Why buy from Prada anyway? (though indeed, this^ is despicable-beyond-words enough to boycott) Because of the oppression of colonialism, there are human beings in severe poverty, who will get no Christmas presents and have to wear our charity shop rejects, never mind designer labels. So why would we want to buy unnecessarily expensive fashion when we could buy cheaper things, or things from charity shops, and use the price difference to help those in poverty?
A video game lets you play as Jesus, Trump or Hitler. You win by shooting LGBTQ people.
Jesus told us to love others, and stopped a woman caught in sexual sin from being killed. This^ game is thus incredibly unintelligent, as well as evil.
you have obviously never read the bible. Jesus literally said he came to bring the sword
LOL, of course I know that verse. Have you never heard someone talk about being driven up the wall with frustation, something being a sinking ship, a ray of sunshine etc? We use non literal, figurative language, why don't you think Jesus could have done?
His other commands make it abundantly clear that He was opposed to violence.
LOL, of course I know that verse. Have you never heard someone talk about being driven up the wall with frustation, something being a sinking ship, a ray of sunshine etc? We use non literal, figurative language, why don't you think Jesus could have done?
His other commands make it abundantly clear that He was opposed to violence.
hi I’m a pastor and he even told people to sell their cloaks to buy a sword... he did support violence when it was needed. There are several moments where he himself, was violent.
He specifically told His disciple that no one should use a sword. It would have been necessary at that point to carry one for practical purposes (such as cutting through tangled fish nets) and to ward off attackers.
And He was not violent - turning over tables in temple was not violent, tables are inanimate objects. If He'd thrown things at the traders, then it would have been violence, but He didn't.
And He was not violent - turning over tables in temple was not violent, tables are inanimate objects. If He'd thrown things at the traders, then it would have been violence, but He didn't.
Evangelicalism is to want to tell people the Good News - ie. about Jesus. People calling themselves evangelicals doesn't mean that they are. When you associate evangelicalism with white superiority and Trumpism, you've based your view on people who aren't actually following Christ at all, so they're not genuinely evangelical. Matt Chandler is awesome (and often entertaiining), try some of his talks.
Jesus is who actually matters, not the tribal labels that are constantly debated.
Jesus is who actually matters, not the tribal labels that are constantly debated.
Why does jesus matter? He doesn't mean shit to me and he was the leader of the biggest cult in history.
How much have you looked at the historical documentation about Him? Either way, He had a greater impact than anyone on encouraging humanity to respect each other. https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection
Yet it is the very loud and attention seeking leadership in the apostate churches, largely within the evangelical communities, that do embody the messages of hate and bigotry. Along with the purveyors of "prosperity gospel", these evangelical leaders are the ones responsible for the rise of secularism in our nation by their complete and utter failure of teaching the gospels of Christ.
You're ignoring my point - what people call themselves doesn't define what that thing is. If I called myself a Belieber, but had never streamed or bought any of his music, it would make no sense to judge Justin Bieber on the basis of my actions. Evangelicalism, by definition, is to want to tell others about Jesus, and it's Jesus Himself who matters.
Churches should certainly be loving toward trans people an no bullying is ever OK -but to actually offer celebratory services because someone believes that God made a mistake isn't actually loving.
There are a minority of intersex people - otherwise, male is to have XY chromosomes and female is to have XX chromosomes, by definition. If a person feels they're "in the wrong body", what they're uncomfortable with is the stereotype they feel is associated with their chromosomes. But they're a priceless, unique individual, and don't have to adhere to a stereotype they resent - becoming the opposing stereotype, and having their bodies changed is not something others should "celebrate". We should love them whatever, but hope that they can accept their bodies as God made them - and that they can focus instead on the array of traits and skills that make them who they are.
The celebratory service is not to correct God's mistakes, but to mark a new start and confirm God's love for a person who has deeply struggled to be who they feel they are. Our world is beautiful, God's creation wonderful, but we do not have to look far to see that it is also broken (by us) Why are some people born with juvenile diabetes? Why would it ever be wrong to "go against nature" and enable that person to thrive? Why are some people suffering from gender dysphoria? Intersex people, because they are proven to be that way biologically. Trans people; we do not know yet. Those of us who are not trans need to remain open to discovering how best to enable flourishing and faith for people who are different to ourselves
Diabetes makes it impossible for a person to live normally. Having a body that half of the rest of humanity doesn't. If a person feels uncomfortable with the body God gave them, those feelings should be helped - the person shouldn't be operated on to give them a body entirely different from God's plan. As the word dysphoria indicates, the person is afflicted with erroneous thoughts - and we all have thoughts that we need God's help to overcome.
In other words, your god wanted people to have a rotten life because she’s funny like that.
Disease, cancer in children, drought, pestilence, floods, wars, mental disorders and more are credited to your god by you people. Was she having a bad day? Was god having her period? Did she prick her thumb darning her tights? Is her frock in a knot??? Do tell, what makes her bestow such things on her “people”?you’ve assumed your god is a “he”, how very sexist of you. Other than that your response did make me chuckle, thank you for making me feel far more intellectually superior than any “Christian” could ever aim to be.
Disease, cancer in children, drought, pestilence, floods, wars, mental disorders and more are credited to your god by you people. Was she having a bad day? Was god having her period? Did she prick her thumb darning her tights? Is her frock in a knot??? Do tell, what makes her bestow such things on her “people”?you’ve assumed your god is a “he”, how very sexist of you. Other than that your response did make me chuckle, thank you for making me feel far more intellectually superior than any “Christian” could ever aim to be.
Have you asked Him? Seriously, sometimes we understand things better when we pray. Why would you expect understand God if you ignore Him?
God is incomparably more knowledgeable than we are, yet we frequently presume that just because we don't know the reason that God allows something, there is no reason, and we're like toddlers angry with their parents for taking them for vaccinations. A parent will do/allow many things that their toddler might not like at the time; in the same way, God can have reasons that we don't understand now. The gap between our knowledge and God's is many magnitudes wider than that between a child and their father. Ultimately, God wants us to choose to follow Him, so that we'll spend eternity with Him in heaven. That is infinitely more significant than the brief time we spend on Earth. The tragedies of life are, for many of us, what we need to be prompted to seek Him. When life is perfect, we ignore God, and will miss out on heaven. When we seek God in difficult times, He gives amazing comfort, and we can find eternal life.I'm fairly sure that many women would consider your comments about females being bitchy having pricked a finger darning tights, being on periods etc to be sexist. But I have more important things to worry about. God refers to Himself as aHe, why wouldn't I refer to Him as a He too?
Since you're intellectually superior, why not explain what's wrong about what I've written and what you know to be right instead?
God is incomparably more knowledgeable than we are, yet we frequently presume that just because we don't know the reason that God allows something, there is no reason, and we're like toddlers angry with their parents for taking them for vaccinations. A parent will do/allow many things that their toddler might not like at the time; in the same way, God can have reasons that we don't understand now. The gap between our knowledge and God's is many magnitudes wider than that between a child and their father. Ultimately, God wants us to choose to follow Him, so that we'll spend eternity with Him in heaven. That is infinitely more significant than the brief time we spend on Earth. The tragedies of life are, for many of us, what we need to be prompted to seek Him. When life is perfect, we ignore God, and will miss out on heaven. When we seek God in difficult times, He gives amazing comfort, and we can find eternal life.I'm fairly sure that many women would consider your comments about females being bitchy having pricked a finger darning tights, being on periods etc to be sexist. But I have more important things to worry about. God refers to Himself as aHe, why wouldn't I refer to Him as a He too?
Since you're intellectually superior, why not explain what's wrong about what I've written and what you know to be right instead?
Had you all been born in India you'd be Hindus today, had you been born in Haiti you'd be worshipping the juju in the forest, had you been born in Iraq you d be Muslim, had you been born in 9th century Norway you d be worshipping woman or Odin. Had you been born on Norway today you d probably be worshipping no-one. Your gods and religion are purely an accident of birthplace. Had your parents not indoctrinated you from birth you'd be more open to logic, reason and reality. Your delusion is stunning.
How do you know? You don't know anything about me or how I've come to believe what I do. I came to believe God exists, and in Jesus' resurrection, through looking at the reasoning provided by academics who've reached those conclusions. How have you arrived at you're beliefs?
That's why sikh women don't shave (even their faces). I don't think it's on the whole a Christian teaching that you have to accept your body exactly as it is. I'm certainly not aware of Christians being against surgery, whether to correct birth defects or for any other reason. The only bit of this I don't get is why gender should matter at all. It's biblical that we're made diverse, but churches should welcome people because they're human and gender however it's defined really doesn't make much difference.
Sex change surgery is distinct from other surgery - surgery to correct birth defects, remove cancer, treat a broken bone or heart defect etc is done to enable the body to function fully and without pain; sex change surgery doesn't resolve an injury or disease, it attempts to make someone into something different from what God created.
[Deleted comments]
Intersex people have marked genetic distinctions. When did I say that trans people are "in rebellion"? We've all been in rebellion (Romans 3:23), and are called to turn to God.
How exactly have I shown prejudice?
How exactly have I shown prejudice?
[Deleted comments]
I am certainly not advocating rejeting trans people, I specifically said that they should be welcomed - why are you putting words in my mouth?
What I'm opposed to is affirming the idea that they are "born in the wrong body" and celebrating them deciding to chop up what God's made because they feel uncomfortable with it. We should be desperately hoping and praying that they can come to be happy with themselves - what they are created as, that the longing to be in a different body would end. Whatever they end up doing, they should be welcomed - but the transition should not be "celebrated".
What I'm opposed to is affirming the idea that they are "born in the wrong body" and celebrating them deciding to chop up what God's made because they feel uncomfortable with it. We should be desperately hoping and praying that they can come to be happy with themselves - what they are created as, that the longing to be in a different body would end. Whatever they end up doing, they should be welcomed - but the transition should not be "celebrated".
how you are going to be able to tell the difference between intersex people (who are acceptable to you) and trans people (who are not). And what evidence you have that trans people are rejecting God's design. how you are going to be able to tell the difference between intersex people (who are acceptable to you) and trans people (who are not). And what evidence you have that trans people are rejecting God's design.
I'm not proposing anything that requires telling the difference between intersex an trans people, I'm saying that the Church shouldn't celebrate transition.
Trans is to reject God's design because it is to say that one is male when God has created the with XX chromosomes or that one is female when God has created them with XY chromosomes. God has made each person unique, and they shouldn't feel that they need to ascribe to stereotypes they don't feel comfortable with, but trans is by definition to reject something God designed and seek to be something else. I'm not judging them for that, I'm saying that it's sad and that the Church shouldn't celebrate it.
Trans is to reject God's design because it is to say that one is male when God has created the with XX chromosomes or that one is female when God has created them with XY chromosomes. God has made each person unique, and they shouldn't feel that they need to ascribe to stereotypes they don't feel comfortable with, but trans is by definition to reject something God designed and seek to be something else. I'm not judging them for that, I'm saying that it's sad and that the Church shouldn't celebrate it.
[Deleted comments]
I don't know how a trans person would feel reading my comments, I specifically said that they are loved, welcomed and unique. If they go to a Church and the Church just tells them - or rather, any one of us - that every feeling we have is accepted and that we shouldn't put God before our feelings, then the Church is just a social club.
I've not heard transgenderism discussed at my Church - whether it is or isn't, I was never advocating for trans people to be bullied in any way, but you've continually argued about things I haven't even said - you're projecting prejudice you believe you've seen elsewhere in the Church onto me because I don't agree with your opinion.
I've not heard transgenderism discussed at my Church - whether it is or isn't, I was never advocating for trans people to be bullied in any way, but you've continually argued about things I haven't even said - you're projecting prejudice you believe you've seen elsewhere in the Church onto me because I don't agree with your opinion.
shaving your legs is an attempt to make you into someone different to who God created. As is Botox, breast implants, liposuction- and actually to an extent surgery to remove birth defects.
If “God doesn’t make mistakes” then I was designed to be visually impaired, that was God’s divine will for my life and the cataracts surgery made me something other than what He created.
If “God doesn’t make mistakes” then I was designed to be visually impaired, that was God’s divine will for my life and the cataracts surgery made me something other than what He created.
again, words are being put in my mouth - I never said that being trans is "morally wrong".
With all due respect, why are you trying to define anorexia to me? I had a BMI below 13 and was sectioned. It's an ongoing internal war, with one part of you certain that you should be skinnier, whatever the cost, and one part of you just desperate to stop caring about body shape and to get on with life. It's a vicious spiral, since you become less able to ignore that first part as you become ore malnourished. Eventually you realise that that first part of you is plainly wrong, and you don't want to lose more weight - but you're so trapped in a routine of undereating that you genuinely cannot bring yourself to eat more. You end up in a unit with nurses forcing you to eat, and pumping milkshake through a nasogastric tube into you if you don't.
With all due respect, why are you trying to define anorexia to me? I had a BMI below 13 and was sectioned. It's an ongoing internal war, with one part of you certain that you should be skinnier, whatever the cost, and one part of you just desperate to stop caring about body shape and to get on with life. It's a vicious spiral, since you become less able to ignore that first part as you become ore malnourished. Eventually you realise that that first part of you is plainly wrong, and you don't want to lose more weight - but you're so trapped in a routine of undereating that you genuinely cannot bring yourself to eat more. You end up in a unit with nurses forcing you to eat, and pumping milkshake through a nasogastric tube into you if you don't.
The emotional attachment is natural. Long term, there's more happiness to be had in a long term relationship with one person who you care about, and who cares about you, than in supposedly attachment free hook ups. It's really tragic that Vice is apparently entirely unaware of things in life that matter more than sex.
Jesus welcomes everyone, there's nothing discriminatory for people to complain about. And whilst some conspiracy theorists have duped some people into thinking otherwise, the Bible is - though complex - a compilation of historical documents. Why should that be deemed so controversial?
the bible is plagiarised from a multitude of previous religions. Xmas was robbed from our true pagan roots. It’s Yule, plain and simple.
LOL, no, people have celebrated during winter to cheer themselves up throughout history - hence Yule. Church leaders decided that it would make sense to celebrate Jesus' birth then, since people were used to celebrating at that tie of year anyway, and because they wanted to deter people from partaking in occult celebrations.
{Comment deleted]
Which “geologists have literally proved there was no great flood”? There’s evidence of people groups around the world having known about it. And are you presuming that there should be evidence of a Global flood, when the text only mentions the “world”, and thus only referred to known areas at the time rather than the planet?
When did I say that snakes have vocal chords? There are an array of possible explanations for the talking snake – and are you unaware that many people consider the opening of Genesis to be poetic, and not literal?
God created the biology of pregnancy. Why couldn’t something that we never normally observe occur when He intervenes?
Why do you presume that we should be able to understand the trinity and Christ’s sacrifice? That’s like the Sims trying to understand loans and insurance; We are created by God, we are on a lower level of complexity and comprehension.
The “sects” that you mention “can't agree on anything” agree on many things. And are you unaware that within the scientific community experts also disagree about all manner of things? (NB, I’m absolutely not denigrating science, obviously)
Belief in Yaweh may have decreased here in the West –but in other parts of the world it’s been spreading rapidly, so don’t expect that it’ll die off any time soon.
There’s so, so, so much more to say – but I think you’ll just ignore me (won’t you?) and I have other things to do. But please be aware that there’s far more academic support and discussion surrounding Christianity than you seem to realise. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/.../the-resurrection-of.../
When did I say that snakes have vocal chords? There are an array of possible explanations for the talking snake – and are you unaware that many people consider the opening of Genesis to be poetic, and not literal?
God created the biology of pregnancy. Why couldn’t something that we never normally observe occur when He intervenes?
Why do you presume that we should be able to understand the trinity and Christ’s sacrifice? That’s like the Sims trying to understand loans and insurance; We are created by God, we are on a lower level of complexity and comprehension.
The “sects” that you mention “can't agree on anything” agree on many things. And are you unaware that within the scientific community experts also disagree about all manner of things? (NB, I’m absolutely not denigrating science, obviously)
Belief in Yaweh may have decreased here in the West –but in other parts of the world it’s been spreading rapidly, so don’t expect that it’ll die off any time soon.
There’s so, so, so much more to say – but I think you’ll just ignore me (won’t you?) and I have other things to do. But please be aware that there’s far more academic support and discussion surrounding Christianity than you seem to realise. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/.../the-resurrection-of.../
[Comment deleted]
Have you actually read some of what's on the website that you simply dismiss as "Bible bashing"? There's no logic in saying that articles are false simply because the people who wrote them have been convinced of the things they're writing about. What points made do you actually have evidence against? And yes, that writer has a Ph, as do many other Christian writers I could link to.
Why have you completely ignored my point that Genesis is not necessarily literal? Also, Genesis tells us Adam and Eve had at least one more child after Cain and Abel - but there are many other possibilities as to how the population grew - Genesis is not exhaustive, and parts may be parables or analogies.
Ultimately, you're going way off topic - why? What matters is that science demonstrates design, therefore we can conclude that God exists; and the case for Jesus having defeated death is, though mind-bending, in fact far stronger than the opposing arguments . Eg, https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non.../ - still, I wasn't convinced until I'd read books and listened to a lot of lectures by historians on the topic (I've also been listening to scores of atheist vs Christian debates), so I know you aren't going to believe. We both have better things to do than to keep arguing :)
Why have you completely ignored my point that Genesis is not necessarily literal? Also, Genesis tells us Adam and Eve had at least one more child after Cain and Abel - but there are many other possibilities as to how the population grew - Genesis is not exhaustive, and parts may be parables or analogies.
Ultimately, you're going way off topic - why? What matters is that science demonstrates design, therefore we can conclude that God exists; and the case for Jesus having defeated death is, though mind-bending, in fact far stronger than the opposing arguments . Eg, https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non.../ - still, I wasn't convinced until I'd read books and listened to a lot of lectures by historians on the topic (I've also been listening to scores of atheist vs Christian debates), so I know you aren't going to believe. We both have better things to do than to keep arguing :)
the great flood and Noah's ark is just lifted directly from The epic of Gilgamesh. But you know that right? It's all just embellished history. Which is pronounced: Lies
I'm well aware of Gilgamesh, but why do you presume (or simply accept someone's claim) that the flood is "lifted directly" - what if a huge flood actually happened, and other tribes created myths in their attempts to understand it?
Check this, for example - https://www.compellingtruth.org/Gilgamesh-Flood.html
Check this, for example - https://www.compellingtruth.org/Gilgamesh-Flood.html
She's from a dance troupe. She's not just a singer or actress who's done some dancing, she's from a group that started off specifically in dance (then later sold some discs). She's also been a judge on other dance competition shows.
I really, really hope that Stacey's screen presence through Strictly will inspire some people who hadn't already to watch her documentaries - ultimately, Strictly's fun but it's entirely unimportant compared to the sweatshop issue that Stacey investigated at the start of her TV career.
I really, really hope that Stacey's screen presence through Strictly will inspire some people who hadn't already to watch her documentaries - ultimately, Strictly's fun but it's entirely unimportant compared to the sweatshop issue that Stacey investigated at the start of her TV career.
Surely there's more happiness in buying cheaper things and using the money saved to help those who have nothing at all? Esp. food/drink - each Hello Fresh (mentioned in the article) meal costs enough to feed a starving child for a month. If you buy cheaper items, saving $38 monthly enables you to sponsor a child - providing medical checkups (which genuinely save lives); nutritious food; health and hygiene training; educational assistance; mentoring and more; so why buy posh things?
Enough to sponsor 5 children - born trapped in severe poverty - for the whole year. She could be transforming lives with that money, and the dog would appreciate not be constrained in costumes.
but if shes worked for her money she can surely spend it on what she wants?
We only earn as much as we do because we live in a country that's become wealthy by exploiting other countries. People in the very poorest places work longer hours in worse conditions than we do sometimes to create things that we consume, yet receive so little pay that they live in slums and haven't healthcare, or any of the everyday non-necessities we take for granted. Just the fact that she's^ earning that money is evidence of having ha education that some children have no access to. We have the privilege of transforming their futures, so that they'll be able to support themselves and their family in the future.
Africa is exceptionally rich in resources
But those resources are under the control of brutal regimes, and/or Western corporations. Normal people can't resolve their situation - places where there are valuable resources (diamonds, gold, cobalt etc) are under impossibly strong - sometimes violent control. So people born into poverty spend their lives working impossibly hard, unable to change the fact that they're paid almost nothinng. When we colonised and then left, the nastiest, most brutal individuals took over their fellow Africans, and Western multinationals also perpetuate the exploitation. And check this out - https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
I know personally that when you've been starved long term, you become less able to function mentally and physically. That makes it harder for those in severe poverty to take any action to change things even if there were things that they could do - but they're also forced to spend much of their time doing things we take forgranted, like gathering water, and haven't had education like we have. Providing these things is enabling more people to become involved in decision making and politics, and increasingly there are leaders desperate to help their countries rather than just themselves.
But i have bills too like....
Of course - I'm complaining about things like spending £1,500 on a dog's Christmas.
