It's Jesus who defeated death, and who offers us a way to eternal life (heaven). He also gave plenty of teaching forbidding the abuse that non-Christians-claiming-to-be Christians have carried out. Nice as the Pope is, it's illogical that huge crowds gather to see him (though that's also true of celebrities)
https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/
https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/
I hate how so many people now associate Christianity with the very opposite of what Christ did and taught, because of predators (though as other news has shown, there's sex abuse in all sectors 
😠It's grotesque that other Church leaders haven't done more to address this issue, I desperately hope that the victims find comfort, as much as one could; and that changes are made to prevent this in future. God is slow to anger (Psalm 103:8), but SEETHING at abuse like this^.
😠It's grotesque that other Church leaders haven't done more to address this issue, I desperately hope that the victims find comfort, as much as one could; and that changes are made to prevent this in future. God is slow to anger (Psalm 103:8), but SEETHING at abuse like this^.
Time to put away childrens stories of myths and legends
How much have you researched the case for Jesus having risen?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, priests abused thousands of children, and the Church protected the priests and kept the children quiet. Where is your Jesus?
People who abuse are, by definition, not following Christ, so are wrong to use the label of Christian. But human beings throughout history have committed evil acts whilst claiming to be people of God/s, since this can make them feel better about themselves and score them more respect amongst some of the public. That some abusers call themselves Christians and even seek positions of power within Churches doesn't change the fact that most Churches don't have paedophiles (and do have huge positive impact on lives and communities); but more importantly, those predators don't change the likelihood that Christ rose from death (demonstrating that He'd defeated death and had been right to claim to be The Way to "heaven" - offered to EVERYONE).
That evil exists is a far, far, far more complicated topic than than time/space allows here - but consider that if humanity is only atoms and there is no higher being, it becomes impossible to make sense of good and evil (our feelings about collosions of molecular masses - other humans interacting - are just electrical fluctuations) and of how it is that we're able to recognise it.
And our view - as humans - is extremely limited - you asked where Jesus is, and in fact if Jesus exists, He exists within, and offers, eternal life beyond this lifetime, in which there'll be no more sufferin or evil. So life on Earth is, by comparison, momentary, but its contrasting exitence of good and evil are what can point us toward choosing God so that we sped eternity with Him (heaven) rather than rejecting His offer.
That evil exists is a far, far, far more complicated topic than than time/space allows here - but consider that if humanity is only atoms and there is no higher being, it becomes impossible to make sense of good and evil (our feelings about collosions of molecular masses - other humans interacting - are just electrical fluctuations) and of how it is that we're able to recognise it.
And our view - as humans - is extremely limited - you asked where Jesus is, and in fact if Jesus exists, He exists within, and offers, eternal life beyond this lifetime, in which there'll be no more sufferin or evil. So life on Earth is, by comparison, momentary, but its contrasting exitence of good and evil are what can point us toward choosing God so that we sped eternity with Him (heaven) rather than rejecting His offer.
Priests representing an organisation "the Catholic Church" that covered up their abuse and silenced the voice of the abused children. You failed to answer any of his points. Or are you of the opinion that the whole Catholic church is not Christian? You can add the Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, mormons, 7th day adventists to Catholic in my argument if you like.
The Catholic Church has some serious flaws, and aspects of do indeed contradict Christ's teaching but each person is an individual. It makes no sense to blame everyone within a denomination for the actions of a few.
So nobody is saying every Christian is a pedophile. If they are they're wrong on that assumption, however the fact of the matter is the church actively suppressed victims and protected rapists by moving them onto the next parish after they confessed to god, to me if hell is a place then every one of those priests are going there including the ones that apparently forgave them
I'm not only saying that it isn't the case that every Christian is a pedophile (though plenty of people talk and act as though they believe that). A person who is a pedophie is not truly a Christian, because by definition, to be Christian means to follow Christ.
For most of history, people have ascribed their actions to religion because it sounds more noble than admitting that they're simply acting on their greed. Often "religion" is what people do whilst trying to score brownie points with God. Jesus died for us because nothing we do is enough. Instead of earning our way into heaven, the only Way is through Christ - and if we've genuinely chosen to accept Him, we will naturally desire to follow His teaching and example. We have to change progressively, with God's help; but people who call themselves Christians but carry out sex abuse, violence etc are lying.
What really matters is what you decide about Jesus - don't let hypocrites determine your choice.
For most of history, people have ascribed their actions to religion because it sounds more noble than admitting that they're simply acting on their greed. Often "religion" is what people do whilst trying to score brownie points with God. Jesus died for us because nothing we do is enough. Instead of earning our way into heaven, the only Way is through Christ - and if we've genuinely chosen to accept Him, we will naturally desire to follow His teaching and example. We have to change progressively, with God's help; but people who call themselves Christians but carry out sex abuse, violence etc are lying.
What really matters is what you decide about Jesus - don't let hypocrites determine your choice.
Christ's dad (who is also Christ, no?) was quite big on throwing rocks at rape victims and/or marrying them off to their rapists, no?
No, Christ is Jesus, the Son, the human being. Jesus specifically stopped rocks being thrown at a woman.
Obvs. you're referring the Old Testament - which features predictions about Christ, but actions/commands should really just be attributed to God. God's actions and commands in the OT are incredibly complex and difficult to understand, because they take place in the context of a culture extremely different from ours; with reasons that we are uninformed of; recorded by humans who would have had attitudes influenced by their culture and may have used phrases common to their time/setting that aren't precisely literal (for example, today if a sports team wins, they might say that they "completely destroyed" the opposing team; at some points in the OT it's written that a tribe was completely destroyed, but in both cases, it's a turn of phrase and not literal).
Even still, the OT never says that rape victims should be stoned, as you seem to have been told.
Because the OT is so complex to make sense of, it's particularly significant that Jesus is God made flesh who gives a clearer particular of God's nature, and who shows us how He wants us to live.
Obvs. you're referring the Old Testament - which features predictions about Christ, but actions/commands should really just be attributed to God. God's actions and commands in the OT are incredibly complex and difficult to understand, because they take place in the context of a culture extremely different from ours; with reasons that we are uninformed of; recorded by humans who would have had attitudes influenced by their culture and may have used phrases common to their time/setting that aren't precisely literal (for example, today if a sports team wins, they might say that they "completely destroyed" the opposing team; at some points in the OT it's written that a tribe was completely destroyed, but in both cases, it's a turn of phrase and not literal).
Even still, the OT never says that rape victims should be stoned, as you seem to have been told.
Because the OT is so complex to make sense of, it's particularly significant that Jesus is God made flesh who gives a clearer particular of God's nature, and who shows us how He wants us to live.
The
thing is Grace one or two pedophile priests in one state Pensilvania is
bad enough. But over 300 priests with 1000s of children abused is
horrific. How many more in the all the other states? This is an epidemic
on a grotesque scale.
Tragically,
it's a problem in many other sectors too (inc schools and sports
clubs). But my point is that Jesus is who actually matters - priests
were always trivial by comparison. It's only Jesus who offers eternal
life, so it's Jesus that we should be following; and Jesus was
passionately opposed to abuse.
All religion is child abuse. It devides us to"us and them" and we are always better. Disgusting.
How
do you define "religion"? Genuine Christianity is the opposite of what
you've described. And Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you
are all one in Christ Jesus."
and i hate how many people in this world have died and/or been tortured from religious beliefs ... what's your point again?
People
kill other people, and claim to be fighting in the name of religion
because it's an excuse that makes them feel more noble, rather than
guilty. Actually following Jesus means avoiding violence, and treating
others as you'd like to be treated.
God doesn’t exist, pedophilia is an excellent proof
Why
on Earth is it "excellent proof"? God gives us free will, hence evil
acts, If there is no God, and every human being is nothing more than
complex structures of atoms, why and how do you care what happens
between 2 other masses of molecules(humans)?
More importantly, have you looked at the reasons that Christians have - other than faith/emotion/tradition - for believing? Personally, I believe in God because I think that science forces the conclusion that chance can not account for the universe, on account of its ridiculous improbability (given the specificity of parameters found to have been required at the big bang); nor biological world (given its extent of molecular complexity and interdependence).
The fact that evil takes place can't prove that God doesn't exist - we haven't created the universe, time and consciousness, so if God doesn't do all of the things that we think He should, it's our lack of information, not His non-existence.
More importantly, have you looked at the reasons that Christians have - other than faith/emotion/tradition - for believing? Personally, I believe in God because I think that science forces the conclusion that chance can not account for the universe, on account of its ridiculous improbability (given the specificity of parameters found to have been required at the big bang); nor biological world (given its extent of molecular complexity and interdependence).
The fact that evil takes place can't prove that God doesn't exist - we haven't created the universe, time and consciousness, so if God doesn't do all of the things that we think He should, it's our lack of information, not His non-existence.
Argument from complexity - debunked,
Cosmological arguement-debunked,
God of the gaps- debunked and very dishonest. Do believers have anything other than tired old recycled apologetics?
Cosmological arguement-debunked,
God of the gaps- debunked and very dishonest. Do believers have anything other than tired old recycled apologetics?
Sorry,
how exactly have you rebuffed my points? I wasn't making any of those
arguments, but in either case, you saying that they're debunked and not
even beginning to explain how isn't going to convince me. But why do you
care what I believe anyway?
Just
like he's pissed off at all the other fucked up things humans have done
to each other for thousands of years. And yet.... nothing? No sign of
this anger, not a hint of retribution, no lightning bolts.... nothing.
