged with the faith. If we stop celebrating these events because most people are not practicing Christians, then the country’s religion may change to reflect the new dominant faith.
I would say a Christian country is where the majority of the people would describe themselves as Christian, even if not practicing. Where our culture is centred around Christian festivals such as Easter and Christmas. For me I would say partaking in these celebrations is desirable than not, even if people are not fully engaged with the faith. If we stop celebrating these events because most people are not practicing Christians, then the country’s religion may change to reflect the new dominant faith.
What does it matter if people "describe themselves" as Christian? What a person says about themselves is in itself meaningless, what matters is what they're actually like - for instance, if a rapist declares himself to be a woman, it doesn't mean that he is, and no one should take him seriously. When Trump called himself a genius, it didn't make him a genius. The tragedy in our country is that most people are choosing to ignore God, and whether or not they participate in "traditions" is insignificant by comparison - in fact it's a *problem* that people think tradition is what Christianity is, and they miss the actual Gospel. 
history tells us it is important for people to identify as Christian. Iran, Syria and Egypt were once predominantly Christian. Yes, ideally everyone would have the faith we have, but identifying as Christian is better than not.
Sorry (genuinely sorry, I'm going to seem really argumentative, and I'm not wanting to be!), how does history tell us that?
When Syria was largely "Christian", based on what you imply the people were only Christian in name.
It's the actual teachings of Jesus, and people walking with Him, that improve society, not people labelling themselves - but more importantly, it's Jesus who gives eternal life, infinitely more important than any "traditions".
It's not necessarily "better than not" for people to *identify* as Christian - in our society now, many people think that they're Christian simply because of tradition/heritage/culture, and they're missing out on The Gospel. Thinking that Christianity is just a normative, or even dull, facet of our culture deters people from being interested in actually exploring the reality of Jesus.
And when people call themselves "Christian" yet don't follow Jesus, many behave in ways that contribute to observers thinking that "Christianity" entails bad behaviour - for instance, Trump pretends to be on the side of Christianity, but he is evidently not trying to follow Jesus, and observers horrified by his attitude feel worsened negative associations with "Christianity".
In the Gospels, Jesus gets very angry with those who associated themselves with religion yet weren't actually trying to follow God.
 
Christianity in primary schools is long gone! It is now all about Islam and children choosing whether they are male or female before the age of 10!! I just think the world has gone mad.
"all about"? This isn't what I've seen as a childminder, is there any data on it?
When I was in primary school myself, we had hymns, and these were gradually phased out - but we didn't have an Easter service, so this "news" isn't about a *new* change nor is it necessarily about Islam/gender.
What ultimately matters is that young people eventually hear about Jesus and think seriously about whether they want to turn to Him, if the Easter events that this 1 school has cancelled would have helped with that then it's tragic they've been scrapped - but the anger seems to be instead about *things changing*.
 
Really it is our responsibility as Christians and parents to ensure our children learn the true message of Easter. I think it should be taught and celebrated in school but, primarily, it should be our job.
Yes, I think Christian parents have this responsibility. Though I really, really worry for the many children who don't have the blessing of having Christian parents telling them about Jesus. As is the case with cleaning teeth in primary schools, though it *should* be that parents take responsibility for it, some children have parents who don't, and those children are just as deserving as other children. I think that ideally, kids should hear about God at school and be enabled to *decide what they believe for themselves*, though I imagine most people would argue this isn't part of schools' remit. But I don't think that the hysteria is about helping children to learn about Jesus, people seem to be angry about the loss of a tradition (even though I'm certain that most schools haven't had this tradition for decades anyway, I didn't have Easter services in school)
 
if the parents are not interested about what Easter really means they are not going to tell there children about the live and sacrifice jesus made on that cross of which Easter is truly about
YES, this is what matters, that people hear about what Jesus has done. My frustration has been that those who have been raging about an event being cancelled seem not to be thinking about Jesus at all, they're just angry because they see this as an attack on the "tradition" of "our country".
It's both the case that parents should tell their kids about Jesus, *and* that the Christian community needs to keep looking for ways to share Him with our society since as you say, most people don't grow up hearing about Him from their parents.
 
I think people get attached to "what has always been done" and, whilst many now forget Jesus, the UK has a long and varied list of traditions rooted in its Christian, and other, history. There will also be a subset resistant to what they feel is a "takeover" by "outside" traditions and ideals. I don't have much time to worry about these things. It's my job to teach my child about these things anyway.
Personally, I think the most valuable thing we can do for children is properly teach them about eachother and how to discuss ideas and disagree with eachother without anyone attacking others, getting nasty/upset if they do not agree with others, or refusing to listen because they've already decided they disagree and dont need to. Just go on any social media platform discussion to see how terrible so many adults are at this!
Indeed, people are angry because they think that "what has always been done" is changing - but I bet any amount of money that most of those getting angry about this school hadn't heard of it previously or known that these Easter events had "been done" there in the past. And I'm certain that most primary schools don't have these events.
Yes, the UK has a Christian heritage - yet most people have indeed forgotten Jesus, and it's that which is an incomparably more significant issue. That those moaning (GBeebies presenters etc) think tradition is what matters shows that they themselves have abandoned Christianity. Our country is not less Christian because of a "takeover", it's less Christian because most native Brits has chosen to ignore God.
I do think it's a mistake to think cancelling these things will foster unity and inclusion though. Lots of kids of all faiths love this stuff. Easter bonnets etc was very popular at my daughters primary with all kids. Imagine being told its off to respect X or Y child. You're going to be angry at X or Y, all the while X or Y might be equally sad it's cancelled. Kids have strong senses of fairness and don't always direct anger in the right place as they go to immediate. I remember my friends son was angry at my daughter for a week once because she got 2 chocolates from the class advent calendar and he hadn't got one. The teacher picked her twice so any anger should have gone there. You'd hope for no anger, but lttllle things to adults are big things to kids.
Absoluteky. A massive factor in the cruelty that exists within our country towards minorities or migrants is some adults perceiving injustices or special treatment. And as you wrote previously, kids need to learn to discuss ideas with rationality rather than anger. The tweets I've seen about this story demonstrates that many adults are lacking this capacity - and they may think that they're on the side of Christianity in the face of the likes of the headmistress, but they should really take a look at how Jesus taught us to behave.
 
