Several of the Museum of the Bible’s prized holdings are forgeries
There isn't a single aspect of the Bible that lends itself credibility to supernatural claims. Additionally it's the most morally reprehensible dumpster fire that I've ever read.
NB - There are some fakes, which can be identified, the implication being that there are authentic copies. In fact, there are many, many, many more manuscripts for the Bible than for any comparable historical text. Because the events are the most significant in human history. http://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...
the book was written over the course of many generations, same with the manuscripts and scrolls, many not ever included in the bible, the council of nicea eradicated many of the non conformist texts..... and still more were found to be unrelated texts, derivatives, or downright fake. The entire history of the bible is proof that it's man creation and nothing more, a fiction to control the masses, Christians around the time of nicea, and all those after =sheeple. Imo.
Of course the Bible was written over many generations, it's a compilation of 66 separate texts. The process of getting rid of some texts that you mentioned was for the purpose of refining it, so that only perfectly credible writings were included in what is now the Bible. But some of the excluded texts and the writings of the Church fathers demonstrate that the events - most importantly, Jesus' teaching, death and resurrection, were not fabrications, they were real events witnessed and discussed widely. "Sheeple"? People were being literally killed, in the most brutal ways, en masse for following Jesus - they followed Him because they knew that He truly had defeated death, not because it was easy or fun to follow Him.
There isn't a single aspect of the Bible that lends itself credibility to supernatural claims. Additionally it's the most morally reprehensible dumpster fire that I've ever read.
Could you clarify that sentence? Are you saying that the Bible lacks credibility because of its supernatural claims, or that its supernatural claims should have more credibility? Are you presupposing naturalism? On what basis if so?
How do you define morality whe you deem the Bible morally reprehensible? Where do your morals come from and how do you know that they're correct or superior to those of other people, or the Bible? Indeed, there's much within it that's horrific but it's an account of ancient history, not simply a set of commands, and each part needs thorough study of context. Ultimately it's Jesus who most clearly reveals God's character and who gives us the most timeless instruction as to how to live.
How do you define morality whe you deem the Bible morally reprehensible? Where do your morals come from and how do you know that they're correct or superior to those of other people, or the Bible? Indeed, there's much within it that's horrific but it's an account of ancient history, not simply a set of commands, and each part needs thorough study of context. Ultimately it's Jesus who most clearly reveals God's character and who gives us the most timeless instruction as to how to live.
There is no evidence that presents any substantiation for supernatural claims. For example, Bethlehem existing does not mean a man walked on water. The collapse of a particular city does not mean there's a creator diety. There is no corresponding evidence that supports supernatural claims made by the Bible. There are plenty of natural physical claims - certain people and places existing, certain events happening. But none of that gives any substance to a supernatural claim made by the Bible. As far as morality is concerned, I will agree that morality is subjective. However utilitarianism, by far, is the most recognizably superior matrix by which to assess actions, and I would argue that for conversational purposes, whether or not a particular action is moral really only matters to the people having this conversation right now. But that aside, gods character is the most immoral of all the characters. His system is "worship me or burn forever." "What you do in the next 80 oddyears youre alive will determine your eternity." How do you know that "there is no evidence"? I get the impression that you've not considered the arguments that Christians academics actually make. No one's saying that "Bethlehem existing does means that a man walked on water.", nor that "The collapse of a particular city means that there's a creator diety." I grew up thinking that the idea of the supernatural was ridiculous. Plenty of claims of it are. But as I studied science, it became clear that there must be a designer - and sometimes He, therefore, can break the laws of nature since He instigated them.
I agree that utilitarianism is generally a good idea - but what we observe might not be all that there is. When life is perfect, we ignore God, and will miss out on heaven. When we seek God in difficult times, He gives amazing comfort, and we can find eternal life.
Throughout history and around the world, there have been/are many people whose lives have been far, far, far less comfortable than ours are in the 21st century West, but who've followed God, and consequently had the deep inner joy and strength - and who'll have endless joy free of sadness as a result.
Throughout history and around the world, there have been/are many people whose lives have been far, far, far less comfortable than ours are in the 21st century West, but who've followed God, and consequently had the deep inner joy and strength - and who'll have endless joy free of sadness as a result.
Worshipping God isn't a labourious task as you seem to imply, it's truly the most exciting thing human beings can do. The idea that people "burn forever" is a highly dubious (mis?)interpretation of the Bible propogated by some Churches to scare people into donating more. Things that burn, burn up. So if a person chooses not to spend eternity with God by accepting Jesus' offer, they'll be gone. http://rethinkinghell.com/
And it's certainly not "What you do in the next 80 oddyears youre alive will determine your eternity." - we are each offered eternal life (heaven) on the basis of what Christ has done. If we've genuinely accepted Him, we will develop a desire to do good, but it's not our actions that determine where we spend eternity.
And it's certainly not "What you do in the next 80 oddyears youre alive will determine your eternity." - we are each offered eternal life (heaven) on the basis of what Christ has done. If we've genuinely accepted Him, we will develop a desire to do good, but it's not our actions that determine where we spend eternity.
Women in the U.S. Can Now Get Safe Abortions by Mail
Of course I care. Not supporting abortion doesn't mean not caring about the women involved. But no one's "forcing" anyone to be pregnant, other than in the 1% of cases resulting from rape.
"Safe"? How certain is that? And what about the long term "safety" for psychological health? https://www.cambridge.org/.../E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BE...
Never mind the safety for very tiny humans, of course.
Never mind the safety for very tiny humans, of course.
