Activist Fired for Kicking Woman at Anti-abortion Protest
These same anti-abortion protestors would blow up Planned Parenthood clinics if they had the inclination, so this guy was actually performing a civic duty.
"These
same anti-abortion protesters"? According to what evidence? Just
because they're opposed to abortion doesn't in any way prove that
they'd support the extremist behaviour that entirely separate
individuals have carried out
0-3 months of pregnancy its called an embryo " body of cells " not even a fetus and definitely not a humanWhat biology have you done? Of course it's a human.
We're
incredibly privileged - if we progress towards this happening, wee'll
have plenty of warning and support for relocating. In other places, such
as parts of India, people have lost everything - including loved ones -
to flooding, and have none of the infrastrcture or insurance they need
to rebuild their lives.
Emily Ratajkowski arrested as thousands rally against Brett Kavanaugh
Obviously, nothing ever justifies abuse, but this
is ironic. She became famous for appearing in a music video all about
men presuming that they could treat women as sex objects without
consent.
How the Pro-Abortion Left Targets Africa: Obianuju Ekeocha
Of
course - but what I don't get is why there's also substantial
opposition to contraception (from many pro-lifers). Yes we must, must
oppose abortion, but nothing about morality or God's guidance opposes
contraception. Plenty of African mothers struggle horrifically with
constant pregnancies and with caring for huge numbers of children - and
their children suffer as a result. We should be supporting
contraception, whilst, obviously, urging abstinence first and foremost.
Fascinating.
"Awful"? I agree - but is it not the norm in our society now to think
that a foetus is unimportant? Abortion is deemed a moral right, and it
sickens me.
NB - I'm certainly not judging whoever the mother of this tiny deceased human is, obviously I don't know her story and whether this was a miscarriage - I was commenting on the confused attitudes in our society towards tiny developing humans.
NB - I'm certainly not judging whoever the mother of this tiny deceased human is, obviously I don't know her story and whether this was a miscarriage - I was commenting on the confused attitudes in our society towards tiny developing humans.
Given that she's been an advocate for World Vision USA,
I imagine she'd rather that you gave some attention to the people who
are so poor that they live in rags, rather than constantly obsessing
over what she's wearing.
Her money she can spend it as she please
more
generally - yes wealthy people can spend their money how they choose -
but that doesn't make it OK. We are wealthy compared to most of
humanity, because of injustices that have made our nation rich at the
expense of others. I don't think it's OK for someone to spend
excessively on unnecessary things -like designer clothes- when innocent
people are starving through no fault of their own.Her money she can spend it as she please
so if you don’t like it how they spend there money what are you going to do about the problem with the poor, she works for her money she can spend it on unnecessary things she not bothered!
Though we're poor compared to royals, we're wealthier than most of humanity by luck. So I get frustrated by news stories about outfits when we could actually transform lives if more coverage was given to those who are less privileged.
You asked what I'm doing, which was never the point of this discussion. Obviously, I sponsor children and give as much as I can in extra donations to charities working in developing countries by minimising spending on myself, but I'm not doing enough, I'm desperate to do more.
Ex 21:20 If a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the slave gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property. In other words under Mosaic law, it's a-Ok to give them a darn good beating just as long as you make sure they can get up after a day or so. Ooh, fun. How far would you go? Don't be shy, get creative now.
It doesn't say that a darn good beating is a-OK. It says that they won't be punished, that isn't the same thing at all. God will still hold them responsible. In a society where it would have been normal and accepted masters to kill their slaves, God was gradually moving His people towards a better cultural moral code. And ultimately, Jesus demonstrated God's true expectation for our behaviour - in this case, the Mosaic law is rendered void by Jesus' command to treat others as we would like to be treated.
We can make an enormous difference - because £for£, money spent efficiently by credible charities working in developng countries does many times as much as it ever can if we spend it here. Sponsooring a child costs us 1 meal out per month, and can entirely transform a life.
Why? You say that you're a Christian, which by definition means
believing that God knows what's best for humanity (better than we do) -
so why support people defiantly protesting God's guidance?
Getting married was a possibility for everyone - the reason that people wouldn't marry their partner is hatred of Christian tradition, or God Himself. This largely because their opinion has been informed by un-Christlike people claiming to be Christians, rather than assessment of Christ. Whilst they have every right to that hatred, if you - Theresa May - believed in God, you would think it tragic that they do. So why boast about this?
Traditional marriage is not for everyone and not believing in a mythical deity is a good reason to form a legal partnership outside of religion.
Getting married was a possibility for everyone - the reason that people wouldn't marry their partner is hatred of Christian tradition, or God Himself. This largely because their opinion has been informed by un-Christlike people claiming to be Christians, rather than assessment of Christ. Whilst they have every right to that hatred, if you - Theresa May - believed in God, you would think it tragic that they do. So why boast about this?
Traditional marriage is not for everyone and not believing in a mythical deity is a good reason to form a legal partnership outside of religion.
Christianity isn't believing in a mythical deity - how
exactly have you reached that conclusion? How much have you investigated
the scientific and philosophical reasoning supporting theism?
We seriously need to tackle actual homophobia - and lumping Christian belief together with bigotry, when they're not the same thing at all, isn't helpful.
But
a stall at a Freshers' fair endorsing sex work will increase the
likelihood of more getting involved with it. There's serious risk to
their mental and physical health, as well as to their relationships, and
risk of violence, rape and blackmail. It's disgustingly unethical that
this stall happened. Indeed support should be offered - but not in such a
public setting that more vulnerable individuals are lured into starting
sex work.
It wasn’t endorsing it. It was giving the freshers advice about safety if they went into that line of work.
Of course it's endorsing it. And why have you both missed my point? I'm well aware that some people will take part in sex work anyway, but this stall will have massively increased the likelihood of more people starting it. It's cruelly forcing young adults into a horrific decision that many would have been free of previously. And it's giving the impression that sex work is far safer than it actually is. It will also serve as an advert to potential buyers, prompting more (mostly)guys to consider buying sex than would otherwise have done so. They too will be at serious risk of psychocological and and physical harm, and are being encouraged to think of women as sex objects for their purchase.
Protesters marched in favor of open carry rights
Tragic. So many problems in our world - and some people want to spend their time and energy defending the right to carry killing machines.
or killing babies
Are you honestly telling me off over abortion on the basis that I hate guns? Where is the logic in that? I'm absolutely anti-abortion. Not everyone fits into either a left or right box.
Come Take Em! - Weak willed, reality fearing, degenerates. Please don’t reproduce! For the love of humanity, society, Mother Nature, intellectual honesty and common sense please fight the urge to breed! Dangerously degenerate and far from reality u r! Breed u must not!
How exactly have I demonstrated being "degenerate"? And why do you assume that I have an urge to reproduce? I'm mildly anorexic - and my weight is too low for me to have periods, so don't worry, I won't be reproducing.
Yeah. Like cars, knives, pressure cookers, and airplanes. How dare people want to defend their RIGHT to defend themselves? Such a shame. A shame you are such an idiot.
Cars, knives, cookers etc all have a very beneficial function. Guns are designed entirely to maim and kill. How exactly am I an idiot?
Absolutely! Those killing machines are the very reason you’re even alive to whine!
LOL, how exactly am I alive because of guns? Seriously, you're really going to have to justify that.
Grace Dalton fits the stereotype >> the people most outwardly appealing are typically the dumbest ! The fact she doesn't or can't understand the comparison between a 2 ton SUV mishandled & a live firearm mishandled just shows how badly critical comprehension skills are needed in UK schools. #WhenSocialismFails
Of course I understand that a car is also dangerous, but as I already said, it's not comparable to a gun because it is designed for an entirely different purpose. A person who uses a car is not doing so with the same thoughts and intentions as a person with a gun.
Seriously, would you clarify how exactly I've demonstrated stupidity, as distinct from not agreeing with you?
It's hilarious that you think Britain is socialist.
"think Britain is socialist" ??? First off the healthcare system you morons have is characteristically socialist --- picking who lives and who dies based on how demanding their medical needs are. Secondly, in parliament...you have the UK "Labor party" --- Historically, every group that labeled itself a "labor party" has been socialist in nature, if not outright communist. Let's not even get into the firearm prohibitions on law abiding civilians
The Labour party aren't in power - unfortunately - so how can you consider them proof that the UK is socialist? The NHS doesn't "pick who lives and dies" - the fact that not everyone can be saved from disease doesn't mean that the UK is socialist - and how are we "morons"? How is the NHS moroic when it's far more cost efficient than your health system? How is it moronic for people to have healthcare offered regardles of their luck in life? And why is it sociialist to ban firearms? It's common sense. I find it hilarious that you think that people should have a right to have guns.
Grace Dalton you’re not to bright
You say whilst using "to" instead of "too".....
it’s a simple mistake. GRAMMER POLICE
😂😂 Take a look at what you just wrote.. 
👏👏I know that we all - myself included - make grammar mistakes; but I don't do it whilst telling people that they're unintelligent (as you did). What do I need to "Take a look at" from what I wrote?
Kavanaugh has revealed the insidious force in global politics: toxic masculinity
I'm
not sure. Many masculine people aren't toxic, and we females can
harbour toxic attitudes ourselves. Men have had more power throughout
human history, so we now see more men with harmful attitudes in
positions of power, but that doesn't necessarily mean that masculinity
is the problem. Sexual aggression is a problem. Selfishness is a
problem. Arrogance is a problem. Each human being is flawed and can
choose to indulge their natural greed or seek to develop more compassion
and empathy. I think that turning everything into identity politics
does more harm than good.
Masculinity isn't the issue. TOXIC masculinity meaning among other things misogyny and rape culture is the issue
No
one's disagreeing that misogyny and rape culture are evils that need
addressing - but too often I see males as a group demonised for these
things when most aren't guilty of them.
The picture shows Trump and BoJo, who are most dangerous because of their lack of concern for the underprivileged, as opposed to any trait that's specifically masculine.
Kavanaugh's case is primarily about politics, and about how the truth of long past events can be discerned, toxic masculinity isn't primary reason that so many people feel so strongly about whether or not he gets a SCOTUS seat.
The picture shows Trump and BoJo, who are most dangerous because of their lack of concern for the underprivileged, as opposed to any trait that's specifically masculine.
Kavanaugh's case is primarily about politics, and about how the truth of long past events can be discerned, toxic masculinity isn't primary reason that so many people feel so strongly about whether or not he gets a SCOTUS seat.
The
key is the word ‘toxic’. It doesn’t say ‘masculinity’ is the problem,
but “toxic-masculinity” is. Just as if you join the word ‘toxic’ with
anything. The thing itself is OK but it has toxic versions.
But
it goes without saying that something "toxic" is bad. My point was that
it's not helpful to lump separate issues together under one label,
especially one that suggests that half of us aren't at risk of these
attitudes. I think that it would be better for me to use Trump and BoJo
as a reminder to fight any egotism that creeps up in me, rather than to
bemoan men.