Easter is the most important festival in the Christian calendar. If you can't see what the problem with our current society is, you should probably get measured up for your new garb that you'll be wearing within the decade.
How did I indicate not realising the importance of Easter? What is the "problem in our society"? Why not answer my original query - what do you think Easter actually is? (genuine question, apologies if I'm coming across as patronising or argumentative, I'm not meaning to)
It was your general sarcastic use of the word 'hyperventilating'. Imagine if it were another religion having a festival banned, secularised or not.
Sorry, why do you think that my reaction to people online//partisan media represents my attitude to Easter??
Why "Imagine if it were another religion having a festival banned"? Easter isn't being "banned", and other religions don't change anything about Easter either way (it's whataboutism)~
Again, I'm really sorry this will seem patronising (I wish I could think of a better way to word it), but what do you think Easter is?
 
I usually agree wholeheartedly with your posts, but I actually think it is obscene that they should cancel Easter events. Do they cancel events based on other faiths, like Ramadan and Diwali? I very much doubt it. This is a serious step in the wrong direction.
(as I've written, I agree that the events shouldn't have been cancelled). Yes, the letter from the teacher at this school says that all religious events are now not to be celebrated at school. But either way, what difference would that make? We aren't in a territorial war against other religions and in need of justice for our tribe - we know The Truth, and we long for others to know Him too. Whether or not other religions are celebrated doesn't actually directly determine this - most people in the UK don't celebrate Eid etc, but they still aren't following Jesus.
Our country has been going *in the wrong direction* for a long time - it's not due to other religions (as much as I disagree with them), the British population has increasingly decided to ignore God. We worship self-gratification and football instead. If these Easter events would have helped kids to think about Jesus, then the fact they won't happen is a reason to be *upset* - instead I'm seeing a lot of people who are *angry* because they feel territorial about *tradition* (and many have been combining their complaints with plainly unChristian comments, including racism). The real concern isn't that one school won't offer Easter events within the timetable (I'm pretty sure most schools don't have these events anyway, and I didn't when I was in school - but anyone could attend Church Easter events), it's that most of the population *choose* to disregard what/Who Easter is actually about.
 
 
What are you going to do to help the human beings there who aren't privileged to have connections to Britain?
NB our country (Britain) is rich in no small part because of colonialism, and guess who colonised Sudan? Conflicts are linked to history, the West has contributed to this mess.
I'm disgusted that our government is cutting Aid.
white saviour complex
You think that caring about other human beings means feeling that one is a saviour? You must be projecting.
Sudan has been independent for 70years now, they don't need or want outside interference. Any financial aid will just end up in the hands of the regime or rebel groups and spent on weapons to kill more innocents.
So you accuse me of being a "white saviour" but also think that you can speak for all of the people there who have been forced to flee from horrifying conflict to state that they wouldn't want any Aid?
I'm well aware that Aid can sometimes get into the wrong hands, the solution is to ensure that it's better managed so that it all reaches the right people, the solution is not to leave people to starve.
 
 
The uproar is demonstrative of the issue. A bunch of people have got themselves stuck in hateful, misinformed online echo chambers.
Ultimately, in the course of human history, there have been far more Black people brutalised and killed by white people than there have been white people brutalised/killed by Black people. That's not the *fault* of *other* white people, but for any of us to think about brutality as a Black issue (which is what those making the claim about Adolescence are doing, even if subconsciously) is fundamentally stupid (as well as racist).
Right now in our world, there are millions of Black people suffering because of horrendous violence that ultimately has links to colonialism or Western corporate greed. The people who obsess only about suffering white children should read about what some children in places such as Sudan or Congo are currently enduring.
 
 
As a Christian, I've been thinking about this for ages. In all seriousness, I think it's complicated because of the risks that some people (I don't mean homeless folk specifically) would come come in and vandalise buildings, and there are Health and Safety concerns for people going in themselves. But I really, really wish that Churches could be homeless shelters. Please know that a lot of Churches (at least here in the UK) are doing various things for the homeless. It was fun trying to figure out how to set up the folding beds when we hosted the winter night shelter (I am clueless with furniture)

 
A commentator I heard earlier today differentiated between those in Trumps team who are "true believers" (fans of Putiin etc) and "broken men" (who once publicly recognised the absurdity of Trump, but have now been weakened to sycophancy)

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Who watched the Gareth Southgate lecture? It was like a sermon with God taken out. A lot of good points... but hollow in the absence of our ultimate foundation.
Espousing some great values - "We have to show young men that character is more important than status. That how you treat others is more important than how much money you make.” - but they're not a given, they're values that exist in our culture because of Jesus' teaching. Human selfishness is erasing these from our culture as its abandonment of Him over the last century reaches fruition.
He says repeatedly that there's a need for "belief" - in what? Seemingly he means belief in oneself, but the most probable outcome of this arrogance (and frustration upon failure), not progress. Human beings need belief in someone greater. And people need "identity" - but if that means reflecting upon our family history or career, is it ultimately helpful? Human beings need to know that our identity is as creations of God.
It's a common mantra ATM that boys need role models - perhaps, but all of us have a perfect role model (Jesus) already.
(FTR, I'm not intending to attack Southgate, I think the speech was very well intentioned)
The majority of commentary has been very positive, with lots of fawning over him from those I typically agree with - but this seems a tragic demonstration of how they've been missing out on Bible teaching.
Meanwhile the criticisms of Southgate's speech (that one can read on Twitter) exemplify the horrifying rise of misogyny and racism in our society that's resulted from the abandonment of Jesus' teachings.
 