Of course you know what cuts abortion rates to like 25% of their current levels? Free IUD programs! Do you support those? I don't recognize anybody who doesn't support free IUD programs as "pro-life" since they clearly do not actually care about reducing abortion rates.
What's needed is a change in the messages that society feeds people about sex. But yes, free IUDs are definitely something I'd support.
How safe, you ask, Grace? Compared to a coat hanger (your preferred method) I'd say these pills are pretty damn safe.
When did I say that I'm in favour of coat hangers being used?
My psychological health would tank straight to suicide if I was forced to be pregnant. But you don't care about that, you care more about a jumble of undeveloped organs and tissues more than you'd ever care about me.
Refusing to give a woman an abortion is more like likely to adversely affect her mental health
If someone is denied something, they will feel resentful, and that frustration could well spiral. It doesn't tell us that a person would in fact have been happier if they'd had what they thought that wanted. A teenager might want to eat junkfood all day, or to go clubbing in a dangerous area - they'll absolutely report poor mental health if asked how being disallowed those requests made them feel, it doesn't mean that those things would have actually been beneficial to their mental health.please don't fool yourself into thinking that your forced birth bullshit isn't obvious. You'd deny women a safe, legal abortion. Own your cruelty.
It's not forced, or cruelty, it's biology after one chooses to have sex. Personally, I reckon it's cruel to suck/tear/chop a tiny human into pieces, but perhaps you disagree?
But I'm not trying to argue, and I'm iltimately not in charge nor judging the women themselves, I'm just commenting on tragedy within our society. Because we've been taught that sex is as essential part of life for everyone ASAP, countless people are eventually emotionally hurt, and tiny humans are killed. It upsets me. I'm not looking for a fight.
But I'm not trying to argue, and I'm iltimately not in charge nor judging the women themselves, I'm just commenting on tragedy within our society. Because we've been taught that sex is as essential part of life for everyone ASAP, countless people are eventually emotionally hurt, and tiny humans are killed. It upsets me. I'm not looking for a fight.
all unwanted pregnancies are caused by unwanted ejaculate. Women can have orgasms all day long and it won't cause a pregnancy. The problem is men having orgasms and not taking responsibility for the ejaculate. Don't demonize women having sex. It's not only fun, it's healthy. And aborting a fetus is not tearing up a tiny human. The brain isn't developed until after 23 weeks. In the first 14 weeks when most abortions occur, it's a cluster of cells.
Forced bu"The brain isn't developed until after 23 weeks. In the first 14 weeks when most abortions occur, it's a cluster of cells." where are you getting that from? Last year a prize was awarded for a medical paper on how foetal facial expressions change when music is played. We're each a cluster of cells, that' what a human being is - a foetus is most definitely a human with its own unique genome that dictates the adult they'll grow into, I think that what you mean by cluster of cells is a blastocyst, or perhaps embryo, which it will be at several weeks, not up to 14 weeks. http://www.ehd.org/
Sex might be fun, but plenty of other things are as well. Our culture has taught us that sex is fundamental to who we are as people, which is degrading; and hat we can't be happy without it, which is patently false.
I entirely agree that men should take more responsibility.
Sex might be fun, but plenty of other things are as well. Our culture has taught us that sex is fundamental to who we are as people, which is degrading; and hat we can't be happy without it, which is patently false.
I entirely agree that men should take more responsibility.
of course you aren't. You'll just spread lies and then pretend that you didn't. I think it's cruel when women bleed out from botched abortions. I think it's cruel when people like you work to prevent women from accessing birth control. The tragedy is that you sick, forced birther care nothing about the child after it's born. It's all about controlling women.
Of course I'm not what? What lies have I spread?
And why on Earth do you presume that I oppose birth control? I think that we need most for attitudes to sex to change so that it isn't needed, but I'm most definitely not opposed to birth control.
I never said that I think it's OK for women to suffer in botched abortions. A woman who doesn't want her baby isn't forced to have a dangerous freelance abortion if abortions aren't legal and easy - she has other options.
Are you unaware that women bleed out even when abortion is legal and free? Here in London, 466 ambulance calls were made within a year by abortion clinics - 466 times in one city, in one year, where abortion provided by corporations like Marie Stopes - not in back alleys - led to women having to be rushed to hospital.
Why exactly am I sick, and how can you know that my motive is to "control women" simply because I hate the idea of tiny humans being torn up? It's a fallacy of logic to argue by assuming someone else's motive.
And why on Earth do you presume that I oppose birth control? I think that we need most for attitudes to sex to change so that it isn't needed, but I'm most definitely not opposed to birth control.
I never said that I think it's OK for women to suffer in botched abortions. A woman who doesn't want her baby isn't forced to have a dangerous freelance abortion if abortions aren't legal and easy - she has other options.
Are you unaware that women bleed out even when abortion is legal and free? Here in London, 466 ambulance calls were made within a year by abortion clinics - 466 times in one city, in one year, where abortion provided by corporations like Marie Stopes - not in back alleys - led to women having to be rushed to hospital.
Why exactly am I sick, and how can you know that my motive is to "control women" simply because I hate the idea of tiny humans being torn up? It's a fallacy of logic to argue by assuming someone else's motive.
Perhaps - but the more we choose cheap options and cut out non-necessities, the more we can help people for whom even clean water is exciting. I love that we can totally transform lives amazingly cost effectively. Eg, every $6 can feed a starving child for a month with Feed The Hungry USA ; $38 can sponsor a child for a month providing lessons, mentoring, bedding and more with Compassion International; $100 could give a family clean water for the first time with Samaritan's Purse etc...It's genuinely exciting
Cheap options in turn create abuse of workers somewhere else
More expensive options are no better (for minimising the risk of abuse of workers) unless from specifically fairtrade businesses.