Who
one has sex with is nothing to do with their job. Each human being is
of infinite value, and sexuality is just one component of a person. I'm
sick of our society reducing people to what they do with their genitals.
The Bible makes clear that God has designs that He - knowing better than we ever could - instructs humanity not to rebel against; but also that it's never OK to mistreat anyone (hence right leaning attitudes amongst Christians regarding sexuality - but actual discrimination is unChritian).
It also makes clear that God commands us to help the poor and disadvantaged - including migrants (hence Christian charities and rights movements).
If we genuinely accept Jesus' sacrifice and honestly confess our sin to God, we will naturally develop a desire to follow His guidance; but it's the decision to truly commit to Him that determines whether we spend eternity with Him. hen we're dead, politics won't matter anymore, our responses to the Gospel will.
#Strawman.
His gender and race are not the point. Constantly moaning about white
men - esp. when you're putting words into their mouths - is only slowing
down equality. You think that by demonising white men you'll make them
more sympathetic? You're only making them more annoyed with the left,
and supportive of the orange man. Debate peoples' actions, not their
genetics. I'm well aware that privilege leading to injustice needs to be
addressed - but it needs to be done with rational discussion, not
hating people for things that they didn't choose, otherwise you're only
increasing the resentment that will make division worse.You realize "white" is not genetics, right?
Go on then, inform me.
It went way over ur head
How exactly? What deep meaningful argument is to be elucidated that I've missed?
This is America #2018 a white man did this we gonna keep groaning about the white man because what u suggested is not gonna work why do u feel like u can tell the Oppressed how to be oppress when u have never walked a day in our shoes please keep ur opinion to ur self
But we all share opinions on FB. Are you saying that I have no right to because I'm white? Is something less true if the person who writes it doesn't have enough melanin in their skin?
I want for there to more peace and equality - and it's frustrating that hared of people because they're white males is only slowing down justice for minorities.
so you're suggesting that it is up to US normal people to make white men feel comfortable and unannoyed so they don't support Trump??
Nobody is about to cater to some sensitive ass white men to coddle their feelings so they won't be racist anymore.
You sound incredibly stupid
That's not what I said. There's a difference between catering to people to make the feel comfortable and simply not making them pointlessly angry. How exactly is what I'm saying stupid? And are you honestly saying that white men are abnormal?
Reread exactly what you typed without your "I'm white and what I feel is right mind" and then tell me what you think
Who called white men abnormal, come on now quit trying to change the narrative here.
Nobody is making these racist white men pointlessly angry. Their racism is the issue
How does my comment evidence that I think that "I'm white and what I feel is right" exactly?
"you're suggesting that it is up to US normal people to make white men feel comfortable" implies that white men are separate from normal people, ie abnormal.
Whose racism exactly? How has BK demonstrated racism here?
Hatred for white males is what is slowing down justice for minorities?! Are you kidding?
yes. Because those who feel hated are less likely to vote for politicians who prioritise equality for those that they feel hate them. Did MLK go around hating white people like this?
would Bill Cosby have had chance to run for this position, had he not been convicted?
I'm afraid I can't advise, it's a non sequitter. Cosby isn't a judge, and he has been convicted, on the basis of far more evidence than there is against BK. If BK is treated any more leniently than a non white person would be with an equal amount of evidence, that would, obviously, be a vile miscarraige of justice. I'm well aware that indeed non white people are often treated far more harshly than whites comparable crimes, and it goes without saying that this is grotesque beyond words. But that doesn't mean that BK's case shouldn't be thoroughly scrutinised, nor does it mean that labelling BK as racist is legitimate or constructive. We need to focus on highlighting genuine racism, rather than making it up with memes like this^, so that people who aren't aware of the extent of the issue might rethink.
We need to tell children about why this^ is wrong, not to avoid sending children to public school. What are people supposed to do? Speaking (writing) from Britain (where the clip is recorded) I need you to understand that this actually isn't up for debate - almost everyone attends public school, couldn't attend other schools and isn't harmed (or brainwashed) by it.
School fees make it impossible for most families to afford private schools. Even if they could, why presume that private schools are any less likely to adhere to liberal attitudes on sex? Is it morally right to spend an amount on private school for one child, who has the offer of school for free, that could instead pay to enable schooling (through strongly Christian charities, who impart genuine Christian messages to the children) for dozens of children in developing countries who will otherwise be trapped in poverty for life?
Regardless of what children hear in the school curriculum, other children and television or the internet are incomparably more likely to convey liberal messages about sex. And you make a child less able to serve as a light in this dark world if you shut them off so severely from their peers - you also make them seriously likely to end up feeling resentful later on, and as teenagers or young adults they'll rebel. Our society is full of middle aged adults who were sent to Catholic schools, hated them, and now hate anything to do with Christianity. They pass on this revulsion of God to their children. Parents have more potential to impact children than school.
The best thing is for parents to talk constantly and honestly with kids, so that kids feel that they can trust them; and parents will be able to explain why things like this^(video) are wrong.
And why not browse Oxfam branches, or their site, where there are various black dresses - including plenty from expensive labels - so that the money spent feeds a family for weeks, rather than spending many times more to get one that's been on the catwalk slightly more recently?
Theresa May I’m in New York for UN General Assembly, where I am meeting world leaders for talks on security, trade and development.
Fairer international trade, and intelligent development are more
important than any other political issue. Whilst we bicker about Brexit,
there are innocent human beings are starving; lacking clean water,
electricity and health care; and who are working 10-20 hour days in
sweatshops and plantations. It's ultimately largely the result of
exploitation by nations like ours for centuries (now via Western based
corporations).I cannot beg you enough to keep in mind the world's poorest people.
Could
they distribute some of that $6 Bn amongst it's grossly impoverished
factory workers? Esp. if they want to make out that they're concerned
about social justice.
"More
people" according to what statistics? Why are the 2 beliefs implied to
be mutually exclusive? What video footage are you expecting from 2000
years ago? Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, it seems.
Then why not explain my supposed error?
They aren’t implied to be mutually exclusive. And the fact that some people believe in a story from 2000 years ago and not a video from 2 days ago is the point.
I agree entirely that it's absurd to dispute police brutality. But is it not absurd to presume that the resurrection didn't happen, and think no more about it, on the basis that modern forms of evidence aren't available, when it's the best clue we have regarding our potential existence beyond death?
$6, rather than buying a coffee/snack, could feed a child for a whole month (via Feed The Hungry USA)
How
can we know if "The main reason most Anglican members voted for leave
is because the EU is an anti Christian organisation"? You may be right,
but how can that be known without survey results? I personally wanted us
to leave (not because I'm older, I was 24 at the referendum) but didn't
vote because of the racism of the Leave campaign. Welby's in no way
obliged to adhere to the view of congregants - unless of course thre's
clear leading from God toward that viewpoint. But I desperately wish
that more of his media-covered statements could be about God and the
Gospel.
I'm
equally concerned about her joking that she'd like to break up a
family; and about the premise of What Not to Wear - throwing away
clothes and spending ridiculous amounts on buying more, encouraging the
evil of disposable fashion leading to planet destroying waste and
sweatshops.
Why the frack is there a laughter reaction on this? Tina Lewis I don't
normally criticise people - but your laughter and comment (though
perhaps you'll have deleted that by now) are vile. The attack was
"senseless" - so the victim could well have been entirely non-violent
themselves; but whoever they were, their death is a tragedy, and they'll
have family whose lives will be ruined.
And you say that it's normal in "Londonstani" - which is firstly wrong in that adding the i on the end indicates an adjective or person, not a place; but aside from that it's blatantly ignorant - the knife crime issue is separate from the Islamic terrorism issue.
oh shut up its called humour LOL And you say that it's normal in "Londonstani" - which is firstly wrong in that adding the i on the end indicates an adjective or person, not a place; but aside from that it's blatantly ignorant - the knife crime issue is separate from the Islamic terrorism issue.
😂😂 The londonstanians are even having a laugh get off you're high horse 😂😂😂No, it's not "called humour". It's death. "The londonstanians are even having a laugh"? Have you surveyed us? I'm a Londoner and I'm not laughing. The knife crime issue is in the news here constantly - no one finds it funny. What's wrong with you?
There's no evidence of pro-lifers being aggressive - if they were they'd be dealt with via existing anti-social behaviour laws, no buffer zones (bans on pro-lifers outside abortion clinics) are necessary.
The reason that people don't like the pro-life vigils is that they hate to see images that show that something awful happens when abortions take place. And clinic staff are furious because the pro-lifers are a threat to their profits.
We make a choice if we have sex. We shouldn't then have the choice to kill another human being.
All of this is incorrect. You’re denying women the ability to access legal health care in safety and anonymity. Furthermore I just think you’re an out and out piece of shit.
Care to explain what exactly is incorrect about it? Women still have safety and anonymity - the pro-lifers aren't endangering them nor identifying them. And to say that something's legal doesn't mean it's morally OK.
You believe that chasing people, hitting people, and calling them murderers is not harassment? Because while I’m in the US I’ve seen that for myself from protestors here and from what this article and others say that is what happens there sooooo
Chasing people, hitting people, and calling them murderers is not what's been happening outside UK clinics.
That’s literally what this article is about. You’re a piece of shit
The article is about people holding crosses and praying. That's not harassment. Plaquards aren't harassment. The article mentions a single incident of a single protester being physically aggressive - and they should be dealt with by the law for assault, it doesn't make sense to ban all pro-lifers on the basis of an individual or 2.
FYI, pro lifers don't exist. They're only pro up to the point of birth. They take no interest in the life of the child once born.
According to who? Pro life groups here, who've been protesting outside abortion clinics, have been working to support pregnant women in need of help. And ultimately, there are parents desperate for babies who would adopt.
It's interesting how you mention people making a choice to have sex. I take it that you therefore would agree that where someone is pregnant because of rape they should be able seek out these services, if there so wish. I’m sure you'd also agree that they should be able to do this in a peaceful and private manner. Also, on your point of profits I believe I am correct in saying that UK abortion clinics are run either by the NHS or charities, so while they still must stay solvent to operate, I feel it is not a stretch to say their focus is on caring for their patients rather than “cashing in”.
What about the women who get pregnant following rape? Do you expect them to carry, birth and raise the child of their rapist?
What about the women who have taken the precaution of birth control but it has failed? How about the women who would cause themselves serious harm or possible death if they carry a baby to full term? There are a plethora of reasons a woman requires an abortion. You don't like abortion? Fine don't have an abortion but don't force your opinion on other people. As for the no evidence of prolifers being aggressive there's litterally a personal story in this article about a profiler attacking and threatening a member of a clinic staff. And the placards and images they use are 90% of the time doctored, falsified or just plain fake.
How are the photos fake exactly? Expanation/evidence please.
Rape only accounts for 1% of abortion cases, according to PP's statistics - it's legitimate to presume that it's the same, or less than that, here.
If birth control fails, a woman could make an infertile couple who specifically want to adopt a baby overjoyed. But ultimately sex wasn't necessary in the first place, the possibility of pregnancy should always be considered when one chooses to have sex.