(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Seeing certain posts in other groups that purport to be "Christian", I feel compelled to write: Christianity doesn't mean fighting Islam, problematic as it is. Christianity means following Christ. There are aspects of Islam that we should absolutely be seriously opposed to - but our ultimate mission is to point people towards Jesus. Our country has not become less Christian because of Islam (and committed Christians aren't converting to it), it's become less Christian because most people ignore God. I'm concerned that there's a growing war mentality that misses the point of Jesus' message.


(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
 I hope that you've had a good International Women's Day 
I feel it's worth making thee point that, though feminism is generally secular, part of the reason our society came to recognise the equality of women is Christianity (the historian Tom Holland has stated there couldn't have been feminism without the Christian worldview that's existed in our culture). The Ancient Romans thought it fine for men to treat women as objects - but the teachings of a particular male role model changed the prevailing moral framework, He (Jesus) had treated women with respect that was countercultural in His time and He demonstrated that it's not simply the case that "might is right".
Human beings can be greedy and power hungry - so inevitably some men have sought to misappropriate "religion" to claim dominance over women. But we know that "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28)
Just now I've been reminded of an issue. I've read about previously, that there are women in India who work with sugar crops (including to be traded with countries like ours) and are forced to have hysterectomies, so that they won't have their work impacted by menstruation or motherhood.
Around or world, there are women and girls who are grossly afflicted. Sometimes our media gives extensive attention to inequalities such as female sports professionals, TV personalities or actresses being paid less than male counterparts - but injustices in our world that are causing actual harm are overlooked. We can make an amazing impact by supporting organisations helping the very most disadvantaged girls and women (for instance, sponsoring a girl costs around £1 per day, and enables her to have a bright future)


(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
A conference going on this week has included ardent assertions of "Christian values" and speeches from some Christian Apologists. I'm thrilled by the latter being heard, but concerned by some of the former. For instance, a very well known marmite politician/presenter asserted - rightly - that our country needs more of its past Judeo-Christian values, but demonstrated in the same conversation (as he often does). that he doesn't know basic Christian principles. And when I tried to raise Christianity in conversation with him a few years ago (on LBC), he was demonstrably disinterested.
Perhaps my bias against this particular politician and others like him 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.
 
 
I love that he wrote The Language Of God, about how DNA indicates that a Designer (God) exists. Now those in power falsely claim to be on the side of God whilst opposing science (and God's commands)
 

Why would anyone not buy 2nd hand?
I find it particularly exciting that what we spend can make a real impact for the world's poorest people when buy from Oxfam (which has a huge online shop)
 

So tragic. Even Reagan referred to "A city on a hill" - a phrase taken from Jesus' teaching and used to refer to how America should have a positive impact in the world. Now those in power, and their supporters, just do not care about decency or other human beings. (in addition to the tragedy for Ukraine, this shift means that the world's most disadvantaged will suffer horrifically from Aid cuts)
The point is that the the New Testament speaks to individual actions. It is a personal covenant not the corporate one in the Old Covenant. No where does it say that the government should confiscate and redistribute. If you are going to cite Christian principles, it is best to understand them.
I didn't dispute that we also have personal responsibility, and Jesus doesn't oppose tax or nations treating others fairly. Note that the wealth of our nations is hugely connected to extraction from elsewhere (and far more comes TO the developed world FROM the developing world than us given in Aid)
 
 
The three countries call for ‘immediate and unconditional ceasefire’ in eastern DRC.
Oh wow, I DESPERATELY hope this works out!!! I am constantly upset about the suffering being endured right now in Congo and Sudan, and despairing that our media seems not to care when those human beings in our world with the most melanin are afflicted.
 
 
Can dementia make us forget God and faith?
God invented the human brain, it isn't going to overpower Him in His having a relationship with someone. I've wondered if some of those who suffer this horrific illness might in fact be prompted to cry out (in their hearts) to God amidst their despair, and find Him for the first time. 


I find it frustrating that so much of our "news" media is occupied by stories that people love for the sake of drama. Meanwhile there babies in our world dying unnecessarily from extreme poverty, who we could save, yet they're ignored whilst our media wallows in scandal.
(To clarify, this is not in any way to negate the unfathomable horror of the bereaved families in the Letby case, I'm perturbed that our media is more interested in appropriating their tragedy for gossip than in conveying information about our world which might lead to positive change)
 
 
As a Christian, I'm furious with this woman.
"Sin" is a misunderstood word in our society now, so using it as she did is incredibly foolish, as well as being theologically incorrect.
NB, more important than all culture and sexuality debates is that Jesus died for us because He loves us and we have *all* sinned.
 
 
YES - why do so few people care about the far more severe healthcare deficits in less wealthy countries? As much as our NHS is struggling, in general we have far more access to healthcare than much of humanity. The work done by healthcare professionals from other countries is amazing, we shouldn't be poaching them.
 

It's absolutely true that Churches shouldn't support trans ideology. However, the issue is insignificant in comparison to The Gospel, and there's far too much time spent arguing about LGB/T issues whilst Jesus is given too little attention.
 

OK, though there's a lot going on RE these issues - many people rightly think and care about asylum seekers and about tackling homophobia. But human beings in our world who are horrifically exploited in the supply chains of our cocoa, sugar etc are largely ignored - why don't you use your platform to fight for them?
Everyone, this is an example of "whataboutism". Where rather than engaging with the original issue, they attempt to change the subject of discussion entirely to something unrelated.
When people are being grossly exploited and continually overlooked, we need to say "what about...." 
B&Js have many long years spent fighting for fair trade and fair wages. no need to change the subject
When did they last use their platform to raise awareness?
if that’s your biggest concern, you can find out! personally i quite care about this issue on display in this post
Proving my point.
proving what point, B&J since their inception have covered a multitude of social injustice issues, this right now is probably the most pertinent issue. throwing out whataboutisms doesnt help either cause its a distraction that only seeks to undermine both causes. be better if you actually care
Proving the point that you can't tell me when they last posted about the most oppressed and exploited labourers, because they haven't done so recently. Telling me to "be better" because I wish that a corporation with the power to raise awareness of their plight did so really doesn't prove anything. 
 