And he's deemed the virtuous, super friendly Superman of the Western world, right? Who cares if he supplies war resources to a murdering state?
(Please note, I am in no way suggesting that this makes Trump's, nor our UK PM's actions OK)
(Please note, I am in no way suggesting that this makes Trump's, nor our UK PM's actions OK)
Perhaps there's nothing to the allegations. But then, according to Krauss, nothing is something.
Set up a donations page for any followers inclined to give a £ or two in their memory? Then donate the money towards animals - such as chickens, goats and cows to help human beings who could only dream of the luxury some British pets receive.....
Meghan's been an abassador for World Vision USA- imagine how much good could be done for people too poor to buy new clothes if our media spent the time that it spends obsessing over Meghan's clothes on discussing severe poverty in developing countries instead...
perhaps start with the severe poverty in the UK before you look elsewhere.
Defined how? Indeed some British people are in poverty and policies should be developed to address inequality - but there are human beings elsewhere without clean water, health care or electricity, living in slums or on the streets - and £for£, donations that we give to help them can make a far greater difference.
Yes she's in the UK now and we have poverty here, charity begins ant home first not abroad!!
I hear (read) it all the time "Charity begins at home". But tell me - why?
When we have an NHS, benefits, emergency services, school without fees, and opportunities - as imperfect as I know they are - why hould we help people here before helping people abroad who don't have those things?
"Charity begins at home" has no logical or evidential basis, it's just an excuse for those who'd rather give to human beings more similar to them, feeling that people in Africa are somehow less deserving of clean water, food and homes. It's non-sensical.
When we have an NHS, benefits, emergency services, school without fees, and opportunities - as imperfect as I know they are - why hould we help people here before helping people abroad who don't have those things?
"Charity begins at home" has no logical or evidential basis, it's just an excuse for those who'd rather give to human beings more similar to them, feeling that people in Africa are somehow less deserving of clean water, food and homes. It's non-sensical.
some people? Quite a large number of children live below the poverty line, and there are people in the UK who live without electricity, or clean water, and on the streets. Stop trying to fix other people's problems and fix the UK first, or do we not matter because it's more expensive?
As I said, I'm desperate for the government to help the poor here - but you're misunderstading the situation if you think that the poverty here is comparable to that ein developing countries. What poverty line are you referring to? It's relative poverty - ie. compared to other peope in Britain, so that by nature, sadly, there'll always be people below it. The real poverty line is that used by the UN of $1.90 per day. below which 40% of people in Africa live. And they don't have food banks, benefits, free healthcare etc like we do.
I'm not saying that I don't care about the injustice here - but it's wrong to ignore injustice that's far more severe just because the people suffering aren't like us. And they are our problem, because it's historical and corporate greed that's made our nation rich by exploiting theirs.
I'm not saying that I don't care about the injustice here - but it's wrong to ignore injustice that's far more severe just because the people suffering aren't like us. And they are our problem, because it's historical and corporate greed that's made our nation rich by exploiting theirs.
When was it that one's genitals or what they do with them stand as any barrier to going for a hike? Contrary to what Mashable and others seem to think, there's much to life that's urelated to sex, and hiking is one of those things. Either way, there's no rationale in wearing heels to hed up into mountains. I wear heels everywhere else, and wear and check my makeup whilst hiking - but even I don't wear heels in the hills. It's not fair on the air ambulance crew that will have to pick you up when you fall.
"Need"? Nah. It's good to have an understanding of culture, but why on Earth should anyone feel compelled to follow other peoples' instructions about how we spend our free time?
Wow. One might have thought that the CofE might deem God's design/plan/wisdom to be of some significance, but maybe not.
Can you really not see that there's a distinction between welcoming people and endorsing their discomfort with what God created? Are you unable to tell people that they are infinitely loved, and that Christ died for them, without agreeing with them that God made a mistake?
God's wisdom is beyond our understanding and in the complexity of gender and identity we can only marvel at God's works. There is no mistake by God (only by narrow human understandings of gender) therefore it is important that transgender people are given the fullest spiritual and pastoral support to be fully alive in God's image. This CofE comment is, necessarily, a holding response, and yet thankfully it acknowledges the excessive bureaucracy in the current process which is not welcoming nor affirming of transgender people as it should, and of course as the CofE rightly aspires to be. Can you really not see that there's a distinction between welcoming people and endorsing their discomfort with what God created? Are you unable to tell people that they are infinitely loved, and that Christ died for them, without agreeing with them that God made a mistake?
"Affirming"? Why "should" the CofE affirm the feeling that God has made a mistake? That IS the implication of saying that a person with XY chromosomes is female or vice versa. Indeed, people are diverse, so we should seek to rebut our society's stereotypes and obsession with sex - not label people as something which God did not plan them to be.
The mistake would be surely to insist that god's creation is wrong, that somebody's identity souls be defined by their genitalia rather than by what God made them inside.
What God made them inside? Defined how? The Bible makes it very clear that not everything we feel or think about ourselves is guidance from God. There's no theological nor scietific basis for the idea that someone is "born in the wrong body". If a person is male, they have testis inside and XY chromosomes in every body cell (other than RBCs and gametes obviously). That, and external genitalia, are what God has made. If they feel that they aren't male, it's because the feel disociated from the portrayal of what it means to be male that they've grown up with. And vice versa for those with XX chromosomes. So they need to know that they don't have to feel constrained by that; what makes them who they are are their personality traits; interests; and relationship with God.