£1500 couldn't end poverty! If you have a problem with anyone it should be the higher class and government because last year there was a new billionaire every 3 days (or something along them lines) and they could have ended poverty 7 times over, SEVEN. Look at all these celebrities and rich families who know other rich families and celebrities and have massive platforms. They could set up a charity, put half a million into it (still be rich), advertise their charity on their massive platforms and end poverty while they still remain rich. I don't see a problem with a lady spending 1,500 on her dog. We need to stop looking at ourselves as superior beings and realise that we're the same as every other living creature on this planet. If it's okay for someone to spend £1,500 on a bag, or a ring, or on their children then it shouldn't make a difference if it's spent on a four legged child. You're pets look at you as their family, as their parents, they will protect and stay by your side when no body else is there. If you can't give them the same respect, if you can't love them like they are your own flesh and blood, then you aren't worthy of their love! They look at you as their equals and will protect you even when there's nothing to fear, why is it so bad to show your love back? Why is it crazy to love them like family when that's what they should be!
A dog should be cared for - but it is not comparable to a human child. "You're pets look at you as their family"? They're no where near as capable of emotion and thought as humans - we presume they are because we project our feelings onto them; they've been bred for centuries to stick wiith their owners, that doesn't mean that they have expectations that their owner wiill buy them clothes. Did you not see the news last month about a huge scientific study that found they're far less intelligent than previously thought? I'm really, really not saying that they have no mental capacity whatsoever, or that they shouldn't be looked after - but what they need to be happy is a few things to play with, food with enough protein, some attention and space to run. The £1500 isn't making the dog happier - dogs aren't going to mind if they don't have stylish clothes (or feel happier if they do) - this woman is spending money because she's treating the dog like a doll that she can accessorise.
A child, however, does need and appreciate the things that charities provide - enough food to grow, lessons, clean water etc.
I agree that rich people should do more to help the poor - you say "If it's okay for someone to spend £1,500 on a bag, or a ring", but I never said that it is. (and obviously, all of this is my opinion, I'm fully aware that people still will). But we are rich ourselves compared to the world's poorest, and only because of injustice that's made our country rich, not because we've worked harder or somehow deserve more
A child, however, does need and appreciate the things that charities provide - enough food to grow, lessons, clean water etc.
I agree that rich people should do more to help the poor - you say "If it's okay for someone to spend £1,500 on a bag, or a ring", but I never said that it is. (and obviously, all of this is my opinion, I'm fully aware that people still will). But we are rich ourselves compared to the world's poorest, and only because of injustice that's made our country rich, not because we've worked harder or somehow deserve more
Frack, this is awful. And not, Duarte Dias, because he's Catholic, I'd be just as horrified if it were one of my favourite pastors. This isn't the same as a new translation - though not all translations are sufficiently true to the original either - this is to arrogantly remove Jesus' words.
No amount of decorations make Christmas anywhere near perfect. Jesus was born in an animal shelter, and there was infinitely greater wonder there than in any decorated mansion.
I always use makeup bought in bulk straight from China, roughly 70p/item, and it's always been fine. Why spend £5+ each to get the same items elsewhere when there are people in poverty?
There are some people with highly sensitive skin, the issue is not necessarily with the products - and traces of naff things in some "fake" makeup doesn't prove that all cheap makeup is dangerous. Have they tried running the same tests on expensive makeup? Why presume that all expensive makeup is perfectly safe?
Ultimately, if we feel compelled to spend £15 on lip gloss because of Instagram and Kardashians, we need to address that feeling, not pour money down the drain. I used to be so anxious about my makeup that my teachers sent me to a psychiatrist - and that was 12 years ago, before the social media pressure piled on, so I feel sorry for teenagers today. I still can't let myself be seen completely bare faced, but I keep makeup extremely quick and cheap (nothing at all like the makeup that kids are being taught online that they need) because I want life to be about things that matter.
There are some people with highly sensitive skin, the issue is not necessarily with the products - and traces of naff things in some "fake" makeup doesn't prove that all cheap makeup is dangerous. Have they tried running the same tests on expensive makeup? Why presume that all expensive makeup is perfectly safe?
Ultimately, if we feel compelled to spend £15 on lip gloss because of Instagram and Kardashians, we need to address that feeling, not pour money down the drain. I used to be so anxious about my makeup that my teachers sent me to a psychiatrist - and that was 12 years ago, before the social media pressure piled on, so I feel sorry for teenagers today. I still can't let myself be seen completely bare faced, but I keep makeup extremely quick and cheap (nothing at all like the makeup that kids are being taught online that they need) because I want life to be about things that matter.
The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - but that doesn't mean that gay people are to be bullied in any way. We ALL sin, and that's why Christ died for us. He made religious leaders to leave alone a woman they'd been about to stone to death for her sexual sin, and said to her "Go and sin no more" . Christians should be welcoming everyone, urging everyone to fight the sin in their lives (which God helps us with), and recognising that we're sinners too.
how are you welcoming someone of you are calling their entire identity a sin?! Smh what gives you the right?
Sex is not a person's identity. When did I say that someone's identity, sexuality or sex life is a sin? And how are you defining sin?
it isn’t just about sex. Sexuality impacts identity just as all aspects of human behavior impact our self concept, personality, persona, and disposition. You making the decision about another persons morality based on who they have sex with is a nefarious attempt to control others with your own personal beliefs by stigmatizing their identity. You say sex is not their identity ? Then why in your eyes are they going to hell?!
Sex does not determine who we were are. Wee that the case, I wouldn't be here, but I'm afraid I am. There can be correlations between people's sexuality and other traits, but I was never saying that here's anything wrong those things, all I said is that the Bible tells humans not to have gay sex.
I'm not "making a decision" about someone else's morality, I'm simply stating something that God advised. And as I said, we ALL need, and ALL are offered forgiveness through Jesus.
Our society lies to us that sex defines us and is vital for enjoying life - it's not true, each person unique and loved by God, and we can have fulfilled lives without needing sex to make us whole.
I'm not "making a decision" about someone else's morality, I'm simply stating something that God advised. And as I said, we ALL need, and ALL are offered forgiveness through Jesus.
Our society lies to us that sex defines us and is vital for enjoying life - it's not true, each person unique and loved by God, and we can have fulfilled lives without needing sex to make us whole.
the Bible also describes how to treat slaves (yes, in the New Testament), but we don’t use those verses to justify owning human beings. Consider the cultural context and time period the Bible was written in, and the wishy-washy translation of the word “homosexual” in the original text. All of that adds up to a much less black and white perspective of homosexuality.
I'm well aware of the NT's references to slavery - it doesn't say that it's OK to take slaves. It was written in a society where slavery was the unquestioned norm, and it compels slave masters to treat their slaves well, contrary to other cultures at the time, and to ultimately to free them. It specifically outlaws kidnapping - so taking slaves is banned; slaves already existed, more equivalent to employees today than the slave trade's victims.https://www.zachariastrust.org/does-the-bible-condone...
That doesn't mean that we can ignore God telling humanity not to have gay sex; "slavery" which didn't mean then what it does now, is a huge social construct to manage, sex is a choice action that's the same throughout history.
Ultimately, Christianity doesn't condone mistreating anyone at all, it also doesn't blame anyone for feelings alone (ie. their orientation, as distinct from actions). Culture lies to us that we need sex to be happy, but in fact Jesus offers greater joy than sex - and most people are unaware.
That doesn't mean that we can ignore God telling humanity not to have gay sex; "slavery" which didn't mean then what it does now, is a huge social construct to manage, sex is a choice action that's the same throughout history.
Ultimately, Christianity doesn't condone mistreating anyone at all, it also doesn't blame anyone for feelings alone (ie. their orientation, as distinct from actions). Culture lies to us that we need sex to be happy, but in fact Jesus offers greater joy than sex - and most people are unaware.
your argument would hold water if the claim of the Good Book was not that it was written by God......and the Bible DOES outline where to take your slaves from (neighboring lands - not Israel), how much you can beat them (to the edge of death but not kill them) and how to make them slaves for life rather than allow their term limit to end. I think you’re missing the fact that while slavery was indeed a part of that society, it didn’t have to be. The Levitical law outlines major sins such as murder and adultery down to what clothes to wear, what foods to eat, etc. And these are edicts from an allegedly omniscient god. It’s pretty logical to assume that this god could have (and should have) added the simple commandment: “thou shalt not own another human being”. Clearly these are scriptures written by men with a bronze aged world view.
When did I claim that the Bible was written by God?
The Bible doesn't say "you may beat them to the edge of death" it lays out more severe punishments if a beating is so severe as to be fatal, which is what our law does today.
Today, we also have bosses and employees - how exactly do you know that what the Bible calls slavery is distinctly different?
Ultimately, Jesus commands that we must love others, so to mistreat or exploit anyone is to be in opposition to God's command.
is the Bible the Inerrant “Word of God”? If so, why does it omit the command: “thou shalt not own another human being?” .....OR perhaps morality is relative to you. Perhaps there are situations in which owning another human being is morally permissible? “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.Exodus 21:20 The Bible doesn't say "you may beat them to the edge of death" it lays out more severe punishments if a beating is so severe as to be fatal, which is what our law does today.
Today, we also have bosses and employees - how exactly do you know that what the Bible calls slavery is distinctly different?
Ultimately, Jesus commands that we must love others, so to mistreat or exploit anyone is to be in opposition to God's command.
I never said that the Bible the Inerrant Word of God. What's the point in arguing with me about things that I never said? Even if it is inerrant, that doesn't mean that it includes everything. And why have you ignored my last comment's question?
To answer your last question (how do I know ancient slavery is different from modern day employment) - I thought the verse I quoted was sufficient. “A slave is property”. I don’t know about you and your place of employment, but I am not owned by my boss. We enter into a mutual contract where I am free to leave at any time. Furthermore, my boss doesn’t beat me (potentially to the edge of death without penalty) for disobedience. On top of that Exodus makes it abundantly clear that slaves are to be TAKEN from neighboring lands. This isn’t the indentured servitude that you’ve been taught was the case when one Israelite enslaves another. The slavery outlined in the verses surrounding the one I quoted is.....slavery, just as brutal and barbaric as american slavery ......even a cursory look at history confirms that this is true.
We often use phrases alluding to ownership of people without literally meaning that one person owns another - you've been presuming the Bible to be entirely literal without considering turns of phrase in the original Hebrew, and also not demonstrating anything about what slavery actually entailed in practical terms. In the context of the verse you mention, what's being said is that punishment won't be enacted against the employer - at the time the command was given, whilst the Hebrew people were in the dessert, a system for comprehensive policing wouldn't have been feasible. The fact is that we are all commanded (numerous times) to love others - why are you ignoring this and instead arguing about specific instructions given in a very different society?
I should argue the rest of your essay in more detail, but I really, really need to get on with other things, this debate has gone on far too long.
Have a great day, seriously
I should argue the rest of your essay in more detail, but I really, really need to get on with other things, this debate has gone on far too long.
Have a great day, seriously
Could we acknowledge that homophobia wasn't the only issue with Kevin Hart's tweets? He should be forgiven - but it seems odd to me that all the fuss has been over joking about being gay, and none over joking about violently attacking a child.
You simply have to differentiate between different styles - and also recognise that each hearer is unique, so what seems daft to some passers by might prompt some others to think about God for the first time. I've never seen street preachers showing any evidence of xenophobia of violence whatsoever - so you really can't lump them all together.
Don't you think that plenty of people would have thought that John the Baptist looked mad? Still, what he was doing was God ordained and important. If a person is street preaching because they feel judgemental or enjoy the buzz, that's very, very wrong - if they're genuinely seeking to follow God's command and to do it in the way He wants, it's brilliant.
Don't you think that plenty of people would have thought that John the Baptist looked mad? Still, what he was doing was God ordained and important. If a person is street preaching because they feel judgemental or enjoy the buzz, that's very, very wrong - if they're genuinely seeking to follow God's command and to do it in the way He wants, it's brilliant.
Does he not just make borderline leavers more certain that the remain side is nonsensical?
Why does Vice so relentlessly push the ideology that human beings are just sex objects?
idk why do puritanical nutters consistently push the idea that humans AREN'T sexual beings?
I didn't say that. As Mac Cruze said, there's satisfaction in a committed relationship where there's genuine love rather than just sex - whereas the quote captioning this^ is literally reducing human beings to their sex organs.
But again, who are you to tell othersm people how to enjoy their sexuality? Nowhere in the article does it say 'now everyone go fuck other people'. I know people in poly relationships and they're a helluva lot more careful than people meeting random people off tinder or from the bar. A poly person is no more likely to get an std than anyone else. Just because one chooses not to be monogamous does not mean that they throw logic, safety, and precautions to the Wayside
I'm not "telling others", I'm commenting on an article, as we all do, and berating Vice for perpetuating objectification.
You sound like someone who says they're a feminist but also calls women sluts behind their backs....
I'm not sure how to fix what I "sound like" to you - could you be more specific? No, I don't call women sluts, but I also don't call myself a feminist, because to me it has connotations of caring more about equality for women here in the West than caring about humans suffering far more in the developing world.
No one - regardless of whether they're sexuality is "outside the mainstream" - needs to share nude/explicit images. If I were gay, I'd be offended by that presumption. The real issue here is that our society insists on making life all about sex - in part because sex sells, so corporate forces have been influencing us to believe that we're defined by our sex lives.
There's a far greater joy that most of our generation are missing out on.
There's a far greater joy that most of our generation are missing out on.
Some people need money and their tits will get them there. I don’t see the problem to be honest.
There are a lot of problems - in particular, people being pressurised to allow their boyfriends to do things to them that they see in porn and in fact are violated by. Children are sexually abusing each other more and more because of what they see online.
Also, people feeling unavoidably depressed about their bodies because of seeing porn stars bodies continually - and in turn feeling obliged to undertake risky/expensive surgery or diets.
If someone is looking at someone's tits online and they have a partner/wife, she'll be seriously emotionally hurt. Porn tears marriages and families apart. That's a problem.
I mean is it is not the fault of porn that makes men or women inappropriate. It provides ideas but it isn't forcing action.
I agree, people need to be responsible for their actions, the reality is that we're each influenced to some extent by things outside of our own minds, and for the victims, the fact that their boyfriends *should* have known better than to attempt to copy porn won't help them. So I'm not excusing it, I'm just concerned about the very real current consequences.
10 commandments are great advice for society, how is a statue of Satan helping anything?
How is hanging the 10 commandments in public funded buildings helping anything? How is having crosses everywhere helping anything? And the 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth make more sense than the commandments. And it also covers child molestation as well.
Jesus' golden rule means that child molestation is forbidden. The fact that some perverts became priests doesn't change the original teaching, nor the rest of Christianity.
"Satanic Rules of the Earth make more sense"? Fascinating - how do you define "make more sense", esp. in our relativistic culture?
The Bible never says don't rape... It does say that you should rape though
No, it doesn't say that you should rape. And as I said, Jesus' command to treat others as we'd want to be treated means that rape is prohibited.
Give it up. Your religion is falling apart. Pedophilia is rampant. You're priests frequently escape punishment and nobody really reads the bible any more. I stand firm in the belief that in about a hundred years, Christianity will have disappeared entirely.
"You're priests"? [I presume you mean your, not you're, but anyhoo] They have nothing to do with me. I'm in the UK< attending a Baptist Church and watching sermons from various Churches online. I'm following Christ, not an institution - even if I were attending one of the Churches where abuse has been happening, why would that mean that I should reject Jesus? I can't my head around the concept of God and of Christ having defeated death - but having looked at the arguments for and against, from Christian scholars, I've concluded that it's true. How much have you investigated?
"Nobody reads the Bible"? According to what data? Even though Christianity's lessened - not died, as you presume - here in the West, it's growing rapidly elsewhere, not least in China, despite persecution, where more and more media and influence is coming.
Jesus told us to love others as ourselves - and both His teachings and other Bible verses make it abundantly clear that this includes from opposing nations. I know that most people don't give a toss about what He instructed, but most of those who support this^ cruelty would call themselves Christians - Christian means little Christ ie, those genuinely desperate to live for Him and follow His example, those in support of this^ just aren't.
Ultimately, these people shouldn't be trying to get into the US - because their home nations shouldn't have been made poor by the exploitative actions of others. Now, foreign aid should be increased and better managed to develop infrastructure and opportunities in impoverished countries - perhaps starting using the money that's currently being used on excessive guards and on the planned wall.
I hate how so many people now associate Christianity with the very opposite of what Christ did and taught, because of predators like this^
Also, people feeling unavoidably depressed about their bodies because of seeing porn stars bodies continually - and in turn feeling obliged to undertake risky/expensive surgery or diets.
If someone is looking at someone's tits online and they have a partner/wife, she'll be seriously emotionally hurt. Porn tears marriages and families apart. That's a problem.
I mean is it is not the fault of porn that makes men or women inappropriate. It provides ideas but it isn't forcing action.
I agree, people need to be responsible for their actions, the reality is that we're each influenced to some extent by things outside of our own minds, and for the victims, the fact that their boyfriends *should* have known better than to attempt to copy porn won't help them. So I'm not excusing it, I'm just concerned about the very real current consequences.
If you're marrying someone you love and want to spend your life with, why would you need Hilary Clinton there?
Plenty of people have co-opted the label of Christian to act out their selfishness - but when people have genuinely followed Jesus, it's meant compassion for others that society needs. How is this^ campaign actually going to make lives better?
I mean. At least Satanists have a commandment against rape.
Jesus teaching not to do to others what we wouldn't want done to us covers that.
These “Satanists” don’t believe in an actual physical Satan. They are activists for freedom from religion in this country (as in the Constitution). If all religions are truely =/not one religion is being promoted over another; then it should be ok for a donated statute-of Baphomet to be out next to the donated 10 Commandments statute....and if somebody wants to donate a statute of Odin then so be it
I'm aware of that, my question was how does the temple of Satan's protest/statue help anyone? The10 commandments are great advice for society, how is a statue of Satan helping anything?
How is hanging the 10 commandments in public funded buildings helping anything? How is having crosses everywhere helping anything? And the 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth make more sense than the commandments. And it also covers child molestation as well.
Jesus' golden rule means that child molestation is forbidden. The fact that some perverts became priests doesn't change the original teaching, nor the rest of Christianity.
"Satanic Rules of the Earth make more sense"? Fascinating - how do you define "make more sense", esp. in our relativistic culture?
The Bible never says don't rape... It does say that you should rape though
No, it doesn't say that you should rape. And as I said, Jesus' command to treat others as we'd want to be treated means that rape is prohibited.
Give it up. Your religion is falling apart. Pedophilia is rampant. You're priests frequently escape punishment and nobody really reads the bible any more. I stand firm in the belief that in about a hundred years, Christianity will have disappeared entirely.
"You're priests"? [I presume you mean your, not you're, but anyhoo] They have nothing to do with me. I'm in the UK< attending a Baptist Church and watching sermons from various Churches online. I'm following Christ, not an institution - even if I were attending one of the Churches where abuse has been happening, why would that mean that I should reject Jesus? I can't my head around the concept of God and of Christ having defeated death - but having looked at the arguments for and against, from Christian scholars, I've concluded that it's true. How much have you investigated?
"Nobody reads the Bible"? According to what data? Even though Christianity's lessened - not died, as you presume - here in the West, it's growing rapidly elsewhere, not least in China, despite persecution, where more and more media and influence is coming.
Jesus is more important than politics, so it's missing the point to turn a nativity into a political statement. However, Jesus did make it clear that we should have compassion for those in need - so the hostility of some who claim to be Christians towards migrants is, in fact, unChristian.
It's odd that people would be upset by this^ given the incomparably bigger issue of the vast majority of people in our society ignoring Jesus and/or having been misled into thinking that He didn't exist.
Funny, I'd say the exact opposite. Politics is more important than Jesus so it only cheapens a political point by dragging a fictional character into it.
It's odd that people would be upset by this^ given the incomparably bigger issue of the vast majority of people in our society ignoring Jesus and/or having been misled into thinking that He didn't exist.
Funny, I'd say the exact opposite. Politics is more important than Jesus so it only cheapens a political point by dragging a fictional character into it.
Politics only affects this lifetime, Jesus offers eternal life. Obviously, you don't believe that, but how much have you investigated the arguments of the scholars who do?
But parents don't need to tell each other what they gave teachers. The idea behind this^ doesn't beat the fact that teachers are incredibly hard working and it's great for them to receive gifts.
Jesus told us to love others as ourselves - and both His teachings and other Bible verses make it abundantly clear that this includes from opposing nations. I know that most people don't give a toss about what He instructed, but most of those who support this^ cruelty would call themselves Christians - Christian means little Christ ie, those genuinely desperate to live for Him and follow His example, those in support of this^ just aren't.
Ultimately, these people shouldn't be trying to get into the US - because their home nations shouldn't have been made poor by the exploitative actions of others. Now, foreign aid should be increased and better managed to develop infrastructure and opportunities in impoverished countries - perhaps starting using the money that's currently being used on excessive guards and on the planned wall.
So? If a few out of the entire caravan aren't tidy, or simply don't have time to tidy because they have to move with the group, it doesn't mean that they're less deserving of a safe place to live than anyone else.
I hate how so many people now associate Christianity with the very opposite of what Christ did and taught, because of predators like this^
Anything in the name of fictitious beings is insane. The idea that we even have churches is ridiculous. Religion is the root of all evil.