 
“The government has announced the most devastating cuts to disability benefits on record. These plans should shame the government to its core” says SCOPE
Given their cuts to Overseas Aid (which makes so much more impact £ for £ than any spending here, and can help people born into unimaginable hardship), clearly the Government has no shame.
And what are they actually going to do to get those of us with illnesses/disabilities, who keep applying for jobs and being rejected, into jobs?


OK, but there are human beings in our world who have fled under-reported violence and are now literally starving, so why don't you report actual news?
 
 
Jim is silly. Christianity is not opposed to science https://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/ (many important scientists have been Christians seeking to better understand what God has made) - and Christianity compels us to care for our fellow humans (including those of other nations) so we need to take the environment seriously (environmental damage hurts people)
 
 
Last night I was rewatching Corridors Of Power, and White House officials from previous decades spoke about how they had a duty to oppose evil in our world. Now the White House cares only about greed, and many millions of the world's most disadvantaged people will suffer and die as a result. 


YES. For centuries, though human beings are endlessly varied and flawed, at least the aim of emulating Jesus as a moral ideal somewhat mitigated a portion of human selfishness. Now that this moral framework has largely disappeared, and people are surrounded by invocations to personal gratification, society is getting worse in a multitude of ways. Previously, young people heard about Jesus (particularly during their formative years), increasingly people have instead grown up surrounded by messages that they should be able to have what they want - so there's more selfishness and crime.
(though of course, what matters most is people missing out on knowing Jesus and what He offers, which, unlike our societal issues - is eternal)
 
 
There are places in our world where people are being brutally attacked for being Christian (recent example https://www.opendoorsuk.org/news/latest-news/drc-attack-church/), it frustrates me when some people here in the West refer to our being disliked as "persecution" given what others are enduring.
 
 
What? I don't think that we should distract from the reality that it's through Jesus we have actual redemption by fawning over celebrity culture.
And frankly, I think the programme is problematic. In a world in which human beings are starving, programmes like this (see also: Real Housewives, Selling Sunset, Kardashians, Made In Chelsea, etc) that are largely about celebrating wealth are not good.
 
 
What does anyone think this achieves? Personally, I think it's awesome (for them) if kids pray, but it has to be their decision, and what would be the point of forced prayer anyway? It's also fundamentally unChristian to take necessary resources from children.
 
 
No, he just wants to play hero.
Neither Trump nor Musk actually care about other human beings dying (so their pretences to want to save young Russian and Ukrainian troops from being killed are false). If they did, they wouldn't have wholly abolished the Aid department. Unless perhaps they care exclusively about white people?
 
 
I grew up being taken to Church - it was a positive experience, but I didn't believe.
Later I discovered reasons to actually conclude God's existence, and Jesus' resurrection, to be true.
It's not wrong for parents to include kids in something that they believe is good for them, but it depends on what exactly that is, and young people need to be allowed to work out their own mind.
  
Why do they think that them having fun with their dogs is more important than bereaved people being able to spend time remembering their loved ones who have died?
Owning a dog is a *privilege* for the owner's *enjoyment*, why do they think that their convenience takes precedence over the emotions of those who have lost family members?
(FTR, I've never personally spent time at a grave, so I'm not biased)
 
 
I wish it were still all about helping the world's very most disadvantaged people, not a mixture of projects including luxury London waterside flats for retirees.
Right now there are millions of people displaced by war and on the brink of starvation (almost entirely ignored by the media), why does Comic Relief spend much of the money raised in our wealthy country where each £ buys far less than it could?
 
 
What message is this sending to kids?
How is it going to make classmates, including those who don't get expensive holidays and those whose learning is compromised by teachers needing to spend time helping these^ kids catch up, feel?
Meanwhile there are children in our world who would dearly love to go to school, yet can't (even though it costs us only around £1 per day to sponsor them)
 
 
Neither Trump nor Musk actually care about other human beings dying (so their pretences to want to save young Russian and Ukrainian troops from being killed are false). If they did, they wouldn't have wholly abolished the Aid department. Unless perhaps they care exclusively about white people?
 
 
As a Christian,, I'm no less concerned about non-Christians being killed (than about Christians being killed), in fact perhaps more, for theological reasons. But it is true that brutal persecution is going on, and it's continually overlooked by media.
I think that some people see certain Westerners who self-identify as Christians moaning that they're offended our society isn't Christian anymore, and this leads to a misunderstanding of what "Christian persecution" actually is.
 
 
Private Schools
IMO it's not only about the money, I really don't think that kids should be segregated by social class. Young people growing up together is important for increasing empathy and constructive interactions in society.
PS - sponsoring a child in one of the poorest parts of the world costs a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of education here (approx £1 per day), and transforms their future. The letters they send can help a child in the UK to learn about the world, IMO a more useful life learning experience for them than many things that wealthy parents here spend money on.
 
 
It's not binary. Indeed some do vilify trans folk, and that's not OK - but most people simply believe in biology and or are concerned about how some within the Gender ID movement disregard women's safety and/or put young people on harmful pathways. The trans person I know is annoyed by things that Sturgeon has supported. 
except these people who supposedly "believe biology" are literally just leaving the parts out that dont fit their narrative the actual qualified biologist say others wise you know the people who actually studied biology not someone who done biology in first yeah and thats it  yeah ever heard of a uncle tom? Thatll explain the last sentence of your post
Which parts? I have studied biology, I have a degree in it. As much as some fallacies that biology supports the Gender movement have been circulated, it's not the case that a person born male can become female or vice versa, nor that one's brain and body can be opposite sexes - that doesn't mean that we can't be decent to trans folk.
Calling someone an Uncle Tom, particularly when you've not even looked at their arguments, is just unthinking, and disrespectful of their insight as a trans person. That they've changed their appearance to look, wholly convincingly, as the opposite of their biological sex doesn't mean that they're not allowed to criticise some of the things that Nicola Sturgeon has said/done.
 