I'm not forcing my opnion on others, I'm expressing my opinion. that's what we all do online - but I'm not actually preventing a woman having an abortion.
To say "You don't like abortion? Fine don't have an abortion but" misses the point - it's about the unborn human that's about to be killed. Would you say "You don't like child abuse? Fine don't abuse your child but don't force your opinion on others"?
Hi, shame you don't tag people in replies. It's almost like you don't want to have a conversation about this issue. On you rape cases please could I have your sources for this statistic. Regarding the NHS I would need to do more research. Please could your share your sources regarding how the funding works in this area? But what about in cases where people have abortions for medical reasons, do they deserve to walk through a picket line for a procedure that may be saving their life?
In a world where all these potential children are born will you and your family
- Adopt the severely disabled child that their parents can't care for?
- Pay more tax to support the financially struggling family who had a child out of the blue?
- Care for the person who was assaulted and now must carry a reminder of a terrible incident to term?
- Foster the child whose parent is not able to cope with a child
Abortions took place before legalisations and they would if that were ever revoked, the only difference being that legalisations stopped people from all walks of life suffering unnecessarily.
Why would I want to talk about this? I made a comment, I don't want to spend any longer on it. Don't we both have better things to do?
If a woman is having an abortion for a medical reason, it'll be at a hospital, not an abortion clinic. And the pro lifers don't form picket lines. There are some picket lines in the photographs, showing pro-abortion activists trying to deter the pro-lifers who are already metres away from the clinic.
Your hypothetical questions almost all assume that everyone is obliged to have sex - but we aren't. So it's no one else's responsibility to foster the result of another person's choice to have sex. But yes, if I were able and allowed, I would certainly foster or adopt.
Please note also that abortions - whilst legal, in abortion clinics - are still very dangerous to the mothers (as well as killing their offspring) last year abulances had to be called out 778 times to abortion clinics in London alone. https://lifecharity.org.uk/news-and-views/ambulances-called-778-times-london-independent-abortion-clinics/
The reality is that our culture has conned us into thinking that sex is a vital part of life, as soon as you're old enough, such that the consequences should be erased. In fact sex isn't at all necessary to enjoy life (esp. given that people can make out and do things that don't lead to pregnancy) so accidental pregnancies are mostly a result of corporate greed that's used sex to sell and in doing so, manipulated our behavioural norms.
I don’t know any woman who is messed up over having an abortion. Stop infantilising women. We can make up our own minds and yes, some women will regret having an abortion. Many will not though. Just mind your own business.
I know women who bitterly regret their abortions, one in particular is seriously disturbed by it.
And many women will not talk about feelings of regret, because that's the nature of regret and guilt - we often won't want to admit to or think about things that hurt or that we think might have been the wrong decision. So if you "don’t know any woman who is messed up over having an abortion" it might just be that your social circle doesn't include any, or it might be because they wouldn't talk about it anyway.
I don’t know any woman who is messed up over having an abortion. Stop infantilising women. We can make up our own minds and yes, some women will regret having an abortion. Many will not though. Just mind your own business.
I know women who bitterly regret their abortions, one in particular is seriously disturbed by it.
And many women will not talk about feelings of regret, because that's the nature of regret and guilt - we often won't want to admit to or think about things that hurt or that we think might have been the wrong decision. So if you "don’t know any woman who is messed up over having an abortion" it might just be that your social circle doesn't include any, or it might be because they wouldn't talk about it anyway.
Protest 'Buffer Zones' Will Not Be Introduced Outside Abortion Clinics - Jeremy Corbyn "This is a shocking failure to protect women from harassment and intimidation when exercising their right to choose."
Ouch. You just lost my vote
Methinks you're merely a silly Tory troll and you'd never vote for any socialist.
On what basis do you presume that I'm not a Labour voter? Why does wanting wealth to be more fairly distributed mean that I should also be in favour of tiny humans beings killed?
I find all religion to be evil, delusional, and counterproductive in the extreme, and yet I wouldn’t dream of protesting outside a church, and were I to do so, I should expect the police would move me on in short order, to protect an imaginary God’s followers. The people protesting outside these clinics are swine, pure and simple, keep your Stone Age beliefs to yourself. And since you’re a Christian, if that offends you, hey, forgive me.
Protesting outside a Church wouldn't be comparable, there aren't tiny humans being killed inside a Church.
How are you defining swine - what exactly have they done that's so disgusting to you?
How do you define "religion" if you consider it "all evil, and counterproductive in the extreme"? Clearly some people claiming to be acting in hte name of God have done abhorrent things (labelling yourself as religious is a logical way that an evil person might seek to justify their actions to those around them - it doesn't change the facts of what God/Jesus actually taught).
How do you know that Christians are delusional? How much have you investigated the academic rationale some hold for what we believe?
How are you defining swine - what exactly have they done that's so disgusting to you?
How do you define "religion" if you consider it "all evil, and counterproductive in the extreme"? Clearly some people claiming to be acting in hte name of God have done abhorrent things (labelling yourself as religious is a logical way that an evil person might seek to justify their actions to those around them - it doesn't change the facts of what God/Jesus actually taught).
How do you know that Christians are delusional? How much have you investigated the academic rationale some hold for what we believe?
Tiny humans may not be killed inside the church, just brainwashed, sexually abused etc
The sex abuse scandal is, obviously, evil beyond words - but the vast majority of Churches are safe. How exactly are children being brainwashed in Churches?
Don't the aborted children go to heaven? I’m sure you need to be welcomed into the church via baptism to enter heaven. I’m sorry. I’m a recovering catholic...
Sorry you went through that - the Bible definitely doesn't say that "you need to be welcomed into the church via baptism to enter heaven". Jesus said that He is The Way - Baptism is a symbol of a personal commitment; and it's the commitment to God, not the symbol (nor the Church), that ultimately matters.
I suspect many more women feel liberated and thankful they have been offered CHOICE!
Plenty of people won't talk about things that they want to forget, so they won't proclaim it in the way that some people boast about abortion. But the people I know personally who've had abortions have told me that they're seriously upset that they aborted. And yes, there's research on it, for example, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-quantitative-synthesis-and-analysis-of-research-published-19952009/E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BEE6C3D
So, let me get this straight. The law in this country is probably (hopefully) not going to change any time soon regarding a woman's right to decide what her body is used for. That is a given. So you are saying that Labour has lost your vote because Jeremy feels that it is not OK for religious fanatics to stand outside medical facilities and threaten and intimidate and film women coming to see a physician. That is what you are saying.No, that's not what I'm saying. How are you defining "religious fanatics"? What's wrong with leaflets and plaquards? The filming has been by pro abortion activists wanting to expose anti abortion protesters, the anti abortion protesters are't the ones filming. If some of the pro lifers are threatening or aggressive, common laws against anti social behaviour can be used.
If what's happening in the clinic is morally OK, why wouldn't people simply walk past the protestes and ignore them?
The reality is that abortion is a tragedy and people don't want to be reminded. And corporations like BPAS and Marie Stopes are £profitting from convincing wome to do someting that many later feel emotionally damaged by.
You're not pro life, you're pro forced birth. Not one of you have any care for the mother or the child she'd be forced to give birth to.
"Forced birth"? Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape, so in nearly all cases, no one forced the woman to have sex. How do you know that pro lifers don't care about the mother? Groups involved in the protests have been working to provide resources and accommodation for the mothers - and there are also parents looking to adopt who specifically want newborns. Part of the reason we (those of us who are against abortion, I'm not actively involved in the vigils outside clinics) oppose abortion is that it hurts women - the corporations who carry out abortions £profit; so why are we the ones that you deem not to care?
It's a zygote, literally a brain dead cell
No, it's not "literally a brain dead cell" at all, what biology have you done? it's a living cluster of totipotent stem cells - that is, cells that have the potential to differentiate into any type of cell, and which contain their own unique, complete genome, including the genetically encoded instructions that will create an entire developed individual human.
But this isn't about zygotes. This is about foetuses (foetus, BTW, is simply Latin for offspring) that have beating hearts and that flinch when prodded. http://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=i
And I am indeed trying to spend my time on things more useful(I don't take part in the vigils, I'm simply arguing that they shouldn't be banned) and am in support of contraception - but note that it is very widely available, including for free on the NHS, but still scores of abortions take place.
Doesn’t matter if the woman chose to have sex, birth control isn’t 100% and abortion is not taken lightly. It is a last or only resort. No woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a child that she doesn’t want and/or can’t look after. And don’t bother saying adoption, because there is no guarantee that the child will have a good or even decent life that way, and not everyone is willing to put their body through such stress (physically and mentally/emotionally) to give a baby up
Why doesn't it matter that she chose to have sex? Because she made that choice, it's invalid to say that she's being "forced".
Why does her right to have sex entail the right to then kill the human that results? No one needs to sex to enjoy life, if one chooses to engage in it, why should avoiding the duration of pregnancy take priority over the life of the individual that's aborted? Of course adoption's no "guarantee of a good lie" nothing is(!), but in families where couples are unable and desperate to have a baby, the adopted child is just as likely, quite possibly more so, than typical children (typical meaning raised by their biological parents who hadn't wanted to abort), to be loved.
As a Christian myself, I cannot believe for one moment that Jesus would vote conservative, as they go against many things he stands for. For a party which claim to both Christian and patriotic, they practice neither. They won elections by prejudicing skinflints through their pockets with lies and false stereotyping. No different to how Ebenezer Scrooge thought before his visitations. Jesus wept, he really would.
Yikes, I'm not suggesting that the Tories are Christian, or would vote for them. You're right, Jesus was massively concerned about justice for the poor. My original comment meant that I'll consider abstaining in future elections, not that I'm going to vote against social justice.
But a lost vote for labour is still an extra vote for the tories. Labour are still the morally better party for social justice.
A lost vote for Labour isn't a vote for Tories, it's just one less vote. If a lost vote Labour were a vote for the Tories, what ould an actual vote for the Tories (which I won't do) be?
The reality is that my MP got 2/3 of our constituencies votes any way. I'm very grateful to him as my MP, since he's a Labour MP concerned about social justice but has only abstained from votes on abortion or voted to reduce the 24 week allowance.
So I feel sickened voting for a party that supports abortion, but want to support my MP and would never vote against him - I feel like abstaining is the most logical conclusion.
I am not absolutely pro abortion willy nilly either, more education and responsibility is needed against unsafe sex for instance. I also believe fathers should at least have some say although at the end of the day it isn't his body going through it. However if her life is at risk due to being pregnant, or pregnant due to rape, well these are entirely different matters altogether and feel they are definitely an exception which we should stay out of. How would you feel if a teenage girl was raped and impregnated by her dad and she wanted an abortion? There are grey areas for sure. But speaking as a Christian myself, it is not for me to judge. It is her choice to make whatever her reasons are, not ours.