It would be - but God's not fictional. He's the conclusion drawn by much of humanity given that anything exists at all, and, in particular, that t the universe and biological world are too unimaginably precise, and interdependent, to have come about without a designer. You may, of course, choose to disagree - but whilst there have been many fictional gods, The creator of the universe isn't an imagined fiction.
How much have you looked at the reasons that theistic scholars have for concluding that He exists?
Because others didn't give profound teachings about compassion that were countercultural at the time, and perform miracles, and fulfil prophecies, and allow themselves to die for humanity's sin, and defeat death and rise again. But obviously, the 25th of December isn't actually Jesus' birthday - the day that He was born on wasn't recorded, so we celebrate on the 25th; but the vast majority of our society now spends the Christmas season worshipping other things instead (consumerism, food etc - not that these are in themselves wrong).
Anyone who killed others for not being Christian were themselves not Christian, because by definition a Christian is someone who tries to follow Christ, who told us to love others. Uri Gellar performed because he could profit from it - Jesus had no media to praise Him nor did He make any money. Uri Gellar didn't heal people, URI Gellar didn't rise from death. It's a logical fallacy to argue that because there are illusionists, no miracle that's ever happened was real. You need to analyse the arguments of those who've found the case for Christ convincing.
You act like it doesn't go both ways. Sexual fulfillment is fairly important for a healthy relationship.
You really did some mental gymnastics here. Even the bible has a passage on that very thing in marriage
Of course it goes both ways - but 3x weekly is a big demand, and her not meeting it is no excuse for cheating. If he loved her, he wouldn't cheat, and if he doesn't love her, he shouldn't have married her. She deserves someone who respects her enough not to consider her as an object to fulfil his appetite.
your spouse doesn't "owe" you their loyalty either
Yes, a spouse does owe their spouse loyalty, that's what marraige is. Ultimately, this husband has issues that he needs to deal with if he thinks that he needs sex so often to enjoy life.
3 time a week is a low number. I think if she was in love with him and not just what he provides that number would be 6-7 so who's really breaking the more important val. I'd say he by not truly loving him
According to who is 3 times weekly a low number? I'm fairly sure that, statistically, that's far above average for long term couples. And contrary to popular belief, you don't need any sex at all to enjoy life. Apparently, the average is between 51 (http://time.com/.../how-much-sex-is-healthy-in-a.../) and 68.5 (https://www.marriage.com/.../how-often-do-married.../) times per year. To break marriage commitments for not performing more than twice as often as average can't be justified.
You dno't f*ck him, he is allowed to get it elsewhere. Either while married to you or not
"allowed" according to who? By definition of being married, he's not allowed. It appears that sex is god to some people, so perhaps you feel that he's allowed because of your religious beliefs, but he's breaking a contract that he chose to enter into.
“3x weekly is a big demand” This is literally no-sense!! It’s absolutely subjective!! My ex girlfriend would disagree for sure!! As she wanted to get fucked every single day otherwise she felt that I didn’t love her enough! And if for some reason I didn’t want to I “was not a real man!”
it's a big demand given that it's 2-3 times what's average. And as I've said, you don't even need sex to enjoy life. The husband in this scenario needs to deal with his issues - he's missing real fulfilment in life.
Of course they have the riight to refuse - they hadn't heard yet. Why do you think it was "doctrine" that he was going to share?
His body should rot in hell and eaten by vultures.So pleasing that would have been
soul vultures ..what the hell...y do you want to destroy culture ..
Converted outputs who says neighbour uncle as dads need to seal their mouths... Selfish termites, looking forever to encroach upon others lands and money.. Double faced criminals
Why have you not understood my comment? He wasn't "selfish" - he wasn't going to gain land or money - he was trying to help people. You might think that he was wrong to think that he was going to help, but that was his motive. Why are you so hateful?
"Good motives" is a subjective term. Maybe good for him, but certainly not for the tribe. In my opinion they should be left alone. I don't think they need any of our religion to live their lives. Heaven doesn't exist. What exists is the harsh reality.
How do you know that heaven doesn't exist? What if it does, and Jesus offers a way? The missionary believed that heaven does exist, and he was trying to tell people - you might have a different opinion about heaven, but that was his motive.
These tribes didn't need our help. Time and again they've outrightly rejected your forced help. If they were in dire need an Administration is omnipresent for that. This Guy whose misplaced beliefs of self righteousness and messenger of God were endangering and he has been rightly sent to his God. This is a well set example
He didn't believe he was more righteous, he believed that he knew the way to heaven and wanted to tell those who hadn't heard so that they could reach their own conclusions. You're free to disagree with his belief - and the people on the island would have been too; he wouldn't and couldn't force anything, he was there to talk. How can you be so certain that his belief is wrong?
u think Christianity can alone save d world??
I think that Christ is the only person who's demonstrated defeat of death, such that we can trust His claim to offering The Way to eternal life (heaven). I'm not aware of comparable evidence from anyone else. But that by no means means that Chritians have any cause to be "self righteous" as was suggesteed. And people calling themselves Christians who've hurt others were in fact, not Christians at all, because the definition of Christian is to follow Christ, who commanded that we love others.
thers.
hahaha Religion is for those who are not equipped to handle the harsh realities of life. Amazing how God can do anything, except APPEAR! This dumbass got exactly what he deserved. Hopefully he did not infect these poor people with some pathogen their immune systems can't handle. That's the real tragedy here.How do you define "religion"? How do you know that God can't appear? He knows better than we do about when He should do so. And He's not made of the particles that our eyes detect.
Regardless of what you think about whether people can cope with life, what are your thoughts on the academic arguments for Christianity?
There is a reason why x-ray technicians wear lead aprons. And ya, religion has been the cause of more deaths in the name of god than radiation. So in reality more dangerous than radiation.
Jsus told us to love our enemies and avoid violence; you can't blame Him for the wars carried out by people who called themselves religious just so that they could seem more noble to others at the time. Also, Communist regimes - which are atheistic - have killed many, many times more people than the total of those killed in "religious" wars.
Nice deflection with mentioning communism, which is a economic-political system and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Regardless violence inspired by religious (god) still has killed more people than radiation.
How do you know that the violence was "inspired by God"? As I said, people will claim to be following God to try to convince some observers that they're noble, in fact human beings are just greedy. Atheistic communism is a belief system, as much as theism is. Why do you not grasp my point that Jesus told us to be peaceful?
Project Fear
Surely what people should be marching in the streets for is for our politicians to prioritise fairer trade and international arrangements that fight exploitation?
I pretty much agree with what you said. But the solution isn't politics. It's education.
Education of Britain (about Global issues) or education of people in developing countries? I presume that you mean the latter (?) and of course, that is fundamental - but we need our politicians to address the corruption that's keeping developing countries so impoverished and aid to be spent efficiently so that those in developing countries can and will access education. For example, some children miss school because they have to walk for hours to collect water, and others because their parents need them to help with farming /on plantations. Some are too poor to afford the uniform that they're unable to attend school without; some don't have schools nearby; some only have access to schools without remotely adequate resources. Our nation - wealthy largely from having exploited those developing countries - needs to do more to make education in developing countries possible, and a big part of doing so is political action to address the corporate exploitation that's maintaining the desperate situation families are in.
Why go abroad?
We live in one of the best places to be already. There's more than enough to do, and plenty of days of sunshine in the summer. If we holiday here, it will help the local economies of what are some of the poorer parts of the country, and save a huge amount of greenhouse gas (that we create by travelling abroad).
We're incredibly privileged if we have enough wealth to be able to spend £hundreds on a week's entertainment - why not do something more exciting with that money? I'd far rather fund a year's sponsorship for an impoverished child than spend a week somewhere exotic.
(Apologies if I sound like I'm trying to be self righteous, I need to be more useful to the world's poor - I just genuinely don't understand why holidays that cost as much as they do for such brief unnecessary amusement is normal.)
It's not necessary, or worth the cost, to go abroad. What makes a break good is spending it with awesome people - going somewhere exciting is a rip-off.After a week or 2, £hunddreds, even £thousands, are gone forever, though we could have enjoyed that time at/near to home anyway, since those of us wealthy enough to be considering holidays already have comfortable homes and access to entertainment of our choice.
Meanwhile there are many equally hard working people, in developing countries, who can only dream of the every day things that we take forgranted. And £for£, it's amazingly good value to help them - so if we holiday at home, we can transform lives (and save a huge amount of greenhouse gas that we create by travelling abroad).Little England Brexidiot summed up right here
How exactly? I just argued that we should be more concerned about people in developing countries and about climate change - how does that make me a little England Brexidiot exactly?
No, I was asking a question in relation to the chosen image, and how it relates to the ultimate issue.
Sure, why not, if it would cause health issues for the woman carrying it?
"why not"? Because it's a human being with - by that stage of development - brain function and pain awareness. What health problems of the mother are you referring to? If - medically - the mother is definitively unable to survive the rest of the pregnancy, I wouldn't argue - but most abortions happen for reasons of convenience rather than absolute necessity.
Ok, but explain to me why and how your train of thought, upon seeing this image, is "Vice must suggest this is an abortable fetus"? All I see is a picture of an ultrasonic exam, supposed "suggestions" are all made by you.
Vice is arguing against those who discourage abortion, implying that abortions should be enabled. They chose an image of an almost fully developed baby. If they weren't arguing about such a pregnancy as that in the pregnancy, they would have no reason to use that image.
Yes that's possible, in the Netherlands u can abort, in special clinics, untill 23wk. Most of the time for medical reasons but it's legal if it isn't. Women across Europe come overthere. I'm not here for an ethical discussion, are my point of view. I just wanted to say that there are options , just an objective opinion.
I didn't ask about what's "legal", I'm curious to know what people think is OK. Something being legal doesn't necessarily mean that it's right.
Here in the UK, abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks - but all abortions are, technically, supposed to happen only if necessary for the mother's health, yet research finds that almost all report that they had abortions for reasons unrelated to health.
Personally, I think that it's wrong to kill a human with brain function and pain sensation, but I don't get to decide. I was asking about others' opinions; the image suggests to me an opinion that I'm surprised would be held by many.
one of the tactics of these anti-choice clinics is to falsify ultrasounds by showing pre-recorded and doctored ultrasound footage while pretending to give their victims an ultrasound, so that when the foetus is nothing more than a clump of cells, their victims will think they have an almost fully-formed baby in their womb
Can you show me the evidence of that? Why would women be duped, when we an all see and read onlne about development?
And why do you think that we're giving money to India's space programme? That's just not true - UKAid is spent through DFID - UK Department for International Development, which distributes the money to schools, health programmes and other initiatives to help the world's very poorest people become self-sufficient. Our country became wealthy largely by taking from countries like India, and the poor there are suffering even more than the poor here - they're at higher risk of crime (inc being forced into slavery) and disease; they have no NHS; they may have had no education - so have no chance of decent work, and they don't have our welfare state/benefits as even a possibility for them. Also, each £ given to a developing country can pay for far, far more than it can here. Ie, it would be non sensical to reduce foreign Aid
Mark Daniels how does calling someone slurs actually prove that they're wrong and/or that you're right?
It would be - but God's not fictional. He's the conclusion drawn by much of humanity given that anything exists at all, and, in particular, that t the universe and biological world are too unimaginably precise, and interdependent, to have come about without a designer. You may, of course, choose to disagree - but whilst there have been many fictional gods, The creator of the universe isn't an imagined fiction.
How much have you looked at the reasons that theistic scholars have for concluding that He exists?
Indeed our government should offer her asylum - but why do we get so obsessed with individuals whilst there are any Christians being fired, attacked, imprisoned, fire bombed and executed around the world? We should be calling for action to address persecution, not only putting our energy into arguing about 1 person as though others are less important.
perhaps we should celebrate other folks birthdays on the 25th of December, instead of just Jesus’? Why put all our energy in celebrating the birth of one person, as though others are less important? Because others didn't give profound teachings about compassion that were countercultural at the time, and perform miracles, and fulfil prophecies, and allow themselves to die for humanity's sin, and defeat death and rise again. But obviously, the 25th of December isn't actually Jesus' birthday - the day that He was born on wasn't recorded, so we celebrate on the 25th; but the vast majority of our society now spends the Christmas season worshipping other things instead (consumerism, food etc - not that these are in themselves wrong).
yeah I know, you stole the date from the Pagans, and reclaimed it as your special day, by pretending the ‘son of God’ was born on that day!
Love how you argue in the first part of your post, that we should celebrate him, and him only, on the 25th, coz he’s such a great guy. Then go on to say he probably wasn’t born then anyway!! Perhaps people are just returning to their traditional Pagan roots, and exchanging gifts, to celebrate winter, rather than the birth of some fantasy Israeli hippy?
Love how you argue in the first part of your post, that we should celebrate him, and him only, on the 25th, coz he’s such a great guy. Then go on to say he probably wasn’t born then anyway!! Perhaps people are just returning to their traditional Pagan roots, and exchanging gifts, to celebrate winter, rather than the birth of some fantasy Israeli hippy?
I wasn't arguing about the 25th, I was making the point that He's different from other humans.
What do you mean by fantasy? Are you suggesting that He didn't exist? Have you looked at the arguments made by Christian scholars about His historicity?
What do you mean by fantasy? Are you suggesting that He didn't exist? Have you looked at the arguments made by Christian scholars about His historicity?
is that difference because he was the son of God, who performed miracles, or that he’s had an entire myth created around him, suggesting so? I think it’s the latter, so yes, if he existed that does make him different. However, to create an entire belief system, based on stories that are the result of a very vivid imagination, at best, is ridiculous!! I’ve seen the arguments, in passing, about his existence. I’ve also seen the arguments to the contrary. I know which one rings more true.
"in passing"? Can you elaborate? Indeed, to base a belief system on a myth is ridiculous, but Christianity, unlike other religions, is based on an actual event.
Why is "more true" that "vivid imagination" explains people testifying to something that had them killed and informing others about it to the extent that it became the biggest movement in history?
Why is "more true" that "vivid imagination" explains people testifying to something that had them killed and informing others about it to the extent that it became the biggest movement in history?
did Jesus exist? Maybe. It wouldn’t shock me to have it proved, beyond doubt, that he did. However, that’s a longggg way from proving he’s the Son of God, and that he performed miracles, as described in the Bible.! Uri Geller used to do things beyond human understanding, but when pressed to do them under scientific conditions, he couldn’t. He wasn’t gifted by God, he was an illusionist. I’m sure that his entire audience at a show, would testify as to how he could bend metal, or sense where items were that were hidden, but...mass delusion, by a skilled practitioner isn’t the same as proof of beyond human, God given, powers. Darwin has crushed so many of the pillars of faith, modern science, and the crimes, and hypocrisies of the churches and their agents, has pulled down the rest.
You should also remember, that it wasn’t too long ago, where NOT being a Christian, in Europe, could get you killed. Christians should think about that, when they say how awful the Pakistanis are...
You should also remember, that it wasn’t too long ago, where NOT being a Christian, in Europe, could get you killed. Christians should think about that, when they say how awful the Pakistanis are...
Anyone who killed others for not being Christian were themselves not Christian, because by definition a Christian is someone who tries to follow Christ, who told us to love others. Uri Gellar performed because he could profit from it - Jesus had no media to praise Him nor did He make any money. Uri Gellar didn't heal people, URI Gellar didn't rise from death. It's a logical fallacy to argue that because there are illusionists, no miracle that's ever happened was real. You need to analyse the arguments of those who've found the case for Christ convincing.
Awesome. But no, we don't *need* to see them.
And obviously, I know that the use of *need* is hyperbole, and not literal - but seriously, we need to keep in mind that whilst decorations (and gifts, and family, and food) are great, Christmas is about something incomparably better.
And obviously, I know that the use of *need* is hyperbole, and not literal - but seriously, we need to keep in mind that whilst decorations (and gifts, and family, and food) are great, Christmas is about something incomparably better.
I'm not against the royals - but anyone who actually cares where they spend Christmas deserves a better hobby.
It seems amusing that whilst so many individuals are criticised for cultural appropriation, no one bats an eyelid about the extreme mass cultural appropriation that is the yoga trend.
And surely weight lifting - which won't produce "bulkiness" without extreme eating - is a more efficient way to get toned and strengthen bones? Surely the popularity of yoga is partly due to desperation for spirituality(?).
And surely weight lifting - which won't produce "bulkiness" without extreme eating - is a more efficient way to get toned and strengthen bones? Surely the popularity of yoga is partly due to desperation for spirituality(?).
"History will ask us all: what did we do" - but what does this^ actually do? Indeed, we absolutely need to fight racism and the selfishness of nationalism and cold-heartedness towards migrants - but what does a march like this achieve? Does it not just make some on the right feel more hostile? What can we actually DO to make things better? Surely something more constructive, like arranging for as many people as possible to write to their MPs; to create awareness of the suffering of migrants through viral media campaigns; and to help victims of racism?
Why on Earth should a wife be obligated to have sex with her husband as often as 3 times a week to maintain his loyalty? He committed to not having sex -or anything close to it - with anyone else by marrying her, and she's not obliged to perform whenever he wants to keep that agreement in place. Is Vice honestly arguing that a man's sexual appetite takes precedence over a woman's own bodily autonomy?
If you don't want to have sex with ur husband someone else will
He agreed to be faithful by marrying her. If he wasn't willing to be loyal, he shouldn't have got married. He doesn't deserve her.You act like it doesn't go both ways. Sexual fulfillment is fairly important for a healthy relationship.
You really did some mental gymnastics here. Even the bible has a passage on that very thing in marriage
Of course it goes both ways - but 3x weekly is a big demand, and her not meeting it is no excuse for cheating. If he loved her, he wouldn't cheat, and if he doesn't love her, he shouldn't have married her. She deserves someone who respects her enough not to consider her as an object to fulfil his appetite.
your spouse doesn't "owe" you their loyalty either
Yes, a spouse does owe their spouse loyalty, that's what marraige is. Ultimately, this husband has issues that he needs to deal with if he thinks that he needs sex so often to enjoy life.
3 time a week is a low number. I think if she was in love with him and not just what he provides that number would be 6-7 so who's really breaking the more important val. I'd say he by not truly loving him
According to who is 3 times weekly a low number? I'm fairly sure that, statistically, that's far above average for long term couples. And contrary to popular belief, you don't need any sex at all to enjoy life. Apparently, the average is between 51 (http://time.com/.../how-much-sex-is-healthy-in-a.../) and 68.5 (https://www.marriage.com/.../how-often-do-married.../) times per year. To break marriage commitments for not performing more than twice as often as average can't be justified.
You dno't f*ck him, he is allowed to get it elsewhere. Either while married to you or not
"allowed" according to who? By definition of being married, he's not allowed. It appears that sex is god to some people, so perhaps you feel that he's allowed because of your religious beliefs, but he's breaking a contract that he chose to enter into.
“3x weekly is a big demand” This is literally no-sense!! It’s absolutely subjective!! My ex girlfriend would disagree for sure!! As she wanted to get fucked every single day otherwise she felt that I didn’t love her enough! And if for some reason I didn’t want to I “was not a real man!”it's a big demand given that it's 2-3 times what's average. And as I've said, you don't even need sex to enjoy life. The husband in this scenario needs to deal with his issues - he's missing real fulfilment in life.
Does the extent of sexuality of some Western culture make the backlash from some Islamists (things like this^) worse? (NOT that I'm defending things like this^, obviously)
I was very pleasantly surprised by the programme. It critically highlighted some concerns regarding the trans movement, which is surprising from our media today, most of all from Channel 4. On Twitter, most comments were people fuming at C4 for its supposed transphobia. India Willoughby (trans TV personality recently on CBB), like some others, declared it Nazism. I asked India if equivocating questioning transgenderism with starving, stripping and gassing people might be overexaggerating, and they replied that it wasn't before blocking me.
As Christians, it's vital that we're compassionate and Christ-like towards trans people - but some have seriously concerning attitudes.
As Christians, it's vital that we're compassionate and Christ-like towards trans people - but some have seriously concerning attitudes.
The Vatican should do more to spread the Gospel, and improve its integrity in following God's guidance, then there might not be so many churches closing. Once the Church has left, it doesn't matter what the empty building is used for, what matters is souls' relationships to Christ.
"However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands." (Acts 7;48)
"However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands." (Acts 7;48)
It baffles me that people have said that they look just like The Handmaid's Tale outfits - have people not seen red before? Seriously, I'm so sick of people referencing The Handmaid's Tale to criticise reality in the West. There are parts of the world where women are grotesquely subjugated, but things like the time allowance for abortion being lowered (in certain states) are not oppression and are not equivocal to the rape and servitude of The Handmaid's Tale.
I'm sick of people celebrating the death - I've seen so many laughter reactions and people commending the shooting. If you knew that heaven had been offered, might you not want to tell people? You may think that the missionary was misguided - but he had good motives.
how has going to an isolated group bringing lots of new diseases worked out in the past. This group have emphatically denied access and they have the right to refuse religious doctrine.Of course they have the riight to refuse - they hadn't heard yet. Why do you think it was "doctrine" that he was going to share?
His body should rot in hell and eaten by vultures.So pleasing that would have been
soul vultures ..what the hell...y do you want to destroy culture ..