 
Our country has taken so much wealth from Commonwealth countries - and the transfer from developing countries to wealthy countries is ongoing (far surpassing Aid) https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/new-report-on-unrecorded-capital-flight-finds-developing-countries-are-net-creditors-to-the-rest-of-the-world/
The Royal family should give their wealth to projects helping the very most disadvantaged individuals in formerly colonised countries.
It's slightly ironic to be attending a Church service - Jesus told people not to store up wealth, and to help those who are in need (specifically including those of other countries)
 
 
I'm not sure why you're commenting on that here(?) Those topics are important to discuss as Christians, but to the wider world what we who are Christians need to be talking about is The Gospel, which is incomparably more important.
however the UK is an established Christian country in law and HM The King is head of the Church of England  
It is to choose to repent and commit to Jesus, who died for our sin. It's a decision a person makes, not a feature of a country (NB if a person *genuinely* follows Jesus, that will cause them to want to adhere to His teachings, some who call themselves "Christian" demonstrate that they aren't doing so - but Christianity isn't ultimately about what we do, it's about what Jesus has done for us)
 
 
It's not hurting XY individuals to prevent them competing against XX individuals (actual cruelty to trans folk is not OK).
What is hurting - killing - people, are other MAGA policies. The end of USAID will lead to immeasurable suffering. And MAGA has been able to take power in part because the Democratic Party has been too focused on supporting things RE trans/gender that don't seem rational to most voters. The Left urgently needs to focus on the biggest injustices, and not let the Right exploit trans folk as they have been.
 
 
Even if Musk's not a Nazi officially, by closing the US Aid department he's precipitating many millions of deaths (and the unimaginable suffering of so many more), and I'd guess that part of the reason he doesn't care is that those people aren't the same ethnicity as him. 

 
Aside from this comment, Candace is a blasphemous antisemite.
Her appropriation of the words "Christ is King" as jingoistic slogan to stick a middle finger up at opponents as grotesque (as is her entertaining of mad conspiracy theories)
 
 
"Socially acceptable" as defined how? I've looked at JRF reports previously, it's plainly wrong, insisting on far more money than we (Brits) actually *need* to live comfortably. I don't doubt that there's need here, but these numbers are erroneous. There are human beings elsewhere in our world who are literally starving, and they get ignored.
"I'm not poor so this is wrong"
Gotta be a tory, I'm OK so fuck those less well off. Oh and helping other countries and helping your own are not mutually exclusive. It's a false dichotomy to suggest we ignore the poor here cos others also need help.
LOL no, I've never voted Tory (nor Reform etc), nor would I, only ever Labour (though as of last week I may vote Green from now on). You seem not have read what I actually wrote. Have you looked at the figures they're referencing for yourself? You accuse me of being better off, but the study presumes that people should spend way, way more on themselves than I do.  


I don't care that I'm a prude, Sabrina Carpenter's performance was not OK (though I wouldn't complain to Ofcom) - she should consider the reality that little girls will think that they could get attention by trying to emulate her, and (given how she performs) that means they're in danger.
 
 
NB we can also save babies, such as by sponsoring one in one of the world's poorest places
And blood donation is awesome! (NB, if anyone's interested, they give you free biscuits)
 
 
Why use bottled water? A metal flask avoids the risk of microplastic, and the impact on the environment. And for the cost of a dozen or so bottles, one could fund access to clean water for someone in our world who doesn't have the privilege of having it on tap like we do, which is so exciting
 
 
A few millennia ago people thought it fine for the powerful to oppress the weak, "might is right". Then Western ideals changed - though there were still plenty of selfish, evil people of course - and people believed that human beings warrant resect and compassion even if weak and poor. But now our society is reverting. Selfishness is openly celebrated. Accordingly, Ancient Roman symbolism is even being employed (such as by Musk).
 
 
The arrogance of Trump and Vance is amazing. Yesterday Trump claimed that one of his favourite words is God - he should stop trying to profit from selling Bibles and actually read the Bible instead, he'd see that God HATES his arrogance
 
 
It's wholly right to stand up for those suffering in Gaza. But I don't understand why so, so, so much less attention is afforded to other human beings in our world. The cuts to Aid will lead to unimaginable suffering. There are folk in less publicised conflict zones than Gaza who are literally starving to death. Why are they virtually ignored?
(NB, rhetorical question, I'm not going to spend time arguing - and again, I'm not disputing that we should care about Palestinians)


Should be allowed to cull beavers
No. That some folk have *legal* ownership of parts of the land that we share doesn't mean that they have a *moral* entitlement to do whatever they like.


‘The Empire was hidden in Belgium. It was called the Empire of Silence.’
I'm constantly argued with by twits who think that we shouldn't help the most disadvantaged folk in Africa because there are corrupt leaders - they're apparently unaware that European colonialism and Western interference have enabled the corruption.