Why does anyone want or need to read about his sexual prowess, or lack of, to determine their view of Trump? It's the Ad Hominem fallacy to attempt to win an argument by criticising an aspect of your opponent that's unrelated to the argument; trying to score points on the basis that he's unimpressive cheapens the oppostion to him.
Still to buy your winter coat? We’ve got you covered
"Only people who benefit are the management" - how would you know? Have you investigated their operations and finances?
Why not try Oxfam (they sell onine as well as in store)?
Plenty of their items are by pricey, high quality brands/designes, and the money will make a genuine difference to someone's life.
Plenty of their items are by pricey, high quality brands/designes, and the money will make a genuine difference to someone's life.
the only people who benefit at Oxfam are management. Furthermore, earlier this year it was discovered that this particular charity likes it's victims to be ho's.
The charities commission does. Charity Navigator does.
The idea that the management of a charity takes all of its money is a baseless conspiracy theory. I agree that it's very wrong that the top management of most charities are on high salaries - the reason being that they're individuals with business skills that grow the charities and who would work in the corporate field if they didn't have a high salary - but the % of the charities money that they're getting is so small it's not worth worrying about.
The fact that 1 pervert decided to work for Oxfam is - though in itself vile - irrelevant. He left years ago, and was only ever 1 of thousands of staff. And unfortunately, as the news endlessly reminds us, perverts are ubiquitous.
The Independent's new low standard -''According to science - A study by British sociologist Dr Ryan Scoats, who has a PhD in threesomes...'' This line in the article should tell you all you need to know about the Independent's level of credibility as a source of journalism. I'm honestly surprised that the editor did not pick up on this dubious PhD, and allowed this article to be published.Also, it says 30 people were surveyed. This is simply not credible.
The article was written over a year ago, yet already it is a favourite of the Indy's to constantly repost. I'm assuming they have an agenda to drive with this one, hence why they are so obsessed with it and want us all to see it over and over again.
I can only assume this is SJW zealous agenda trying to change attitudes again. The Independent seems to have dropped it's main aim of being a newspaper ( even an online only edition ).
Yes, the "According to science" captions are maddening. They simply tell us that the writer is scientifically illiterate, and expects everyone else to be also.
And there aren't words for how vile I find it to see the sudden trend for articles on poly sex in various forms (not only from The Independent, unfortunately).
And SJW should be a good thing. I'm aching to see actual social justice - ending of extreme poverty; fair pay and treatment for plantation and factory workers around the world; fighting people trafficking... But plenty of my fellow millenniel lefties seem to believe that traditional ideas about sex are the evils that should be fought.
And there aren't words for how vile I find it to see the sudden trend for articles on poly sex in various forms (not only from The Independent, unfortunately).
And SJW should be a good thing. I'm aching to see actual social justice - ending of extreme poverty; fair pay and treatment for plantation and factory workers around the world; fighting people trafficking... But plenty of my fellow millenniel lefties seem to believe that traditional ideas about sex are the evils that should be fought.
Abortion doulas are helping more women who are having a termination
I agree that abortion itself is evil - but he women themselves are misled, not necesarily "vile". Calling them murderers only makes people more angry with those of us who oppose abortion.
The only advice they should be giving them is not to have an abortion! Women who have abortions are baby murderers. Just because you have a life blossoming inside of you, that doesn't give you the right to end that life! That life has a future full of dreams and aspirations if it weren't for you killing it. Abortions need to be made illigal except on the grounds of medical reasons. Not for rape though. The innocent baby wasn't to blame for the rape so it shouldn't have to pay the price. Women who abort babies out of inconvenience are the worst of all they are vile and will burn for it eternally.
I fervetly believe that there's overwhelming evidence for the existence of God, and ample reasoning to trust Jesus - but His words aren't actually indicative of people burning eternally - things that burn burn up and are then etrnally gone. The idea that those in hell continue to experience torture forever is an invention of some Churches, it's not logical or Biblical.
Crucially - Jesus demonstrated victory over death and taught that anyone can be forgiven and reach heaven I they follow Him - so if a person were genuinely sorry for an abortion, or anything else, they certainly won't burn. We're ALL sinners in need of Him.
What really frustrates me is that so many people who would claim to be on the side of helping those in poverty and fighting exploitation are far more enthusiastic about staying in the EU than actually reducing suffering in the world. They appear to deem Brexit more evil than sweatshops, famine and trafficking.
Browsing their site, I discovered that one of their team is my High school's ex-chaplain. His bio on the site attempts to credit him with the school's expasion, which is bizarre. Truly infuriating though, is that apparently he refused to let one of the students on the chaplaincy team start a Bible study group. The sexuality debate is important in itself - but trivial by comparison to helping people come to know and understand God through the Bible. That a "chaplain" would disallow a Bible study at a CofE school (though it's CofE, I found that very, very few of the students were Christian) is grotesque. So, aside from their stance on sexuality, which I strongly disagree with, I'm truly skeptical that the group has any interest in following Jesus whatsoever.
We're flipping fortunate - I'm heartbroken for those who've been affected by flooding in recent years, but most of us get to enjoy more livable weather than much of the world.
It's wrong to entirely ignore the weather catastrophes that are causing extreme devestation in other parts of the globe. The Global Warming debate may be slightly controversial, but we shouldn't simply dismiss warnings when the suffering that weather is causing to human beings elsewhere is so extreme.
It's wrong to entirely ignore the weather catastrophes that are causing extreme devestation in other parts of the globe. The Global Warming debate may be slightly controversial, but we shouldn't simply dismiss warnings when the suffering that weather is causing to human beings elsewhere is so extreme.
|
It's not just items, apparently (I follow Vice) you can also now choose "ethical porn" - which is more feminist and supportive of LGBTQ comunities than traditional porn.