I'd say a more likely conclusion to
draw is that God (all gods) are no more believable (and a lot less
enjoyable) than Harry Potter. That's why in educated countries
religious adherence is shrinking by the day- no evidence and negligible
social utility for superstition.
RE
God "allowing" abuse, or other suffering - He gave us all free will,
stopping all evil acts would render human beings non-autonomous.And have you asked Him? Seriously, sometimes we understand things better when we pray. 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 act like children who won't talk with their parents about things they don't understand. A parent will 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. People who have seemingly perfect lives tend to ignore God and are thus throwing away the possibility of heaven - while abuse victims might turn to Him and have eternity in heavenly joy.
Ah this is where you guys crow bar in “god works in mysterious ways “
Care to actually address what I wrote? Presumably, you can understand and refute it?
That's
easily done. There are so many assumptions based on fantasy in your
writing that it's hard to know where to start. So just a few, maybe. Who
cares if your god has reasons for allowing such things to occur, even
reasons we don't have the intellect to
understand; if it does allow them, then by the standards of most
religions, it is evil. "The gap between our knowledge and God's is many
magnitudes wider than that between a child and their father" -
guesswork; you don't, and can't, know that. Your assumptions about life
in heaven are pure fantasy - there is no evidence whatsoever for that...
and besides, even if there were to be an element of truth in it, whose
god and which vision of heaven are we talking about. Your assertion that
we've been given free will is an illusion: our biological make-up -
which, according to you is your god's work - makes certain traits
inevitable.
"Who cares if your god"...I was asked.
Why is it "guesswork" that God's knowledge is many magnitudes beyond ours? I know that you think that God doesn't exist at all, but if a creator of the universe - including time and consciousness - did exist, why is it "guesswork" to assert that that creator is magnitudes more intelligent and informed than the 3lb of mush between our ears?
Which are the "most religions" that would deem God "evil"?
I could go on, but you won't take anything I write seriously, will you?
Why is it "guesswork" that God's knowledge is many magnitudes beyond ours? I know that you think that God doesn't exist at all, but if a creator of the universe - including time and consciousness - did exist, why is it "guesswork" to assert that that creator is magnitudes more intelligent and informed than the 3lb of mush between our ears?
Which are the "most religions" that would deem God "evil"?
I could go on, but you won't take anything I write seriously, will you?
you believe in a god who in your opinion is all powerful and yet stood
by while his representatives on earth raped kids, only a religious
person could try to spin this shit.
It is immoral to support this church in any shape way or form.
As for your god , it’s lucky for him he is a figment of wish thinking.
It is immoral to support this church in any shape way or form.
As for your god , it’s lucky for him he is a figment of wish thinking.
Did you not understand my last comment?
How do you, given that you consider there to be nothing beyond matter and energy, define "immoral"? If one collection of molecules interacted with another collection of molecules, then why, and how, do you care?
How do you know that God is just a figment of wishful thinking? In fact, I believe in God because I think that science forces the conclusion that chance can not account for the universe, on account of its ridiculous improbability (given the specificity of parameters found to have been required at the big bang); nor biological world (given its extent of molecular complexity and interdependence). How do you know that atheism is not your wishful thinking?
How do you, given that you consider there to be nothing beyond matter and energy, define "immoral"? If one collection of molecules interacted with another collection of molecules, then why, and how, do you care?
How do you know that God is just a figment of wishful thinking? In fact, I believe in God because I think that science forces the conclusion that chance can not account for the universe, on account of its ridiculous improbability (given the specificity of parameters found to have been required at the big bang); nor biological world (given its extent of molecular complexity and interdependence). How do you know that atheism is not your wishful thinking?
I say shut it all down it's fake anyway...
LOL, how much apologetics have you studied?
As
far as I'm concerned this will never stop until it is shut down... I'm
tired of hearing how many people get hurt...on top of that all religion
is fake .. look at the church in taxes..
It's
not as simple as that at all. I agree that it's beyond outrageous how
some people claiming to follow religion mistreat others - but you've not
answered my question (above). Have you looked at websites that explain
why some scholars believe in God, and in
Jesus? I'm not expecting you to believe them unquestioningly, but have
you looked at their rationale at all? Have you looked at how Jesus
taught us to live (which prohibits exploiting others)?
People
believe in religion, or God, (even scholars), because they need a
purpose or direction in life. Some people need that ‘supporting’ voice
to validate their decisions, or life choices.
LOL,
how do you know that that's the only reason? As I asked earlier, have
you looked at the academic arguments for God? You might disagree, but
you should at least be informed, rather than presuming that everyone who
believes in something does so only for
the one reason you've considered. I personally began to believe in God
studying photosynthesis (at a molecular level) - yet I regularly
encounter non scientists who think that science has somehow overruled
God http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
The
fact that our innate biology is antithetical to Christian teachings is
probably the the most glaring. And I'm not talking about numbers and
Deuteronomy which any rational person of faith disregards. I'm talking
about the message of Jesus.
Can you clarify which teachings of Jesus are antithetical to biology?
Probably
close to half of people are reflexively cruel. Generosity is, even if
subconsciously, generally self serving. Even people who are kind hoard
possessions and think they are entitled to them. People commonly look
at innocence as a vulnerablity to be exploited.
How
does that disprove Christianity? Christianity teaches that God gives us
free will, and we can choose to follow instincts of selfishness or
compassion. According to Christianity, if we genuinely want to follow
Jesus, it becomes (sometimes gradually)
easier to be empathetic and caring. If there is no God, only Darwinism,
why (and how) do you think it matters how one mass of molecules treats
another mass of molecules?
Morality
and basic human decency are not dependent on religion. It allows for a
cohesive society and channels instincts which are innate. Elements of
religion undoubtedly formed the basis for morality and probably
civilization itself but I'd argue humans have evolved past its need
since the 19th century.
How
can one reach the conclusion that Jesus is a metaphor? Have you studied
the New Testament? Have you looked at the references to Jesus outside
of the Bible? Why would early Christians have died teaching about Jesus
if He were a metaphor?
Separately, why do you think that the Emerald tablet/s is 36,000 years old? Why do you think they have "everything Jesus taught in them and more"?
What makes this even more horrendous is that, had our Western nations not grossly taken advantage of Africa, Ebola couldn't spread as much as it does. There's far, far, far less healthcare and public information that could stop the spread of disease; and drugs companies haven't invested as much as they would have done (were it a disease affecting us privileged Westerners) into developing vaccinations and treatment. We forget how fortunate we are to have the healthcare infrastructure that do - but as imperfect (and I'm aware that it is very far from perfect - in part because of our culture) as our health services are, we're generally very fortunate. In Congo, the annual average expenditure on healthcare per person is $32 - less than 100th of the average$ on health per person in the UK (even more is spent on health per person, on average in the US - I'm well aware that this is not remotely fairly distributed)Were Ebola to be here, it would quickly be quarantined and drugs would have been developed to end it. I desperately hope that the current outbreak can be stopped ASAP.
Oh
no, I'm not arguing that religion is necessary - God created all human
beings, therefore whether or not a person is aware of Him, they can live
out some of the virtues He instilled in humanity.
And religion is a difficult word, because many people have claimed to be religious whilst not truly trying to follow God.
But do you not think that society today would be better if more people genuinely sought to emulate Jesus?
And religion is a difficult word, because many people have claimed to be religious whilst not truly trying to follow God.
But do you not think that society today would be better if more people genuinely sought to emulate Jesus?
No
because the Jesus that people believe is a fabrication of Jesus. As far
as we know Jesus was just a rebel of the Roman Empire who was executed
for creating unrest. All the stories written in the bible about him are
decades and centuries after the guy died.You
can't tell me that Christianity isn't man made because human history
has thousands of years before Jesus or even monotheism existed.
Then
why did the early Christians die to spread the message? How have you
reached your views? How much have you examined the history of the NT? Why
does the fact that Christianity isn't as old as humanity mean it's
untrue? People only discovered that the world is spherical centuries
ago, does that mean that it's untrue?
Christianity is an abusive relationship, love me(god) or suffer forever.
Nah, that's a serious misunderstanding. If you don't love God, you
won't be forced to spend eternity with Him - the idea that you suffer
eternally isn't what the Bible says.
Why doesn’t god protect the children from being abused by the priests? You’re also cherry picking the Bible. Like, cherry picking the hell out of it.
Is
there any point in me writing you paragraphs of response? I could - but
I've already wasted too much time on this debate and you aren't going
to take me seriously, are you? RE
God "allowing" abuse, or other suffering - He gave us all free will,
stopping all evil acts would render human beings non-autonomous.
And have you asked Him? Seriously, sometimes we understand things better when we pray. 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 act like children who won't talk with their parents about things they don't understand. A parent will 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. People who have seemingly perfect lives tend to ignore God and are thus throwing away the possibility of heaven - while abuse victims might turn to Him and have eternity in heavenly joy.
And have you asked Him? Seriously, sometimes we understand things better when we pray. 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 act like children who won't talk with their parents about things they don't understand. A parent will 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. People who have seemingly perfect lives tend to ignore God and are thus throwing away the possibility of heaven - while abuse victims might turn to Him and have eternity in heavenly joy.
You need to read the whole bible plenty of sick and twisted stuff in there
So?
It's not a straightforward instruction manual. Much of it records what
happens when people behave like idiots so that we can learn from it to
avoid their mistakes. It's Jesus who shows us how God actually wants us
to treat others.
It's
not just the Catholic church it's all denominations. Go have a look at
Fiona Barnett on YouTube and see what Hillsongs gets up to. They are
nothing more than a cover for child trafficking and sacrificial rituals.
The truth about all these big businesses is coming out.