Indeed there are gret areas - and I'd never attend these vigils, but I feel that they shouldn't be banned. The instances of rape are so very, very few as a proportion of abortion cases, it wouldn't be reasonable to endorse abortion on the basis of those grey areas - but indeed, we mustn't judge, and I'm not, I'm angry with the politicians, abortion groups and pro abortion protesters who claim that they're on the side of morality.
But what matters incomparably more is Jesus, and I need to spend my time serving and proclaiming Him, not wasting time on threads like this.
But it's been nice talking to you
Don't the aborted children go to heaven? I’m sure you need to be welcomed into the church via baptism to enter heaven. I’m sorry. I’m a recovering catholic...
Sorry you went through that - the Bible definitely doesn't say that "you need to be welcomed into the church via baptism to enter heaven". Jesus said that He is The Way - Baptism is a symbol of a personal commitment; and it's the commitment to God, not the symbol (nor the Church), that ultimately matters.
I suspect many more women feel liberated and thankful they have been offered CHOICE!
Plenty of people won't talk about things that they want to forget, so they won't proclaim it in the way that some people boast about abortion. But the people I know personally who've had abortions have told me that they're seriously upset that they aborted. And yes, there's research on it, for example, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-quantitative-synthesis-and-analysis-of-research-published-19952009/E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BEE6C3D
So, let me get this straight. The law in this country is probably (hopefully) not going to change any time soon regarding a woman's right to decide what her body is used for. That is a given. So you are saying that Labour has lost your vote because Jeremy feels that it is not OK for religious fanatics to stand outside medical facilities and threaten and intimidate and film women coming to see a physician. That is what you are saying.No, that's not what I'm saying. How are you defining "religious fanatics"? What's wrong with leaflets and plaquards? The filming has been by pro abortion activists wanting to expose anti abortion protesters, the anti abortion protesters are't the ones filming. If some of the pro lifers are threatening or aggressive, common laws against anti social behaviour can be used.
If what's happening in the clinic is morally OK, why wouldn't people simply walk past the protestes and ignore them?
The reality is that abortion is a tragedy and people don't want to be reminded. And corporations like BPAS and Marie Stopes are £profitting from convincing wome to do someting that many later feel emotionally damaged by.
You're not pro life, you're pro forced birth. Not one of you have any care for the mother or the child she'd be forced to give birth to.
"Forced birth"? Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape, so in nearly all cases, no one forced the woman to have sex. How do you know that pro lifers don't care about the mother? Groups involved in the protests have been working to provide resources and accommodation for the mothers - and there are also parents looking to adopt who specifically want newborns. Part of the reason we (those of us who are against abortion, I'm not actively involved in the vigils outside clinics) oppose abortion is that it hurts women - the corporations who carry out abortions £profit; so why are we the ones that you deem not to care?
It's a zygote, literally a brain dead cell
No, it's not "literally a brain dead cell" at all, what biology have you done? it's a living cluster of totipotent stem cells - that is, cells that have the potential to differentiate into any type of cell, and which contain their own unique, complete genome, including the genetically encoded instructions that will create an entire developed individual human.
But this isn't about zygotes. This is about foetuses (foetus, BTW, is simply Latin for offspring) that have beating hearts and that flinch when prodded. http://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=i
And I am indeed trying to spend my time on things more useful(I don't take part in the vigils, I'm simply arguing that they shouldn't be banned) and am in support of contraception - but note that it is very widely available, including for free on the NHS, but still scores of abortions take place.
Doesn’t matter if the woman chose to have sex, birth control isn’t 100% and abortion is not taken lightly. It is a last or only resort. No woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a child that she doesn’t want and/or can’t look after. And don’t bother saying adoption, because there is no guarantee that the child will have a good or even decent life that way, and not everyone is willing to put their body through such stress (physically and mentally/emotionally) to give a baby up
Why doesn't it matter that she chose to have sex? Because she made that choice, it's invalid to say that she's being "forced".
Why does her right to have sex entail the right to then kill the human that results? No one needs to sex to enjoy life, if one chooses to engage in it, why should avoiding the duration of pregnancy take priority over the life of the individual that's aborted? Of course adoption's no "guarantee of a good lie" nothing is(!), but in families where couples are unable and desperate to have a baby, the adopted child is just as likely, quite possibly more so, than typical children (typical meaning raised by their biological parents who hadn't wanted to abort), to be loved.
As a Christian myself, I cannot believe for one moment that Jesus would vote conservative, as they go against many things he stands for. For a party which claim to both Christian and patriotic, they practice neither. They won elections by prejudicing skinflints through their pockets with lies and false stereotyping. No different to how Ebenezer Scrooge thought before his visitations. Jesus wept, he really would.
Yikes, I'm not suggesting that the Tories are Christian, or would vote for them. You're right, Jesus was massively concerned about justice for the poor. My original comment meant that I'll consider abstaining in future elections, not that I'm going to vote against social justice.
But a lost vote for labour is still an extra vote for the tories. Labour are still the morally better party for social justice.
A lost vote for Labour isn't a vote for Tories, it's just one less vote. If a lost vote Labour were a vote for the Tories, what ould an actual vote for the Tories (which I won't do) be?
The reality is that my MP got 2/3 of our constituencies votes any way. I'm very grateful to him as my MP, since he's a Labour MP concerned about social justice but has only abstained from votes on abortion or voted to reduce the 24 week allowance.
So I feel sickened voting for a party that supports abortion, but want to support my MP and would never vote against him - I feel like abstaining is the most logical conclusion.
I am not absolutely pro abortion willy nilly either, more education and responsibility is needed against unsafe sex for instance. I also believe fathers should at least have some say although at the end of the day it isn't his body going through it. However if her life is at risk due to being pregnant, or pregnant due to rape, well these are entirely different matters altogether and feel they are definitely an exception which we should stay out of. How would you feel if a teenage girl was raped and impregnated by her dad and she wanted an abortion? There are grey areas for sure. But speaking as a Christian myself, it is not for me to judge. It is her choice to make whatever her reasons are, not ours. Indeed there are gret areas - and I'd never attend these vigils, but I feel that they shouldn't be banned. The instances of rape are so very, very few as a proportion of abortion cases, it wouldn't be reasonable to endorse abortion on the basis of those grey areas - but indeed, we mustn't judge, and I'm not, I'm angry with the politicians, abortion groups and pro abortion protesters who claim that they're on the side of morality.
But what matters incomparably more is Jesus, and I need to spend my time serving and proclaiming Him, not wasting time on threads like this.
But it's been nice talking to you
No, the reason is that a substantial minority of parents have been conned into thinking that the MMR vaccine (ie to prevent measles) causes autism, thus have refused to allow their kids to have it.
Snoop Dogg says 'f***' Kanye West and 'f*** racist' Trump
Perhaps - but saying "F*** someone" doesn't do anything to make things better. If it does anything it will make that person and their fans more stubborn and unwilling to reconsider their views. If you want to actually help fix things, you need to explain why Trump etc are wrong.
You can't reason with blind prejudice
You honestly think that blind prejudice is the only reason that people voted for Trump? I'm not saying that people should have voted for him - but the reasons were far more complex than bigotry alone.
Frankly, it's depressing that our culture is so obesssed with sex that we feel the need to debate this. they're puppets, with no genitals, who solely perform for children to educate them in basic math and English.
Human beings are infinitely more precious and valuable than their sexuality. Ascribing sexuality to childrens' puppets is a nonsensical, tragic indication of how society now treats everyone like a sex object, reducing people to what they do with their sex organs.
They're characters. Just because Julia is a puppet and doesn't actually have autism doesn't mean the character doesn't speak to some 3 year old out there. Human beings are infinitely more precious and valuable than their sexuality. Ascribing sexuality to childrens' puppets is a nonsensical, tragic indication of how society now treats everyone like a sex object, reducing people to what they do with their sex organs.
But autism, and social skills, are relevant to children - sex isn't.
The transgender bull
If it wants to be a cow, we should be Udder-standing, and let it know that it's feelings are Herd. How could you find this aMoosing? Obviously when it was younger, it hadn't yet reVeal-ed its true self, and people were miSteak-en in their cisnormative prejudice.
(*In case it wasn't clear, this was just a naff joke - I feel a compulsion to Milk stories about cows for puns)
(*In case it wasn't clear, this was just a naff joke - I feel a compulsion to Milk stories about cows for puns)
In case you've not seen it yet - (fundraising for KTHopkins) https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/justiceforkatiehopkins
Separately, there was a fundraising page to buy Hopkin's house (mansion that she could no longer afford) to turn into a refugee shelter.
IMO - Though the Trussell Trust, which the linked page is raising for is, obviously, a great cause, it would make more sense for it to be raising money for refugees. The people risking their lives on Dinghies are in even greater need than food bank users, and Hopkin's fans would be far more ticked off about migrants being helped.
Separately, there was a fundraising page to buy Hopkin's house (mansion that she could no longer afford) to turn into a refugee shelter.
IMO - Though the Trussell Trust, which the linked page is raising for is, obviously, a great cause, it would make more sense for it to be raising money for refugees. The people risking their lives on Dinghies are in even greater need than food bank users, and Hopkin's fans would be far more ticked off about migrants being helped.
U.K.’s NHS Ads Try to Scare Young People Away from ParenthoodStatements like - Would they just rather import more immigrants from the Middle East instead?
Statements like "Would they just rather import more immigrants from the Middle East instead?" demonstrate that you guys have been seriously misled about how things are here. I see it in countless comments on Fox posts too - it seems that many of you on the right genuinely think that we've(Britain) been overrun by Muslims - you're being duped.
Really? We see the news. Nice try. How about your Muslim mayor who is a disaster. Things are not going well for him now.
You're just proving my point. "We see the news" but the news you're watching is misleading. I see lots of news about Trump that he and his supporters will call fake news - so why should you presume that the news outlet you want to trust is perfectly accurate about my country? I see the news here n Britain - from left wing and right wing outlets, and try to scrutinise data when it's available. And I actually live here. You really think that you know better than me about what's happening here? How, exactly, is Sadiq Khan "a disaster"?
I knew Britain was on a downhill slide when chicken tikka masala replaced fish & chips as the national dish. When 7 out of 10 British-born Muslims under 30 say they would replace Parliament with sharia law if they could, you've lost the soul of your nation.
No, a nation doesn't have a soul, people do. And most souls here have abandoned God - the threats are atheism and materialism; and, increasingly, paganism - not Islam. Indeed there are more Muslim people now than there were - but they're still a tiny proportion, and they're growing in number because they have more kids than us "native" Brits, not because significant numbers are converting to Islam. And most British Muslims are closer to God and keener to live good lives most "natives" who have no genuine interest in Him.
Really? We see the news. Nice try. How about your Muslim mayor who is a disaster. Things are not going well for him now.
You're just proving my point. "We see the news" but the news you're watching is misleading. I see lots of news about Trump that he and his supporters will call fake news - so why should you presume that the news outlet you want to trust is perfectly accurate about my country? I see the news here n Britain - from left wing and right wing outlets, and try to scrutinise data when it's available. And I actually live here. You really think that you know better than me about what's happening here? How, exactly, is Sadiq Khan "a disaster"?