Converted outputs who says neighbour uncle as dads need to seal their mouths... Selfish termites, looking forever to encroach upon others lands and money.. Double faced criminals
Why have you not understood my comment? He wasn't "selfish" - he wasn't going to gain land or money - he was trying to help people. You might think that he was wrong to think that he was going to help, but that was his motive. Why are you so hateful?
"Good motives" is a subjective term. Maybe good for him, but certainly not for the tribe. In my opinion they should be left alone. I don't think they need any of our religion to live their lives. Heaven doesn't exist. What exists is the harsh reality.
How do you know that heaven doesn't exist? What if it does, and Jesus offers a way? The missionary believed that heaven does exist, and he was trying to tell people - you might have a different opinion about heaven, but that was his motive.
These tribes didn't need our help. Time and again they've outrightly rejected your forced help. If they were in dire need an Administration is omnipresent for that. This Guy whose misplaced beliefs of self righteousness and messenger of God were endangering and he has been rightly sent to his God. This is a well set example
He didn't believe he was more righteous, he believed that he knew the way to heaven and wanted to tell those who hadn't heard so that they could reach their own conclusions. You're free to disagree with his belief - and the people on the island would have been too; he wouldn't and couldn't force anything, he was there to talk. How can you be so certain that his belief is wrong?u think Christianity can alone save d world??
I think that Christ is the only person who's demonstrated defeat of death, such that we can trust His claim to offering The Way to eternal life (heaven). I'm not aware of comparable evidence from anyone else. But that by no means means that Chritians have any cause to be "self righteous" as was suggesteed. And people calling themselves Christians who've hurt others were in fact, not Christians at all, because the definition of Christian is to follow Christ, who commanded that we love others.
thers.
hahaha Religion is for those who are not equipped to handle the harsh realities of life. Amazing how God can do anything, except APPEAR! This dumbass got exactly what he deserved. Hopefully he did not infect these poor people with some pathogen their immune systems can't handle. That's the real tragedy here.How do you define "religion"? How do you know that God can't appear? He knows better than we do about when He should do so. And He's not made of the particles that our eyes detect.
Regardless of what you think about whether people can cope with life, what are your thoughts on the academic arguments for Christianity?
There is a reason why x-ray technicians wear lead aprons. And ya, religion has been the cause of more deaths in the name of god than radiation. So in reality more dangerous than radiation.
Jsus told us to love our enemies and avoid violence; you can't blame Him for the wars carried out by people who called themselves religious just so that they could seem more noble to others at the time. Also, Communist regimes - which are atheistic - have killed many, many times more people than the total of those killed in "religious" wars.
Nice deflection with mentioning communism, which is a economic-political system and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Regardless violence inspired by religious (god) still has killed more people than radiation.
How do you know that the violence was "inspired by God"? As I said, people will claim to be following God to try to convince some observers that they're noble, in fact human beings are just greedy. Atheistic communism is a belief system, as much as theism is. Why do you not grasp my point that Jesus told us to be peaceful?
Project Fear
Surely what people should be marching in the streets for is for our politicians to prioritise fairer trade and international arrangements that fight exploitation?
I pretty much agree with what you said. But the solution isn't politics. It's education.
Education of Britain (about Global issues) or education of people in developing countries? I presume that you mean the latter (?) and of course, that is fundamental - but we need our politicians to address the corruption that's keeping developing countries so impoverished and aid to be spent efficiently so that those in developing countries can and will access education. For example, some children miss school because they have to walk for hours to collect water, and others because their parents need them to help with farming /on plantations. Some are too poor to afford the uniform that they're unable to attend school without; some don't have schools nearby; some only have access to schools without remotely adequate resources. Our nation - wealthy largely from having exploited those developing countries - needs to do more to make education in developing countries possible, and a big part of doing so is political action to address the corporate exploitation that's maintaining the desperate situation families are in.
Why go abroad?
We live in one of the best places to be already. There's more than enough to do, and plenty of days of sunshine in the summer. If we holiday here, it will help the local economies of what are some of the poorer parts of the country, and save a huge amount of greenhouse gas (that we create by travelling abroad).
We're incredibly privileged if we have enough wealth to be able to spend £hundreds on a week's entertainment - why not do something more exciting with that money? I'd far rather fund a year's sponsorship for an impoverished child than spend a week somewhere exotic.
(Apologies if I sound like I'm trying to be self righteous, I need to be more useful to the world's poor - I just genuinely don't understand why holidays that cost as much as they do for such brief unnecessary amusement is normal.)
It's not necessary, or worth the cost, to go abroad. What makes a break good is spending it with awesome people - going somewhere exciting is a rip-off.After a week or 2, £hunddreds, even £thousands, are gone forever, though we could have enjoyed that time at/near to home anyway, since those of us wealthy enough to be considering holidays already have comfortable homes and access to entertainment of our choice.
Meanwhile there are many equally hard working people, in developing countries, who can only dream of the every day things that we take forgranted. And £for£, it's amazingly good value to help them - so if we holiday at home, we can transform lives (and save a huge amount of greenhouse gas that we create by travelling abroad).Little England Brexidiot summed up right here
How exactly? I just argued that we should be more concerned about people in developing countries and about climate change - how does that make me a little England Brexidiot exactly?
Are you honestly suggesting that a foetus that's as far through development as that in the illustration should be abort-able?
Are you honestly putting words in the author's mouth for no good reason? Like why jump to such a conclusion when that is neither the point of the article or the headline?No, I was asking a question in relation to the chosen image, and how it relates to the ultimate issue.
Sure, why not, if it would cause health issues for the woman carrying it?
"why not"? Because it's a human being with - by that stage of development - brain function and pain awareness. What health problems of the mother are you referring to? If - medically - the mother is definitively unable to survive the rest of the pregnancy, I wouldn't argue - but most abortions happen for reasons of convenience rather than absolute necessity.
Ok, but explain to me why and how your train of thought, upon seeing this image, is "Vice must suggest this is an abortable fetus"? All I see is a picture of an ultrasonic exam, supposed "suggestions" are all made by you.
Vice is arguing against those who discourage abortion, implying that abortions should be enabled. They chose an image of an almost fully developed baby. If they weren't arguing about such a pregnancy as that in the pregnancy, they would have no reason to use that image.
Yes that's possible, in the Netherlands u can abort, in special clinics, untill 23wk. Most of the time for medical reasons but it's legal if it isn't. Women across Europe come overthere. I'm not here for an ethical discussion, are my point of view. I just wanted to say that there are options , just an objective opinion.
I didn't ask about what's "legal", I'm curious to know what people think is OK. Something being legal doesn't necessarily mean that it's right.
Here in the UK, abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks - but all abortions are, technically, supposed to happen only if necessary for the mother's health, yet research finds that almost all report that they had abortions for reasons unrelated to health.
Personally, I think that it's wrong to kill a human with brain function and pain sensation, but I don't get to decide. I was asking about others' opinions; the image suggests to me an opinion that I'm surprised would be held by many.
one of the tactics of these anti-choice clinics is to falsify ultrasounds by showing pre-recorded and doctored ultrasound footage while pretending to give their victims an ultrasound, so that when the foetus is nothing more than a clump of cells, their victims will think they have an almost fully-formed baby in their womb
Can you show me the evidence of that? Why would women be duped, when we an all see and read onlne about development?
Obvs. I'm hugely against much of Trump's actions, but surely we should be trying to buy less; and when we do buy, to buy from charity shops, or buy locally produced items (dep. on what the item is, of course)? Shipping things around the world will obviously be impossible for some things - but if we want to tackle climate change, we need for less transportation to happen, and for there to be less factory produce generally.
Londoners can now use contactless payments to donate funds to help the homeless
I agree that it should do more - but you should know that churches are doing a lot. Many soup kitchens, for example, are run by churches even if it's not obvious to the wider public. Obviously, The Salvation Army United Kingdom with the Republic of Ireland, the YMCA, CAP, St Mungo's and the Trussel The Trussell Trust all have Christian roots and staff, but there's far more going on that you simply haven't heard about as a non Church goer.
Supposedly a Christian country so how about The Church of England uses some of its 6 BILLION assets to solve the problem ??
And why do you think that we're giving money to India's space programme? That's just not true - UKAid is spent through DFID - UK Department for International Development, which distributes the money to schools, health programmes and other initiatives to help the world's very poorest people become self-sufficient. Our country became wealthy largely by taking from countries like India, and the poor there are suffering even more than the poor here - they're at higher risk of crime (inc being forced into slavery) and disease; they have no NHS; they may have had no education - so have no chance of decent work, and they don't have our welfare state/benefits as even a possibility for them. Also, each £ given to a developing country can pay for far, far more than it can here. Ie, it would be non sensical to reduce foreign Aid
We really need to focus on issues rather than left vs right. There's no reason why people who believe in equalising wealth distribution should necessarily be supportive of porn, abortion, and similar evils. And rather than understanding the desire to support life and families, many on the left have come to associate "right" with racism, so they're unwilling to listen to conservatives at all. The left right divide needs to be overlooked to tackle actual problems.
Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Matthew 22:37-9
Not everyone follows the tribal tales. Get over it.
Again, how much have you investigated the academic rationale supporting Christianity? What do you tribal tales have to do with it?
Not everyone follows the tribal tales. Get over it.
Again, how much have you investigated the academic rationale supporting Christianity? What do you tribal tales have to do with it?
Mark Daniels how does calling someone slurs actually prove that they're wrong and/or that you're right?
Faith groups to defy ‘gay cure’ therapy ban
" How much have you investigated the rationale of Christian scholars?"Debating how many angels can stand on the end of a pin isn't really "Scholarly"
This is misleading - how are you defining "gay cure therapy"? People should be entitled to have counselling if it's offered. People should NOT be physically manipulated (as have some past treatments, not by Christians) nor forced into counselling. What, exactly, are you suggesting that Christians are engaging in and what exactly are you objecting to?
They are offering "counselling" for gay people to deny their own natural instincts, that's a bit weird.
[Deleted Comment]
I don't follow priests, why bring them up?
"Sky fairy"? How much have you investigated the rationale of Christian scholars?
And who/what are you expecting to inflict the plague that you call for?
"Sky fairy"? How much have you investigated the rationale of Christian scholars?
And who/what are you expecting to inflict the plague that you call for?
[Deleted Comment]
But as I said - there's a distinction to be made between counselling and cruelty that's happened in the past - both get labelled "gay conversion therapy", but it's only the former that some Christians are advocating, none are advocating the latter.
So that's not at all then. I never said anything about angels, nor do I myself have any interest in them. There are scientific, historical and philosophial reasons to conclude that Christianity is actually true, but I see you'd rather put words in my mouth than investigate and weigh up the arguments for yourself?
"There are scientific, historical and philosophial reasons to conclude that Christianity is actually true" Could say the same for Harry Potter!
There's too many variables. Who's to say the Roman Gods aren't true?
There's too many variables. Who's to say the Roman Gods aren't true?
"say the same for Harry Potter"? You seem, with all due respect, to be entirely unfamiliar with what I'm referring to. Why not explore for yourself, rather than wasting time arguing with me? This is one site you could start at - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
If you can present evidence to support Harry Potter, I'd be fascinated.
If you can present evidence to support Harry Potter, I'd be fascinated.
I've had enough fiction for today, how about something important, like restoring a steam train or a decent Brexit deal?
A book exists with Harry Potter as a character. A book exists with "god" as a character. Co-incidence? I think Not!
A book exists with Harry Potter as a character. A book exists with "god" as a character. Co-incidence? I think Not!
Why do you presume that something you don't know about is fiction?
And what is remotely important about restoriing steam trains?
And what is remotely important about restoriing steam trains?
What is remotely important to me about a book which criminalises my existence, which has been used to support some of the most atrocious actions ever carried out by humanity. Wasn't that long ago they were burning women accused of being "witches"!
The Bible does not criminalise your existence; and the atrocious actions to which you refer were not Christian, it's predictable that power hungry people would claim to be religious for the sake of gaining respect. Christianity is to follow Christ.
gay conversion therapy has been shown to be a complete failure and it is often very harmful to individuals mental and physical health.
But as I said - there's a distinction to be made between counselling and cruelty that's happened in the past - both get labelled "gay conversion therapy", but it's only the former that some Christians are advocating, none are advocating the latter. Ultimately, gay sex itself is against God's guidance - yet Jesus welcomes everyone, and commands us to love others.
"Ultimately, gay sex itself is against God's guidance" So gay people to live unnatural lives? All humans, unless asexual, are programmed to have sex, it's as much a basic instinct as food is. It's cruel to prevent gay people having access to their own biological instincts. Forcing gay people to live single, loveless lives, how is that love? It's also a very stupid idea, sex is such a huge drive, it's unstoppable, people will do it. forcing gay people to stop having sex will force them to live horrid double lives. This "act" of fascist controlling of people's personal lives, almost inherent to religion is insipid and revolting.it's not unexpected though, you choose to live by 2000 year old Chinese whispers, I wouldn't be surprised if you wanted to stone adulterers next. You aren't gay, you have zero understanding of this matter, you have no authority on it. "and the atrocious actions to which you refer were not Christian,"yeah yeah, that's the oldest excuse in the book.
Why would you think I'd want to stone adulterers? I want to emulate Jesus, who specifically saved an adultress from stoning - though obviously, I'd never want to hurt anyone anyway, why would I? Believing that an action is wrong doesn't mean that you want the person carrying out the action to be harmed.
I'm also not advocating "controlling of people's personal lives" - we can each disagree with another person's choices without wanting or feeling entitled to control them. Why do you think that Christianity is "2000 year old Chinese whispers"? Have you tried to find out what the Bible actually is, as a historical document?
The acts - ie. serious cruelty - of people calling themselves Christian WERE not Christian, because Christian, by definition, is to follow Christ.
I'm not gay - but I know from personal experience (as well as from discussion with many others) that life without sex is not cruel. It's not loveless either, as you suggest. Love between friends and family can be every bit as fulfilling as romance - though that too is distinct from sex. But there's a greater love still, which demonstrably has enabled countless people to feel deep peace and joy, and Christ welcomes you to it
I'm also not advocating "controlling of people's personal lives" - we can each disagree with another person's choices without wanting or feeling entitled to control them. Why do you think that Christianity is "2000 year old Chinese whispers"? Have you tried to find out what the Bible actually is, as a historical document?
The acts - ie. serious cruelty - of people calling themselves Christian WERE not Christian, because Christian, by definition, is to follow Christ.
I'm not gay - but I know from personal experience (as well as from discussion with many others) that life without sex is not cruel. It's not loveless either, as you suggest. Love between friends and family can be every bit as fulfilling as romance - though that too is distinct from sex. But there's a greater love still, which demonstrably has enabled countless people to feel deep peace and joy, and Christ welcomes you to it
Your own anecdotal view is worthless, I'm afraid to say. You cannot speak for every single gay person, "love every bit as fulfilling", nope, doesn't work that way, it all very easy for someone who is not gay to say this too. Deep peace and joy from being single, never having someone hold you close, never being able to wake up in someone's arms, never being able to hold someone's hand and never bring able to have that kiss that gives you butterflies? The Christian "love" you speak of sounds like the "love" a man professes for the woman he beats.Historical document? Give me strength. Humans are an ape which got lucky. We invented stories due to our intelligence, which led to a fear of death. An action is only wrong if it causes measurable harm. Gay sex causes zero measurable harm.
"zero measurable harm"? Tragically, we both know that many people have been hurt because of it - acknowledging that doesn't mean that I'm judging those people.
How exactly does "The Christian "love" [I] speak of sound like the "love" a man professes for the woman he beats."?
When you say "Historical document? Give me strength." what is it that you think the Bible actually is? How much have you investigated it?
How exactly does "The Christian "love" [I] speak of sound like the "love" a man professes for the woman he beats."?
When you say "Historical document? Give me strength." what is it that you think the Bible actually is? How much have you investigated it?
"we both know that many people have been hurt because of it -"How exactly are people "hurt" by gay sex? If you are referring to AIDS, then you've lost all credibility. Gay sex is no more harmful, by any means, than straight sex. "How exactly does "The Christian "love" [I] speak of sound like the "love" a man professes for the woman he beats." To gays - We "love" you, but you have to live unnatural single lives and never find love with a partner, and never act on your natural sexual instinct. "is it that you think the Bible actually is?" An old book of fairy tales?
Not having sex (which isn't "unnatural", it's just not the most common thing) isn't the same as being beaten. And still you're missing the point - there's a joy in a relationship with Christ that more than compensates for not having sex, which you haven't yet explored. It's not just about not having sex, it's about having something better. Contrary to your earlier comment, yes, there is deep peace and joy to be had. That's why those who've most fallen in love with God have had their lives transformed, including people who had previously been involved in crime, and people being willing to die under persecution. But I don't expect you to believe me, so there's no point arguing about it.
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea." C. S. Lewis
Why do you think that the Bible is "an old book of fairy tales"?
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea." C. S. Lewis
Why do you think that the Bible is "an old book of fairy tales"?
Joy with a magical person cannot replace an actual person. Your condersending attitude is not helpful. You aren't in the position you claim to have an understanding on. "magic person says" is not a good enough reason. Why would a "loving" God want people to suffer so much. Besides, it's not like any ban on gay sex has ever stopped it from happening. Me thinks the man upstairs didn't think this through. Why even make people gay, if not to torture them and make their lives a misery.
I'm certainly not trying to be (or feeling) condescending, my apologies that I've come across that way - could you specify which thing it was that gave that impression? What exactly do you mean when you label God as magical, and why exactly are you certain that He can't bring joy if you've not experienced Him because you've not been willing? Do you not think that simply saying "because it is" demonstrates that you've not explored any evidence or reasoning? Anyone could say "because it is" about anything they want to believe, why dismiss the work of scores of academics who've studied the history surrounding the Biblical texts?
"could you specify which thing it was that gave that impression?" The part where you believe an all loving god would give people feelings which they are never able to experience, never experience someone they can kiss, who can meet their sexual needs, to spend their life with; that part. I think god is actually a she. it is illogical that god would have a gender. where is the evidence then? Actual scientific evidence, not an old book, pleaseHow can you both think that god is a she, and that He has no gender?
Scientific evidence? We were talking about the Bible, which historical. There are scientific reasons to conclude that a God exists, some of which are summarised in the link I added earlier (did you look at it?), and, separately, historical reasons to support the Bible's credibility as a historical document. The Bible IS NOT a scientific document - the creation account is a poetically styled summary for people unfamiliar with science, and the rest of the book is a compilation of historical accounts, letters and poems. There are also historical texts outside of the Bible that support the conclusion that the events described in the Bible took place.
https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection
LOL, no, I really don't. I don't go Starbucks, or any other cafes (or restaurants, nor have meals delivered/take outs). Why would you think that?
$6 a month to feed a child? Dude, $6 will barely feed you a day. Two days if you buy nothing but the absolute cheapest things possible. I'm pretty sure that "Charity organization" is taking your money and not feeding a damn single child.
No, charities are able to feed children cheaply because the cost of food is way, way less when bought in bulk and in the countries where they're working. Feed The Hungry USA, for example, uses oatmeal-like food that's been specifically formulated to maximise vital nutrients. Most of the cost of a Subway sandwich - or other food from a restaurant, take out etc - is to pay for the premises and staff (as well as advertisements, and profits for the restaurant chain's CEOs).
And obviously, independent organisations run checks on charities to ensure that they're doing what they say that they are.
Feeding children with half of that 6$ while the CEO feeds his children from the other 3$!? No thanks
Seriously, the idea that charity money largely goes to the boss is an unfounded conspiracy theory. Why have you trusted it? https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get.../myths-about-aid/
Most of the Vatican's wealth isn't purely for the sake of its leaders having fun as Musk wants to; but indeed, I hate that they aren't using their money as God commanded us to. That so much money is spent on cathedrals etc is truly unChristian.
I reckon the best party outfit is the best items you can find in Oxfam - which has tonnes to choose from online as well as in stores. Plenty of the items are brand new or from high cost labels. To know that the money spent will change lives, and that you'll avoid the damage that our fast fashion culture is doing to the planet, surely surpasses whether the outfit appears in a magazine feature(?).
You see, that's why its opinion. Science says she doesn't have a 'human being' inside her - she has a clump of foetal cells with the potential to form into a human, if incubated correctly. If you 'think' it's a human, that's fine - but that's just your opinion. It is not based in medical fact.
"Science says" according to what source?
Check out this, for example; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713799/
I won't argue about a newly fertilised eg/zygote/morula; but after 6 weeks, its cells have differentiated and relocated to such an extent that its heart is beating. How do you define human, if a living being with its own unique, complete human genome, organs and brainwaves is not human?
According to basically all peer reviewed research that isn't done by religious organisations. A foetal cell is not a human being. I know you know this.
But your opinions and feelings around abortion make you not want to acknowledge that. Fair enough. Its an emotive issue. But don't pretend a foetus is equal to an autonomous woman - when you know full well it is not!