 
The White House has spewed a bunch of lies about it, and people have credulously swallowed them and disregarded the suffering that will result from ending the actual Aid work.
Just to simply state that the White House has 'spewed a bunch of lies about it' is not enough. Tell us what the lies are. I presume you would not write such a thing without knowing?
The article itself acknowledges some of them, and there's ample reporting one can read regarding the lies, for instance https://www.factcheck.org/2025/02/sorting-out-the-facts-on-waste-and-abuse-at-usaid/. And surely you saw Musk admitting that his assertion RE condoms was fallacious?
Obviously I don't think funds should be expended on LGBT promotion - but the programmes referenced as supposed justification for killing USAID have actually been funded by a *different department* - which doesn't "miss the point" as the article^ suggests, because it's USAID that's been eliminated.
And even if the sums referenced had come from the USAID department - representing peanuts in terms of a % of US spending - to terminate vital food and medical care for the world's very poorest people (as though it's their fault if some Americans in the Aid sector have agendas?) is evil. Millions of people - people who are every bit as precious to God as those of born into wealthy countries - will die because of the obliteration of USAID, many more still will suffer horrifically.
If someone spends some of their money on junk food, should they be stripped of all funds so that they starve? The solution to misspending is to *reform* and *spend better*, not to end spending so that people die. We wouldn't think that the NHS should be terminated because of some of its money being wasted, in fact there's waste in all departments - and all businesses.
One can read more detail about programmes here, for instance https://www.foreignassistance.gov/
Check out the graphic regarding %s here https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-data-says-about-us-foreign-aid/
As Christians we must care about the poor. And as it happens,Christian organisations are affected by this cut (though we should support Aid in general), including Samaritans Purse etc. And consider “In May 2024, then-Sen. [Marco] Rubio spoke at an International Republican Institute (IRI) event honoring exiled Catholic Bishop Rolando Álvarez for his advocacy of religious freedom in Nicaragua,” Samah Alrayyes Norquist, who served as the first Trump administration’s religious freedom envoy at USAID, wrote in Newsmax. “What Rubio likely didn’t know is that IRI’s work on religious freedom in Nicaragua was funded by USAID.” (Devex)
Of course the greed and wastefulness that exists in parts of the Aid sector is disgusting and unacceptable - but it's no reason to destroy it. And what would you expect in our fallen world, with the sinfulness of the human heart?
 
 
The people throwing around the phrase ATM are evidently not following Jesus' teachings. And Jesus Himself spent a lot of time arguing with religious authorities who weren't actually following God but were misappropriating "religion" to attain power.
Jesus' teachings *have* shaped our culture, prior to their spreading here people thought it fine to steal, to exploit others, to disregard the vulnerable etc. But politicians who brag about this being a "Christian country" mostly demonstrate that they aren't following Him.
And it's folk from or with heritage from elsewhere who are slowing the decline of Christianity in Britain, trying to use it as an argument against the "other" demonstrates amazing stupidity.
 

This is really not what anyone who's actually following Jesus should be concerned about. He offers eternal life (heaven), so we should be telling the world about Him, not putting energy into giving the unBiblical idea that wives should be weak.
 
 
Nope. If he were able to be sensible and respectful to his fellow human beings some of the time, we could perhaps surmise that on occasions like this^he's just trying to be comical - but his arrogance is relentless, it's not a joke. And God hates arrogance.
 
 
It goes without saying that people should care for their family - but it's plainly unChristian to value some strangers more than others on the basis that they share one's nationality. Vance's claim that it's a "Christian principle" to disregard those of other countries (and that's what his government is doing, even whilst he didn't admit to it in the interview) is borderline blasphemy - he's trying to associate himself with God as a defence of his policy/to make himself seem more righteous.
What Rory Stewart wrote was brilliant.
All human beings are of equal value - and we should have concern for those in the very greatest need, most of whom are NOT our compatriots. Additionally, if we donate towards organisations working in the very poorest parts of the world, we can make far more impact than if we spend/donate the same £amount here - so why would we choose to help fewer people?
 
 
Cutting Aid is sheer evil. I've defended Starmer continually, Now he has so much blood on his hands - and unimaginable suffering
Tabloids love to obsess over - or lie about - scraps of the Aid budget that are misused, ignoring the maths of how tiny a % their claims represent. And all departments and businesses have waste, the solution is to spend better, not cut spending. The Aid that's helping the very poorest people (far poorer than people here) can do many times more per £ than any money spent here.
FTR, far more wealth goes in the OPPOSITE direction 
Note how Starmer began his press conference by inviting us to imagine what those in Ukraine are suffering right now amidst war - and it's entirely right to be concerned for and to support Ukrainians - but evidently he doesn't care about those facing equal horror in the wars in Sudan or Congo. What does that tell us?
FTR, far more wealth comes in the OPPOSITE direction than we give in Aid https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/new-report-on-unrecorded-capital-flight-finds-developing-countries-are-net-creditors-to-the-rest-of-the-world/
 

A few years ago he said he'd use his wealth to end hunger. Now people will die of starvation because he's killed USAID. And I really don't get it, because it's amazingly exciting that we - typical Westerners - can help several of the world's very poorest people (it's amazing how much impact each $ can make for them), so why would one not want to end hunger if possible?
 