Thanks
for the info, I'll look but I think that I'm going to need more than 1
Youtuber to be convinced that Hillsong is involved in child sacrifice - I
follow news (from across the globe and political spectrum) obsessively,
why would I not have seen anything about this elsewhere? Crucially
- literally crucially (since that word derives from crucifixion) -
Churches are simply groups of humans that may be following God. If they
actually are (following God) they can be invaluable in bringing people
together, helping the community and
helping people learn about God, but it's God that matters. When abuse
happens, those people are demonstrating that they're not following God.
Whatever Churches are doing, each of us is invited by Jesus to
relationship and eternal life with Him. It's illogical and tragic that
stories about abuse contribute to some people ignoring Him.
I
hear you I used to be just like you believing just like you until I
stopped listening to other people and actually did some reading for
myself and not books written by evangelicals and the likes. That was 8
years ago after being in the church for 23+
years. Jordan Maxwell is a brilliant researcher with 56 years of
knowledge on the church, religion's and governments. You can download a
pdf book of his called Matrix of Power that explains brilliantly just
how everything works. What Jesus taught and what is taught today are
two completely different things. You can also look up Jay Parker and
Mark Passio if you need more than one name. There was no man on a cross
until 600 years after the Christian religion was formed. It's all
taught that way for the benefit of a few.
What are you referring to (in saying that you used to be just like me, until you did research)?
Sorry
I didn't mean for it to sound rude or insulting in any way. What I was
meaning to say is that i also believed only what the church and bible
taught until I stopped reading and listening to only what the Christian
religion teaches of the Bible.
But I never did believe what I heard at Church, nor the Bible.
I began to think that God might exist whilst studying photosynthesis (at a molecular level). Further studying of biology and physics made me certain.
Studying the Bible - and history around it - led me to believe that God is communicating to humanity through it - though it is extremely complex and difficult to understand given cultural differences.
I began to think that God might exist whilst studying photosynthesis (at a molecular level). Further studying of biology and physics made me certain.
Studying the Bible - and history around it - led me to believe that God is communicating to humanity through it - though it is extremely complex and difficult to understand given cultural differences.
Am
I correct in saying you believe in salvation through christ that's how I
read your post. What if Jesus was just a metaphor? Have you heard if
the Emerald Tablets written about 36 000 years ago that has everything
Jesus taught in them and more?
Separately, why do you think that the Emerald tablet/s is 36,000 years old? Why do you think they have "everything Jesus taught in them and more"?
Because
I've spent 7 years studying them and reading and reading and reading. I
have never owned a TV which has made a big difference. The Jewish
religion is based on moon worship why they celebrate after sun set.
7 years studying what? Studying using what sources?
Could you answer any of my questions (from the last comment)?
Could you answer any of my questions (from the last comment)?
I really cannot see how you got to the existence of a god through study of biology and physics.
Have you studied them? I was referring to secular education in biology, but try this - https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
I
am terribly sorry but you will have to provide me with much better
evidence than the imfamous Fine Tuning argument. It is a. Argument
loooved by theologians like William Lane Craig but has been proven time
and time again to be non-sencical by so
many astronomers, physists and biologists it is becoming an annoyance.
It is nothing but a "God of the gaps" argument which basically boils
down to "We do not how something works/came into existence therefor god
did it." I recommend both Lawrence Krauss's Something From Nothing as
well as Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene. Both perfectly describe why
the fine tuning argument is not scientifically usable. On both the
Gospels and Epistles account of the historical Jesus I suggest the work
Richard Carrier who went in depth into how Christianity arose. Also, if
you want more, you can read the work of Daniel Dennit and Sam Harris if
you want a more philosophical argument as to why religion as a whole is
just a "meme" (to use the word coined by Richard Dawkins)
It's not the God of the gaps argument - the God of the gaps argument
relates to existence and mechanism, not ridiculous probabilities. To
claim that FT is equivocal to "We do not how something works/came into
existence therefor god did it." evidences misunderstanding it.
Do you really think I'm not well aware with the atheist writers you've listed? Krauss I find particularly funny.
And Carrier? Yikes, why recommend conspiracy theorists?
I don't suppose our conversation is going to make much progress, as much as I've enjoyed conversing with you.
Do you really think I'm not well aware with the atheist writers you've listed? Krauss I find particularly funny.
And Carrier? Yikes, why recommend conspiracy theorists?
I don't suppose our conversation is going to make much progress, as much as I've enjoyed conversing with you.
Had
he even existed in the first place. Only mention of jesus in all of
history is in his parables written by a third person. No other reference
of him. Yet the 4omans were historians, philosophers and prolific
record keepers. No mention of jesus once
yet we can tell the price of an ear of corn from dozens of sources. 5
other gods shared the same story as jesus, all predating his existence.
He is a fairy tale sorry to say.
Do
you honestly think that Jesus was fictional? A few writers have
published books with that conspiracy theory in recent years - it's
absurd enough to get them some book sales and for the hoax to spread
around the internet. It doesn't change the fact that there's no dispute amongst actual historians that Jesus lived.
‘“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”’
(National Geographic December 2017)
I urge you to look further https://is.gd/m6MzKK
Why do you presume the the New Testament documents should be entirely ignored, given that they're so much more reliable than other ancient historical texts? (see - http://tinyurl.com/y9sw4s2w )
Where did you read that there are no other references to Him? See http://tinyurl.com/lk59ctv
Why have you fallen for the conspiracy theory that Jesus is based on myths? It's a fabrication that's been comprehensively disproven. Just a few articles on it - http://tinyurl.com/yaqm88an
- http://tinyurl.com/yak2odu8
- http://tinyurl.com/yct2j472
‘“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”’
(National Geographic December 2017)
I urge you to look further https://is.gd/m6MzKK
Why do you presume the the New Testament documents should be entirely ignored, given that they're so much more reliable than other ancient historical texts? (see - http://tinyurl.com/y9sw4s2w )
Where did you read that there are no other references to Him? See http://tinyurl.com/lk59ctv
Why have you fallen for the conspiracy theory that Jesus is based on myths? It's a fabrication that's been comprehensively disproven. Just a few articles on it - http://tinyurl.com/yaqm88an
- http://tinyurl.com/yak2odu8
- http://tinyurl.com/yct2j472
Everyone
from the priests involved right up to multiple serving popes have taken
part in one of the most pernicious and institutional cover up programs
in history. Not only have they spent
tens of millions of their parishioners money buying victims silence.
They have in nearly every case just relocated known abusers to offend
again. Every living member of the upper clergy past and present should
be jailed, including the popes.
I've not researched every Catholic Church to find out if that's true -
either way, I'm not defending the institution, at all. I'm urging people
not to reject/avoid Jesus because of it (since I know that many people
do) as He's furious about too.
The
information is easily available, and there are plenty of documentaries
and books on the subject. Very few people don't know at least something
about it so it's no wonder church numbers are dwindling when his
representatives on earth behave the way they do. Not just the child
abuse either. But if he did exist I'm sure he'd be horrified, his "dad"
wouldn't be though.
No, the exact actions of all of the staff in every Church aren't documented.
But more importantly - what do you mean by "IF he did exist" and "his "dad" wouldn't be"?
But more importantly - what do you mean by "IF he did exist" and "his "dad" wouldn't be"?
The
exact actions of many senior clergy is known and very few didn't know
at least something. Likewise offending priests were initially referred
to their local priest council which consisted of review bodies of
multiple priests and bishops so for every
priest that offended at least a dozen others conspired to keep it
secret. The victims are in the hundreds of thousands if not millions so
the scale is unimaginable. As far as Jesus' existence goes I'm not
convinced, his entire mythology is borrowed from previous gods and
deitys but there probably was a man around that time upsetting the
Romans and a similar figure appears in their historical records. His
"dad" commands the slaughter of entire villages of people in the old
testament and instructs the soldiers to keep the female children for
themselves. I'm not sure he's exactly a person to turn to on the matter
in question.
Why
have you believed the conspiracy theory that Jesus is based on myths?
It's a fabrication that's been comprehensively disproven. Just a few
articles on it - https://jamesbishopblog.com/.../23-reasons-why-scholars.../
- https://jwwartick.com/2012/06/04/parallelomania/
- http://www.equip.org/.../mythicism-and-the-public-jesus.../
- https://jwwartick.com/2012/06/04/parallelomania/
- http://www.equip.org/.../mythicism-and-the-public-jesus.../
Each
incidence of violence in the Old Testament requires a lot of serious
examination of context, cultural poetic use of language etc. And
ultimately, God can take people straight to heaven; their time living on
Earth where they live amongst barbarism
and child sacrifice is shortened by the commands you reference. The
pagan religions that some were practising were separating some people
from God, and thus from heaven - and the Hebrew people began following
those fatal pagan religions. Thus when God instructed elimination of
other tribes, it was to eradicate the cancer of paganism before it stole
eternal lives.
Christianity is to follow Jesus, who demonstrated how God wants us to treat others outside of the specific, complex situations of the OT.
Christianity is to follow Jesus, who demonstrated how God wants us to treat others outside of the specific, complex situations of the OT.
At
the risk of repeating myself as well much of Jesus' life and works was
straight up lifted from popular mythology of the time (See link) which
is clearly nothing more than his followers attempts to bolt on divinity
and God status to someone who was at best a local revolutionary.
Similarities
between historical figures don't show that one is a copy of another.