"a foetal cell"? I just stated that I'm not referring to individual cells. Which "basically all peer-reviewed research"? Seriously, which sources are you referring to? Did you look at the article linked to? Wikipedia - as a simplistic, secular source - talks about a foetus in the context of human development. I think that the emotion and not-wanting-to-acknowledge may be on the part of those wanting to deny that it's human because that makes it emotionally easier to justify getting rid of it.
Isn't it odd that, at 12 weeks, our NHS refers to the offspring as "fully formed. All the organs, muscles, limbs and bones are in place, and the sex organs are well developed. From now on, the baby has to grow and mature." and will already have provided an ultrasound scan; but at the same point, if the mother wants rid of it, the NHS refers to it as a pregnancy that she's only half way through her allowed time to get rid of?
you should keep in mind they are real parents who have lost children they wanted who have had to read your cruel drivel. From your response you really haven’t had much training at all or you didn’t pay attention. Learn some empathy or please stay away from medicine, cruelty doesn’t belong in patient care, humanity actually frowns on it too.
What have I said that insults parents who've lost children? I'm specifically discussing deliberate abortion, why would those who've suffered miscarriage be hurt by what I wrote? How exactly have I been cruel? Please explain specifically, I need to learn.
go back and read your own words, and think about how those words sound to a grieving parent who has lost a child for medical reasons. If you can’t figure it out you need therapy. If you don’t learn, expect a punch in the face someday, it’s horrendous language to use in public, to anyone. If you really care about babies & their parents, turn your attention & efforts to them after they are born and supporting pregnant mothers who are completely without support due to domestic violence or poverty. Harassing pregnant women is revolting behaviour, whether they are able to have their children or not. I see zero interest from anti-abortion advocates in unfortunate babies after they are born, which hardly encourages women keeping them in severe hardship (you are literally part of the problem). If you dismiss this you are simply pro-birth, with no interest or care in protecting life, only abusing other people, which is cruel & inhuman.
Pro-life advocates shouldn't be expected to support women who've made a choice (to have sex) given that they'll have responsibilities of their own, esp. since there are couples desperate to adopt newborns. However, if you "see zero interest from anti-abortion advocates" you've not been looking. Many pro-life advocates and groups work to help mothers. I spend most of my money on helping children in poverty.
You've not told me which language you object to - why? How can I understand if you won't explain what I've done wrong? In particular, as I've already said, my words aren't referring to miscarriages at all, so why would bereaved parents be offended?
Why would people write about the feeding of the 5000 in their diaries? People didn’t have diaries. Seriously, you're projecting modern life onto an entirely different culture. Diaries are a modern invention - in Jesus' time, only a minority of people wrote, and the 5000 was a group of less privileged people - but why do you presume that no one wrote it down? What if, in 2 thousand years, their scrap of writing has been lost of has disintegrated? Historical documents that we have are the few writings that were carefully preserved and recopied. The New Testament itself, by comparison to other historical texts, has far, far greater reliability in terms of numbers of original copies, how quickly it was written down after the events, correspondence with contemporary culture and more.
Scientific evidence? We were talking about the Bible, which historical. There are scientific reasons to conclude that a God exists, some of which are summarised in the link I added earlier (did you look at it?), and, separately, historical reasons to support the Bible's credibility as a historical document. The Bible IS NOT a scientific document - the creation account is a poetically styled summary for people unfamiliar with science, and the rest of the book is a compilation of historical accounts, letters and poems. There are also historical texts outside of the Bible that support the conclusion that the events described in the Bible took place.
https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection
Why on Earth should someone be forced to do something that they don't want to and which they believe to be murder?
It seems amusing that whilst so many individuals are criticised for cultural appropriation, no one bats an eyelid about the extreme mass cultural appropriation that is the yoga trend.
And surely weight lifting - which won't produce "bulkiness" without extreme eating - is a more efficient way to get toned and strengthen bones? Surely the popularity of yoga is partly due to desperation for spirituality(?).
And surely weight lifting - which won't produce "bulkiness" without extreme eating - is a more efficient way to get toned and strengthen bones? Surely the popularity of yoga is partly due to desperation for spirituality(?).
It's insanely annoying seeing people claiming to be Christians whilst doing things entirely contrary to what Christ instructed.
(NB, zipwires are awesome - but Jesus taught us to be humble, not use money to show off)
(NB, zipwires are awesome - but Jesus taught us to be humble, not use money to show off)
Maybe. But all of us are on a continuum o good to bad and move around it as we go through day-to-day life. We won't make the world better by judging others, we need to constantly reassess our own motives and actions, and try harder to be the change we want to see. Seriously - pointing fingers at those we disagree with, even if they are indeed bad people, will make them, and others who share even just some of their views, feel more hostile and less willing to reconsider their stances. Plenty of Trump voters - even those you might not be referring to here^ - only consider the left more and more stupid/immoral when you post things like this^ and are less open to hearing concerns about climate change, the suffering of migrants etc.
Christmas is about Jesus being born in a stable - it's bizarre that culture now makes people feel compelled to make Christmas so lavish that anyone would consider taking out a loan for it.
And honestly, He offers incomparably longer lasting joy than anything we can spend money on.
And honestly, He offers incomparably longer lasting joy than anything we can spend money on.
With $6 you can feed a starving child for a month (Feed the Feed The Hungry USA) - why would you spend $5 on one sandwich?
Me while you go to Starbucks and order a half-cafe cup of crap for $5 lolLOL, no, I really don't. I don't go Starbucks, or any other cafes (or restaurants, nor have meals delivered/take outs). Why would you think that?
$6 a month to feed a child? Dude, $6 will barely feed you a day. Two days if you buy nothing but the absolute cheapest things possible. I'm pretty sure that "Charity organization" is taking your money and not feeding a damn single child.
No, charities are able to feed children cheaply because the cost of food is way, way less when bought in bulk and in the countries where they're working. Feed The Hungry USA, for example, uses oatmeal-like food that's been specifically formulated to maximise vital nutrients. Most of the cost of a Subway sandwich - or other food from a restaurant, take out etc - is to pay for the premises and staff (as well as advertisements, and profits for the restaurant chain's CEOs).
And obviously, independent organisations run checks on charities to ensure that they're doing what they say that they are.
Feeding children with half of that 6$ while the CEO feeds his children from the other 3$!? No thanks
Seriously, the idea that charity money largely goes to the boss is an unfounded conspiracy theory. Why have you trusted it? https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get.../myths-about-aid/
How many people could he provide with clean water for the first time, or education, healthcare or homes, if he used the money he plans to spend space tourism on helping the world's poorest people (victims of corrupted global capitalism) instead?
Probably quite a lot. How many do you provide?
As many as I can - but as a desperate job seeker it's not anywhere near as many as I'd like. If I can acheive a real salary, I'd feel happier spending it on people in developing countries than on travelling.
do you think the money vanishes when it’s put into a space program? It makes jobs. People who manufacture the parts. People who feed the researchers. People who crunch the numbers. People who clean the buildings. People who deliver the nuts and bolts. People who landscape the building and grounds. People who sell the computers and post-its and toilet paper and water coolers.
But what if those engineers were creating solutions to drought, famine and flooding rather than putting theiir time into Musk's trip? Jobs aren't a good in themselves - they're good because they enable people to feed their families. If more hours of work were directed into helping those human beings in true agony because of the injustice in our world, would that not be better?
You know who could provide education and water for everyone? The Vatican
Most of the Vatican's wealth isn't purely for the sake of its leaders having fun as Musk wants to; but indeed, I hate that they aren't using their money as God commanded us to. That so much money is spent on cathedrals etc is truly unChristian.
Trump regularly references God, but the Bible makes it clear that God wants us to help refugees....
~Good Samaritan ? He bound the injured mans wounds , paid for his room and up keep till he was well.. ~ He did not take him home to his family. Just saying ..
If it were you, would you really rather that a stranger took you into their home far away, or a nearby hotel? And the Samaritan wasn't going to be at home anyway, he was in the process of travelling - ie. he tells the inn keeper that he'll return on his way back from his journey.
This is, truly, far more important than most other news. Too often the media forgets the world's poorest humans.
Whilst the people of Yemen are having aid blockaded (Saudi Arabia's evil is beyond words - and our government here in the UK is to blame for supporting them as well as yours) we can help other children in severe poverty for remarkably little cost to ourselves. For example, $6 can feed a starved child for a month (Feed The Hungry USA). Far more exciting than black Friday deals.
Whilst the people of Yemen are having aid blockaded (Saudi Arabia's evil is beyond words - and our government here in the UK is to blame for supporting them as well as yours) we can help other children in severe poverty for remarkably little cost to ourselves. For example, $6 can feed a starved child for a month (Feed The Hungry USA). Far more exciting than black Friday deals.
I'm sad that our politicians are still obsessing over Brexit when there are things that could be done to help humanitty if some of that time was instead put into addressing corruption, poverty and slavery.
Christ came to us to be The Way to God - each of us has the offer of eternal life (heaven) through Him. His gift of love was His life. And He came in humilty, born in a stable, such that it's truly bizarre we now feel compelled to make Christmas lavish.
By 15 weeks the foetus has all of its organs and has brain activity. By 16, their facial expressions respond to music.
so. Bullshit babies cant feel pain until 27 weeks so stfu
What are you basing that on?
Good to see you protecting the children being killed by armies in Syria, killed by gun men in schools in the US, personally protecting the children being abused by family members, adopting unwanted children, providing housing for homeless children wherever you are. I mean, I’m assuming that’s what you’re doing giving you care so much about what are essentially parasitic organisms that can’t live on their own outside the female body without help...
Of course I'm massively concerned about children suffering in war torn and impoverished countries. I sponsor children and desperately wish that I could afford to do more to help
And what about the 15/25/35 year old who's body that fetus is using?
The mother chose to have sex (other than in the 1% of abortion cases due to rape) - it's not a matter of the foetus using her body, the foetus is in her body on account of her decision. There are couples unable to conceive who specifically want to adopt a newborn, so she could bring someone else immeasurable joy.
Higher brain doesn't begin to form until roughly the end of the first or beginning of the second trimester. Without a cerebrum there's nothing driving the brain beyond basic reflexes and a few instincts. Additionally, even if IF the fetus had functioning pain receptors in it's peripheral nervous system ( still up for debate) the part of the brain that processes pain hasn't formed yet. So no. The fetus is incapable of feeling pain.
The 15 weeks we've been discussing is later than the end of 1st trimester/beginning of 2nd you're now talking about, so what's your point? Also, studies have found conflicting results - some suggest pain sensation at 8 weeks. I don't see why it's OK to risk it.
I am becoming neonatal nurse as we speak. So I know a bit about babies lmao
Kudos! Seriously :) But that hasn't actually answered my question. Which sources give definitive proof that there's no pain prior to 27 weeks?
The real issue is that culture is conning us into thinking that a "healthy sex life" is necessary for happiness - it isn't at all. We're hungering for thrills, and for meaning in life, and we've been duped into thinking that sex can fill the void.
Change in attitudes to sex since the sexual revolution has done immeasurable harm - suffering and healthcare costs due to STIs inc. HIV and cervical cancer(and the tests/treatments); HPV vaccines; abortions; emotional suffering (the brain releases oxytocin - pair bonding hormone - in sex, so people are far more likely to feel depressed later on after a broken relationship if it included sex) etc.
Corporations have been profitting - magazines and TV/film/music sell by featuring sex, and now everyone's convinced that it's healthy to start ASAP and have plenty of different partners. If it were again the norm to wait before having sex, until you're with the person you've commited to for life, the abortion issue and so, so much heartbreak could be avoided.
Change in attitudes to sex since the sexual revolution has done immeasurable harm - suffering and healthcare costs due to STIs inc. HIV and cervical cancer(and the tests/treatments); HPV vaccines; abortions; emotional suffering (the brain releases oxytocin - pair bonding hormone - in sex, so people are far more likely to feel depressed later on after a broken relationship if it included sex) etc.
Corporations have been profitting - magazines and TV/film/music sell by featuring sex, and now everyone's convinced that it's healthy to start ASAP and have plenty of different partners. If it were again the norm to wait before having sex, until you're with the person you've commited to for life, the abortion issue and so, so much heartbreak could be avoided.
I'm underweight (based on my BMI) but can't stop worrying about not being thin enough out of my head. (I was previously hospitalised for anorexia, which has massively impacted my life). I desp[perately wish that things like this^ would stop. There are innocent human beings starving elsewhere (which I know from having had anorexia is more tortuous than you realise when you see Save the Children adverts), and how wide our stomachs are is truly meaningless. I hate myself for not putting my shape out of my mind, and for not being able to do more for those less fortunate than us. Our media is perpetuating eating disorders with stories like this, ruining lives and adding to the NHS's struggle. And the Sun is as much - if not more - at fault than the celebrities for spreading this content.
Squatters pay €1,400 for keys to empty Spanish homes
Gangs are exploiting Spain’s high rents by breaking into empty properties in Madrid and Barcelona, changing the locks and selling the keys to squatters for €1,400, police have said.
So gangs are doing what the government ought to have done?
You think the government should steal people’s homes, and make a profit off homeless people??
No, I think that empty buildings are evidently not homes, and that they should be made oue of, especially as the weather gets cold.
Grace is right. We need to throw away the property rights our ancestors fought for for the greater good. The denigration of property rights never leads to tyranny and oppression...
You can't presume on the basis of separate, past situations. This is simply about getting people into shelter rather than leaving buildings empty. The fact that anyone owns multiple properties whilst others freeze on the streets is a result of long term injustice. If there are people who own these abandoned homes, they clearly don't care about them much if they leave them like they have. How could you think that it's better for human beings to sleep on pavements in winter?
Socialists nonsense!
You think that it's nonsense for people to be inside otherwise empty buildings so that they're not sleeping on the streets in winter?
I reckon the best party outfit is the best items you can find in Oxfam - which has tonnes to choose from online as well as in stores. Plenty of the items are brand new or from high cost labels. To know that the money spent will change lives, and that you'll avoid the damage that our fast fashion culture is doing to the planet, surely surpasses whether the outfit appears in a magazine feature(?).
Black Friday on track for record online spending
I love that, for $25, (a tiny fraction of the amount spent on most kids here at Christmas) we can provide toys for kids in the poorest parts of the world - who don't have toys already and who'll treasure the gifts for many, many years. https://www.samaritanspurse.org/operation.../buildonline/
And just $6 - which many people will spend on coffee today - can feed a starving child for a month (Feed The Hungry USA)
Those are exciting bargains
And just $6 - which many people will spend on coffee today - can feed a starving child for a month (Feed The Hungry USA)
Those are exciting bargains
do they need toys... Or food and shelter...
Both. We hould be giving to charities providing food and shelter - but the shoeboxes give them toys that will bring immeasurable happiess, and also nurture the creativity that's crucial to child development, as well stationery and soap/toothbrushes that they're otherwise without.
Statistically, the majority of American people are white, Republican or both, so this title is meaningless (obviously, Trump's handling of race relations sucks, but you're not headlining it in a meaningful way - and you shouldn't need to segregate the populace to comment on Trump). Constantly implying that white people are all racist only makes society's divisions worse.
Meanwhile, innocent human beings elsewhere have to walk for hours - and are at risk of assault as they do, as well as being forced to miss school - to get any water at all. And that water will still be dirty and dangerous, causing scores of infants to die.
There are people who could only dream of the food we get from the value ranges n cheap supermarkets, because they almost never get to eat much other than rice - and some who are starving.
Charity that provides long-term solutions has significantly reduced the proportion of humanity suffering like this - there are still people that we can help, for what is, to us, remarkably little cost. Yet you're spending £s that could be alleviating agony on bottled water for a dog?
There are people who could only dream of the food we get from the value ranges n cheap supermarkets, because they almost never get to eat much other than rice - and some who are starving.
Charity that provides long-term solutions has significantly reduced the proportion of humanity suffering like this - there are still people that we can help, for what is, to us, remarkably little cost. Yet you're spending £s that could be alleviating agony on bottled water for a dog?
God preceded human beings and the concept and biology of gender. However, since God refers to Himself as a He, it's non-sensical to object to Him being described as He.
Crucially, God is without the negative traits that some associate with some masculinity - but He has strength and power such that it makes sense to think of Him as a Father, rather than a mother.
And like a Father of a baby, He knows far, far, far more than we can comprehend - so it really is very odd that our culture is so obsessed with judging God as though He doesn't have reasons we're unaware of.
Crucially, God is without the negative traits that some associate with some masculinity - but He has strength and power such that it makes sense to think of Him as a Father, rather than a mother.
And like a Father of a baby, He knows far, far, far more than we can comprehend - so it really is very odd that our culture is so obsessed with judging God as though He doesn't have reasons we're unaware of.
It does need substantial explanation - not "trigger warnings", but information on the context and linguistic styles that mean that parts seem odd or unpleasant. Ultimately, it's Jesus who shows us God's nature most clearly, and Jesus whose teachings and instruction we follow.
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;she must be quiet
That was a letter by Paul in reference to a specific Church. Other verses show that women were preaching at that time.
and in other verses it shows the monitery value of women, and when women are menstruating they are unclean and a man who touches them have to be cleansed.
Which verses show the monetary value of women? Regardless, those verses were written in a culture where people already thought a bride price to be important, and it would have been necessary for there to be guidelines about this to prevent disagreements.
Verses about menstruation were written for a people who didn't have running water or sanitary products, nor an understanding of hygiene risks; and who also saw symbolism in blood.
But far more in-depth discussion is needed - and ultimately these points are irrelevant compared to Christ, which was my original point.
Verses about menstruation were written for a people who didn't have running water or sanitary products, nor an understanding of hygiene risks; and who also saw symbolism in blood.
But far more in-depth discussion is needed - and ultimately these points are irrelevant compared to Christ, which was my original point.
weren't the verses written by God or at least inspired by God? Didn't an omnipotent and omnipresent God not know about hygiene?
Don't you read your bible as a christian you should about the monitery value of women fifty shekels if I remember rightly, I thought a Christian would have known, silly me.
So we have to follow the new testament? Can you proof jesus existed?
And can you please name the women preachers.
Don't you read your bible as a christian you should about the monitery value of women fifty shekels if I remember rightly, I thought a Christian would have known, silly me.
So we have to follow the new testament? Can you proof jesus existed?
And can you please name the women preachers.
The Bible was inspired by God, not written by Him. Of course He knew about hygiiene, the people receiving those verses didn't, so He gave very simplified guidelines.
Of course I'm familiar with the verse you're referring to - but it's not placing a value on women, it's demanding that a criminal must pay compensation to her family.
Of course I'm familiar with the verse you're referring to - but it's not placing a value on women, it's demanding that a criminal must pay compensation to her family.
Arguably, Anna, Priscilla, Junia, Lydia and Phoebe.
Arguably just doesn't cut it, and Junia was thought to be a man. I see your very well versed in what God knew. and can you prove jesus ever existed?
LOL, who claimed Junia was a man?
What do you mean by "cut it"? What stadards of gender parity are you demanding? You know that it was a setting in which women were less likely to teach, so why blame the NT? Why do you think that the number of women determines whether or not Jesus truly made a way possible for us to be with God? Have you looked at the historical support for the resurrection?
What do you mean by "cut it"? What stadards of gender parity are you demanding? You know that it was a setting in which women were less likely to teach, so why blame the NT? Why do you think that the number of women determines whether or not Jesus truly made a way possible for us to be with God? Have you looked at the historical support for the resurrection?
News like this is, truly, far more important than most other news. Too often the media forgets the world's poorest humans.
Why is it that sexuality now earns people hero status? Surely a hero is someone who sacrifices for others(?)
[I comment with 12 week foetus photo]
your point
What I don't understand: you don't want a few thousand brown people immigrating here, but you're willing to have hundreds of thousands of brown people born here if you deny a woman the right to have an abortion. My white family will send a woman to Sweden to have an abortion if she needs one, if it becomes illegal in the States. But you're willing to pay $250,000 for each child on welfare (because that's where those unwanted kids will end up). Don't you realize who your anti-abortion laws will affect? The poor black and brown women will be having a dozen babies each. You’ll be surrounded by little brown future voters.
"you don't want a few thousand brown people immigrating here"? When did I say that? Seriously, don't make assumptions. I'm desperate for politicians to find ways to allow in and integrate more of those people fleeing violence and poverty. Why on Earth are you trying to threaten me with "You’ll be surrounded by little brown future voters"? why would I mind? Why are you assuming that I'm racist? NB - there are couples keen to adopt but specifically desperate for newborns.
Pregnancy is a huge strain on a woman's body, and when a woman wants a child, it is a beautiful thing. It is shameful to try to force a woman to be an incubator for someone else's convenience... whether it is your version of morality, or the wishes of a person who for whatever reason, cannot or will not have their own pregnancy.
No one's forcing anyone to be an incubator - only 1% of abortions are due to rape, in other cases, the woman made a choice, she wasn't forced. And we're very priiviileged to also have tonnes of contraception options. I'm well aware that can't will someone else as to what to do - and even if I could , don't think I'd force them- I'm just expressng my opinion, which is what social media , and the above story^ are about.
Hard to say only 1% of abortions are due to rape when rape is under reported.
The stats aren't based on whether people report rape, the stats are based on what those who have abortions say is their reason. The reasons that some people have for not reporting rape won't apply when they're ticking a box anonymously.