I weep for my generation. Plenty of whom, I suspect, would deem you immoral for attempting to "shame" people for their sexuality with the above title. Meanwhile, I've read that in Nepal the government is rightly banning porn (inc. by imposing rules on ISPs) having had the common sense to recognise that it's been responsible for a 300% increase in sexual assault. And media outlets aimed at my demographic are incomparably more keen to fight for sexual freedom as a moral crusade than fight against the poverty that people in Nepal and other developing countries face. So, so, so depressing. Sexual health service cuts could endanger future rollout of Prep |
Why should taxpayers' money be spent on sex rather than on giving NHS staff better pay?
It can do, if you're born into a community where you have to carry water every day; are forced into marraige as teenager; have no option for an education; live in a slum; have no electricity lack access to healthcare; struggle continually for enough food to survive; have no protection from a substantial threat of rape; live in a war zone; are forced to work 10+ hour days in a sweatshop or plantation; or any combination of those. Being a woman sucks for many women - but Amy Schumer is one of the most privileged human beings on the planet.
There's nothing to figure out. Nearly everyone has either XX or XY chromosomes; and absolutely eveyone is an individual - why try to "figure out" which stereotypes you feel happiest with instead of being yourself? We certaily need to address bullying of trans people, obviously - but we each ought to be ourselves rather than letting our culture's obsession with sex define us.
A huge amount of progress has been made in recent years to find solutions to address the damage done by systems started before the risks were known. Given how rapidly green energy has bdeveloped, how many many people are now concerned about the planet, and how many new technologies have been created to tackle enviromenta issue, it's plausible that wemight not be totally doomed....
I so, so often enncounter people who argue that there's no point giving to charities working in developing countries "we've given billions and people are still starving" - it makes me furious.
It's thrilling how much we can do to advance the progress shown in these tables for what is so little cost to us. Eg - for the cost of a few coffees, we can feed a child for a month (Feed The Hungry USA); $36 per month can sponsor a child, transforming their life (Compassion International) etc - tables like those in this article are so, so, so much more significant than most of the things media usually focusses on.
It's thrilling how much we can do to advance the progress shown in these tables for what is so little cost to us. Eg - for the cost of a few coffees, we can feed a child for a month (Feed The Hungry USA); $36 per month can sponsor a child, transforming their life (Compassion International) etc - tables like those in this article are so, so, so much more significant than most of the things media usually focusses on.
“There is no God. No one directs the universe,” Stephen Hawking writes in “Brief Answers to the Big Questions.”
Which scientific findings have proven that, exactly? http://time.com/77676/
God isn't composed of the matter and energy that science can examine - but science demonstrates the the complexity and interdependence of the universe and biological world mean that it couldn't have come about by chance.
Which scientific findings have proven that, exactly? http://time.com/77676/
God isn't composed of the matter and energy that science can examine - but science demonstrates the the complexity and interdependence of the universe and biological world mean that it couldn't have come about by chance.
Actual Christianity is to genuinely love Christ - having truly repented and accepted His offer of death in our place so that we ca be forgiven - such that we desire to emulate Him (live by His example and commands). It's not to follow the Pope (though hehas a lot of wise words), nor saints. The joy that a relationship with Jesus can bring; the good that some people do if they really try to live for Him; and the possibility of eternal life (heaven) are incomparably more important than religious institutions.
Surely what's needed is less division; less putting everyone and every cause into left/right boxes; and less of people choosing sides on the basis of identity over aiming for positive outcomes?
But the "boxes" people inhabit determine what they perceive as "positive outcomes." For example, for people opposed to Roe vs. Wade, a "positive outcome" would be to have abortion re-criminalized. For those in favor of Roe vs. Wade, this would be a major setback for women's rights and public health. These are mutually exclusive goals. There is no way to please both sides. Somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose. That's just how it is.
Indeed - but some people seem to hold strongly to one side or another because they consider that side more favourably on account of considering themselves to be alligned on the basis of their left/right identity.
I've been told off many times about the existence of abortion when making comments in support of more compassion for migrants - ie. because I'm left leaning on most issues, I'm presumed to be pro-choice when in fact I'm pro-life. Obviously, me being misjudged doesn't matter, but we can't reach optimal outcomes if we just attack each other based on left/right presumptions and tribalism.
I've been told off many times about the existence of abortion when making comments in support of more compassion for migrants - ie. because I'm left leaning on most issues, I'm presumed to be pro-choice when in fact I'm pro-life. Obviously, me being misjudged doesn't matter, but we can't reach optimal outcomes if we just attack each other based on left/right presumptions and tribalism.
No, the gap between rich and poor - which has increased - is the reason to hike taxes.
Personally, I've aways thought (not that my opinion is really relevant since I'm not Muslim) that we should perhaps distinguish between Muslims and Islam. Both, obviously, are endlessly complex, and there's good and bad within each as is true of any group or ideology. But crucially Muslims shouldn't feel personally hurt by criticism of Islam itself (not that I am unconcerned about those individuals' feelings of course) - and more importantly, non-Muslims mustn't judge Muslims by the things that they dislike about Islam.
Can someone explain this self-obsessed paranoia? Until recently, Russia was barely discussed at all here in the UK. With all due respect, most of us just aren't thinking about Russia. The poisoning thing has made us more dubious of Putin, but not all Russian people - and in general people give far more thought to Europe and the US. Why does RT have such a misunderstanding of how interested Westerners are in Russia?