Things listed in your article are extremely non specific, it's
completely logical that those people who created the ancient religions
imagined things - such as casting out
demons, spending time reflecting in the desert, that God's actual
messiah fulfilled. But if you read the articles that I added fully, they
explain far better than me
No
offense but the history of religion is pretty dark. Pedophilia, greed,
and who knows how many have been murdered over the centuries. The
religious wars were brutal and everything any church touches becomes
corrupt. Religion is weird and morally bankrupt.
Human
beings are weird and morally bankrupt. For most of history, people have
ascribed their actions to religion because it sounds more noble than
admitting that they're simply acting on their greed. I agree that
"religion" has massive issues - religion
is what people do whilst trying to score brownie points with God. Jesus
died for us because nothing we do is enough. Instead of earning our way
into heaven, the only Way is through Christ - and if we've genuinely
chosen to accept Him, we will naturally desire to follow His teaching
and example. We have to change progressively, with God's help; but
people who call themselves Christians but carry out sex abuse, violence
etc are lying.
What really matters is what you decide about Jesus - don't let hypocrites determine your choice.
What really matters is what you decide about Jesus - don't let hypocrites determine your choice.
What
Christ did and taught isn’t certain. The New Testament wasn’t written
by him, and it could be just fiction. God wasn’t slow to anger when she
drowned man, woman and child in the flood. Why would God kill innocent
children if she’s slow to anger?
Why
would He leave those children suffering knowing what lay ahead for them
as things were? They were living in entirely evil cultures, amongst
barbarism and child sacrifice. And the pagan religions that some were
practising were separating those who
partook in that evil from God, and thus from heaven. Thus God eradicated
that cancer of paganism before it caused more suffering and stole more
eternal lives. Children who died in the flood could have gone straight
to heaven.
It’s
always been this way and always will be this way. Your god isn’t going
to do anything about it. The best thing to do is abandon these mega
churches. OTOH, the small cults lead to the same abuse. Perhaps it’s
better to give up on churches altogether?
The
vast majority of Churches don't have abuse going on - and abuse does go
on in plenty of non Church settings (inc. workplaces, clubs, schools
etc); sex abuse is a humanity issue, not a Church issue.
More importantly - why are you ignoring my point about God? It's not Church that really matters, it's Christ.
Really, god is "seething" If you believe in this whole crock, the "holy spirit" choses the popes (even though it takes him several tries at each election). He choose popes who he knows were going to handle the sexual abuse in an inappropriate way. He choses popes who he knows are going to chose bishops who in turn will handle sexual abuse in an inappropriate way. He could have chosen popes who would have put a stop to all of this, but didn't So why would a complicit god "seethe" ?
I don't believe there should be a Pope. God allows flawed human beings to be in positions of power - because all human beings are, to some extent, flawed. He gives us all free will, and if we choose to seek His help, we'll be more and more able to resist temptation towards things that we shouldn't. Those who abuse others are evidencing that they aren't trying to follow Christ, and shouldn't be in any position of Church leadership.
I hate that people still associate with these organizations and give them money, helping to further the abuse, all in the name of fairytales.
I don't. I give to Christian charities working in developing countries (with people of all faith backgrounds, obviously) and when I have a salary, may give to my local Church (which is Baptist, not part of a giant institution like the Catholic Church)
More importantly - why are you ignoring my point about God? It's not Church that really matters, it's Christ.
Really, god is "seething" If you believe in this whole crock, the "holy spirit" choses the popes (even though it takes him several tries at each election). He choose popes who he knows were going to handle the sexual abuse in an inappropriate way. He choses popes who he knows are going to chose bishops who in turn will handle sexual abuse in an inappropriate way. He could have chosen popes who would have put a stop to all of this, but didn't So why would a complicit god "seethe" ?
I don't believe there should be a Pope. God allows flawed human beings to be in positions of power - because all human beings are, to some extent, flawed. He gives us all free will, and if we choose to seek His help, we'll be more and more able to resist temptation towards things that we shouldn't. Those who abuse others are evidencing that they aren't trying to follow Christ, and shouldn't be in any position of Church leadership.
I hate that people still associate with these organizations and give them money, helping to further the abuse, all in the name of fairytales.
I don't. I give to Christian charities working in developing countries (with people of all faith backgrounds, obviously) and when I have a salary, may give to my local Church (which is Baptist, not part of a giant institution like the Catholic Church)
Genuine
Christianity is to follow Christ. It would - obviously - enrage Him
beyond words to see how some people claiming to be His followers behave.
But it's illogical, and indescribably tragic, for people to ignore
Jesus on the basis of the actions of un-Christ-like hypocrites.
Why Science Does Not Disprove God
Because "god" is not a scientifically testable hypothesis, given that the hypothesis of god can never be disproved; it is not falsifiable. Hence it has not connection to science at all, ever.
Have you read the article?
No, because I am a scientist, so I know religion has nothing in common with science. Period.
Why does being a scientist prevent you from reading an article that you feel compelled to comment on? What is your field/ involvement in science?
Why does being a Christian make you qualified to comment on science? Anyway as I implied I agree with the article, science can not disprove god.
Anyone can comment on science, though there ought to be logic in the points that they're making. I studied Biomedical Sciences at UCL, so though I'm not a scientist, I have some understanding of this debate. You've not answered as to what your link to science is - or, more importantly, why you refuse to even read an article yet still feel compelled to comment on it.
No, it's seriously The Great British Bake Off. Here, we usually refer to it as GBBO. Who's been trying to rename our programmes?
And...the Murdochs will do everything they can to trash Corbyn because you're downright terrified that he'll take No.10 and tax you more. It's a total fallacy to attack someone on the basis of who supports them; and of course there'll always be at least one "senior" MP in any party who criticises the party leader, in part out of hopes to score a more senior position for themselves.
I really want to better understand whether or not there's legitimate reason to believe that Corbyn is racist, and whether or not he'd make progress on dealing with some of the nation's problems. But you're not addressing those questions, I suspect it may be because there's not actually conclusive proof that he's racist; and that he would in fact improve things in the UK - but that would include using tax money from billionaires, such as the owners of this paper, so you want to keep him out.
I really want to better understand whether or not there's legitimate reason to believe that Corbyn is racist, and whether or not he'd make progress on dealing with some of the nation's problems. But you're not addressing those questions, I suspect it may be because there's not actually conclusive proof that he's racist; and that he would in fact improve things in the UK - but that would include using tax money from billionaires, such as the owners of this paper, so you want to keep him out.
They're taking the Mickey.
(sorry, that joke probably doesn't work on your side of the pond. And obviously it's a serious issue)
(sorry, that joke probably doesn't work on your side of the pond. And obviously it's a serious issue)
The Oscars itself is pretty stupid. But we derive some mild amusement out of the facade anyway - the new award will make the daft event slightly more entertaining to the public, and that's the justification for the event existing in the first place, so why complain?
I guess he feels upset about not being the most popular Oscar.
I guess he feels upset about not being the most popular Oscar.
To be genuinely Christian is, by defintion, to love Christ such that you commit to following Him - it's not a heritable trait.
And being Christian includes seeking justice for the oppressed..
And being Christian includes seeking justice for the oppressed..
Trump’s administration claims to follow Christian values, but the Bible makes it clear that God wants us to help refugees. Jesus is God our primary example of how God wants us to live – and He taught us that those in need, including those from opposing nations, are neighbours that we should help.
Well, Jesus was a man born in Africa, had two Fathers, and his family were refugees seeking asylum. He gave everything he had to the sick, the downtrodden, and those society rejected. Yet, his current day followers reject everything about how he lived his life, and they do it in his name.
Born in Africa? According to who? But otherwise, you're right about Him. However, it's not really true that His followers reject how He lived/what He taught - because by definition, people who reject His example/commands aren't following Him. There are plenty of people who call themselves Christians because they like the label, but they don't meet the definition if their hearts aren't dedicated to living for Jesus, which means a desire to emulate Him.
What makes this even more horrendous is that, had our Western nations not grossly taken advantage of Africa, Ebola couldn't spread as much as it does. There's far, far, far less healthcare and public information that could stop the spread of disease; and drugs companies haven't invested as much as they would have done (were it a disease affecting us privileged Westerners) into developing vaccinations and treatment. We forget how fortunate we are to have the healthcare infrastructure that do - but as imperfect (and I'm aware that it is very far from perfect - in part because of our culture) as our health services are, we're generally very fortunate. In Congo, the annual average expenditure on healthcare per person is $32 - less than 100th of the average$ on health per person in the UK (even more is spent on health per person, on average in the US - I'm well aware that this is not remotely fairly distributed)Were Ebola to be here, it would quickly be quarantined and drugs would have been developed to end it. I desperately hope that the current outbreak can be stopped ASAP.
Trump, allies use Mollie Tibbetts as rallying cry, but her family says stop
As for damnation: Revelation 20:10-15, Mark 16:16, and Mathew 25:41. I'll name more if necessary.
But, still, even your interpretation is a bit narcissistic: "If one doesn't love God, they won't be forced to spend eternity with Him" Again, Jews believe god shows himself, cleanses them of sin, and then allows them into the afterlife (Judaism doesn't bother to describe it. A good decision.). You're essentially saying just because you choose Jesus, due to the circumstances of life, you are due eternal life while a Buddhist girl in China who may have never heard of Jesus but observed an untimely death does not. That's what I'm getting.
Reading some of the comments on a Daily Express (here in the UK) post recently about Idris Elba becoming Bond, I'm even more certain that it should be him. I already thought that he should, since he's a great actor, but now additionally feel that he should for the sake of upsetting the racists who protest a black Bond.