How faith leaders respond to tragedies like the California wildfires
What does a baby think when their parent takes them to get vaccinated? The baby will feel that something awful is happening, and their parent will seem evil to them. In reality, the parent knows that the vaccination is for the baby's benefit, though the baby can't fathom how.
The gap between our knowledge and God's is far greater than that between a baby and parent.
God is more than powerful enough to bring overwhelming peace and comfort to those who've suffered the worst crises - if they're willing to let Him in.
The gap between our knowledge and God's is far greater than that between a baby and parent.
God is more than powerful enough to bring overwhelming peace and comfort to those who've suffered the worst crises - if they're willing to let Him in.
This is really a weak argument when you consider all the innocent babies and children who suffer and die, often needlessly. What the "benefit" they experienced? I would feel more peace knowing there is no god, than believing that a god who could act, did nothing to relieve my child's pain and suffering. Or, any child for that matter.
With all respect, you seem not to have understood my analogy at all. OUR brains aren't remotely adequate to grasp all of God's reasons, so He'll have reasons we don't begin to comprehend.
Ultimately, He knows the future - and that those innocent babies and children who suffer and die can spend eternity in heaven, such that this life is momentary by comparison. But it's not needless - those short lives have vital importance to their families.
Ultimately, He knows the future - and that those innocent babies and children who suffer and die can spend eternity in heaven, such that this life is momentary by comparison. But it's not needless - those short lives have vital importance to their families.
It seems odd to me that the media - so far as I've seen - expects that our leaders (not just Trump, my gov. here in the UK) would cut ties with Saudi Arabia over the Khashoggi killing, rather than over the deaths - and unimaginable suffering - of thousands of Yemenis. Obviously, Khashoggi's murder should be reason enough (to cut ties with SA) but every single Yemeni is equally valuable - as well as being as valuable as any of us privileged Westerners - and I hate how some people seem to think otherwise.
In his speech announcing his having been selected by Trump as running mate in the lead up to the 2016 election, Pence said that he's a Christian first. IF that's true, his priority must be to seek ways to nudge the president towards Christ - an almost, but not quite entirely - impossible task - rather than prioritising upholding Trump for the sake of Trump. I desperately hope that Pence plans to influence Trump, rather than simply strengthen Trump's influence.
So, in order not to be aggressive, men should wear nipple tassles and make up? Think seriously about the message you're putting across - you aren't tackling negative behaviour, affirming that males can be caring and empathetic; you're yet again seeking to define human beings as sexualised semi naked bodies. And isn't this title^ insensitive to women who've been abused by men, given that you're essentially implying that they wouldn't have been abuse if those men had painted their nails?
You also, rightly, earlier posted about it being wrong for white women to share photos where they make efforts to appear more black - but now you're celebrating photos of men trying to look more female.
You also, rightly, earlier posted about it being wrong for white women to share photos where they make efforts to appear more black - but now you're celebrating photos of men trying to look more female.
Seriously, this^ is depressing. Have maternal death rates in developing countries fallen? Have more people gained access to clean water - or food, education, electricity, or basic healthcare? Has progress been made in finding solutions to the world's biggest diseases? Are more of us privileged Westerners giving more to the world's poorest people?
Instead, your list of "socially" "so good" things is filled with - albeit mostly nice - essentially meaningless pop culture developments, as though our entertainment was the most important thing.
Instead, your list of "socially" "so good" things is filled with - albeit mostly nice - essentially meaningless pop culture developments, as though our entertainment was the most important thing.
But The Guardian's still firmly in support of it being possible to suck/chop up developing humans like these^, right?
Educate yourself about the topic you’re speaking on before you write this ridiculous crap. Revolting display of ignorance.
What exactly is incorrect about my comment?
literally everything expect the spelling of the words. You’re already on the internet, try google for some information on what the medical procedure of abortion entails. You’re clearly interested in the topic, but could benefit from facts instead of religious rhetoric.
So you can't actually tell me what's wrong with my comment?
Is it not the case that vacuum aspiration, and sometimes, separation of limbs, are used in some abortions? Of course I've used the internet, and this is what the various sites - inc. Wikipedia and our NHS - say. What have you seen on the internet that says otherwise?
I also "educated myself" a bit on development within the womb through my biomedical science studies at uni (as well as visiting many websites since that discuss at what points in pregnancy different changes occur). As the above^ sculptures show, a foetus is not "just a clump of cells" as so many people state.
What is "religious" about my comment?
Is it not the case that vacuum aspiration, and sometimes, separation of limbs, are used in some abortions? Of course I've used the internet, and this is what the various sites - inc. Wikipedia and our NHS - say. What have you seen on the internet that says otherwise?
I also "educated myself" a bit on development within the womb through my biomedical science studies at uni (as well as visiting many websites since that discuss at what points in pregnancy different changes occur). As the above^ sculptures show, a foetus is not "just a clump of cells" as so many people state.
What is "religious" about my comment?
Nah - the guardian is firmly in support of women making their own life and medical decisions. Not that hard to follow really.
Indeed women can make such decisions, I'm just expressing my opinion (as everyone does online). Given that she already made a decision (to have sex) is it not disputable that a woman's decisions get to include killing a tiny human, as shown in the sculptures? It's not "her own life and medical decision" alone, it's also a decision that destroys someone else. It's a complex topic, but it seems odd to me that people, organisations etc would be so firmly supportive of abortion access given the demonstrable humanity and intricacy of the foetus.
You needed to look up Wikipedia after you studied it at university?
LOL, no - Sandi told me to Google so I did, to see what the current top search results say; I'm curious as to what she's read that disagrees with my comment.
Do you believe in war Grace? The murder of developed humans with families and children?
Hypothetically, there may be some war situations in which action has to be taken to stop dictators, ISIS or similar; but which actions those should will be very specific, and in general, no, I'm obviously opposed to war, and I'm certain that much of what my government has done in the middle East was wrong.
It really isn’t that complex. Either a woman is autonomous and owns her body, or she doesn’t. That’s it. Thats the whole complexity right there.
Everything else is just personal opinion and preference.
"everything else is just personal opinion"? no, she actually does have another human being inside of her. It's not only about owning her body - she owned her boy in choosing to have sex - it's also about destroying another body.Everything else is just personal opinion and preference.
have you even taken the time to read the article? It’s a sculptures. Not abortion.
That's just the thing - our culture is weirdly simultaneously happy to marvel at the developing foetus, and also to pretend that what's being destroyed in abortion has nothing to do with it.
Since you’ve done biomedical studies I’m sure you’re familiar with babies that won’t survive a birth. Do you support them being tortured by a birth before they pass away? if not, what is your proposed solution?
Statistically, abortions that happen because the feotus/baby is inviable are an utterly tiny proportion, and we're discussing the wider issue of abortion ie - mostly viable humans. If doctors were absolutely certain that the offspring would not survive, of course I wouldn't object to a termination if it could be carried out using sedatives that prevent foetal pain - but there are plenty of cases of mothers being told that the foetus they're carrying is abnormal, and that foetus ultimately surviving after all.
You see, that's why its opinion. Science says she doesn't have a 'human being' inside her - she has a clump of foetal cells with the potential to form into a human, if incubated correctly. If you 'think' it's a human, that's fine - but that's just your opinion. It is not based in medical fact."Science says" according to what source?
Check out this, for example; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713799/
I won't argue about a newly fertilised eg/zygote/morula; but after 6 weeks, its cells have differentiated and relocated to such an extent that its heart is beating. How do you define human, if a living being with its own unique, complete human genome, organs and brainwaves is not human?
According to basically all peer reviewed research that isn't done by religious organisations. A foetal cell is not a human being. I know you know this.
But your opinions and feelings around abortion make you not want to acknowledge that. Fair enough. Its an emotive issue. But don't pretend a foetus is equal to an autonomous woman - when you know full well it is not!
"a foetal cell"? I just stated that I'm not referring to individual cells. Which "basically all peer-reviewed research"? Seriously, which sources are you referring to? Did you look at the article linked to? Wikipedia - as a simplistic, secular source - talks about a foetus in the context of human development. I think that the emotion and not-wanting-to-acknowledge may be on the part of those wanting to deny that it's human because that makes it emotionally easier to justify getting rid of it.
Isn't it odd that, at 12 weeks, our NHS refers to the offspring as "fully formed. All the organs, muscles, limbs and bones are in place, and the sex organs are well developed. From now on, the baby has to grow and mature." and will already have provided an ultrasound scan; but at the same point, if the mother wants rid of it, the NHS refers to it as a pregnancy that she's only half way through her allowed time to get rid of?
you should keep in mind they are real parents who have lost children they wanted who have had to read your cruel drivel. From your response you really haven’t had much training at all or you didn’t pay attention. Learn some empathy or please stay away from medicine, cruelty doesn’t belong in patient care, humanity actually frowns on it too.
What have I said that insults parents who've lost children? I'm specifically discussing deliberate abortion, why would those who've suffered miscarriage be hurt by what I wrote? How exactly have I been cruel? Please explain specifically, I need to learn.
go back and read your own words, and think about how those words sound to a grieving parent who has lost a child for medical reasons. If you can’t figure it out you need therapy. If you don’t learn, expect a punch in the face someday, it’s horrendous language to use in public, to anyone. If you really care about babies & their parents, turn your attention & efforts to them after they are born and supporting pregnant mothers who are completely without support due to domestic violence or poverty. Harassing pregnant women is revolting behaviour, whether they are able to have their children or not. I see zero interest from anti-abortion advocates in unfortunate babies after they are born, which hardly encourages women keeping them in severe hardship (you are literally part of the problem). If you dismiss this you are simply pro-birth, with no interest or care in protecting life, only abusing other people, which is cruel & inhuman.
Pro-life advocates shouldn't be expected to support women who've made a choice (to have sex) given that they'll have responsibilities of their own, esp. since there are couples desperate to adopt newborns. However, if you "see zero interest from anti-abortion advocates" you've not been looking. Many pro-life advocates and groups work to help mothers. I spend most of my money on helping children in poverty.
You've not told me which language you object to - why? How can I understand if you won't explain what I've done wrong? In particular, as I've already said, my words aren't referring to miscarriages at all, so why would bereaved parents be offended?
Ancient Confession Found: “We Invented Jesus Christ To Brainwash and Dominate Africans”
You honestly think that all of the historical evidence can just be ignored? How stupid do you think we are?
The internet is full of articles about Christ - they need to be weighed up critically, obviously, but why would we just ignore them all in favour of your click bait?
For example - https://www.reasonablefaith.org/.../rediscovering-the.../
IF Jesus actually defeated death, it's more important than anything else - so why would you want to mislead people into not evaluating the matter thoroughly? And His teachings - such as the parable of the Good Samaritan - provide some of the greatest hope for defeating racism, so why are you trying - albeit unsuccessfully - to undermine Him?
The internet is full of articles about Christ - they need to be weighed up critically, obviously, but why would we just ignore them all in favour of your click bait?
For example - https://www.reasonablefaith.org/.../rediscovering-the.../
IF Jesus actually defeated death, it's more important than anything else - so why would you want to mislead people into not evaluating the matter thoroughly? And His teachings - such as the parable of the Good Samaritan - provide some of the greatest hope for defeating racism, so why are you trying - albeit unsuccessfully - to undermine Him?
believe it or not there is not historical evidence .. they have been trying to find it for hundreds of years ... the facts that check out are recorded facts in history .. the rest don't check out at all .. have you ever wondered why thousands of people saw one fish turned into thousands to feed the people and not one person recorded it in there diaries .. or their stories .. the only place any of it is recorded is in the bible ... and Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem for a census and gave birth to Jesus but no where is there recorded the birth of a Jesus to a Joseph and Mary .. .. there are articles written .. but there are no facts to go along with them .. just supposition .. the old testament was written thousand of years after the events .. and it is written with fact and fiction .. i could look back at history and say well i will add this .. and i will add that and it will make it look like i am telling the truth .. of course the huge omissions are a problem .. like the whole Jurassic period .. or the cave man etc etc .. you can't just believe shit cause one book says its so .. you may has well believe George Carlin was god .. at least he is funny and not murderous like your god by the way the new testament was written hundreds of years after the supposed events and all 4 books seem to tell a different story with just some basics the same
Not to mention the bible is missing more than 10 books.
LOL where did you read that? The New Testament is believed, by historians, to have been written within a century of Christ's life - most of it far earlier, and, obviously, at different points, since it's a compilation of different texts. The earliest of the Gospels is believed to have been written around 30 years after Jesus lived, but some of the epistles may be earlier. Perhaps you've read about the point at which the New Testament was put together? Ie the Church community decided which books to include, so that only those fully agreed on as credible made the cut.Why would people write about the feeding of the 5000 in their diaries? People didn’t have diaries. Seriously, you're projecting modern life onto an entirely different culture. Diaries are a modern invention - in Jesus' time, only a minority of people wrote, and the 5000 was a group of less privileged people - but why do you presume that no one wrote it down? What if, in 2 thousand years, their scrap of writing has been lost of has disintegrated? Historical documents that we have are the few writings that were carefully preserved and recopied. The New Testament itself, by comparison to other historical texts, has far, far greater reliability in terms of numbers of original copies, how quickly it was written down after the events, correspondence with contemporary culture and more.
But much of our culture doesn't care - right? Many people believe that what's in the image on the left is "just a clump of cells" that women must be enabled to suk/chop to pieces if they choose; so if they wish to do so because they don't like its genes, why would our society stop them?
"Wear out life while we hold it in the palm of our hand. Consume the best stuff and relish doing it. They’re just plates. Just fine wines. Just jumpers. We are allowed nice things, whatever the future holds."
Why? Stuff isn't the ultimate route to fulfilment, but regardless, how is it right to prioritise our enjoyment of life via "nice (+pricey) things" whilst other people are suffering because of the injustice that made us rich?
Of course he's better than Trump. He's not been a perv; he's not been boastful; he's not said derogatory things about reporters and rivals. I wish that he'd do more to voice the compassion for those who are underprivileged, as Jesus instructed, but he can't directly control policy, he can have a small impact, behind closed doors, by holding the position he does. What, exactly, do you consider evil about him?
old testament or new testament?
Christian means to follow Christ. The Old Testament is endlessly valuable - but it's extremely complex, and much of it is historical documentation, not instruction. Jesus' teaching is our actual primary source of direction as to how to live. But we also need to avoid reimagining Jesus to suit our/modern culture's values.
^That^ is not CHRISTianity. ^That^ is evil people claiming to be religious for the sake of appearing more noble to some onlookers- but it's antithetical to following Christ, which is what genuine Christianity is.
And THAT was an excellent example of the No True Scotsman fallacy..thank you for your contribution, because it can help motivate people to think more clearly!
Surely our gov. should itself provide a safe transport for Asia Bibi?
If can have a space program (from our aid) to send people to space they are not a poor country.
You're thinking of India, this discussion is about Pakistan. Regardless - if you're government has money to pay for a space programme and you're living in a slum/sleeping in the streets; working in a sweatshop etc, should you receive help in becoming self-sufficient from a nation that became wealthy in large by making your circumstances poor?
But there are so, so, so many threads about Brexit, and almost none about various other issues that need attention, so why is it wrong to comment about something "unrelated"?
Aren't you a righteous one.
Why does being concerned about people in severe poverty mean I'm self righteous? Should global injustice simply not be discussed?
I am passionate about equal rights for sex workers. Shall i post about it here?
Sex workers aren't impoverished and oppressed because of the historical and corporate greed that's given us cushy lives. Sex workers aren't in their situation because of factors entirely out of their control. What "equal rights" do you feel they need help with?
The sex recession is upon us
Sex sells, so magazines and TV/film/music full of it are everywhere, so everyone's convinced that it's healthy to start ASAP and have plenty of different partners.
But eating all the junk food you can might appease indulgent natural instincts and feel enjoyable, yet we all know that it's actually detrimental to long term well being. Why doesn't it occur to Vice and others that the same principle applies to sex?
The brain releases oxytocin in sex so that people can pair bond, thus, ultimately, many many people ache emotionally because of what they've been led to believe about sex - quite plausibly contributing to the increased mental health suffering. And STIs, inc. HIV, as well as accidental pregnancies, cause monumental pain, and an NHS burden of £billions ere in the UK.
Media needs to stop misleading our generation - human beings are pricelessly valuable, not defined by what's done with genitals.
Except the fact that young people are waiting longer and having less sex than ever kind of disproves all of that long rant.
Than ever? According to what stats? Prior to the sexual revolution, do you really think that people were having more sexual partners than they are now?
And the point of my rant wasn't how many people everyone was sleeping with at any given time, my point was that having multiple sexual partners isn't ideal. How's that been disproven?
sex in the media is hardly a new event. All those paintings with tasteful nudes that now hang in museums were the Playboys of their day.
Indeed - but note, "tasteful", and they weren't in people's faces endlessly, only on walls to be seen by a few. Now,apparently, the vast majority of children have come across porn online - what do you think that's doing to expectations of normality?
Of course it's his choice, but we can all share our opinions. And to say "it's his money" is somewhat voided in that our economy has become one of the biggest in the world largely through theft and corruption that's left others poor. So when we (in Britain) earn money, our income is many, many times the income of people in poorer countries, who have no choice but to work longer hours in far more tortuous work.
Obviously, Stormzy is just trying to do something positive, and truly brilliant but as a society, we give far too little attention to human beings to whom we can make the most difference
You can know that Christianity is "right" primarily because, unlike other faiths, it's based on an actual historical event in which Jesus actually rose from the dead, and was seen by enough witnesses that Christianity grew to become the world's largest faith despite centuries of deadly persecution. Today, some people still come to Christ because He reveals Himself in dreams and visions.
so...which Christians were "right" when my family were being drowned in rivers, burned on stakes, imprisoned, orphaned, beheaded, etc. because they had the audacity to think that people should be old enough to decide for themselves if they wanted to be baptized rather than have someone do that for them as infants? If they all said the same prayers and had the same belief that Jesus is God, how can I know for sure which Christian beliefs were the "right" ones? Should I follow the beliefs of the ones who were torturing? The ones fleeing the torture? They were allllllll "Christians" according to your requirements. How can I know for sure? What if I make a mistake?
People who carried out actions like those were clearly not actually following Jesus, whatever they said. Obviously, for centuries people have labelled themselves as Christians because doing so gained them some degree of respect at the time, but if they'd honestly een in love with Christ, they wouldn't have done those things. But what people who call themselves Christians do isn't the crux of the matter; I believe that the evidence leads to the conclusion that Jesus defeated death, and told us the He is The Way. You may disagree about whether that's true, but what future people did doesn't affect its veracity..
I don't know enough about her - but people shouldn't presume that all Christians who won't support gay marriage are simply bigotted. The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - and because God knows better than sexual urges as to what's best for human beings, one could refuse to endorse a gay sexual relationship because of truly believing that to do otherwise would be unloving. That obviously doesn't mean that it's at all OK or Christian to mistreat gay people in any way whatsoever.
We ALL sin, and that's why Christ died for us. He made religious leaders to leave alone a woman they'd been about to stone to death for her sexual sin, and said to her "Go and sin no more" . Christians should be welcoming everyone, urging everyone to fight the sin in their lives (which God helps us with), and recognising that we're sinners too.
Please note – many people who’ve called themselves Christians aren’t actually following Christ; Jesus was consistently peaceful and compassionate.The bible mention idolatry and adultery more than it does homosexuality. Maybe we should condemn Christians who have been married more than once to lose all of their civil rights.
"lose all of their civil rights"? Not issuing marriage licences isn't taking away civil rights.
What is your religion...since you're speaking on it..."atheists"...or as some brits would say "none"..meaning no religion
I hate the word religion, it has too many connotations. I believe that the evidence for God's existence, and separately, Jesus resurrection, is too strong to deny. Thus I'm a Christian and desperately want to live for Him. The Church that I attend is Baptist - but what I believe is determined by trying to understand the Bible rather than by an institution.
Awesome.
But I'm constantly aware that people elsewhere in the world earn only several £ per day, producing things that we use. Could there not be a little more discussion in the political sphere about the human beings who aren't privileged enough to be born here, and who are suffering because of the historical and corporate greed that's made Britain rich?
Much of the greatest agony, and the situations in which we can £for£ make the most difference, is amongst sweatshop and plantation workers who work 12+ our days in painful and dangerous conditions whilst earning barely enough to eat more than rice, and have no welfare state, NHS nor opportunities. We should be pressuing the government to enforce regulations on corporations so that they are made to pay and treat the world's most exploited workers better.
Christianity is, by definition, to follow Christ. Evangel means good news - ie, that Jesus defeated death and makes a way to heaven possible for anyone who comes to Him. He spent His life prior to this commanding people to love others. So regardless of what people who label themselves as Christians do, don't base your opinion of God on anything other than Him himself.
From here in the UK, I wonder why Democrats are so keen to support abortion that they argue passionately in support of it given that doing so leads to votes which hurt social justice; ie, if they stopped arguing for abortion, many Christians, keen to help the poor, would consider voting for them. Because Democrats argue, so far as Christian see it, in support of allowing killing, some Christians feel unable to vote for them and ultimately refugees and the working classes are less likely to receive support because Republicans win. If Clinton weren't pro-late term abortion, Trump wouldn't have won and there'd be better prospects for impoverished people. Why does the Democrat party not give up their support of the option of destroying tiny humans so that they can gain the power needed to help the poor?