It's awesome how much excitement we can bring to children in severe poverty when we provide simple things that we take forgranted.
Churches are somewhere that anyone can go to hang out with mostly friendly people. They differ massively, so anyone trying should visit a few to find one that feels comfortable. There's no obligation to participate in anything that you don't want to or to contribute to the £offering. There's usually tea/coffee/biscuits after Sunday morning services, and most Churches have other social activities during the week. Unless entirely overstretched, Church staff teams will visit elderly and ill people.A relationship with God is truly more helpful to mood and mental health than anything else - and Jesus offers eternal life that's incomparably more exciting still. Yet Churches are open for anyone to visit irrespective of belief. More lonely people should try.
Perfect.... If you're over 50...
Perfect.... If you're over 50...
I think you've fallen for an outdated stereotype. Churches vary, but there are plenty that aren't like what you're imagining.
It's very, very wrong that people buy helicopters for themselves when they could provide villages with clean water with that money - but it's disgusting that someones already added a laugh reaction to this post.
I really enjoy watching films at home (for free, with more comfort and the option to wear pyjamas). It's depressing that whilst thousands of people are on the streets; and people in less privileged countries live in slums, money gets spent on cinemas.
Why are you using a photo from a Trump protest?
I'm sick of hearing about Brexit - I desperately want us to spend more time instead working out how to address Global inequality. People without clean water; people living in slums; and people working every waking hour in factories and plantations to provide things that we take forgranted, are of incomparably more concern to me than how Brexit might affect me.
I'm sick of hearing about Brexit - I desperately want us to spend more time instead working out how to address Global inequality. People without clean water; people living in slums; and people working every waking hour in factories and plantations to provide things that we take forgranted, are of incomparably more concern to me than how Brexit might affect me.
I frequently comment, when poverty in/ migration from Africa is in the news, that we should be concerned because (in addition to the fact that they're every bit as human as us) the poverty is largely a result of greed by our nation. People say again and again that because colonialism was centuries ago we no longer have any responsibility. It's infuriating.
But what do they mean by "what's right"? Everyone thinks that what they stand for is what's right, that's why they campaign for it. Which of those different ideologies actually is right is independent of the identity of those advocating it. Why would identity politics be a good thing? We should be focussing on positive causes and helping others, identity is irrelevant.
It's vital to tackle bullying and break down genders steryotypes; but why do you think that it's good to endorse a child feeling unhappy with the body that they were born with?
because it's a real issue and with the current climate of Transphobia it needs addressing
As I said, bullying - transphobia - needs addressing; but this programme is about supporting a child's feeling of unhappiness with their own body.
Not about supporting a feeling of unhappiness, but about taking that unhappiness and working it through as a family and supporting the child to become who they really are.I have no idea. I just knew, and I do indeed have xx chromosomes, but
"Who they really are"? What does that mean? How is endorsing a person having surgery (not until adulthood I know) and lifelong injections to fight biology supporting becoming who they really are? They have XY chromosomes, and so if they feel awkward being male, it's because of things about being male that they've observed - they should be encouraged that they don't need to adhere to those stereotypes and that they are unique and priceless, not defined by sex.
does that apply to a three year old that cries itself to sleep each night because it cannot understand why it is treated differently to other girls?
"It"? Why have you referred to a child as in it?
Differently how?
Differently how?
On what basis are you presuming that a 3 year old with xy chromosomes is what you claim that they are?
when did know you was a girl I say at young age so people know they diffrent from young age
I didn't think about it because I was just me. I had a few Barbies, but also Lego and wooden trains. My favourite games were imagining adventures with my soft toys. I liked some girly things, but I rarely wore dresses and I imagined being a warrior or spy rather than a princess. Each child is an individual, and trying to medicate them to be something that they aren’t to fit gender stereotypes is tragic. Let a boy play with the toys he wants to, statistically nearly all children who question their gender are happy with their birth gender when they're older - why re-enforce their dissatisfaction with their own body?
Please name one female that objects to females receiving healthcare?
I didn't say that they did. The issue is that "female healthcare" is used to refer to procedures including killing of other tiny humans, and it's that which some people - male and female - object to.
why are you following a humanist Facebook page? You're not going to change anyone's opinion with your Christian talking points.
Because I want to better understand other views. Echo chambers aren't a good thing. And whilst I'm opposed to humanism, but I'm very keen to see humanitarianism promoted; it's good to follow pages like this and better understand things that I can agree with atheists about even whilst I firmly disagree about the ultimate issue.
Fox News must be on commercial break.
LOL why do you presume that I'm A)in America and B)Right leaning? I'm a left leaning Brit, but I'm pro-life, because we don't all fit into 1of2 boxes.
For those who object to abortion, do you also object to wars in which far larger numbers are killed?
Object to whatever you wish but understand that the only truly effective way of limiting abortion to more and better sex education, more and better access to low/no cost contraceptives, and making males responsible for each and every sperm their bodies produce.
Best wishes.
Object to whatever you wish but understand that the only truly effective way of limiting abortion to more and better sex education, more and better access to low/no cost contraceptives, and making males responsible for each and every sperm their bodies produce.
Best wishes.
Yes I'm opposed to war - though each is a complex situation and there may be some situations where action is needed to prevent further loss of life (such as fighting to stop the Nazis - though this ma well have been done in a more destructive manner than it should have). It infuriates me that so much is spent on "defense" - if I had the power, I'd transfer most military spending to spending on overseas development.
I'm absolutely pro-contraception and pro-sex ed, though kids should also be taught that, contrary to our culture which manipulates us because "sex sells", they don't need sex to enjoy life. Waiting until marriage before going all the way saves kids from STIs and heartbreak, but information and contraception should be available also.