Most of the money that's in our economy is the result of oppression. If hadn't been for centuries of injustice, with our ancestors and existing corporations taking from what are now the poorest countries, our economy wouldn't be what it is, we wouldn't have the money we do, and musicians wouldn't earn their millions. I think it's tragic that we so often forget what huge difference, £for£, we can make when we give to the most impoverished places.
This murder is an utter tragedy beyond words, obviously - but it mustn't be used as an argument against immigrants. There are many crimes that don't make the news, and statistically, immigrants, even illegal, are less likely to commit crime than US citizens - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
Almost all of America crime comes from drugs. Where do most of the drugs come from? Mexico!!! So who's to blame? The Mexican illegals. Don't see Canada illegals committing crimes...
The vast majority of people currently trying to cross the Southern border are doing so out of extreme desperation. If you had been threatened by murderous gangs, should you be prevented from fleeing to safety on the basis of the criminal acts of criminals who share your nationality?
I'm pretty sure that much of the outrage is in fact because Jamie Oliver has, for a while, been considered a jerk by many.
It's good for us to be concerned about people in other countries, who are far, far less privileged than us, being exploited - so why do we make fuss about appropriation and not about people actually suffering because of corporations grossly overworking and underpaying workers around the world who provide things that we consume?
It's good for us to be concerned about people in other countries, who are far, far less privileged than us, being exploited - so why do we make fuss about appropriation and not about people actually suffering because of corporations grossly overworking and underpaying workers around the world who provide things that we consume?
The abuse scandal is horrendous beyond words, obviously - but the majority of priests have nothing to do with it. Either way, attacking someone won't help children at all. If one cares about children, they should donate to children's charities (such as sponsoring a child in a developing country to protect them from being trafficked/forced into the sex trade).
But im sure they atleast knew about it. Im not saying what this man did was right but i can understand why he did it.
The Catholic Church is a huge, incredibly complex organisation - why would he have known? Or if he had, what could he have done? It would be like beating up a cop because some other cops are killers.
If i know that my fellow man has been interfearing with little kids i would report it to the police. I would fight for those kids. I would tell the community that pastor x is a child molestor. I would say something.
Of course, but if you've only heard rumours, would the police act?
My fiancee's family knows of one of the creeps in the church who ended up being transferred and we're in the Northwest. This is pervasive in every state and city in our nation. Until we hold every church accountable for the evils they produce, nothing will change. And it's not just Catholics, it's the evangelical youth pastors as well.Christianity is a cancer.
No, Christianity is to follow Christ. The cancer is perverts calling themselves Christians(attempting to gain respect) and not following Christ at all. And tragically, there are also serious sex abuse issues in sports clubs, schools, workplaces ....
If people actually endeavoured to genuinely emulate Christ, this issue would be addressed.
If people actually endeavoured to genuinely emulate Christ, this issue would be addressed.
Christianity is a cancer. It is a religion where if you ask for forgiveness, you go to heaven while all others, non-believing decent people, burn for eternity. Judaism didn't invent the concept of Hell, it is a Christ related idea. In Judaism, it's not whether you believe in a god that matters, it's whether you tried to be good and were able to empathize with your mistakes. You don't go to Hell when you die. Instead god just shows you why you were wrong and cleanses you of all the baggage. Again, after you've kicked the bucket.
The invention of eternal damnation via Christ and Christianity is the greatest plague ever brought onto our planet. It literally gives people a chance to feel superior for just believing in something rather than actually trying to be decent, loving people. The very thesis of Christianity is a sickening perversion for anyone who believes people can be rehabilitated.
The invention of eternal damnation via Christ and Christianity is the greatest plague ever brought onto our planet. It literally gives people a chance to feel superior for just believing in something rather than actually trying to be decent, loving people. The very thesis of Christianity is a sickening perversion for anyone who believes people can be rehabilitated.
No - because if a person truly believes and asks for forgiveness, they will genuinely desire to eschew sin. If they abuse others, they're demonstrating that they've not actually committed to following Jesus, and so contrary to your assertion, no, they aren't saved.
Also, can you clarify your reference to "eternal damnation"? If one doesn't love God, they won't be forced to spend eternity with Him - the idea that you suffer eternally isn't what the Bible says. Try this - http://www.patheos.com/.../25-bible-verses-that-disprove.../ and http://rethinkinghell.com/
Also, can you clarify your reference to "eternal damnation"? If one doesn't love God, they won't be forced to spend eternity with Him - the idea that you suffer eternally isn't what the Bible says. Try this - http://www.patheos.com/.../25-bible-verses-that-disprove.../ and http://rethinkinghell.com/
But, still, even your interpretation is a bit narcissistic: "If one doesn't love God, they won't be forced to spend eternity with Him" Again, Jews believe god shows himself, cleanses them of sin, and then allows them into the afterlife (Judaism doesn't bother to describe it. A good decision.). You're essentially saying just because you choose Jesus, due to the circumstances of life, you are due eternal life while a Buddhist girl in China who may have never heard of Jesus but observed an untimely death does not. That's what I'm getting.
Matthew 16:16 says nothing about people continuing in Hell forever. Nor does Matthew 25:41 - it says that the fire is eternal, but things thrown into a fire burn up and are gone (and that verse is part of a parable, so needs more detailed study - rather than being presumed to necessarily be entirely literal). John's vision in Reveations is almost impossible to draw conclusions from - it's symbolism that people have been debating throughout its history; but it says that the "beast"/devil/false prophet will be tormented for ever and ever, then fails to say that people will be tormented for ever and ever. It says that they will experience the 2nd death, and death means finality, termination, not continuation of a conscious experience. But did you even read the rticle I linked to? Try this - rethinkinghell.com/
And there's an array of different views amongst theologians about what happens to people who never hear about the Gospel - but there's no clear Biblical affirmation of your assumption that they'll all miss out as a result. Many believe that all children go straight to heaven, some believe that those who've never heard will be judged fairly on the basis of how they lived, some think that they'll be presented with the opportunity to choose to accept Jesus after death. It's an ongoing discussion amongst theologians, and because it's so impossible to know, I don't think it should be our focus. Our focus should be Christ - that He taught us how to live, and that He defeated death.
And there's an array of different views amongst theologians about what happens to people who never hear about the Gospel - but there's no clear Biblical affirmation of your assumption that they'll all miss out as a result. Many believe that all children go straight to heaven, some believe that those who've never heard will be judged fairly on the basis of how they lived, some think that they'll be presented with the opportunity to choose to accept Jesus after death. It's an ongoing discussion amongst theologians, and because it's so impossible to know, I don't think it should be our focus. Our focus should be Christ - that He taught us how to live, and that He defeated death.
Even Jesus said, "do not think I have come to bring peace, but the sword."
Jesus
reference to a sword wasn't literal. We use phrases like "to hammer the
point" "a nail in the coffin" "glued to my book" and so many more
(though they vary depending on country). Jesus was talking about the
distinction between choosing to follow
Him and not - many other teachings of His, as well as His life, make it
abundantly clear that He was opposed to violence.
Psalms are sometimes reflections on what God has communicated to David, but sometimes are essentially him (David) letting out his personal frustrations.
Psalms are sometimes reflections on what God has communicated to David, but sometimes are essentially him (David) letting out his personal frustrations.
Eating
all the junk food you can might appease indulgent natural instincts and
feel enjoyable, but we all know that it's actually detrimental to long
term well being. Why doesn't it occur to society (and outlets like Vice)
that the same principle applies to sex?
Playboy - and porn - obviously seem appealing to most people, but ultimately have done extreme damage to a lot of people's self image, health (physical and mental) and relationships. (One example of this being that Hugh Hefner became unable to get it up to real people, only to porn)
Playboy - and porn - obviously seem appealing to most people, but ultimately have done extreme damage to a lot of people's self image, health (physical and mental) and relationships. (One example of this being that Hugh Hefner became unable to get it up to real people, only to porn)
Biggest
star? According to who? No disrespect to Susannah, but I'm certain that
Lee Ryan and Kate Silverton will be equally familiar to audiences now;
and Stacey Dooley MBE is way, way more significant (having done serious
exposes on the world's biggest problems - incomparably more important
than clothes)
We should indeed be challenging racial inequality - but not by celebrating wealth inequality.
The Asian continent has many millions of people trapped in serious poverty, and/or in lives of horrendous exploitation in factories, sweatshops, fisheries etc, to provide the things we buy and take for granted. We should be far more concerned about helping them (through donations; and through campaigning to greedy corporations)
Films shouldn't celebrate extreme wealth - it makes us less likely to
enjoy what we have; it makes us less conscious of the reality that we're
in fact rich ourselves (though we're nowhere near a wealthy as these
characters, we're very wealthy compared to most of humanity) so we're
less likely to give; and it makes ridiculously rich people into heroes,
ignoring that they're choosing to ignore the starving people they could
help. (sorry for the rant!)The Asian continent has many millions of people trapped in serious poverty, and/or in lives of horrendous exploitation in factories, sweatshops, fisheries etc, to provide the things we buy and take for granted. We should be far more concerned about helping them (through donations; and through campaigning to greedy corporations)
Reading some of the comments on a Daily Express (here in the UK) post recently about Idris Elba becoming Bond, I'm even more certain that it should be him. I already thought that he should, since he's a great actor, but now additionally feel that he should for the sake of upsetting the racists who protest a black Bond.
Why
not and his "Bond Girl" love interest can be a tranny named Gonads
Aplenty. That should keep all you SJW PC millenials happy.
How can you possibly consider race and transexualism are comparable?
Proclaiming,
especially to children, the message that God is irrelevant because sex
is better* is not going to help anyone's mental health.