 
FTR, Benny Hinn (top photo) is widely condemned in Christian circles 
Now do the other pastors. With huge amassed wealth?
If nobody is supporting them. Where is the money coming from??
Some gullible people support them, that doesn't change the fact that they're widely condemned - or, more importantly, that they're demonstrative of what *Jesus* continually argued against.
They can fill stadiums with millions at a time. That’s a few? Okay.
The Christians really are a weird bunch.
Allow these pastors to exist. Let churches and priests abuse thousands of kids. And do nothing.
But you did kill all those witches. How embarrassing.
No, stadiums don't hold "millions", but yes there are many gullible human beings, as is depressingly evident right now.
Do nothing? They're continually condemned in sermons etc - what do you think can be done?
"You did kill all those witches"? No, I didn't, neither I nor anyone else alive now was alive then.
Your religion and its leaders absolutely did kill all those witches. Then there’s the crusades. They killed everyone that didn’t agree with you.
Your god murdered kids, first borns. Pregnant women. And you all let churches and leaders exist after they abused kids.
You’re not the good guys.
As is evident when you look at the facts.
Those sermons tho. Told by potential pedophile priests. They’ll sort everything
Why are you lumping together different individuals, as though we're some sort of hive mind?
Do you think that people who use the same label to describe themselves, or who attend similar events, can control each other? Or even that they're *correct* in their self-description?
Trump called himself a genius, does that mean that he actually is? And that other geniuses are able to control his actions?
Ultimately I don't actually care what you think about "Christians" themselves - it's Christ who matters. He spent a lot of time arguing against those who feigned religion to exert dominance over others.
Oh please.
Would I join a cult that had a track record of murdering, torturing and abusing kids? Then claim that I may be a member of the cult. By choice. But that I can’t be held to account for the cults abhorrent behaviour.
No. I simply wouldn’t join the cult.
I have no problem with people who follow Jesus’ teachings. As long as it’s to the letter.
That would mean. They own nothing. And spend all their time and money helping those less fortunate.
But yet here you are. Online. On a device. Arguing with strangers. Not following in Jesus’ footsteps atall.
So just another hypocrite fake Christian. Doing nothing to stop the abhorrent acts by your cult.
You've not answered my questions. Why do you think I can control the actions of anyone else? (having said that, I'm not expecting an answer, because I don't want to spend more time on this thread)
I haven't "joined" a cult.
"Arguing with strangers"? No, I commented on a Facebook post, and you decided to argue with me.
You said. You are a follower of Jesus. And that you aren’t like other self proclaimed Christians.
I have pointed out. How you aren’t a true follower of Christ.
You’re just a lying hypocrite just like the rest. That you shun.
Every time I ask you about why your actions are. You say that actions don’t lead to salvation.
So all true Christians are here on earth. Not doing anything to better lives. Not doing anything to purge their religion of corruption and abusers.
So. What good are Christians like you?
I know atheists that are more Christ like than you. And they do it for no reward. And under no fear of purgatory.
How do you think you've "pointed out. How you aren’t a true follower of Christ"?
Or that I'm a "lying hypocrite"?
And why do you think I'm bothered by what you think about me?
"Every time I ask you about why your actions are." Sorry, what do you mean? Why my actions are what? And no, I didn't say "actions don’t lead to salvation" in this thread - but I do believe that, why do you bring it up?
"Not doing anything to better lives" - why do you think that? Evidently you're much misled about Christians.
"Not doing anything to purge their religion of corruption and abusers." - again, you're much mistaken, many are working on this. But I don't personally have any information or power to do so, unless you can tell me exactly what to do.
"I know atheists that are more Christ like than you" - how could you know? You don't know me. But either way, why do you think I mind your opinion?
"no fear of purgatory." - yikes. I never mentioned purgatory, and it's not Biblical. So much of what you're writing demonstrates that you're angry about things which are misconceptions, and aren't actually addressing what I'm writing. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and you're free to think whatever you want about me - what (who) actually matters is Jesus, and obviously your disdain for me or others shouldn't (logically) impact what you think of Him.
You admit you don’t do anything to stop the church and religion you’re a member of from abusing kids. You say. That you can’t do anything. Yet you also say other Christian’s are doing things to address it. 
You then admit. That you don’t believe in actions. That actions are somehow meaningless to Jesus. Yet Jesus was all about actions.
So like I said. Your inaction. Proof you aren’t giving up all you own and out there providing for the most needy. Shows you are not following Jesus.
And that most atheists I know. Including me. Do more. Because we believe in actions. Not empty words. To try and buy some kind of after life salvation. Pathetic.
[FB seems to have glitched here]
And more words. More excuses.
Pathetic.
What excuse?
Did you ever ask the other Christian’s that are doing something. If you can help? Maybe hold a rally. Outside churches that have abused kids. Get them boycotted. Shut down.
You know. Anything. Other than sitting online arguing with strangers about how you think you’re a superior person and great Christian. Yet also believe that Jesus doesn’t care about the actions of Christians. Only their words.
Come on. Do better. Much better.
"arguing with strangers"? I just commented on a public post, you decided to have an argument. And if you think arguing is bad, why did you start and continue arguing on my comment? I hate wasting time on threads like this - but I didn't start the debating, and I'm bad at quitting because I believe this matters (whereas you believe it's fiction), however I will now switch off notifications and not read any further comments on this thread.
I honestly don't know why you think I could be of any use. Or why those investigating would want to hear from a random stranger with no expertise in a different denomination. Or what you expect to be "shut down", obviously ministries *are* shut down when things come to light. And have you tried the things that you think would help?
Again, it seems that you're fallaciously lumping together countless individuals, as though people all know each other and can influence each other.
Unfortunately (and that word is insufficient for the indescribable horror), abuse exists across society - and those who want to abuse will inevitably seek jobs where they can access victims. And in Jesus' time, He argued furiously with people who had positions of religious authority but who weren't following God, who were simply appropriating "religion" to attain power. So hate me, or others who describe themselves as Christian, all you like - what ultimately matters is what you think about Jesus Himself.
Bye (and best wishes, truly)
 
 
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). 
 
Yes - I've come to realise "Christian values" does not mean Christian values. In not even sure what a Christian value is, beyond pointing to honour Christ and follow Him.
Yes, the phrase is not infrequently employed by people seemingly seeking to feel morally superior. Yet there are values that our society now takes for granted which, historically, reached our culture through Christianity (as the historian Tom Holland has expounded in recent years) - prior to Christianity spreading in the West, it was presumed that "might is right". Greed and abuse by the powerful were accepted, it was only with Christianity that people began to believe the vulnerable should be cared for. The fact that Christianity is disappearing from our society is part of the reason there's increasing selfishness, violence and crime - but the political figures who brag about "Christian values" are fairly often not actually trying to follow Jesus, and they're fallacious in what they blame for the problems in society. 