Yes males - in general, each is an individual - should take more responsibility.
I'm absolutely pro-contraception and pro-sex ed, though kids should also be taught that, contrary to our culture which manipulates us because "sex sells", they don't need sex to enjoy life. Waiting until marriage before going all the way saves kids from STIs and heartbreak, but information and contraception should be available also.
Yes males - in general, each is an individual - should take more responsibility.
Basically in this argument of the tiny human versus the female human, you have to ask yourself which one has more president. Which one deserves more consideration for their personal autonomy. The tiny human AKA fetus which cannot live outside of its mother and is not fully developed, or the female human who is a free and independent entity. Does the fetus's right to life supercede the woman's right to not be forced to incubate it. Because denying people the right to abort if necessary or desired does exactly one thing: reduces women to the role of incubator.
Indeed the foetus isn't more important, however the female adult isn't in danger of being killed, and did (in 99%, according to PP's data) make the choice to have sex. The ideal would be to link up more couples wanting a baby with pregnant mothers who want rid of theirs, and also to encourage means of avoiding accidental conception.
you're quite preachy and certain of your views for someone who wants to learn. If you truly wanted to learn, why didn't you begin with a question instead of a judgment?
The post was a joke based on a misrepresentation. What should I have asked?
I see why you're a Christian.
LOL, why is that then? I think you mean that as an insult, presuming that "Christian" is synonymous with brainwashed, but it doesn't really work when that's not what the word means to me. What is it you think I believe and how do you "see" that I believe it?
Stop trying to push your ideals on me. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Check the box that says no.
Push my ideals? I have an opinion, and we all share opinions online. It's not about "if you don't want an abortion" - there's another human being who doesn't want to be chopped up but will be, and anyone can have an opnion on that.
actually there are a lot of health risks that come with being pregnant. And it's not something you just recover from right away afterwards. Nobody should be forced to risk their health and livelihood to incubate a fetus if they don't want to. And as for the adoption thing every time someone brings that up I'm just reminded of the thousands and thousands of children sitting around in foster care right now waiting on forever families. Where are all those adoptive couples?
Forced? It's biology, resulting from the choice to have sex. There are kids awaiting adoption because, sadly but understandably, most adoptive parents want the experience of adopting at the beginning of a child's life, so have preference for a baby. The abortion process is very dangerous - even when legal and in a clinic, and leads plenty of women feeling emotionally hurt later on.
healthcare in the US is a big problem. Many Americans do not have healthcare, many more have inadequate and/or too expensive healthcare. Furthermore, reproductive healthcare and patient privacy is also well below what we it should be - as the meme insinuates, those making the laws about our healthcare system are old, Christian, white men. They are not basing their policies on science or equity. The argument isn't just about abortion.It's your opinion and your right to feel the human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus has a right to life. But that is your opinion -- where do you draw the line? Conception? Birth? Somewhere in between? How do you feel about miscarriage? Would you allow an abortion to save a woman's life? Where do you draw the line?
it's very complex - I wouldn't object to morning after pills. An abortion at a few weeks is tragic but I wouldn't argue. Once It has its organs and has brainwaves - 6-8 weeks - I'm bothered, anything 2nd trimester or beyond I find horrifying and certainly feel should not be legal. Yes abortion to save the mother might be reasonable but it would depend on the precise details and how certain it was that her life was at risk.
I'm aware that US healthcare is lacking, and genuiely wish that something more like what Sanders has been suggesting came into place.
I'm aware that US healthcare is lacking, and genuiely wish that something more like what Sanders has been suggesting came into place.
Nazi pugs, gay cakes and Bob Geldof
I don't think you can group these. Some jokes are not funny and are dangerous, some are just rubbish. The Nazi pug was apparently a joke, and went very wrong.
The cake is a very different topic, they weren't trying to be funny. They were refusing to say something because they want to follow God's guidance, and they weren't joking about nor OK-ing any bullying any mistreatment of LGBT people.
In general, non-Christians should be aware that actually following Christ categorically does not mean thinking that LGBT people are any less precious and valuable to God than anyone else. If a child breaks rules that their parent gave, their parent still loves them, and their sibling who doesn't support breaking that rule isn't driven by hatred. Obviously, plenty of people claiming to be Christians have mistreated LGBT people, and that's inexcusable; but they weren't following Christ in doing so, and ultimately you need to make a decision about Him.
The cake is a very different topic, they weren't trying to be funny. They were refusing to say something because they want to follow God's guidance, and they weren't joking about nor OK-ing any bullying any mistreatment of LGBT people.
In general, non-Christians should be aware that actually following Christ categorically does not mean thinking that LGBT people are any less precious and valuable to God than anyone else. If a child breaks rules that their parent gave, their parent still loves them, and their sibling who doesn't support breaking that rule isn't driven by hatred. Obviously, plenty of people claiming to be Christians have mistreated LGBT people, and that's inexcusable; but they weren't following Christ in doing so, and ultimately you need to make a decision about Him.
So in a nutshell, some jokes are dangerous, but religious tracts, in particular Christian ones, are totally neutral and benign?
We weren't talking about tracts, but I'm fascinated - what are you objecting to on tracts that you've seen?
Our standard of living, access to education, healthcare, opportunities and so much more are incomparably better (in the UK) than for most people in Africa. It's the result of injustices like these^ which in turn left a void of democracy that enabled fictators to take over; and modern corporations exploiting peoplead taking their land. We should be concerned. We should be excited that we have the opportunity to transform lives there at what is remarkably little cost to us (eg. if we gave up one meal out per month, we could sponsor a child and entirely change their future).