I'm strongly in support of women and children in poverty receiving support. But that's not ultimately the issue, because women aren't simply pregnant because of something that happened to them over which they have no control. 1% of abortions are the result of rape, but all others result from a choice. Maareeny Edwards, it's not about opposing women's rights, it's about believing that women have a choice - and if they choose to have sex, they don't the have the right to destroy the resulting human being. I've never argued that children are a "burden to society" - don't base your opinions of all of those opposed to abortion on statements made a small number of other individuals.
Now let's travel back during the times when abortion was illegal and birth control was not being used nor shown as an option. When women used cloth hangers and shoved them up their vaginas and into the womb, scrapping them around to get whatever they can out. Or by being beaten or pouring chemicals inside themselves to force a miscarriage. Then let's talk about dumpster/ally babies. Those are babies that were born, but left in a dumpster or ally because the mother just didn't want the baby. Dumpster/ally babies should be something "pro-lifers" should be afraid of it happening again because that era of time is about to make a comeback. An era of time when women's death were sky high because of them having homemade abortions and suicide. Also when actual death of babies were also sky high.
I, and most opposed to abortion, are deeply concerned about women being hurt by coat hangers and by babies left in alleys - but why is the reason that that happens is that people - influenced massively by corporate culture's influence on social norms - choose to have sec, then choose to get rid of the human that results. Why do you blame politicians instead?
If it weren't for Planned Parenthood, far fewer teenagers would feel compelled to start having sex - PP give the message that it's fundamental and that not having it is abnormal, so that they can profit from carrying out abortions, and sometimes by then selling the body parts.
what are you taking about Planned Parenthood doesn’t encourage sex. They educate people who have decided to be sexually active. Having sex is natural, trying to stop people from having sex is the unnatural thing.
Natural and unnatural when and according to who? It's not natural to use medical interventions to destroy the human that naturally results from the choice to have sex.
I didn't say that it's only for procreation - but the brain is designed for monogamy (oxytocin released in sex causes pair bonding), and we have ample options for contraception, so it's entirely possible to enjoy life without sex; then have sex once married and use contraception to plan when pregnancies happen, but also be in a stable relationship with someone you're committed to so that you can love and support an unexpected pregnancy if one occurs.
Sex on TV/film, in magazines, in porn etc has given people the impression that sex is necessary as soon as they're old enough - and huge profit is made from selling that media. That's unnatural - and I'm certainly not opposed to TV/film (I am oppose to porn, that's another debate), but it's heartbreaking how it's changed people's attitudes and life choices. Ultimately the change is driven by commercial greed; sex sells.
no one can make you do anything with your body that you don’t consent to. NO ONE. even if your sibling would die without a kidney transplant and you were brain dead they can’t take it from you unless you’re a donor. Even when someone else’s life depends on it and you’re not even around to use the kidney they can’t take it from you. Why would you think it’s okay to force someone to carry a fetus to term? It’s legitimately the woman’s right to choose, not anyone else. No, abortion isn’t a great thing, people aren’t going out and having unprotected sex for the purpose of creating another life but sometimes it happens and when it does someone needs to take responsibility for that. When a woman gets an abortion it’s not something she does lightly, it’s her owning up to her mistake. Would you rather she be forced into carrying it to term? Forced to live a certain way, eat/not eat certain things, to give up her body for 9 months all to create something she doesn’t want? Something she despises. Do you want a baby to be born into this world knowing that it’s parents didn’t want it? Knowing that they shouldn’t have been born but the mother had no choice? Do you want our orphanages overflowing? Just asking.
Pregnancy isn't someone forcing a woman to carry a baby, it's the biological result of a choice she's made. You argue that no one has the right to another's body, but you're arguing that a woman has the right to tear up the body of the human inside her.
The solution is better access to contraception, inc. tuboligation, and less penetrative sex - not to kill tiy humans or leave children in orphanages.
Supreme Court to decide on 40-foot cross: Is it a war memorial or an official display of religion?
Does that mean that some argue it should be taken down if deemed "religious"?
If so, why? How is it in any way harmful to anyone to have it on display? Jesus died on the cross - because He upset *religious* leaders, and defeated death making a way open to anyone to have eternal life (heaven) through Him. It's not discriminatory, everyone is equally welcomed by Him. He spent His life teaching people to love others and avoid violence - so why should a symbol reminding people of Him be thought controversial?
Why do you think that it's not harmful? The website that I linked to highlights loads of academic research showing that it is - but there's plenty more on other sites and PubMed.
If anything porn has made me more submissive porn doesn't make people like things people look for porn of things they like. porn doesn't cause problems people with problems will have problems with or without porn. Also the bible is like the least moral thing in the world just because jesus wasn't a dick doesn't excuse all the shit god did in the old testament. Why did god feel the need to wipe out 2 cities but couldn't even bother to tell lots daughters not to rape their dad? gods has done worse but my point is he chose not to tell the angels he sent to tell lots daughters not to rape their dad. Personally i think he destroyed sodom and gomorrah just to fap to lot getting raped by his daughters. I dont completely blame him after all femdom incest is the best porn to fap to but he could have done it without destroying 2 cities.
Didn't he flood the entire Earth? I don't know about you, but that sounds like the greatest act of terrorism and violence in history.
Why? Stuff isn't the ultimate route to fulfilment, but regardless, how is it right to prioritise our enjoyment of life via "nice (+pricey) things" whilst other people are suffering because of the injustice that made us rich?
Almost enough to fund a source of clean water for a village where people don't have it. But hey, drinking some gin is obviously more important than freeing families from having nothing but dirty water to drink.
In his speech announcing his having been selected by Trump as running mate in the lead up to the 2016 election, Pence said that he's a Christian first. IF that's true, his priority must be to seek ways to nudge the president towards Christ - an almost, but not quite entirely - impossible task - rather than prioritising upholding Trump for the sake of Trump. I desperately hope that Pence plans to influence Trump, rather than simply strengthen Trump's influence.
Because mike pence the so called soldier of Christ that he proclaims himself to be , is any better than trump ? Give me a freaking break Mike Pensce is an evil being as much as trump isOf course he's better than Trump. He's not been a perv; he's not been boastful; he's not said derogatory things about reporters and rivals. I wish that he'd do more to voice the compassion for those who are underprivileged, as Jesus instructed, but he can't directly control policy, he can have a small impact, behind closed doors, by holding the position he does. What, exactly, do you consider evil about him?
old testament or new testament?
Christian means to follow Christ. The Old Testament is endlessly valuable - but it's extremely complex, and much of it is historical documentation, not instruction. Jesus' teaching is our actual primary source of direction as to how to live. But we also need to avoid reimagining Jesus to suit our/modern culture's values.
Of course they did - some of my generation have an irritating habit of calling things that they like "everything", demonstrating tragic emptiness of meaning. If some very privileged girls get their kit off, and that's deemed the epitome of inspiration, those who call it "everything" have clearly missed out on many far, far greater things.
^That^ is not CHRISTianity. ^That^ is evil people claiming to be religious for the sake of appearing more noble to some onlookers- but it's antithetical to following Christ, which is what genuine Christianity is.
No, it isn't. A Scotsman is a Scotsman because of his place of birth, which is distinct from his behaviour. A Christian, by definition, is a person who's truly committed to following Jesus. Since Jesus told us to love others, including those marginalised by society or from groups separate from ourselves, a person who goes so far as to brutally harass someone else is evidently following Christ therefore the categorisation of Christian is entirely negated.
Indeed the Pakistan government must be made to punish violent persecutors (ie, not only to make sure that Asia Bibi can leave, but also that attacks on other Christians are hindered).
But how exactly is Aid spent? Aid isn't just money handed over to foreign governments, it's directed to non Governmental organisations setting up schools, clinics, disaster assistance etc. It's not fair to cut it.Surely our gov. should itself provide a safe transport for Asia Bibi?
If can have a space program (from our aid) to send people to space they are not a poor country.
You're thinking of India, this discussion is about Pakistan. Regardless - if you're government has money to pay for a space programme and you're living in a slum/sleeping in the streets; working in a sweatshop etc, should you receive help in becoming self-sufficient from a nation that became wealthy in large by making your circumstances poor?
As a Brit (in London) I can not tell you how sick I am of hearing about Brexit.
Most importantly, we need to spend less time focussed on ourselves - we owe the world more of our thoughts and energy. The poorest are those outside of Europe who work 12 hour+ days in factories, sweatshops and plantations, producing the every day luxuries that we take forgranted.
Why aren't my fellow lefties more concerned about how international trade and politics could progress to help them? The consequences of Brexit for us are as nothing compared to what those people endure; our priority should be to tackle the effects of centuries of greed that have left those in the developing world trapped in serious poverty. Surely what we should be marching in the streets for is for our politicians to prioritise fairer trade and international arrangements that fight exploitation?
Most importantly, we need to spend less time focussed on ourselves - we owe the world more of our thoughts and energy. The poorest are those outside of Europe who work 12 hour+ days in factories, sweatshops and plantations, producing the every day luxuries that we take forgranted.
Why aren't my fellow lefties more concerned about how international trade and politics could progress to help them? The consequences of Brexit for us are as nothing compared to what those people endure; our priority should be to tackle the effects of centuries of greed that have left those in the developing world trapped in serious poverty. Surely what we should be marching in the streets for is for our politicians to prioritise fairer trade and international arrangements that fight exploitation?
how about marching for that British soldier beheaded by the Africsn Muslim, or that Big Ben terror attack, or Ariana Grande?
Wow, you're honestly saying that people in Africa are somehow responsible for the actions of Lee Rigby's killers (it wasn't a beheading, by the way, not that it matters, but you shouldn't make assumptions) just because they're from the same continent? How does that make sense? Is it OK for anyone from Libya to suffer because someone from Libya set off a bomb at an Arianna Grande concert?
If you were being grossly exploited, should that injustice be ignored because of the mass shooters from your country?
As a Brit (close to London) I can not tell you how sick I am of hearing about other peoples gripes on unrelated threads.If you were being grossly exploited, should that injustice be ignored because of the mass shooters from your country?
But there are so, so, so many threads about Brexit, and almost none about various other issues that need attention, so why is it wrong to comment about something "unrelated"?
Aren't you a righteous one.
Why does being concerned about people in severe poverty mean I'm self righteous? Should global injustice simply not be discussed?
I am passionate about equal rights for sex workers. Shall i post about it here?
Sex workers aren't impoverished and oppressed because of the historical and corporate greed that's given us cushy lives. Sex workers aren't in their situation because of factors entirely out of their control. What "equal rights" do you feel they need help with?
Meaning what exactly?
Indeed there are some people who struggle to accept their bodies, and gender stereotypes mustn't constrain people; but John Barrowman - unless he can prove otherwise with chromosomal analysis - is a man, and his personality and abilities are what he should be trying to get attention for.
Indeed there are some people who struggle to accept their bodies, and gender stereotypes mustn't constrain people; but John Barrowman - unless he can prove otherwise with chromosomal analysis - is a man, and his personality and abilities are what he should be trying to get attention for.
The sex recession is upon us
Sex sells, so magazines and TV/film/music full of it are everywhere, so everyone's convinced that it's healthy to start ASAP and have plenty of different partners.
But eating all the junk food you can might appease indulgent natural instincts and feel enjoyable, yet we all know that it's actually detrimental to long term well being. Why doesn't it occur to Vice and others that the same principle applies to sex?
The brain releases oxytocin in sex so that people can pair bond, thus, ultimately, many many people ache emotionally because of what they've been led to believe about sex - quite plausibly contributing to the increased mental health suffering. And STIs, inc. HIV, as well as accidental pregnancies, cause monumental pain, and an NHS burden of £billions ere in the UK.
Media needs to stop misleading our generation - human beings are pricelessly valuable, not defined by what's done with genitals.
Except the fact that young people are waiting longer and having less sex than ever kind of disproves all of that long rant.
Than ever? According to what stats? Prior to the sexual revolution, do you really think that people were having more sexual partners than they are now?
And the point of my rant wasn't how many people everyone was sleeping with at any given time, my point was that having multiple sexual partners isn't ideal. How's that been disproven?
sex in the media is hardly a new event. All those paintings with tasteful nudes that now hang in museums were the Playboys of their day.
Indeed - but note, "tasteful", and they weren't in people's faces endlessly, only on walls to be seen by a few. Now,apparently, the vast majority of children have come across porn online - what do you think that's doing to expectations of normality?
I think it's great - but I don't understand why one wouldn't instead spend the money on providing education on scores of children in the world's poorest places. Sponsoring a child, for example, for £25/month transforms their life - so why not use the money for this scholarship to help many kids who miss out on school instead?
Because it’s his money and, hence, his choice! Since when has society started policing on where charity should go? Ever considered that he’s solving an issue close to home? Of course it's his choice, but we can all share our opinions. And to say "it's his money" is somewhat voided in that our economy has become one of the biggest in the world largely through theft and corruption that's left others poor. So when we (in Britain) earn money, our income is many, many times the income of people in poorer countries, who have no choice but to work longer hours in far more tortuous work.
Obviously, Stormzy is just trying to do something positive, and truly brilliant but as a society, we give far too little attention to human beings to whom we can make the most difference
How are you defining "meditate"?
It does seem remarkable to me that spirituality based on historical events has been replaced by spirituality that's based on past ideas.
It does seem remarkable to me that spirituality based on historical events has been replaced by spirituality that's based on past ideas.
No - our society urges us to think that we need more, but in reality, the stability of having one person you can trust is priceless, and non-monogamous relationships inevitably lead to at least one person feeling jealous and hurt.
We're neuronally wired to feel emotionally attached to people we have sex with; some people may feel that less than others, and -because sex sells- we're surrounded by messages that we should seek out more sexual fulfilment - but ultimately, a lot of people are left broken by sexual liberalism.
We're neuronally wired to feel emotionally attached to people we have sex with; some people may feel that less than others, and -because sex sells- we're surrounded by messages that we should seek out more sexual fulfilment - but ultimately, a lot of people are left broken by sexual liberalism.
Why? Compared to most of humanity, and previous generations, most us (in London) already love in luxury - we should be realising how privileged we are and enjoying the things that we have, not gawping (even more than existing magazines have us do already) at ridiculously over priced things we don't need.
Things like this^ only make s less appreciative of what we have, and what we have is amazing. Even clean, running water on tap is something that some people, and our ancestors, could only dream of. But we also have endless entertainment for barely more than the cost of a TV license; supermarkets with all the food-based-enjoyment we could ever want (no take aways or restaurants necessary); shops that sell clothes we can love for 1/100th the cost of things that royalty wear etc. We should enjoy our comparative wealth and recognise the joy we can bring to others less fortunate, rather than feed the greed of corporations.
Things like this^ only make s less appreciative of what we have, and what we have is amazing. Even clean, running water on tap is something that some people, and our ancestors, could only dream of. But we also have endless entertainment for barely more than the cost of a TV license; supermarkets with all the food-based-enjoyment we could ever want (no take aways or restaurants necessary); shops that sell clothes we can love for 1/100th the cost of things that royalty wear etc. We should enjoy our comparative wealth and recognise the joy we can bring to others less fortunate, rather than feed the greed of corporations.
We need to distinguish between Islam and Muslims. Some of Muhammed's words and actions in the Hadith are certainly dangerous - but the vast majority of Muslim people wouldn't dream of following those parts of Islam. Many Muslims are instead making a positive impact in the world. Either way, we're commanded to love everyone, and seek God's guidance in introducing them to The Way.
Just as it’s a matter of context when you read the Bible, it’s a matter of context when you read the Koran. That’s like me saying that Judaism and Christianity or violent because the old testament is violent. It’s in accounting of a different period of time and different circumstances, like the OT.
Christianity is to follow Christ, who commanded that we love our enemies. Islam is to follow Muhammed, who spread Islam through war.
bleh. I have been taught plenty of violent rhetoric from Christian pulpits, media, and culture.Muslims love JESUS!!! They honor JESUS!!!And my Muslim friends follow The Way of Jesus (a way of peacemaking, hospitality, generosity, etc.) than most any of my fundamentalist Christian friends do.You have far more in common with the beliefs of Islam than you do Judaism.
"Following Christ is more about a Way of being, rather than a Being that’s the way." on what basis? He tells us that He is The Way. If we've truly accepted Him, we will increasingly desire to live by His teachings - but it's Him, not our actions, that actually enable us to come to The Father. What violent rhetoric from Christian pulpits etc are you referring to?
Saying a prayer does nothing to transform a person.
I never said that "saying a prayer"transforms a person - it's actual commitment in your geart, and the power of the Holy Spirit, that transform.You can know that Christianity is "right" primarily because, unlike other faiths, it's based on an actual historical event in which Jesus actually rose from the dead, and was seen by enough witnesses that Christianity grew to become the world's largest faith despite centuries of deadly persecution. Today, some people still come to Christ because He reveals Himself in dreams and visions.
so...which Christians were "right" when my family were being drowned in rivers, burned on stakes, imprisoned, orphaned, beheaded, etc. because they had the audacity to think that people should be old enough to decide for themselves if they wanted to be baptized rather than have someone do that for them as infants? If they all said the same prayers and had the same belief that Jesus is God, how can I know for sure which Christian beliefs were the "right" ones? Should I follow the beliefs of the ones who were torturing? The ones fleeing the torture? They were allllllll "Christians" according to your requirements. How can I know for sure? What if I make a mistake? People who carried out actions like those were clearly not actually following Jesus, whatever they said. Obviously, for centuries people have labelled themselves as Christians because doing so gained them some degree of respect at the time, but if they'd honestly een in love with Christ, they wouldn't have done those things. But what people who call themselves Christians do isn't the crux of the matter; I believe that the evidence leads to the conclusion that Jesus defeated death, and told us the He is The Way. You may disagree about whether that's true, but what future people did doesn't affect its veracity..
Seriously? So chromosomes just don't matter? Indeed bullying MUST be addressed and people shouldn't feel forced to conform to social stereotypes - but how is it unscientific to maintain that female and male are simply synonyms for XX/XY chromosome status? We all know that there are exceptions (Kleinfelter, Androgen insensitivity syndrome etc) - but how can it be scientific to label someone as something other than what their body is?
Well Grace, then you would have to side with a broader definition of gender. Chromosomes sometimes come with an extra one from either sex. It turns out that while most people end up with either an X and Y or two Xs, not everyone does. For example, some people get two Xs and a Y. Is such an individual male or female according to the proposed HHS changes? Genetic testing is one criteria for the HHS classification, not just genitals. So what happens when genetic testing (i.e., chromosomes) can’t be categorized into male or female?
But we know that the vast majority of people concerned about this are not arguing on the basis of rare genetic conditions. This is mainly about people with typical biology of one sex wanting to be labelled as the opposite sex. And they deserve immense compassion, not to have lies written on official documents
Those who do have rare conditions regarding their sexual genetics must have allowances made on a personalised case by case basis depending on their specific biology, history, and the documentation in question . Most importantly, everyone ought to feel comfortable with who they are - if they don't associate with the stereotypes of the sex that their chromosomes dictate they are, it mustn't bother them, because are a unique, priceless individual - not a stereotype of the opposite sex that's been "born in the wrong body".
But we know that the vast majority of people concerned about this are not arguing on the basis of rare genetic conditions. This is mainly about people with typical biology of one sex wanting to be labelled as the opposite sex. And they deserve immense compassion, not to have lies written on official documents
Those who do have rare conditions regarding their sexual genetics must have allowances made on a personalised case by case basis depending on their specific biology, history, and the documentation in question . Most importantly, everyone ought to feel comfortable with who they are - if they don't associate with the stereotypes of the sex that their chromosomes dictate they are, it mustn't bother them, because are a unique, priceless individual - not a stereotype of the opposite sex that's been "born in the wrong body".
lets keep the chromosomes definition. what are your chromosomes Grace Dalton? I assume yor are XY because all that makeup you are probably a XY trying to pass as XX, not on my watch
You've been living under a rock if you think that my make up is abnormal for a girl in 2018. Of course I'm XX, but I don't give a toss what you think.
I don't know enough about her - but people shouldn't presume that all Christians who won't support gay marriage are simply bigotted. The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - and because God knows better than sexual urges as to what's best for human beings, one could refuse to endorse a gay sexual relationship because of truly believing that to do otherwise would be unloving. That obviously doesn't mean that it's at all OK or Christian to mistreat gay people in any way whatsoever. We ALL sin, and that's why Christ died for us. He made religious leaders to leave alone a woman they'd been about to stone to death for her sexual sin, and said to her "Go and sin no more" . Christians should be welcoming everyone, urging everyone to fight the sin in their lives (which God helps us with), and recognising that we're sinners too.
Please note – many people who’ve called themselves Christians aren’t actually following Christ; Jesus was consistently peaceful and compassionate.The bible mention idolatry and adultery more than it does homosexuality. Maybe we should condemn Christians who have been married more than once to lose all of their civil rights.
"lose all of their civil rights"? Not issuing marriage licences isn't taking away civil rights.