I knew Britain was on a downhill slide when chicken tikka masala replaced fish & chips as the national dish. When 7 out of 10 British-born Muslims under 30 say they would replace Parliament with sharia law if they could, you've lost the soul of your nation.
No, a nation doesn't have a soul, people do. And most souls here have abandoned God - the threats are atheism and materialism; and, increasingly, paganism - not Islam. Indeed there are more Muslim people now than there were - but they're still a tiny proportion, and they're growing in number because they have more kids than us "native" Brits, not because significant numbers are converting to Islam. And most British Muslims are closer to God and keener to live good lives most "natives" who have no genuine interest in Him.
This ad^ is a reflection of the far bigger issue than worship of Allah - worship of sex.
Do we love God? His word tells us repeatedly to have concern for those in need, including those from elsewhere - so if we love Him we won't rage against Muslims, we'll rage against the things drawing people away from Him.
The Bible compels slave masters to treat their slaves well, contrary to other cultures at the time, and Jesus commands us to treat others as we would like to be treated and love others as ourselves - so even if He's not recorded as having banned slavery, He has banned all of the aspects of slavery that you're worrying about https://www.zachariastrust.org/
Asking if God has chromosomes would by like a robot asking if the engineer that created it if th(the human) has a memory chip. Chromosomes are components of what God has created, comprised of molecules that He created. He's not comprised of molecules Himself, let alone of biological cells with DNA.
I know He exists because so many details of physics and biology evidence that they could not have come about by chance. For example, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
:)
https://feedthehungry.org.uk/our-impact/
*Obvs, doing this would also mean far less packaging - having disposable card and plastic around single meals, esp. when offices may not have recycling bins. Getting your own food from home also makes it easier to monitor nutrition.
Do we love God? His word tells us repeatedly to have concern for those in need, including those from elsewhere - so if we love Him we won't rage against Muslims, we'll rage against the things drawing people away from Him.
Western Christianity isn't dying out from natural causes. It's committing suicide
People are keen to indulge in temptations, and disregard Christianity because they presume that following God's guidelines would make life less enjoyable. Alternatively, or additionally, people presume Christianity to be nonsense and haven't made their own assessments of the scientific, philosophical and historical rationale behind it. Meanwhile Christianity is judged by daft and evil actions of some who claim to be Christian whilst not actually following Christ. http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
Correct, science doesn't disprove God, but science and religions are frequently inconsistent, and many passages in the bible are nonsense, incompatible with other passages in the bible, or outright immoral, such as its endorsement of permanently owning people (slavery in Exodus).
"Religions are frequently inconsistent" but this is about Christianity.
The Bible indeed seems odd in various places - that doesn't necessarily mean that it's immoral nonsense, it's on account of the Bible having been written millennia ago in an entirely different society and translated from another language. Christianity entails not merely reading the Bible, but studying it and its context, to better make sense of fundamental linguistic, cultural and theological points. How do you define slavery? It's equivocal, in the Bible, to today being an employee.
The Bible was written in a society where "slavery" was not necessarily anything like slavery of recent centuries, and was the unquestioned norm. Some slaves were indeed mistreated, but plenty were treated well and had a better standard of living than free people, who had to continually search for work to survive.The Bible indeed seems odd in various places - that doesn't necessarily mean that it's immoral nonsense, it's on account of the Bible having been written millennia ago in an entirely different society and translated from another language. Christianity entails not merely reading the Bible, but studying it and its context, to better make sense of fundamental linguistic, cultural and theological points. How do you define slavery? It's equivocal, in the Bible, to today being an employee.
The Bible compels slave masters to treat their slaves well, contrary to other cultures at the time, and Jesus commands us to treat others as we would like to be treated and love others as ourselves - so even if He's not recorded as having banned slavery, He has banned all of the aspects of slavery that you're worrying about https://www.zachariastrust.org/
Bright Side please stop this. Anorexia has ruined my life, and I can't bear to see you nudging other people towards it. You posting things like this is genuinely immoral.
Also, the photo is a lie. The head of the woman in the before and after pictures have completely identical hair and facial expressions, and the bows on the sides of her bikini are in precisely the same positions. You've clearly just used photoshop to create the slimming - so you're lying, whilst also hiding the serious risks to mental and physical health that people will put themselves at risk of.
Also, the photo is a lie. The head of the woman in the before and after pictures have completely identical hair and facial expressions, and the bows on the sides of her bikini are in precisely the same positions. You've clearly just used photoshop to create the slimming - so you're lying, whilst also hiding the serious risks to mental and physical health that people will put themselves at risk of.
They're either nonsense, or dangerous, why use them?
Obvs. I'm seriously disturbed to hear about how Amazon mistreats its workers. It's also killing lots of older, smaller businesses, meaning that people lose jobs and dodging taxes. But I'm genuinely confused as to why quite so many purchases are made through it - I always find that ebay and brands own sites are better value and easier to browse.
More importantly, if we want to slow down the destruction of the planet and help people in need, we should try to buy as much of what we do as possible from charity shops (and this can be done on ebay too).
More importantly, if we want to slow down the destruction of the planet and help people in need, we should try to buy as much of what we do as possible from charity shops (and this can be done on ebay too).
Seriously, we are SO privileged. Roughly 1/9th of humanity is still malnourished, and many others only have access to an extremely limited selection of food. Imagine having to eat almost exclusively rice every day, rarely able to afford fruit or meat, let alone treats....toast with beans and marmite would seem delicious. And surely we've all seen the viral clip of cocoa pickers (who appear to be in their 40s or 50s) being given chocolate for the first time in their lives?
Terrifying? Why? Having a secure relationship where you both try to support each other and resolve disagreements is surely more conducive to good mental health - esp long term - than having loads of different sexual partners, each time inducing biological bond and then breaking it?
Archbishop of Canterbury looks at plan to buy up Wonga debt
Matthew 22:37-40 'Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” '
The eternal life free of suffering that Jesus offers - given that it will last incomparably longer than any aspect of this lifetime - is the most significant thing that human beings can aim towards.
But the next priority should be to work to make life fairer for those who are poorest.
The Bible has many, many verses insisting that we help the poor (often specifying that this includes people of other nations), eg https://www.compassion.com/.../what-the-bible-says-about..
The eternal life free of suffering that Jesus offers - given that it will last incomparably longer than any aspect of this lifetime - is the most significant thing that human beings can aim towards.
But the next priority should be to work to make life fairer for those who are poorest.
The Bible has many, many verses insisting that we help the poor (often specifying that this includes people of other nations), eg https://www.compassion.com/.../what-the-bible-says-about..
Enough to know that Samuel 15:3 is indicative of most conservative Christians.
So you haven't studied the Bible, you've just plucked out context specific verses you found online?
The OT is incredibly complex, but *genuine* Christianity is to truly accept Jesus' sacrifice for us, which causes us to want to live by His example and teaching.
*obviously plenty of people label themselves as Christians because they like the identity tag, but aren't actually following Christ.
The OT is incredibly complex, but *genuine* Christianity is to truly accept Jesus' sacrifice for us, which causes us to want to live by His example and teaching.
*obviously plenty of people label themselves as Christians because they like the identity tag, but aren't actually following Christ.
I have faith that God doesn't exist, faith and trust in my objectivity and rationality. Supplemented with incredulity at a book written 1900 years ago that's full of stories that people use to perpetuate horrific acts of war, violence, persecution and rape. The faith that there is no God is no more valid than yours, but should still be respected.
When did I show disrespect?
I agree entirely that objectivity and rationality.
Can you help me understand how exactly they've led you to your position of faith that there's no God?
I also agree - obviously - that we must consider and address the abuse to which you refer with the utmost fervour. But evil done by humans shouldn't be the basis by which we judge texts written beforehand.
How much have you considered apologetics?
I agree entirely that objectivity and rationality.
Can you help me understand how exactly they've led you to your position of faith that there's no God?
I also agree - obviously - that we must consider and address the abuse to which you refer with the utmost fervour. But evil done by humans shouldn't be the basis by which we judge texts written beforehand.
How much have you considered apologetics?
Why would anyone who wants to follow God give preference to the opinion of a human over God's word? Of coure God's not biologically male, since He hasn't thechromosomes that determine being male - but if He refers to Himself as male, it should mean more to a Christian than trying to be feminist.
How do you know which chromosomes God has ? Who is God ? Where is he ? How do you know he exists ? And if you can't prove he does or doesn't exist, how would you know what he/her/it is ?
I know He exists because so many details of physics and biology evidence that they could not have come about by chance. For example, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
James 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
There are people who call themselves Christians of all political persuasions and social attitudes - what matters is Christ, and some people who claim to be Christians aren't following Him at all. Jesus made it clear that we should treat others as we'd like to be treated.
There are people who call themselves Christians of all political persuasions and social attitudes - what matters is Christ, and some people who claim to be Christians aren't following Him at all. Jesus made it clear that we should treat others as we'd like to be treated.
Addressing racial injustice is incomparably more important than patriotism; it's a tragedy that concern about the justice doesn't extend to providing fair pay and conditions to factory workers.
This is truly antithetical to Christianity - following Christ entails concern for others, such as the people Kaepernick was protesting for, the homeless people who could have used those shoes, and the impoverished sweatshop workers who laboured to make them. Following Christ also means not worshipping other things - those angry about the protests are worshipping Nationalism.
Is it not hypocritical of Nike to pretend to support racial justice when it grossly exploits its factory workers in other countries?
Is it hypocritical to suddenly care about foreign factory workers being exploited only after the Nike/Kaepernick ad?
Why do you think I'm "suddenly" concerned? I've been heartbroken about this for as long as I can remember. I contact corporations and politicians about it; talk about it on phone in radio when possible; and buy as much of what I do as possible from charities working in developing countries, rather than supporting the continuation of sweatshops - but I need to do more, it's hard to know what given that my attempts to get a group together have always failed.
Name a corporation that doesn't
I know, that's why I aim to buy from charity shops (esp. Oxfam). And there are more and more start ups focussing on ethical sourcing, such as People Tree. If enough of us stop buying typical brands and contact corporations to ask for Fair Trade, eventually more will begin to change.
Mighty Christian of you throwing stones...
"Throwing stones"? I'm not inflicting harm on anyone. I feel bothered by injustice anyway, but as a Christian, I'm compelled to be concerned about it, eg Isaiah 1:17 tells us to "seek justice, correct oppression"
White Racism is a lie .blacks can live in europe freely .try living in africa with your white skin and see what will happen .
This isn't about Europe, the protest Nike is endorsing is about racism in America, which is far worse. But yes, there is racism in Europe - as you'll find if you research it, otherwise, how on Earth can you think that you know (whether racism against black people happens) given that you aren't black?
Do you mean like Trump saying America first, yet his and his daughter’s clothing lines are made in sweatshops overseas? That type of hypocritical?