*her song GodIsAWoman
*her song GodIsAWoman
The
creator of the universe isn't gendered as human beings are, chromosomes
determine sex and chromosomes were created by God, therefore, God
precedes sex and gender.
Grande's song isn't about God at all, it's about thinking that sex with her is such an awesome experience that it surpasses the awesomeness of God. It's tragic.
Grande's song isn't about God at all, it's about thinking that sex with her is such an awesome experience that it surpasses the awesomeness of God. It's tragic.
Thankyou
for highlighting this. It's obviously right to be concerned about
injustice in one's own nation - but we should give more attention (than
we currently)those who aren't privileged enough to have been born into a
developed nation, and who are suffering beyond anything we can imagine
as a result of the Global injustice that's benefitted us.
He refused to make a cake celebrating gender transition, that's entirely different from refusing the person themselves.
Some people who claim to be Christian are bigotted unChristlike. But simply not affirming the decision (to have a sex change) doesn't necessarily prove bigotry.
If you believe thatGod exists, you believe that He knows better than we do what's best for us, even if we feel as though we know better. Children may feel that they know what's right for them; in fact their parent knows better. In a similar way, God knows better than we do what's right for us - but in fact, the gap between our knowledge and God's is manifold greater than the gap in knowledge between a parent and child; and God is not affected by the natural human flaws that affect parents. So when God gives a person a male body, He knows best that that's what's right for that person.
This baker was simply refusing to create something that celebrated rejecting God's plan, because He believes that God is wise and loving.
Some people who claim to be Christian are bigotted unChristlike. But simply not affirming the decision (to have a sex change) doesn't necessarily prove bigotry.
If you believe thatGod exists, you believe that He knows better than we do what's best for us, even if we feel as though we know better. Children may feel that they know what's right for them; in fact their parent knows better. In a similar way, God knows better than we do what's right for us - but in fact, the gap between our knowledge and God's is manifold greater than the gap in knowledge between a parent and child; and God is not affected by the natural human flaws that affect parents. So when God gives a person a male body, He knows best that that's what's right for that person.
This baker was simply refusing to create something that celebrated rejecting God's plan, because He believes that God is wise and loving.
But that thing that it's some of is rubber/plastic/silicone and lots of metal. It's not really someOne.
Pastafarian Woman Forbidden From Wearing Colander on Her Head in ID Photo
The
Flying Spaghetti Monster is a seriously flawed analogy, it demonstrates
fundamental ignorance (apologies, I'm not wanting to be argumentative)
of the philosophical arguments for theism.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/
Here's
the thing though, you're posting a link to a page with the word
'arguments' in it's title. i think that might be a smidge argumentative.
what IS your intention? Ahhhh
you're into the invisible sky dude with the burning shrubbery and the
sexy virgin and the zombie spirit. fair enough. carry on.
Did you read the article?
Who's misled you into thinking that Christianity is about an "invisible sky dude with the burning shrubbery and the sexy virgin and the zombie spirit"?
Who's misled you into thinking that Christianity is about an "invisible sky dude with the burning shrubbery and the sexy virgin and the zombie spirit"?
"Brit holiday hotspot"? What the frack is wrong with you? What matters is whether people there have had their homes damaged.
If
God exists, He is infinitely wiser and more fascinating than any
presenter. If there is life beyond this one, discussing the way there is
more important than John Humphrey's personal opinions. Faith - genuine
faith, as opposed to claiming religion as an excuse for acting on one's
own greed - has brought more joy to humanity than anything else.
What do you think are the chances that a god does exist?
Based
on reasoning from science, philosophy and history I'm certain He does,
though I can't get my head around Him. How much have you investigated?
slavery is condone in the Bible, that alone has created more suffering than any comfort it has given people.
Slavery existed in the period of history in which the Bible was
written, why do you think that that means that you can blame the Bible
for slavery? Try this - https://www.christiancourier.com/.../800-what-about-the...
Jesus
said that we must treat others as we would like to be treated. That
overrules slavery. And the OT doesn't institute slavery
Science is the study of observable fact,
Which therefor renders God non existent.
Science and religion cannot mix even with a swizzle stick or magic bullit.
Which therefor renders God non existent.
Science and religion cannot mix even with a swizzle stick or magic bullit.
Why on Earth does the fact that science can't measure God mean that He doesn't exist?
Science can only measure the matter/energy that our universe is comprised of - but God created the universe, He's not comprised of its substance. If you actually study science, you see that there too many, too perfect coincidences for it to have come about by chance. I started to feel that it was possible that God exists while studying the molecular processes of photosynthesis, but there are endlessly more interworking mechanisms in biology and the wider universe that suggest design rather than unguided evolution alone (NB, obviously I'm not denying micro evolution, even if macroevolution is true, it requires in put from a designer to have brought about the biological world in the 4billion years that Earth has existed for). Most crucial, for me personally, is the precision of the parameters of the universe, that render the probability against it too overwhelming for it to not have been deliberately created.
Science can only measure the matter/energy that our universe is comprised of - but God created the universe, He's not comprised of its substance. If you actually study science, you see that there too many, too perfect coincidences for it to have come about by chance. I started to feel that it was possible that God exists while studying the molecular processes of photosynthesis, but there are endlessly more interworking mechanisms in biology and the wider universe that suggest design rather than unguided evolution alone (NB, obviously I'm not denying micro evolution, even if macroevolution is true, it requires in put from a designer to have brought about the biological world in the 4billion years that Earth has existed for). Most crucial, for me personally, is the precision of the parameters of the universe, that render the probability against it too overwhelming for it to not have been deliberately created.
Obviously
that's incredibly awesome - I just wonder why not use that money to
fund schooling for kids in developing countries(?). It costs around £100
annually -- so many, many kids could have their lives could have their
lives completely transformed with that money, and be able to help their
families and communities. Sorry, I'm really, really not trying to be
critical - I just passionately believe that kids in impoverished parts
of the world are just as deserving as we (British) are. And I love that
£for£, donations to the poorest parts of the world, esp. for education,
make such an amazing difference. WE can change lives ourselves
It's his money. And for all you know he also donates in that way. Next time try a bit harder not to be critical.
I'm not being critical. As I said, it's great that Stomzy's
doing this, and he's the best thing to happen to British music in my
lifetime; I just think it's tragic how easily we forget the potential we
have to transform lives by supporting education in the most
impoverished places.Most of the money that's in our economy is the result of oppression. If hadn't been for centuries of injustice, with our ancestors and existing corporations taking from what are now the poorest countries, our economy wouldn't be what it is, we wouldn't have the money we do, and musicians wouldn't earn their millions. I think it's tragic that we so often forget what huge difference, £for£, we can make when we give to the most impoverished places.
Just
to play devil's advocate: we have adults and children here in the UK
dying of poverty because of Conservative austerity. Should be not be
putting our own house in order before attempting to do it to someone
else's?
I agree that the Tories are evil; but we still have an NHS, welfare
state, schooling for everyone to the age of 18, and many other things
that people in developing countries could only dream of.
Most of the money that's in our economy is the result of oppression. If hadn't been for centuries of injustice, with our ancestors and existing corporations taking from what are now the poorest countries, our economy wouldn't be what it is, we wouldn't have the money we do, and musicians wouldn't earn their millions. As I said, it's great that Stomzy's doing this, and he's the best thing to happen to British music in my lifetime; I just think it's tragic how easily we forget the potential we have to improve lives by supporting education in the most impoverished places. £for£, the difference that can be made is amazing - we, not only millionaires like Stomzy, can transform futures.
Most of the money that's in our economy is the result of oppression. If hadn't been for centuries of injustice, with our ancestors and existing corporations taking from what are now the poorest countries, our economy wouldn't be what it is, we wouldn't have the money we do, and musicians wouldn't earn their millions. As I said, it's great that Stomzy's doing this, and he's the best thing to happen to British music in my lifetime; I just think it's tragic how easily we forget the potential we have to improve lives by supporting education in the most impoverished places. £for£, the difference that can be made is amazing - we, not only millionaires like Stomzy, can transform futures.
Why not fund your own donations instead of questioning his? Armchair pedants...
I do, obviously. The point of my comment was to remind people that we
can make a difference. It would be indescribably awesome to have the
money that Stormzy does to sponsor hundreds of kids - but I'll keep
sponsoring the few that I can.
Hate
to put a spanner in your works. But we need to sort education for kids
in the UK before other countries. Get your house in order first and then
you can show the others how it's done.
Why?
It doesn't work like that, Britain has been one of the wealthiest
nations on Earth for centuries, mostly because of having taken from
others. The sooner more kids in developing countries receive education,
the sooner they'll be able to help others around them who are suffering
unimaginably because of poverty, and their countries will be gradually,
permanently helped.
You've
so stuck in the past. How can you help other countries when there is
more children in poverty in the UK than ever now. Like I said in my
first comment get your house in order first than you can show others the
way. You need to look at these so
called developing countries and see how giving money is a waste of time.
Look at Africa for example how much money has been thrown there and
little it has changed. Now don't think I'm a selfish
person for thinking this, but history shows that money isn't just the
answer. The more children we educate in this country than eventually the
more adults can help others in the poorest countries.
"The
more children we educate in this country than eventually, the more
adults can help other in the poorest countries."? Why? Hardly any young
people here end up working to help people in developing countries.
We need to educate more children in other countries so they can help themselves- and their communities.
We need to educate more children in other countries so they can help themselves- and their communities.
But
surely than that's other countries leaders to help educate their own
isn't it. The days of financial help are over, this country spends more
than enough in foreign aid and look at the mess this country is in at
the moment. Hate to say it but charity begins at home.But then if stopped wasting money bombing foreign countries like we have since 9/11. We'd have more than enough money spare eh.