What appears to be happening is a massive reaction to the 'Woke' culture, things like the gender issues, giving kids Puberty blockers binding girls breasts etc. Look up a book called "Dominion" by Tom Holland, 'The Arc Conference', organized by Jordan Peterson. There is a massive reaction going on against Woke culture. Don't be discouraged by the fact that it is a return to "Cultural Christianity', because some among them are actually becoming Christians. Look up Justin Brierly on YouTube. Pray for these people. Ayaan Hirsi Alli a formar, very public atheist has publicly declares her faith in Christ, and of course Russell Brand is another. There us a movement back to faith, people are on a journey and might not have it all correct yet, so they need love acceptance and prayer that they might go where they will get sound teaching
Since "woke" had been used by the African American community for the best part of a century to refer to awareness of injustice before certain politicians and journalists decided to misappropriate it for anything in any way connected to progressivism, I avoid it myself (I worry - and have been told by several Black folk - that its misuse is hurtful). But you're absolutely right, the Gender movement (support for puberty blockers and chest binders etc) - as well as some other extreme progressive ideas - has absolutely fuelled support for opposing figures. It's a part of why Trump won. I've been frustrated for a while that many who are supposedly somewhere on the Left have refused to realise this - if the Democrats in the US had put more energy into addressing actual injustices and less into supporting Gender transitions for young people, there might not be such a dangerous man in the Oval Office right now. Here, Labour is realising this, but I worry it could be too late.
It was the Arc Conference to which I was referring to in the first place, and I'm extremely aware of fantastic things going on such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali's conversion, Tom Holland's book Dominion, and Justin Brierley's podcast. There's a lot to be hugely excited about!
But I'm also worried by how some are missing the point and taking advantage. I wrote the OP after seeing Peterson interview Farage at Arc (online of course). In the same interview, Farage said that children should be taught that it's good to make money, and that he puts family, community and country before everything else - so whilst he's claiming to be on the side of Christian values, he's evidently not trying to follow Christ's teachings. I'm not trying to attack him specifically, but I'm concerned by some of the fans of his who think they're on the side of Christianity for opposing the Left (or the Gender movement, or migration, etc) yet actually miss out on Christ. And there are definitely some truly nefarious individuals seeking to misuse "Christianity" like this - there long have been in the US, but I'm seeing them here now also.
Peterson seems (though I've not been following him very closely) to be at the crux of this dilemma - his fans are searching for meaning in our mad world, and whilst some are drifting to the far Right others are moving towards God. As Wesley Huff pointed out to Joe Rogan (did you see that interview?) Peterson is actually missing the point, following particular principles (and opposing erroneous new religions like Gender Self ID) isn't ultimately what Christianity is about.
you are absolutely right about Peterson missing the point, but sometimes he appears to be nearly there, I think we need to be praying that the penny will finally drop. I think us Christians need to double our prayer effort. Jordan has a massive following of young men many of whom have become Christians through him while he teeters on the edge. Tom Holland has experienced a healing he thinks might have been from God, another one yeeteri g on the edge. I think it is "doctrines of demons", ie the ideologies of this age that they have bought into and those ideologies are from Satan. Interesting to talk to you Grace, because it is driving me mad and many people seem to be blissfully unaware
Indeed, we need to pray for Peterson - who is indeed on the brink (as is Holland) - and his followers. Some young people are finding God, and it’s been awesome to see recent data showing that Gen Z are less atheist than their parents https://archive.ph/KzfFU, but we need to persistently point to Jesus and not allow culture wars to lead them towards false gods. And perhaps because people are more online, from formative onwards, we’re more connected to the US than ever - so the longstanding misappropriation of Christianity that’s rampant there is a particular threat. For instance, on Twitter I saw “Christ is King” trending last year - and it seemed (I’ve seen commentary from Premier sharing this perception) that the phrase spread there when Candace Owens used it in a vitriolic argument against Ben Shapiro - so there are now some British people (as well as Americans, and others) tossing the phrase around as a war-like slogan of acrimonious defiance that they’ve picked up from an antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Putting the hashtag into Twitter search now brings up some disturbing things. When JD Vance recently got into an argument with Rory Stewart, plenty of Brits online were salivating over what they considered to be Rory Stewart being “schooled” - but JD Vance’s comments were a gross misuse of “Christianity”, and Rory Stewart was very correct - so people here are lapping up a false idea of “Christianity” to suit their politics.
 
 
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)
religion exists to control people, particularly women. Religion supports sexism.
I didn't mention "religion"
you mentioned Jesus a person whom a whole religion is based around. Our culture wasn't influenced by Jesus the person. It was influenced by the religion built around him which is why up until the mid 20th century it was inherently sexist.
Why do you think that "Our culture wasn't influenced by Jesus the person"?
And why do you think that what you call "religion" (again, I didn't mention it) is why society has been sexist? Do you not think that men can be sexist on their own?
because if what you claimed was true then women would not have had to fight for their rights.
Religion has been the most dominant force in society for hundreds of years, I think it is the cause because I've read the bible and I understand history and human psychology.
"if what you claimed was true then women would not have had to fight for their rights." - why? Society is millions of individuals with differing views and motivations, it's simultaneously the case that Jesus' teachings brought about a far greater understanding of humanity of women (and of the disadvantaged) than there had been previously (the ancient Romans thought it fine to rape and oppress), and also that many men have not personally been trying to follow Jesus (meanwhile being driven by powerlust etc).
Again, I didn't mention "religion", but I'm unsure how you've determined it to be "the most dominant force" - most people are motivated by their personal desires and feelings more than by the most common metaphysical view within their culture. I'm not sure what you're referring to RE the Bible, but it's a text written in a very, very different setting from ours so it needs a lot of contextual study. Ultimately, it's Jesus who we follow and who gives the clearest demonstration of God's nature and will.
 
and yet Tate is religious (Muslim) and Trump claims to be Christian.
Indeed. But Trump is antithetical to what Jesus taught and demonstrated (to what extent Tate reflects Muhammed's behaviour, I couldn't comment...though I know that most Muslims themselves would never condone Tate and instead have a positive impact on society).
 
 
(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.
 
 
Killing 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.
FTR, far more wealth comes in the OPPOSITE direction than we give in Aid https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/new-report-on-unrecorded-capital-flight-finds-developing-countries-are-net-creditors-to-the-rest-of-the-world/
 
 
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.
 
 
Some of 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 conned into 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)