Similar. But it really bothers me that the left seems only concerned about injustice within our own nations. Here in the UK, I always vote left - but I desperately wish that my peers were a bit more concerned about poverty and racial injustice at its most extreme, which is in its Global manifestations, given that our privilege is at the expense of human beings far beyond our borders.
How to hack lunch for a tenner (without leaving the office)
With £10 you could buy bread, fillings and extra snacks for a week of lunches. Bring in your lunch, and with each £4 you save you can feed a starving child for a month I know, that's why I aim to buy from charity shops (esp. Oxfam). And there are more and more start ups focussing on ethical sourcing, such as People Tree. If enough of us stop buying typical brands and contact corporations to ask for Fair Trade, eventually more will begin to change.
Mighty Christian of you throwing stones...
"Throwing stones"? I'm not inflicting harm on anyone. I feel bothered by injustice anyway, but as a Christian, I'm compelled to be concerned about it, eg Isaiah 1:17 tells us to "seek justice, correct oppression"
White Racism is a lie .blacks can live in europe freely .try living in africa with your white skin and see what will happen .
This isn't about Europe, the protest Nike is endorsing is about racism in America, which is far worse. But yes, there is racism in Europe - as you'll find if you research it, otherwise, how on Earth can you think that you know (whether racism against black people happens) given that you aren't black?
Do you mean like Trump saying America first, yet his and his daughter’s clothing lines are made in sweatshops overseas? That type of hypocritical?
Similar. But it really bothers me that the left seems only concerned about injustice within our own nations. Here in the UK, I always vote left - but I desperately wish that my peers were a bit more concerned about poverty and racial injustice at its most extreme, which is in its Global manifestations, given that our privilege is at the expense of human beings far beyond our borders.
Archbishop: ‘I Wasn’t Sure If....
Where's the evidence of any god at all, let alone that he has any human feelings of decency or compassion? In fact, the Bible outlines someone like Trump- narcissistic and petulant and prone to fits of mass murder.
Where do I start? There are scores of articles and lectures online explaining academics' rationale for concluding that God exists - which have you examined? The reason that originally convinced me is mentioned in a Time article that I came across recently; http://time.com/77676/
What's led you to the conclusion that "the Bible outlines someone like Trump"? Yanking snippets out of the Old Testament, ignoring their context and ignoring the New Testament, isn't a reasonable way to evaluate God.
What's led you to the conclusion that "the Bible outlines someone like Trump"? Yanking snippets out of the Old Testament, ignoring their context and ignoring the New Testament, isn't a reasonable way to evaluate God.
How to hack lunch for a tenner (without leaving the office)
:)https://feedthehungry.org.uk/our-impact/
*Obvs, doing this would also mean far less packaging - having disposable card and plastic around single meals, esp. when offices may not have recycling bins. Getting your own food from home also makes it easier to monitor nutrition.
The hype about this as being progressive seems odd. Obviously it's great to tackle racial inequality, but this film brags about another serious inequality. Celebrating people being crazy rich only makes us less aware of how privileged we are, it's not helping the world. How much coverage has there been of the Asians who create countless things that we buy and are grossly underpaid? Or the Asians whose lives are being destroyed by climate change that our consumption has fuelled? I'd rather give the money it would cost to go to the cinema to a charity helping the poorest Asians with education and healthcare.
Obviously, it depends on the time span, the location, the organisation and the activities - but I've always thought that it makes most sense to donate the money one has to the most efficient and trustworthy overseas charities, rather than spend significant amounts on flights. The money that it costs to visit developing countries is enough to feed and educate a child in a developing country for years.
The vast majority of kids who think that they're trans are happy with their birth gender after puberty if their trans identity hasn't been endorsed. It's seriously disturbing that some parents support transition when their child would most likely have been happy without hormones and surgery. All children should be allowed to be kids and not labelled whilst they're still developing - why label a child trans rather than nonbinary?
It's NOTHING TO DO WITH CORBYN. Seriously, being on the left doesn't mean that Corbyn suggested or approved this^
It's ridiculous to just lump all left wingers together.
It's ridiculous to just lump all left wingers together.
....and you know this because?
What evidence do you have that Corbyn has in any way suggested or encouraged the harassment in the video? Calling him a "Corbyn troll" is an incredibly unintelligent over generalisation purely because the Express hates Corbyn. Would you think it OK if right wing politicians names to right wing extremists? Should I lump Conservative politicians together with Nazis because they're all on the right? For me to do so would be daft, but it's just as illogical to label the protester I the video as a Corbyn troll.
Most Left-wingers are like this
"Most"? Defined how? What statistics are you basing that on?
And what exactly is a left winger, since you assume that they can be treated as a single species? Everyone's different. I'm left wing on most issues, but seriously value Jacob Rees-Mogg's discussion on a few specific topics. Human beings and politics aren't black and white.
And what exactly is a left winger, since you assume that they can be treated as a single species? Everyone's different. I'm left wing on most issues, but seriously value Jacob Rees-Mogg's discussion on a few specific topics. Human beings and politics aren't black and white.
John McDonnell and Richard Burgon joined with Class War on a protest just last week in SW1, where they brandished the very same banner that they took to Rees-Mogg’s family home
John MacDonell attending a protest with Ian Bone doesn't mean that he, let alone Corbyn, are supportive of the harassment in the video. That would be like me blaming you for bullying by someone who attended a football that you did supporting the same team - sharing a cause doesn't mean agreeing with another person's behaviour and being responsible for it.
Oh dear you believed the far left a narrative that the national socialists were on the right!
I'm well aware that the Nazis originally called themselves national socialists - but their actions demonstrate the opposite.
This conversation is getting ridiculous - seriously, where is your evidence that Corbyn is in any way supportive of the evil carried out by those dictators who called themselves socialists? Their evil was in enacting principles fundamentally contrary to those that Corbyn espouses.
This^ doesn't seem to address how we should interpret what the Bible says about Hell, it seems to only highlight that some people missuse the concept so the writer thinks that it should be imagined away.
Personally I think that annhilationism is more Biblically credible than the idea of eternal suffering in Hell. The site RethinkingHell is worth a look.
If we profess to follow Christ, we need to actualy explore what He said and try to make sense of it, the article only criticises some peoples' negative approaches and doesn't look for a more accurate interpretation.
Personally I think that annhilationism is more Biblically credible than the idea of eternal suffering in Hell. The site RethinkingHell is worth a look.
If we profess to follow Christ, we need to actualy explore what He said and try to make sense of it, the article only criticises some peoples' negative approaches and doesn't look for a more accurate interpretation.
Post Malone car crash: 'God must hate me'
God doesn't act in such a straightforward way - something that seems bad happening to us doesn't mean that He hates us (ad things going well for us doesn't mean that He's pleased with us).
He wants for us to turn to Him - and when we have so much wealth that we ignore Him, we're on course to miss out on eternal life, which is incomparably better than wealth.
So God might allow something to go wrong, as it might be the only way that we might ever end up reconsidering Him, and ending up in heaven.
He wants for us to turn to Him - and when we have so much wealth that we ignore Him, we're on course to miss out on eternal life, which is incomparably better than wealth.
So God might allow something to go wrong, as it might be the only way that we might ever end up reconsidering Him, and ending up in heaven.
Eeally? Explain what brainwashing you're referring to - I'm well aware that some Churches do that, but I think that you're making seriouslyly inaccurate assumptions. Most Churches don't even have robed vicars, as your picture presumes. And regardless of Churches, have you looked at the rationale that Christian scholars have supporting God's existence?
No fricking way!!!! Christian scholars support the existence of god, you’re shitting me surely
My point is that there are scientific, historical and philosophical arguments to conclude that God exists, belief in God is not necessarily merely faith nor brainwashing. Everyone will form their own conclusions, but above commenters suggest that they aren't aware of those arguments.
A comfort blanket for the weak of mind, an old Jedi mind trick if you will
"Comfort blanket"? No, it's a conclusion based on weighing up the arguments - but what if your atheism is your own wishful thinking because you hope that there's no God watching when you do things He's told us not to, and because you hope that there's nothing beyond this lifetime?
Have you not looked at sites on the reasons to conclude that God exists to weigh them up for yourself? For example, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
Have you not looked at sites on the reasons to conclude that God exists to weigh them up for yourself? For example, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
I’m getting bored but there’s some mileage in this argument yet. Anyone want to tag in [tags friends]?
ahhhh, this again. I’ll start with asking you how old the earth is? Please humour me with your 10,000 years 
🤣
🙈
Followed by my favourite. What colour skin did Adam and Eve have please. (I’ll leave out the incest, it’s too soon)
🤣🙈Followed by my favourite. What colour skin did Adam and Eve have please. (I’ll leave out the incest, it’s too soon)
Wow, you genuinely presume that all Christians are young Earthers? The Earth is roughly 3.7 billion years old so far as I know. Why would I humour you? Why do you and your friends feel the urge to poke strawmen? Do you not have something more interesting to do? Obviously Adam and Eve had darkish brown skin, but it's not clear how literal the characters are, or what the original texts said (given that obviously, the "days" in Genesis aren't 24 hour days, the original word translates to time periods). Why does it matter?
How much apologetics have you looked at?
How much apologetics have you looked at?
The decades-long Catholic priest child sex abuse crisis, explained
Yet he had no issue with slavery..hmmm
According to who?
The Bible
The Bible doesn't say that He has no problem with slavery. It contains a small proportion of His words, those most important to the audience at the time. He was there to create and tell people about The Way to heaven; overthrowing the structures of society would have deflected attention from that vital message.
And how do you define slavery? It's equivocal, in the Bible, to today being an employee.
The Bible was written in a society where "slavery" was not necessarily anything like slavery of recent centuries, and was the unquestioned norm. Some slaves were indeed mistreated, but plenty were treated well and had a better standard of living than free people, who had to continually search for work to survive.
The Bible compels slave masters to treat their slaves well, contrary to other cultures at the time, and Jesus commands us to treat others as we would like to be treated and love others as ourselves - so even if He's not recorded as having banned slavery, He has banned all of the aspects of slavery that you're worrying about https://www.zachariastrust.org/does-the-bible-condone...
How do you know that "God" is "seething at abuse like this"? Your claim only confirms my belief that the religious make their god in their own image, and impute to "him" the feelings that they themselves experience. Your "God" may be "slow to anger", but he is thorough when it comes to killing, as in the OT flood, in which he annihilated the entire population---including children and babies. Yes---I know I've taken the story "out of context", or I need to understand it as a "metaphor," but, there is no way to escape the fact that the OT god is violent, vindictive, and mean---even if "slow to anger." And how do you define slavery? It's equivocal, in the Bible, to today being an employee.
The Bible was written in a society where "slavery" was not necessarily anything like slavery of recent centuries, and was the unquestioned norm. Some slaves were indeed mistreated, but plenty were treated well and had a better standard of living than free people, who had to continually search for work to survive.