"charity
begins at home"? I hear that all the time, but it's meaningless, not
any sort of fact. It's an excuse people use not to give to people
elsewhere.
Here, we have an NHS, welfare state, schooling for everyone to the age of 18, and many other things that people in developing countries could only dream of.
Why should their leaders fix it, given that most of the money that's in our economy is the result of oppression of those nations? If hadn't been for centuries of injustice, with our ancestors and existing corporations taking from what are now the poorest countries, our economy wouldn't be what it is, we wouldn't have the money we do, and musicians wouldn't earn their millions.
Leaders in developing countries don't have the resources or stability to simply resolve their nations' issues. Some (of those leaders) are corrupt - but that's not the fault of the citizens.
As I said, it's great that Stomzy's doing this, and he's the best thing to happen to British music in my lifetime; I just think it's tragic how easily we forget the potential we have to improve lives by supporting education in the most impoverished places. £for£, the difference that can be made is amazing - we, not only millionaires like Stomzy, can transform futures.
Here, we have an NHS, welfare state, schooling for everyone to the age of 18, and many other things that people in developing countries could only dream of.
Why should their leaders fix it, given that most of the money that's in our economy is the result of oppression of those nations? If hadn't been for centuries of injustice, with our ancestors and existing corporations taking from what are now the poorest countries, our economy wouldn't be what it is, we wouldn't have the money we do, and musicians wouldn't earn their millions.
Leaders in developing countries don't have the resources or stability to simply resolve their nations' issues. Some (of those leaders) are corrupt - but that's not the fault of the citizens.
As I said, it's great that Stomzy's doing this, and he's the best thing to happen to British music in my lifetime; I just think it's tragic how easily we forget the potential we have to improve lives by supporting education in the most impoverished places. £for£, the difference that can be made is amazing - we, not only millionaires like Stomzy, can transform futures.
Racism
is the oppression of the minority, by the majority and the belief that
ones own race, etc is superior. It's his money, not yours. Let him do
what he wants with it
He
can (do what he wants with it). But most of the money that's in our
economy is the result of oppression. If hadn't been for centuries of
injustice, with our ancestors and existing corporations taking from what
are now the poorest countries, our economy wouldn't be what it is, we wouldn't have the money we do, and musicians wouldn't earn their millions.
Seriously, it's great that Stomzy's doing this, and he's the best thing to happen to British music in my lifetime; I just think it's tragic how easily we forget the potential we have to transform lives by supporting education in the most impoverished places.
Seriously, it's great that Stomzy's doing this, and he's the best thing to happen to British music in my lifetime; I just think it's tragic how easily we forget the potential we have to transform lives by supporting education in the most impoverished places.
It
happens all the time, but I need to say - I am SICK TO DEATH of white
supremacists using the cross (as in the background of the photo above).
Obviously, white supremacy itself is enough to be furious about - but
the cross ended up as a symbol in our culture because Jesus allowed
Himself to be killed on one, with all of our sin heaped upon Him. It was
the ultimate act of putting others first, the antithesis of what white
supremacists stand for.
Revelation of a Liverpool Soccer Fan
But historically, the main institutions and values that we still deem good were derived from the actual teachings of Jesus. Secularism teaches that all human beings are only chance masses of molecules; no God sees what we do; and there's nothing beyond this life. Thus, though indeed many atheists are awesome people (in part because of the influence of Christianity of our society's values), gradually fewer and fewer of us feel that we should care for and respect others.
I'm certainly not claiming that Christians are by any means superior in moral standards - but when people actually do try to follow Jesus, it means that society has more compassion. That trying to follow Jesus is no longer considered something to aim for is why nationalists - who use "Christian" as a badge that they feel proud of - simply follow their selfish primitive instincts.
No,
seriously, it's football. If you're going to discuss British fans of a
British sports team, playing a sport that began in Britain, it's just
illogical and arrogant to rename it to sound Amerian. Note - it is, in
fact, a ball game using feet, hence Football, in case you'd not
realised; and the team plays within a league of the FA (football
association) not SA.
(NB - I know that this doesn't actually matter at all - in fact, nor does professional sport, I'm just feeling pedantic)
(NB - I know that this doesn't actually matter at all - in fact, nor does professional sport, I'm just feeling pedantic)
Evangelical purity culture taught me to rationalize my sexual assault. Then I discovered #ChurchToo.
This
is not "evangelical culture". Evangelical, by definition, is to want to
make Christ known. Anyone can say that they're an evangelical, or
generally, a Christian; but not actually be trying to follow Jesus. What
you decide about Jesus could be more important than any other decision
you ever make; so assess Him, don't let hypocrites (Jesus constantly
reprimanded hypocrites) determine your choice.
That's
Udder-standable. Though I do find the trend slightly a-Moosing, since
I've Herd that many milk-alternative products are bought by people with
no intolerances.
Your
god, according to the bible, killed the population of an entire planet
with a flood, yet you expect us to find him a loving god, you and your
god can sod off.
How
much have you studied the flood? It requires a lot of serious
examination of context, but ultimately, extreme evil had spread
throughout humanity. If you were God and humanity had become engulfed by
rape and child sacrifice (which is what was going on in Noah's time) what would you do?
Crucially, God can take people straight to heaven; so if any innocent people died, their time living on Earth amongst barbarism would have been shortened by the flood and they'd have gone straight to somewhere better.
Christianity is to follow Jesus, who demonstrated how God wants us to treat others outside of the specific, complex situations of the OT.
Crucially, God can take people straight to heaven; so if any innocent people died, their time living on Earth amongst barbarism would have been shortened by the flood and they'd have gone straight to somewhere better.
Christianity is to follow Jesus, who demonstrated how God wants us to treat others outside of the specific, complex situations of the OT.
I'm surprised there's been so much opposition to the Space Force. Surely people want to sen Trump into orbit?
I
weep for my generation. Wanting to feel something shouldn't be the
basis of what we deem true. Why on Earth wouldTarot cards and horoscopes
be thought to have any relation to who we are, or what happens to us,
at all? Other than that one might concede supernatural power might work
through them - but in that case, why on Earth would you presume that
supernatural power to be safe?
There are an array of historical, scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of God (eg. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning ), that we should each weigh up for ourselves to reach our own conclusions - but I've never seen anyone present any explanation for believing in Tarot. Will anyone enlighten me?
There are an array of historical, scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of God (eg. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning ), that we should each weigh up for ourselves to reach our own conclusions - but I've never seen anyone present any explanation for believing in Tarot. Will anyone enlighten me?
there
may be a variety of historical, scientific and philosophical arguments
for the existence of God/s but religion is just a belief, no different
to you believing in your religion which in effect is a belief in
Supernatural powers....... I really don't get your argument here?
As I said, there's scientific reasoning to support the
existence of God - but there's no scientific reasoning to support the
authenticity of Tarot. There's a historical case to be made that God
manifest Himself in Christ, but I'm unaware of any historical rationale
of believing Tarot to be real.
If one concedes that supernatural power might work through this, why presume that supernatural power to be safe?
There are an array of historical, scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of God (eg. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
There are an array of historical, scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of God (eg. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
Obviously,
BoJo's comments were unnecessarily unpleasant; but it's really sad is
that any woman would think that God would want her to hide herself
entirely. Bullying
of women in Muslim dress is vile - tragically it's been festering for
far longer than Boris's career. Secularism is eroding respect for common
humanity. Also,
it never ceases to baffle me that people presume others to all fit into
a tiny number of categories by which they can be accurately pre-judged -
so, in this case, some people presume that because a person fits into
the category of Muslim they are somehow
closely linked to all other Muslims. Is it not obvious that a Muslim
woman that one sees in the street can't be presumed to be in agreement
at all with extremists?
I think it's really sad that anyone would chose to conform to any demands made by fictitious novels.
You've not studied apologetics much, have you?
This
thread is an example of what Johnson is trying to achieve by conning
voters - "yeah but religion though..". With one comment he's got people
like you apologising for him even though you claim that the initial
comments were "unpleasant". You're being played.
What does not religion have to do with my comment?
I'm not apologising for him, and I'm not being played because I'll never vote Tory.
I'm not apologising for him, and I'm not being played because I'll never vote Tory.
It’s
not really about if you think the burka should be banned or not, is it?
He could have made exactly the same point without the ‘letterbox’ etc.
comments-he’s using it to his own advantage just like how he always
mentions the ‘Union jack’???? I was reading
comments from JRM and Farage both of them had to include the ‘this
country used to believe in free speech’ line to feed the ‘this country
is going to the dogs and isn’t how it was in my day’ mentality - they
obviously don’t listen to LBC!
"JRM and Farage obviously don’t listen to LBC"?
Surely you're aware that they both have presenting slots on it? I've
spoken to Farage 5 times (to challenge him, not to agree with him,
obviously)
Yeah, the secularism of ultracatholic Rees-Mogg and Tommy "Christian country" Robinson. Sigh.
People
frequently use the label of Chritsianity whilst having no desire to
actually follow Christ at all. When Tommy Robinson, Britain First and
others bully Muslims, they're entirely ignoring how Jesus taught us to
treat others. But historically, the main institutions and values that we still deem good were derived from the actual teachings of Jesus. Secularism teaches that all human beings are only chance masses of molecules; no God sees what we do; and there's nothing beyond this life. Thus, though indeed many atheists are awesome people (in part because of the influence of Christianity of our society's values), gradually fewer and fewer of us feel that we should care for and respect others.