Obviously, the robo-call was sickening. Presuming that by "ugly" Oprah means ugly behaviour, then obviously the statement is accurate - but in general, I wouldn't trust her opinion on Jesus.
wait tell you find out Jesus was an Arab
What are you on about? I'm well aware that Jesus was Jewish (not the same as Arab, BTW, interesting that you presume all from the middle East to be a homogenous group) - why do you think that I know less about Him than you, and why do you think I'm racist?What is your religion...since you're speaking on it..."atheists"...or as some brits would say "none"..meaning no religion
I hate the word religion, it has too many connotations. I believe that the evidence for God's existence, and separately, Jesus resurrection, is too strong to deny. Thus I'm a Christian and desperately want to live for Him. The Church that I attend is Baptist - but what I believe is determined by trying to understand the Bible rather than by an institution.
Follow your bliss? Why? What we think of as bliss is by no means what's best for us, our, more importantly, for humanity, long term.
Then again, the greatest bliss is to be in God's presence, and seeking that leads towards long term inner peace and increased desire to help the world. But relying on our own desires is evidently dangerous.
Then again, the greatest bliss is to be in God's presence, and seeking that leads towards long term inner peace and increased desire to help the world. But relying on our own desires is evidently dangerous.
Awesome.
But I'm constantly aware that people elsewhere in the world earn only several £ per day, producing things that we use. Could there not be a little more discussion in the political sphere about the human beings who aren't privileged enough to be born here, and who are suffering because of the historical and corporate greed that's made Britain rich?
Much of the greatest agony, and the situations in which we can £for£ make the most difference, is amongst sweatshop and plantation workers who work 12+ our days in painful and dangerous conditions whilst earning barely enough to eat more than rice, and have no welfare state, NHS nor opportunities. We should be pressuing the government to enforce regulations on corporations so that they are made to pay and treat the world's most exploited workers better.
I'm still unclear about, and keen to know what you, Maajid Nawaz, mean by Islam(?). I understand, and am grateful for, your distinction between it and Islamism - but how do you define Islam itself? We uninformed anglo-Brits need to better understand the diversity in Britain and beyond, but media informs us only about conflicts, not the underlying concepts that may or may not be worth defending. How would you define Muslim, given that you consider yourself to be one? I feel that more discussion about actual beliefs themselves might help slightly in addressing the strains of identity politics that fuel division.
From here in the UK, I wonder why Democrats are so keen to support abortion that they argue passionately in support of it given that doing so leads to votes which hurt social justice; ie, if they stopped arguing for abortion, many Christians, keen to help the poor, would consider voting for them. Because Democrats argue, so far as Christian see it, in support of allowing killing, some Christians feel unable to vote for them and ultimately refugees and the working classes are less likely to receive support because Republicans win. If Clinton weren't pro-late term abortion, Trump wouldn't have won and there'd be better prospects for impoverished people. Why does the Democrat party not give up their support of the option of destroying tiny humans so that they can gain the power needed to help the poor?
Planned Parenthood profits from encouraging sex then sucking the resulting tiny humans up and selling their body parts. How exactly does it help tackle injustice?
If you don't offer to adopt the babies the women abandon, or at least help them through pregnancy and at least the first three years of life of that baby, then you don't have a say about it. Cause is very easy to be pro-birth, and once they born walk away. I'm strongly in support of women and children in poverty receiving support. But that's not ultimately the issue, because women aren't simply pregnant because of something that happened to them over which they have no control. 1% of abortions are the result of rape, but all others result from a choice. Maareeny Edwards, it's not about opposing women's rights, it's about believing that women have a choice - and if they choose to have sex, they don't the have the right to destroy the resulting human being. I've never argued that children are a "burden to society" - don't base your opinions of all of those opposed to abortion on statements made a small number of other individuals.
Now let's travel back during the times when abortion was illegal and birth control was not being used nor shown as an option. When women used cloth hangers and shoved them up their vaginas and into the womb, scrapping them around to get whatever they can out. Or by being beaten or pouring chemicals inside themselves to force a miscarriage. Then let's talk about dumpster/ally babies. Those are babies that were born, but left in a dumpster or ally because the mother just didn't want the baby. Dumpster/ally babies should be something "pro-lifers" should be afraid of it happening again because that era of time is about to make a comeback. An era of time when women's death were sky high because of them having homemade abortions and suicide. Also when actual death of babies were also sky high.
I, and most opposed to abortion, are deeply concerned about women being hurt by coat hangers and by babies left in alleys - but why is the reason that that happens is that people - influenced massively by corporate culture's influence on social norms - choose to have sec, then choose to get rid of the human that results. Why do you blame politicians instead?
If it weren't for Planned Parenthood, far fewer teenagers would feel compelled to start having sex - PP give the message that it's fundamental and that not having it is abnormal, so that they can profit from carrying out abortions, and sometimes by then selling the body parts.
what are you taking about Planned Parenthood doesn’t encourage sex. They educate people who have decided to be sexually active. Having sex is natural, trying to stop people from having sex is the unnatural thing.
Natural and unnatural when and according to who? It's not natural to use medical interventions to destroy the human that naturally results from the choice to have sex.
I didn't say that it's only for procreation - but the brain is designed for monogamy (oxytocin released in sex causes pair bonding), and we have ample options for contraception, so it's entirely possible to enjoy life without sex; then have sex once married and use contraception to plan when pregnancies happen, but also be in a stable relationship with someone you're committed to so that you can love and support an unexpected pregnancy if one occurs.
Sex on TV/film, in magazines, in porn etc has given people the impression that sex is necessary as soon as they're old enough - and huge profit is made from selling that media. That's unnatural - and I'm certainly not opposed to TV/film (I am oppose to porn, that's another debate), but it's heartbreaking how it's changed people's attitudes and life choices. Ultimately the change is driven by commercial greed; sex sells.no one can make you do anything with your body that you don’t consent to. NO ONE. even if your sibling would die without a kidney transplant and you were brain dead they can’t take it from you unless you’re a donor. Even when someone else’s life depends on it and you’re not even around to use the kidney they can’t take it from you. Why would you think it’s okay to force someone to carry a fetus to term? It’s legitimately the woman’s right to choose, not anyone else. No, abortion isn’t a great thing, people aren’t going out and having unprotected sex for the purpose of creating another life but sometimes it happens and when it does someone needs to take responsibility for that. When a woman gets an abortion it’s not something she does lightly, it’s her owning up to her mistake. Would you rather she be forced into carrying it to term? Forced to live a certain way, eat/not eat certain things, to give up her body for 9 months all to create something she doesn’t want? Something she despises. Do you want a baby to be born into this world knowing that it’s parents didn’t want it? Knowing that they shouldn’t have been born but the mother had no choice? Do you want our orphanages overflowing? Just asking.
Pregnancy isn't someone forcing a woman to carry a baby, it's the biological result of a choice she's made. You argue that no one has the right to another's body, but you're arguing that a woman has the right to tear up the body of the human inside her.
The solution is better access to contraception, inc. tuboligation, and less penetrative sex - not to kill tiy humans or leave children in orphanages.
Supreme Court to decide on 40-foot cross: Is it a war memorial or an official display of religion?
Does that mean that some argue it should be taken down if deemed "religious"?
If so, why? How is it in any way harmful to anyone to have it on display? Jesus died on the cross - because He upset *religious* leaders, and defeated death making a way open to anyone to have eternal life (heaven) through Him. It's not discriminatory, everyone is equally welcomed by Him. He spent His life teaching people to love others and avoid violence - so why should a symbol reminding people of Him be thought controversial?
Porn Companies Tell Us Why the End of Net Neutrality Will Make Porn Boring
It's genuinely harmful, I can't understand how Vice can honestly think that porn is moral cause to defend. https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-consuming-porn-can-lead.../
I could write an article on how reading the Bible can lead to violence.
Jesus made it clear that we should avoid violence - love our enemies, turn the other cheek, treat others as we would want to be treated. The Bible contains historical accounts of complex situations in which there was indeed violence, but it's Jesus who actually provides a universal understanding of God's character and who teaches us how to live.
Because porn is not harmful, and it can be moral. If there was no porn, I'd definitely cause violence to bring porn back. I'm sorry that your puritanical impulses prevent you from seeing the positive in an adult art form.Why do you think that it's not harmful? The website that I linked to highlights loads of academic research showing that it is - but there's plenty more on other sites and PubMed.
If anything porn has made me more submissive porn doesn't make people like things people look for porn of things they like. porn doesn't cause problems people with problems will have problems with or without porn. Also the bible is like the least moral thing in the world just because jesus wasn't a dick doesn't excuse all the shit god did in the old testament. Why did god feel the need to wipe out 2 cities but couldn't even bother to tell lots daughters not to rape their dad? gods has done worse but my point is he chose not to tell the angels he sent to tell lots daughters not to rape their dad. Personally i think he destroyed sodom and gomorrah just to fap to lot getting raped by his daughters. I dont completely blame him after all femdom incest is the best porn to fap to but he could have done it without destroying 2 cities.
Didn't he flood the entire Earth? I don't know about you, but that sounds like the greatest act of terrorism and violence in history.
yea gods has done worse but my point is he chose not to tell the angels he sent to tell lots daughters not to rape their dad. Personally i think he destroyed sodom and gomorrah just to fap to lot getting raped by his daughters. I dont completely blame him after all femdom incest is the best porn to fap to but he could have done it without destroying 2 cities.Fapping involves human flesh, so why you think God does it is beyond me. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were evil, hence them wanting to gang rape the angels. Lot's daughters getting him drunk is obviously wrong, but not the same as penetrative gang rape.
How much have you investigated the account of Noah? The flood happened because everyone was evil. God was cleansing humanity to stop the evil and allow for Earth to be repopulated with humans who weren't all raping and killing each other.
You complain about people dying in the OT - but do you not believe that people are merely evolved masses of molecules? In which case why, and how, do you care?
All human beings die eventually - what happened in the incidents of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah, was that lives were ended more quickly, without anyone left greiving, in a setting where life was a horrific experience, for the specific purpose of eradicating extreme evil.
Ultimately, Jesus defeated death and offers heaven to everyone. The OT is endlessly difficult to understand - will you reject Jesus because of it?
Lol... The bible goes back what, maybe 5000 years? Explain gobekli tepe. Your argument is invalid.
What about it? It's as though you think that we believe God dropped the Bible out of the sky at the beinning of creation. We don't.
The Bible is a compilation of texts written when scribes wrote down accounts of what had happened previously; the fact that temples existed somewhere first doesn't invalidate Christianity.
Churches are somewhere that anyone can go to hang out with mostly friendly people. They differ massively, so anyone trying should visit a few to find one that feels comfortable. There's no obligation to participate in anything that you don't want to or to contribute to the £offering. There's usually tea/coffee/biscuits after Sunday morning services, and most Churches have other social activities during the week. Unless entirely overstretched, Church staff teams will visit elderly and ill people.A relationship with God is truly more helpful to mood and mental health than anything else - and Jesus offers eternal life that's incomparably more exciting still. Yet Churches are open for anyone to visit irrespective of belief. More lonely people should try.
How much have you investigated the account of Noah? The flood happened because everyone was evil. God was cleansing humanity to stop the evil and allow for Earth to be repopulated with humans who weren't all raping and killing each other.
You complain about people dying in the OT - but do you not believe that people are merely evolved masses of molecules? In which case why, and how, do you care?
All human beings die eventually - what happened in the incidents of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah, was that lives were ended more quickly, without anyone left greiving, in a setting where life was a horrific experience, for the specific purpose of eradicating extreme evil.
Ultimately, Jesus defeated death and offers heaven to everyone. The OT is endlessly difficult to understand - will you reject Jesus because of it?
Lol... The bible goes back what, maybe 5000 years? Explain gobekli tepe. Your argument is invalid.
What about it? It's as though you think that we believe God dropped the Bible out of the sky at the beinning of creation. We don't.
The Bible is a compilation of texts written when scribes wrote down accounts of what had happened previously; the fact that temples existed somewhere first doesn't invalidate Christianity.
I love Ben & Jerry's, but the cost of a tub can feed a starving child for a month (via Feed The Hungry USA), so I think I'll stick to the cheapest ice cream available and donate more.
The song encapsulates actual Christianity; not a tribal identity, but that we follow Christ in awe of the sacrifice that He made for us.
God's Riches At Christ's Expense - to spend eternity in God's presence, heaven, is an offer open to EVERYONE because of what Jesus did, though none of us deserve it.
God's Riches At Christ's Expense - to spend eternity in God's presence, heaven, is an offer open to EVERYONE because of what Jesus did, though none of us deserve it.
LOL, keep up Times, light parties have been going on for years. I ran several a decade ago. We don't like that kids are conned into celebrating evil.
Huh?
What do you mean? Halloween is the modern, commercialised form of Samhain. Druid priests roamed villages demanding things for them to sacrifice, and cursed households that didn't pay enough - this evolved into trick or treating. Pagan people dressed as ghouls and carved evil faces into vegetables because they believed that the dead roamed the Earth at this time. Human sacrifices, inc. children and babies, were made - hence bonefire > bonfire. The Church tried to take over the festival, but the pagan traditions all re-emerged; and witches always continued to celebrate the festival with casting of spells, orgies etc.
The Hebrews were more than keen to indulge in a bit of sacrifice, casting of spells and orgies. The Christians keen on the odd inquisition here and there and priests do love to lift up their cassocks and Roger the younger members of their congregation.
The Hebrews' incidents of participating in paganism were opposing God, so I'm not sure what that point has to do with the Church (?).
Inquisitions have nothing to do with paganism, so what's your point? Importantly, inquisitions weren't Christian; those involved called themselves Christian because it was a respected label to wear at the time, but Christian by definition, is to follow Christ, and He forbade violence.
The same applies to abuse by priests - choosing to enter a profession doesn't mean that one's heart/mind is actually committed to following the founder of that institution- and some/most abusive priests will have been abusers who entered priesthood because they wanted opportunities to access victims. It enrages God. And why does your comment imply that all priests are abusers? The vast majority are not. But you seem to have missed my point. My comment mentioned Churches - and only a minority of Churches have priests - I've never met one.
All of this is irrelevant compared to Christ.
Inquisitions have nothing to do with paganism, so what's your point? Importantly, inquisitions weren't Christian; those involved called themselves Christian because it was a respected label to wear at the time, but Christian by definition, is to follow Christ, and He forbade violence.The same applies to abuse by priests - choosing to enter a profession doesn't mean that one's heart/mind is actually committed to following the founder of that institution- and some/most abusive priests will have been abusers who entered priesthood because they wanted opportunities to access victims. It enrages God. And why does your comment imply that all priests are abusers? The vast majority are not. But you seem to have missed my point. My comment mentioned Churches - and only a minority of Churches have priests - I've never met one.
All of this is irrelevant compared to Christ.
Put those crosses down you numpties. Jesus died on a cross because we're all sinners in need of forgiveness; acting as bullies shows that you aren't following Him at all, so you've rejected His offer of redemption and thus His sacrifice has nothing to do with you. The cross was about putting others first; Jesus humbling Himself - to use it like a war flag for intimidating others is sheer stupidity.
How do you define "evangelical"? There are a lot of people who attach labels to themselves and actually don't fit what the label means. Christian, by definition, means a person who is truly desperate to follow Christ and emulate His teaching and example; and Evangelical is a word from evangel meaning good news. Evangelical thus is to know that Jesus defeated death, and offers everyone a way to heaven through His sacrifice, resulting in wanting to live for Him and proclaim Him to the world.
Please don't let the unChristlike things that have come to be associated with Christianity of Evangelicalism to dissuade you from Christ Himself, whose commands make it clear that some of Trump's policies are very, very wrong.
Please don't let the unChristlike things that have come to be associated with Christianity of Evangelicalism to dissuade you from Christ Himself, whose commands make it clear that some of Trump's policies are very, very wrong.
Shouldn't parents fight our culture's obsession with sexuality? Young people are growing up in a society that defines us by sex - but sex has nothing to do with a person's life and actions aside from their interactions with one person. Kids should feel priceless and unique for their personalities and interests - and that their loved beyond comprehension by God - rather than by sex, especially before adulthood. Crucially, hormonal changes mean that many children feel things as they're growing that are temporary, so young people shouldn't be encouraged to consider that what they're feeling is who they are. Obviously, bullying MUST be addressed, and its victims MUST be supported - but I don't see how it's wise or loving to affirm labels. They so much more than that.
Do we really need Vice's guidance on whether or not to create human beings? I can't have kids, but if I were able, I think I'd decide myself without Vice's help, thanks. Why presume that people other than you are driven by stereotypes anyway, as though you're free thinking and everyone else is brainwashed by "outdated" tradition?
Should it not instead be that everyone recognises armistice regardless of background? Should it not be something that transcends our differences?
Churches are somewhere that anyone can go to hang out with mostly friendly people. They differ massively, so anyone trying should visit a few to find one that feels comfortable. There's no obligation to participate in anything that you don't want to or to contribute to the £offering. There's usually tea/coffee/biscuits after Sunday morning services, and most Churches have other social activities during the week. Unless entirely overstretched, Church staff teams will visit elderly and ill people.A relationship with God is truly more helpful to mood and mental health than anything else - and Jesus offers eternal life that's incomparably more exciting still. Yet Churches are open for anyone to visit irrespective of belief. More lonely people should try.
Seriously? You think this something to celebrate? This is sheer cruelty. I'm really not an animal rights activist, but to make an aimal endure the terror of a chase, then shoot them dead, all just for fun is grotesque.
The horror of choosing a Halloween costume
LOL indeed. Fortunately, we're actually not obligated to participate in what is, ultimately, witchcraft's commericialsed annual celebration.
In fact, having said that, why is participation in Halloween itself not yet deemed cultural appropriation?
In fact, having said that, why is participation in Halloween itself not yet deemed cultural appropriation?
We appropriated it from the Americans
Yes, but ultimately it's been appropriated from pagans and witches.
And witches appropriated it from Christianity. The conveyor belt of cultural appropriation keeps trundling round.
No, pagans wre celebrating it first - Samhain. The Church tried to get people to stop their paganism by creating a Christian festiva in its place - All Saints Day - but the pagan tradition continued and thrived. Bonfire comes from bone fire; trick or treating developed from people offering sacrifices or being cursed by pagan priests who went house to house; people dress as evil spirits etc. Fortunately orgies and human (inc child) sacrifice aren't common components of Halloween today as they were in the past. But apparently it's still a day when modern witches celebrate, I don't know what they get up to.
Yup, on the same day that the media was celebrating surgery being carried out in the womb.
This is why I've just cancelled my Labour membership. Abortion is complex topic, but I can't get my head around how people believe that it's right to kill tiny humans. There should absolutely be provision made for exceptional cases like that brought up by Anna Soubry yesterday (ie, certainty that that foetus is inviable or that the pregnancy will be fatal to the mother) - but such cases account for only several% of abortions.
The core issue is that culture teaches us that sex is a necessity. We're each infinitely more valuable than sexuality, and there's an endless array of things to enjoy in life other than sex. But because "sex sells", we've been drowned in media that lies to us that we need sex to be normal and fulfiled. The damage to physical and emotional wellbeing across society is endless - and tiny humans get suctioned to pieces, or torn limb from limb, in the process of clearing up the biological outcome of sexual choice (NB, literally1% or fewer abortions follow rape, so in 99% of abortion cases a choice has already been made, opposing abortion is not "forcing") Increasing access to abortion will mean more killing and long term harm to women.
http://tinyurl.com/y7n6nokk
NB - ambulances were called a total of 466 times at London abortion clinics over the last year. http://tinyurl.com/y77n75nj
This is why I've just cancelled my Labour membership. Abortion is complex topic, but I can't get my head around how people believe that it's right to kill tiny humans. There should absolutely be provision made for exceptional cases like that brought up by Anna Soubry yesterday (ie, certainty that that foetus is inviable or that the pregnancy will be fatal to the mother) - but such cases account for only several% of abortions.
The core issue is that culture teaches us that sex is a necessity. We're each infinitely more valuable than sexuality, and there's an endless array of things to enjoy in life other than sex. But because "sex sells", we've been drowned in media that lies to us that we need sex to be normal and fulfiled. The damage to physical and emotional wellbeing across society is endless - and tiny humans get suctioned to pieces, or torn limb from limb, in the process of clearing up the biological outcome of sexual choice (NB, literally1% or fewer abortions follow rape, so in 99% of abortion cases a choice has already been made, opposing abortion is not "forcing") Increasing access to abortion will mean more killing and long term harm to women.
NB - ambulances were called a total of 466 times at London abortion clinics over the last year. http://tinyurl.com/y77n75nj
We all know that there are various intersex conditions - but they're rare, and they aren't what the trans debate is about. Ultimately, we all need to stop obsessing about sex. Each individual is equally, infinitely valuable and has skills and traits that make them unique which are unrelated to their sex.
I wonder if, theoretically, the money/manpower spent on those troops could instead be expended on locating places in the country that the migrants could be allocated where they'd fit in well, based on their skills(?)
So? She's made documentaries raising awareness of sweatshops, online child sex abuse and other evils. Making the public aware of these problems deserves extra coverage and applause. Metro evidently has other priorities.