The Bible compels slave masters to treat their slaves well, contrary to other cultures at the time, and Jesus commands us to treat others as we would like to be treated and love others as ourselves - so even if He's not recorded as having banned slavery, He has banned all of the aspects of slavery that you're worrying about https://www.zachariastrust.org/does-the-bible-condone...
Why do you think you can just ignore the context and cultural/poetic use of language? Would you take a page out of a surgical or army guidelines book and bemoan it for instructing violence?
When a parent has their toddler vaccinated, the toddler will think that their parent is cruel; the gap in knowledge and understanding between us and God is manifold greater than the gap between a toddler and parent.
When God sanctioned death in the OT, it was to constrain evil worse than death. Paganism was spreading and causing extreme suffering - such as human sacrifice - but also causing people to miss out on eternal life.
God can take people straight to heaven; so any who were on course to go to heaven and died in the tragedies of the OT would simply have gone there sooner and had their time living on Earth where they live amongst barbarism and child sacrifice is shortened. But when paganism was left to fester, Hebrews turned to it and began doing evil things that they saw neighbouring tribes doing, as well as throwing away the offer of heaven. And since you asked, there are loads of verses about God hating abuse, eg Zechariah 8:17 " "Do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate", declares the Lord.”
Isaiah 61:8 "For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong;"
When a parent has their toddler vaccinated, the toddler will think that their parent is cruel; the gap in knowledge and understanding between us and God is manifold greater than the gap between a toddler and parent.
When God sanctioned death in the OT, it was to constrain evil worse than death. Paganism was spreading and causing extreme suffering - such as human sacrifice - but also causing people to miss out on eternal life.
God can take people straight to heaven; so any who were on course to go to heaven and died in the tragedies of the OT would simply have gone there sooner and had their time living on Earth where they live amongst barbarism and child sacrifice is shortened. But when paganism was left to fester, Hebrews turned to it and began doing evil things that they saw neighbouring tribes doing, as well as throwing away the offer of heaven. And since you asked, there are loads of verses about God hating abuse, eg Zechariah 8:17 " "Do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate", declares the Lord.”
Isaiah 61:8 "For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong;"
You should read Exodus 21
"you can beat your slave as long as he doesn't die within two days"...gods words, not mine.
That's not what it says. They won't be punished by the human administrators of the law if the victim recovers quickly - that doesn't mean they won't be held accountable by God Himself. And at the time, some slave owners would have done whatever they wanted to their slaves without anyone intervening, but God is forcing gradual progress towards justice by commanding punishment for some slave owners. Do you think that if He'd put in place laws that were an entire change from what people were used to straight away, they would have followed?
you are delusional self accommodating and riddled with double standards. Get over yourself and feeling special with your imaginary friend in the sky.
When did I say I feel special? I most certainly don't. Imaginary? Nah, God is beyond my imagination, but the more I've studied science, the more certain I am that there is a designer.
slavery is slavery. By nature it is indifferent to eras. Just like your imaginary god created in man’s image is omniscient & omnipotent by design. ‘HE’ cannot promote slavery in one era and demote it in another.
The word slavery didn't even exist. Slavery is the word that was used by translators at a time when "thee" was used instead of "you" and peculiar meant special. And how can you legitimise ignoring the culture of the people at the time?
The religionist: the hopeless generational repetitive desperately clinging to false hope...
If Christians are so entertaining, why not actually read what I've written, and the hyperlinked articles?
I have studied religion and its victims all my adult life (50 years) and you nor Christianity or any religion has anything to offer my life that adds to my knowledge of the history of the Universe and reality as experienced. I am a realist. You are a fictionist. I live for life. You live for death. I am an independent. You are dependent. You are inside the box. I am outside the box. I know nothing we have stated in fact today will affect your belief system. That's because we live by a know system. Facts not faith motivate our lives because we are hands on passionate tactile learners by science. You, well, you are imprisoned with the dogma authored by dope smoking - magic potion drinking - herb hallucinating - cave dwellers. You live in a wish thinking bubble of thought really believing you are special with your 'god'. Okay.......
LOL, where on Earth did you get those ideas about what I believe from? You're simply making a tonne of baseless presumptions and bashing a straw man. You've not even read what I've written - I already stated that I'm not special, and that I do study science. Dope smoking, magic potion drinking, cave dwelling? ROFL. You seem to have a lot of factless faith in your dogma about what theism is.
But apologies if I seem argumentative, because I certainly don't want to be:) This is the point at which we agree to disagree.
But apologies if I seem argumentative, because I certainly don't want to be
:) This is the point at which we agree to disagree.
like I said and this will be the last, one cannot reason with a religionist and nothing will change in your fact-less faith driven opinion. You and your generational predecessors are the reason why our incredibly precious earth is at peril, always has been, and why humanity has struggled while waiting for Armageddon. You! Religion is the scourge of the Earth. Science & Atheism will eventually prevail with reason, evidence and facts to support humanity living in reality. That day cannot come too soon. The Bible with its drug induced imaginary nasty prediction of Armageddon will be filed away in the library of Myth and Legend along with the other near 4000 gods that have been created by man. You see Grace Dalton you're just one less god an Atheist than I am...
This just keeps getting funnier.
"Religion is the scourge of the Earth" - what do you even mean by religion? I never mentioned it.
"Drug induced" Ha, which drugs? What evidence do you have that whoever you're referring to was under the influence of drugs?
And seriously, why do you think that science is opposed to belief in God? Your assumption demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science, God, or both. What are your own scientific qualifications? Recent Time magazine article - http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
Sorry, I'm being argumentative again. I don't mean to seem hostile, I care:)
"Religion is the scourge of the Earth" - what do you even mean by religion? I never mentioned it.
"Drug induced" Ha, which drugs? What evidence do you have that whoever you're referring to was under the influence of drugs?
And seriously, why do you think that science is opposed to belief in God? Your assumption demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science, God, or both. What are your own scientific qualifications? Recent Time magazine article - http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
Sorry, I'm being argumentative again. I don't mean to seem hostile, I care
:)
False dichotomy; You could not be promiscuous and also not be dead. Everyone was offered the vaccine when I was 14 - I refused and sent a letter to the department of health asking that the money which would have been spent on my dose be donated to a charity providing vital infant vaccinations in a developing country (I know that their system of purchasing doesn't work on an individual basis so my request was ridiculous, but I wanted to make a point -it's grossly unfair that we were all offered this vaccination that is only necessary if we make certain lifestyle choices, but children in developing nations are crippled or killed by diseases they have no control over)
Cool story. Why should people not be promiscuous? How does that affect you?I said that it's possible for people not to be promiscuous, I didn't say that people shouldn't be. Though yes, I do believe that people shouldn't be - but it's not up to me and it wasn't what I said (typed). one of the reasons that it's better for people not to be is that, as this article demonstrates, it can lead to disease - which means suffering for them, sadness for their loved ones, and her in the UK,less NHS (national health service) funding for other health issues, many of which are out of the sufferers' control (whereas one's sex life is within their control).
But it also leads to more emotional anguish for those who practice it (since oxytocin - for deep bonding - is released during sex; and also because couples are more likely to struggle over jealousy/anxiety and disputes regarding their exes if they slept with their exes); and means that there are more abortions (which are tragic, expensive, risky and emotionally traumatic) and more children who miss out on the benefits of growing up with both parents (which is, of course, not say that single parents don't deserve huge respect, because obviously they do - but statistics show that most kids benefit hugely from having both parents around, and society benefits as a result).
So it's none of my business what people do with their bodies - but I'm heartbroken that corporate greed (sex sells) has conned people into thinking that sex will make them happy when in fact promiscuity leads to many people hurting.
Seriously, my apologies that this might have all sounded judgemental; I'm not judging people, it's the practice that makes me frustrated. And it's none of my business.
Why Can't I Stop Thinking About Someone I Barely Dated?
Because our culture has normalised sex ASAP - and the oxytocin release can leave people feeling attached, and hurting when the relationship ends. We're not actually designed to have sex with partners other than the person we marry, but media outlets have been profitting (sex sells) from duping us into thinking that it's a fundamental necessity for human happiness.
Look at the dumbass that doesn’t know how biology works
Care to explain what's actually biologically incorrect in my comment?
And who tells you that we aren’t supposed to have sex with partners other than the one we marry? A book of fairy tales known as the Bible?
What's convinced you that the Bible's a book of fairy tales? Which sources have you been using for research?
Well for one humans are not naturally mono but we are actually more likely to be poly in our relationships. “We're not actually designed to have sex with partners other than the person we marry.” So that statement right there is full of BS just to start. That isn’t scientific, that just one opinion. Sorry hun, your bible isn’t a science book. Don’t make up facts and say they are true and not think people will question you. There is always someone smarter than you.
"We are actually more likely to be poly in our relationships" - what's your scientific basis for this? I'm fairly certain that it's no true that the majority of people want to be poly but that wasn't what I'd stated - since you're making that claim, do you have supporting data?
Also, you're conflating what people are naturally tempted to with what's best. We're naturally inclined towards many things that in fact are seriously harmful to ourselves and/or others.
I was never using the Bible to make my assertion, I mentioned oxytocin release, and other emotional and social benefits of monogamy are obvious.
I never claimed that the Bible is a science book. It's very interesting though, what are your thoughts on it? It's full of writing that's so context specific, it's almost impossible to make sense of without further reading about the relevant cultural aspects. Personally, I think it's worth trying to understand, since science tells me that there must be a designer. But continually I encounter people who presume that because, as you said, the Bible isn't a science book, we should conclude that God is fictional, which makes no sense. http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
What do you think?
Also, you're conflating what people are naturally tempted to with what's best. We're naturally inclined towards many things that in fact are seriously harmful to ourselves and/or others.
I was never using the Bible to make my assertion, I mentioned oxytocin release, and other emotional and social benefits of monogamy are obvious.
I never claimed that the Bible is a science book. It's very interesting though, what are your thoughts on it? It's full of writing that's so context specific, it's almost impossible to make sense of without further reading about the relevant cultural aspects. Personally, I think it's worth trying to understand, since science tells me that there must be a designer. But continually I encounter people who presume that because, as you said, the Bible isn't a science book, we should conclude that God is fictional, which makes no sense. http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
What do you think?
I need to become more sympathetic to trans people and it's important to address bullying and violence towards trans people, obviously - but I think that Vice may well only be making more cis people resentful of trans people with articles like this. All you're (Vice) doing is making some cis people react negatively to trans people - do you really think that any cis people will see articles like this and feel greater empathy for those who are trans?
He banned it cause showing a woman’s body in any form offends Muslim men.
No, Sadiq Khan banned those posters because they implied that non-slim people weren't entitled to go to the beach, and because the posters could contribute to mental health problems - which I know sounds ridiculous, but unfortunately, we (anorexics)can't help it (or we would).
You, and the other English, have sat back and let your country be completely over-ran by Muslims
Our country is not at all over run with Muslims - where on Earth are you all getting this idea from?
It offends Muslim men, but sadly it’s ok for those same men to beat and exploit their wives, in private. Wake up ppl.