I'm certainly not claiming that Christians are by any means superior in moral standards - but when people actually do try to follow Jesus, it means that society has more compassion. That trying to follow Jesus is no longer considered something to aim for is why nationalists - who use "Christian" as a badge that they feel proud of - simply follow their selfish primitive instincts.
It’s your opinion that his comments were unpleasant. Is your opinion gospel?
Ooh, interesting question - off topic, but since you mentioned it, what do you personally mean by Gospel?
Boris
Ponson's comments were unpleasant, Boris Ponson himself is unpleasant
and Tories / Blairites are all unpleasant full stop. Oh, and that most
definitely is 'Gospel'.
I
agree that they're unpleasant; but he idiom "Gospel truth" which you're
shortening to Gospel, originates from the Biblical use of the word. The
Biblical use of the word is derived from good news (unpleasantness is
not good news) and refers to the fact the Jesus died in our place,
making it possible for us to have eternal life (heaven) though we don't
deserve it.
Wizards are figments of the imagination.
When did I mention wizards?
You
mentioned one that lives in the sky, all the abrahimic wizards are the
same fictional sky wizard. What makes you think your imaginary wizard
cares what people wear?
No,
I mentioned God, though I was well aware of what you meant. God and
wizards have distinctly different definitions, but please do tell me how
you define each so that I can understand why you think as you do.
What about veiled nuns? Is that ok?
I
didn't say that Niqabs are not OK, in the sense that they should be
banned. Nuns dress as they do because of their chosen profession (most
people wear clothes specific for their profession). And they're very
rarely covering their necks, and never their faces.
How do you know that no one is forced to wear the Hijab? It's been the law to do so in some Middle Eastern countries, and some men feel it right to force women to do so here in the West too. Indeed many who wear the Hijab do so by choice - but not all. Amongst those who "choose" to, some make that choice due to misinformation and pressure.
What should be a priority, as well as fighting discrimination and urging more civility from people like BoJo, is to explain the evidence for God and His guidelines, so that people can make decisions about how they think He wants them to follow Him themselves.
How do you know that no one is forced to wear the Hijab? It's been the law to do so in some Middle Eastern countries, and some men feel it right to force women to do so here in the West too. Indeed many who wear the Hijab do so by choice - but not all. Amongst those who "choose" to, some make that choice due to misinformation and pressure.
What should be a priority, as well as fighting discrimination and urging more civility from people like BoJo, is to explain the evidence for God and His guidelines, so that people can make decisions about how they think He wants them to follow Him themselves.
It's
disturbing that Vice feels the need to attempt to enforce cultural
expectations on peoples' personal desires. Why should people be made to
want something that doesn't come naturally to them? In case you didn't
know, sex is not at all necessary for a fulfilled life. Presuming that
not being up for it is a problem that needs fixing is absurdly
totalitarian.
No,
they should do things that help humanity, and the recreational
activities that they most enjoy, not the recreational activity someone
dictates for them.
I really feel that there should be serious state support for linking
people to work that they're best suited to; and configuring the use of
technology to reduce the time people need to spend at work to have what
they need. It makes no sense that there are simultaneously concerns
about machines taking jobs, and countless people over worked and
depressed in what they do. The career
market that everyone needs to be part of uses too many hours providing
things that we don't need, but have been conned by capitalism into
thinking that we need, and wages are disgustingly disparate. Thus
humanity's labour ultimately provides a lot that's pointless for the
wealthiest; whilst increasingly many people work hard but struggle to
have what they actually need. It's far worse Globally, of course.
What if, for example, cotton pickers in developing countries were enabled to use their labour to produce what they actually need, rather than having no option other than work 12 hours daily harvesting cotton used for our disposable fashion wardrobe updates?
What if, for example, cotton pickers in developing countries were enabled to use their labour to produce what they actually need, rather than having no option other than work 12 hours daily harvesting cotton used for our disposable fashion wardrobe updates?
The Cutest Hijabi Dolls To Inspire Young Muslim Girls
don’t believe in god it’s a fairytale
But
so many working families have such low salaries that the number of
children growing up in poverty in working households is set to be 1
million (+50%) higher this year than in 2010. So you've put 1miilliion
more children into poverty, and they get less time with their parents. https://www.tuc.org.uk/.../child-poverty-working...
Nonsense....the national minimum wage and the living wage have risen. The tax threshold has risen from £5225 in 2008 to £11850.
The living wage is only a guideline, and even the minimum wage is ignored by some employers. Additionally, many people are now reliant on unstable gig economy jobs.
Even if someone consistently receives the whole minimum wage, they'll struggle financially once they've paid rent. 35 hours x £7.38 = £258.30 per week - most London rentals cost more than that, and we've not even considered childcare, food and other costs.
The Best Trick to Stop Yourself From Buying Something You Don't Need
Remember that the vast majority of humanity is far, far, far less privileged. We can do genuinely exciting things with our money if we resist the corporations trying to con us into spending unnecessarily and instead use our money to help the very poorest people. EG. 10NewZealandDollars (6.75USD) would be enough to buy sandals or a school bag for a child recovering from leprosy https://leprosymission.org.nz/
But not long ago, people were criticising an advertising campaign
showing a Muslim girl in a Hijab because they're meant to cover up
potentially lust-inducing hair on women, and putting them on children
was deemed to be sexualising them. And now the same demographic want us
to celebrate hijabs on children? I want to better understand other
cultures, but I'm confused...
For
a lot of Muslim women, wearing the hijab is simply an outward sign of
their religion, like a Christian woman wearing a cross necklace.
Nothing confusing about this. There are black dolls, Asian dolls,
Hispanic dolls, disabled dolls. This is just a doll that Muslims girls
can identify with.
It's not really like wearing a cross, the meaning is entirely different.
Why is the meaning different, Grace? As I said, many Muslim women wear
the hijab as an outward sign of their religion. Why is that different
than Christian women (and men) wearing a cross?
The purpose of the Hijab is to reduce presumed risk that a
woman's hair will induce lust. Wearing a cross is recognition that we
are offered salvation (forgiveness for things that we've done wrong, and
a way to eternal life/heaven) through what Jesus did (taking our sin
upon Himself on the cross)
Whilst around 15000 other children will die today from preventable, poverty related causes. Vile.
How
do you define moral? There's no dilemma here, it's just wrong, but Vice
frequently makes it clear that it intends to overturn morality.
Why put a rainbow flag on a crucifix?
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.
Where is the sin in being gay ????
What did I say was sin? We all sin. Gay sex is one of the sins that some people choose to carry out - simply being gay in terms of orientation is not sinful at all, only chosen actions. I'm straight and choose not to have sex; but I need to focus on asking God's forgiveness for, and help with tackling other sin. I desperately wish, more than I have words for, that everyone knew that God hates their sin but loves THEM. |
Then why did you ask about sin?
Why do you think "it's a fairytale"? Check out this, for example, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
Why do you think "it's a fairytale"? Check out this, for example, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
It's
right to apologise for un-Christlike actions, but not to overrule God's
teaching by affirming behaviours that He's prohibitted.
Why
call them Christian? Anyone can call themselves anything, it doesn't
mean that they are. To be Christian is to follow Christ, and if one
does, one's heart is gradually changed, whilst one also wants to act
more as Jesus did. A person genuinely following Jesus wouldn't do this^,
because He told us constantly to treat others as we would want to be
treated, as well as demonstrating huge compassion for children.
Because they call themselves Christian and this rejection of medicine is common to more than one Christian group.
Like I said, what a person calls themselves isn't what matters. I could say I'm a football fan, would you accept that I am therefore a football fan even though I nevere watch nor play it? I could say that I'm a Tory, would you accept that I am therefore a Tory even though I only vote Labour?
Tragically, we - seeing news stories like this - can't do anything now to help; but wha each person decides about Christ really matters.
Err..probably because he explicitly said he was and that was one of his primary reasons. And that's why the coverage says "extremist". It literally matters quite a bit in this case. What you're suggesting would only be relevant if he was actually non-Christian
Are you still not understanding my point? The couple are not following Christ.
Because they call themselves Christian and this rejection of medicine is common to more than one Christian group.
Like I said, what a person calls themselves isn't what matters. I could say I'm a football fan, would you accept that I am therefore a football fan even though I nevere watch nor play it? I could say that I'm a Tory, would you accept that I am therefore a Tory even though I only vote Labour?
Tragically, we - seeing news stories like this - can't do anything now to help; but wha each person decides about Christ really matters.
Err..probably because he explicitly said he was and that was one of his primary reasons. And that's why the coverage says "extremist". It literally matters quite a bit in this case. What you're suggesting would only be relevant if he was actually non-Christian
Are you still not understanding my point? The couple are not following Christ.
Nonsense....the national minimum wage and the living wage have risen. The tax threshold has risen from £5225 in 2008 to £11850.
The living wage is only a guideline, and even the minimum wage is ignored by some employers. Additionally, many people are now reliant on unstable gig economy jobs.
Even if someone consistently receives the whole minimum wage, they'll struggle financially once they've paid rent. 35 hours x £7.38 = £258.30 per week - most London rentals cost more than that, and we've not even considered childcare, food and other costs.
The Best Trick to Stop Yourself From Buying Something You Don't Need
Remember that the vast majority of humanity is far, far, far less privileged. We can do genuinely exciting things with our money if we resist the corporations trying to con us into spending unnecessarily and instead use our money to help the very poorest people. EG. 10NewZealandDollars (6.75USD) would be enough to buy sandals or a school bag for a child recovering from leprosy https://leprosymission.org.nz/
No comments:
Post a Comment