"Same men"? Muslim men vary as much as other men. Sadiq Khan is nothing like the extremists you're thinking of and is far more respectful of women and less tempremental than Trump. The reason that the posters were removed was concern for the many women who were having their self esteem crushed by the poster. I know that makes us sound pathetic, but body image anxiety is a psychological issue that we can't just switch off. I developed anorexia - years before the poster, but partially because of things like that poster - and if I could just stop it I would, because it's messed up my life. It's because of the effect of the poster he removed it, which most people here - non Muslims wanted - not because of his faith.
I never wanted to read it. Why do you presume that everyone should? And how do you define "religious"? Can you not see why some people are concerned about promoting witchcraft? Maybe not - because our generation's been led to believe that it's fine, or positive, though it's largely about trying to achieve selfish aims, in contrast to the previous prevalent ideology - that we should aim to follow Jesus who commends caring for others and eschewing greed and bitterness.
Guns are the worst thing about your awesome country. I desperately hope that, some day, they become illegal like they are in other developed nations. Arming teachers is daft - what if a teacher becomes mentally unstable, or a mentally unstable person becomes a teacher, and carnage ensues? What if a teacher is permanently traumatised after using a gun? What if some students somehow manage to get hold of a teacher's gun?
Why not give teachers tazers instead?
Why not give teachers tazers instead?
It infuriates me how people claiming to represent Christ utterly contradict His teaching. Obviously. Jesus' command to treat others as we would want to be treated and to avoid inappropriate lust show that sex abusing "priests" are lying in labelling themselves as Jesus' followers.
But additionally, He told us that He is The Way to eternal life (heaven) and proved His victory over death by rising from it - confessing in a box might help a few people to face their wrong actions so that they can change, but in no way does the speech itself cause forgiveness. Only genuinely repenting to God in your heart - and meaning it - enables forgiveness - and someone who truly does that won't want to flee justice.
Why spend loads on things that are gone once you've experienced them? Wouldn't it be incomparably more exciting to spend that money on things for human beings who are far too impoverished to ever go on any sort of vacation at all? The cost of this cruise could pay to sponsor more than 20 some of the world's poorest children for a decade, completely changing their lives; or pay for homes and clean water for families living in slums. So why spend that money on a trip?
I highly recommend not having sex.
Hilarious I know, but seriously, it's 100% effective for preventing pregnancy, STIs, and a lot of heartache(since oxytocin is released during intercourse, so you're far more likely to have your mental health affected after a break up or one night stand if you had sex).
Contrary to what culture constantly implies, sex is genuinely not necessary for enjoying life.
Hilarious I know, but seriously, it's 100% effective for preventing pregnancy, STIs, and a lot of heartache(since oxytocin is released during intercourse, so you're far more likely to have your mental health affected after a break up or one night stand if you had sex).
Contrary to what culture constantly implies, sex is genuinely not necessary for enjoying life.
It's an Udder shame that so many people now avoid dairy. But also slightly a-Moo-sing that some boycott it entirely because of the trend (rather than having an allergy or concern for cows). Brands that have duped people into switching to soya/almond etc should be held a-Cow-ntable.
DC Archbishop Donald Wuerl faces calls to resign over Catholic sex abuse cover-up
All abrahamic religions are prone to pedophilia and misogyny .
I hate how so many people now associate Christianity with the very opposite of what Christ did and taught...... God is slow to anger (Psalm 103:8), but SEETHING at abuse like this^.
Well at least god is seething so we don’t have to, amiright?? That mentality has worked so far, amiright? God sure has shown those priests his wrath for fucking kids for the past millennium, amiright? We don’t have to do a damn thing but have opinions and keep watching, amiright? Off to church we go! Makes sense...
God doesn't supernaturally intervene often - He calls us to defend those who are suffering and to seek justice. He will enact justice on abusers, that's the purpose of judgement "day" after this lifetime. And whilst the abuse is awful beyond description, it will seem like picoseconds to victims who choose to accept Jesus' offer of eternal life with Him.
God doesn't supernaturally intervene often - He calls us to defend those who are suffering and to seek justice. He will enact justice on abusers, that's the purpose of judgement "day" after this lifetime. And whilst the abuse is awful beyond description, it will seem like picoseconds to victims who choose to accept Jesus' offer of eternal life with Him.
Human beings are prone to those things - some grew up in an Abrahamic religion and like that label, but the pedophilia and misogyny aren't fuelled by the religions themselves. At the time that the Bible was written, women were respected less than men because physical strength was fundamental in a way that it isn't now. The Bible, especially the New Testament, is relatively feminist for its time (eg, see https://www.eauk.org/church/resources/
Have you ever noticed that everything in American culture wants to individualize the family? There’s no institution that tries to actually keep the family together because in our culture family is not a team but just a collection of individuals. The individual is the most important ideal and value.
Presumably, culture is obsessed with individualism in part because encouraging us to focus on ourselves; and to deem enacting our personal preferences and enjoyment as a goal; makes it easier to make us spend. I grew up believing that we're supposed to put others first - and I'm immensely grateful that I was raised to feel that, but I need to get far, far better at living it out. God's power is what can change our hearts towards selflessness amidst the individualism that culture tries to lull us into.
your neighbour as yourself.’” Matthew 22:37-9*Not that I
expect people to care what the Bible says, obviously, but I felt that this was a point worth making, given that Christianity is so often mis-represented, on a post like this^
Good job misrepresenting it! A Socialist quoting the Bible. Now I've seen .it all. Maybe you should read the rest of the Bible? For example, love
your neighbor doesn't mean giving them your paycheck. It means make
them understand they have personal responsibility.
Tourists stunned after boat carrying dozens of immigrants lands on packed beach
According to what data? Are you unaware of the severe poverty and conflict that immigrants are fleeing? They wouldn't leave everything and risk their lives on a dinghy across the sea otherwise. From birth, we all benefit from the NHS, free education, emergency services, and opportunities to earn a comfortable lifestyle (or benefits if we can't). People born into impoverished countries (many of which have been ransacked by our ancestors and corporations)lack these things through no fault of their own, and simply want to escape danger and work somewhere where they can earn enough to survive. Many of us Brits have not only the basics that we need to live, but spend £thousands on indulging. How is this situation OK?
Whilst some people spend £hundreds or £thousands on a week's leisure, other human beings try desperately to survive.
The tourists paid for 1/2 weeks then go home.These gimegrants pay thousands to get to Europe as they know they get everything free and never have to work again.They know our laws dont apply to them so they just run wild
They are running from countries where they say they are oppressed then try to take over the countries they go to ...and what self respecting man leaves women and children to deal with what they are running from...I’ll tell you ..the type of man that has no respect for women or children because that is all we are getting here
Seriously? Are you really unaware that the men who leave their families behind do so because it's not possible for them to bring their families, so they come alone wanting to earn money to send home to them?
They paid with big bucks.... Its a big business... Wake up...
They give all they have. They borrow from neighbours, and pay all their lives' savings in the desperate hope of reaching somewhere where they can escape violence and get a job. Why on Earth are you angry with them? Be angry with the traffickers, the migrants are victims of gross extortion.
That doesn't give them the right to invade another country. This is,all orchestrated by the EU and UN. This will destabilize Spain and France. Any fool should see this for what it is. As far as the migrants, the UN should be assisting them in their home countries but instead facilitates this instead!
How exactly does the UN facilitate this? You seem to be suggesting that this is an understand conspiracy with the EU and UN leading people to board these dinghies.
Tea and empathy are awesome - but Jesus ultimately called us to accept Him, and offered The Way to eternal life; so community alone is brilliant, but is secondary to what being saved is about. It's become the norm to presume that because we can't seel/hear/feel God, He's non existent. But our senses and the things they detect are made of matter that He created, rather than Him being made of matter that we should expect to detect. Fallacies about God having been disproven by science, Jesus not having existed etc are unquestioned by many people. It's human nature to adhere to group think, to want to do whatever we feel like, and to hate flawed institutions (ie Churches that have done the opposite of emulating Christ), so only some Brits explore the rationale from philosophy and science to support the notion that God actually exists.
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
Science has never claimed to disprove god.
It didn't have to , god has never been proven to exist in the first place.
It didn't have to , god has never been proven to exist in the first place.
Did I say that science claimed to disprove God?
Did you read the hyperlinked article?
Did you read the hyperlinked article?
of course not I've seen a lot of them before and they're all biased and not compatible with scientific method.
Seen a lot of what? The article is from Time magazine. Even if it were from a Christian site, if you genuinely find out more about reality, you should look at sites explaining the arguments for something so that you can evaluate them, rather than ignoring things because they don't fit with your pre-existing faith. Should we not look at articles from sources across the spectrum of atheism/theism; as we should with politics, and try to cross reference with more neutral sources, to work out what's most likely true? You're refusing to even read an article from Time.
If I were going to date, I'd only want to date someone who prioritises maximising efficacy of volunteering/campaigning/donating over nationalism. Giving to developing countries makes far more difference $for$, and human beings with no access to clean water or food are the very most in need, so I'm sickened by those who say "charity begins at home". Which is definitely not to say that we shouldn't help at local soup kitchens/shelters etc - but to ignore the neediest on the basis that they aren't lucky enough to live in the West would be something I personally wouldn't put up with in looking for a partner.
There are 15 to 22 times as many peodophiles in the catholic church as in normal life. This is bad enough but the covering up by the bishops etc can hardly be called christian. You say god is slow to anger, I would descibe it as glacial.
They "can hardly be called Christian" - that was my point. I'm constantly encountering people who want nothing to do with Christianity because of un-Christ-like hypocrites, rather than evaluating Christ Himself.
RE describing God as glacial - what time scale are you judging God by?
The taboo around periods is slowly disintegrating and women – or ‘menstruators’ as they’re known – are big money. From eco-friendly tampons to period-sex blankets, here are the products vying for space in your bathroom cabinet
Surely it should be "women - or, specifically menstruators - are big money"? Menstruators are a subsection of women, your line suggests that woman and menstruator are synonyms, which ignores post menopausal women who are every bit as much women as those who still have periods. Some women don't menstruate because of medical conditions, though still are definitely women.
[One upside of chronic anorexia is I've never had o spend money on menstruation products, but technically, I'm a woman (though I feel too immature to call myself that and don't care what other people call me).]
Seriously, the number of Vox posts about this is insane. And celebrating people being crazy rich only makes us less aware of how privileged we are, it's not helping the world. How much coverage has there been of the Asians who create countless things that we buy and are grossly underpaid? Or the Asians whose lives are being destroyed by climate change that our consumption has fuelled? I'd rather give the money it would cost to go to the cinema (theatre) to a charity helping the poorest Asians with education and healthcare.
We are SO privileged. Much of humanity never has the option of eating ice cream, and have to get by with little more than rice. 1 in 9 are starving. We can buy any of an endless array of foodstuffs whenever we like. Why does it matter what arrangement the molecules were in at the beginning of the manufacturing process?