If money were unlimited, that might be nice, but it isn't, and frankly it's disgusting to spend money on this that could be spent on saving lives.
Not icing a specific phrase onto a cake is not homophobic. They aren't OK-ing any bullying any mistreatment of LGBT people; and in general, non-Christians should be aware that actually following Christ categorically does not mean thinking that LGBT people are any less precious and valuable to God than anyone else. If a child breaks rules that their parent gave, their parent still loves them, and their sibling who doesn't support breaking that rule isn't driven by hatred. Obviously, plenty of people claiming to be Christians have mistreated LGBT people, and that's inexcusable; but they weren't following Christ in doing so, and ultimately you need to make a decision about Him.
People hate God in large part because of things done by people who claim to be followers of God, but who are in fact ignoring His guidance. Everyone needs to decide on God based on who He is, as opposed to what human beings do.
Many people have also happily lapped up atheists arguments that God is fictional, but not explored the rational points, from science, philosophy and history, supporting belief in Him. Given that what we believe about Him may determine our eternity, it's odd that most people never investigate the arguments for believing in Him.
Many people have also happily lapped up atheists arguments that God is fictional, but not explored the rational points, from science, philosophy and history, supporting belief in Him. Given that what we believe about Him may determine our eternity, it's odd that most people never investigate the arguments for believing in Him.
Thankyou for highlighting this. There's far too little discussion about the poverty and exploitation going on outside of our privileged island. Endless debates about Brexit etc, whilst issues causing extreme suffering are apparently uimportant, by measure of media exposure and public conversation.
Do people realise that if they bought a cheap or 2nd hand smart phone instead of a new model, they'd save enough money to sponsor a child for 3 years and keep them safe from evils like this^?
Do people realise that if they bought a cheap or 2nd hand smart phone instead of a new model, they'd save enough money to sponsor a child for 3 years and keep them safe from evils like this^?
And there I was thinking that VICE would give it a positive review. From your photos, it looks like the natural history museums that I went to as a child, and enjoyed. It's not a theme park, it's not designed for young adults, what are you expecting?
NB - Christians have varied views about creation - if "Creationist" means simply believing that God created, we're all creationists, but the idea that Genesis is all entirely literal, with the days of creation equating to 24 hours is a minority view. The word used that has been translated to "day" doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours, for example - note that we sometimes say things like "back in my day" "these days...". It seems to me, and many other Christians, that the complexity and interdependence of the universe and natuural world demonstrate that it couldn't have developed without a designer - but Genesis is a simplified, poetic description for the audience at the time it was written.
"Embracing God's design for sexuality" is not homophobic, in that it's not OK-ing any bullying any mistreatment of LGBT people; and whatever happens at this ark, non-Christians should be aware that actually following Christ categorically does not mean thinking that LGBT people are any less precious and valuable to God than anyone else. If a child breaks rules that their parent gave, their parent still loves them, and their sibling who doesn't support breaking that rule isn't driven by hatred. Obviously, plenty of people claiming to be Christians have mistreated LGBT people, and that's inexcusable; but they weren't following Christ in doing so, and ultimately you need to make a decision about Him.
Melania’s visit to Africa was intended to highlight the issues her husband wants Americans to ignore
It's not only the government's responsibility though; I'm enraged that Trump wants to reduce aid, but I also desperately wish that society paid more attetion to the world's most disadvantaged people. Left leaning groups and media - that I'd expect to care about the poorest people, barely discuss poverty and injustice overseas. There's rightlya lot of concern and campaigning about injustice that's local to us, but we seem to be more interested in Starbuck's varieties than the children wo could be fed for weeks with the cost of one beverage.
How are you defning Evagelical? Wanting to follow Christ and tell others about His death to make eternal life possible for us doesn't actually entail father-daughter proms etc (nor the things that you hate Republicans for).
Media like Vice presume that sex is the ultimate religion, and that those who disagree are oppressed/repressed, and potentially dangerous, evil, immoral. Why?
Media like Vice presume that sex is the ultimate religion, and that those who disagree are oppressed/repressed, and potentially dangerous, evil, immoral. Why?
Keep your opion to yourself
Why? We all share our thoughts about everything, esp. online. And if you knew something that ha given you greater joy in life than anything else, and which you believed to be the way to eternal life (heaven) why would you keep it to yourself and never share it? Isn't it reasonable to tell others about something that you're glad to have discovered, so that they can decide about themselves?
not everyone needs to hold on to a fantasy to get through life
I never said that they did. Now, how do you know that I'm the one believing a fantasy and that atheism isn't a fantasy?
Atheism is inherently the lack there of lol that’s sort of the point
Atheism is the belief that the universe came into existence of it's own accord, despite the odds against this (as defined by physicists on the basis of the cosmological constant, proton;nuetron ratio and other parameters) being many times greater than the number of atoms in the universe. How are you certain that that isn't a fantasy?
What "flaws" have been pointed out in this conversation? All that's happened is that Christianity has been caled a fairytale, which demonstrates that it's not actually been investigated - you might not believe it, but if someone really thinks it's comprable to fairytales they need to study history further. If it's tiresome, why are you and others expending time and energy in replying to my comment?
In the US, where the author grew up, they're inseperable for most evengelicals. Other denominations may speak of things like that, but purity rings, dances, etc... are almost exclusive to evangelicals, mormons and jehovah witnesses. Since you brought up politics, evangelicals are overwhelmingly republican, so those go hand-in-hand.
Yuh, I know - it's so, so, so frustratig that people will only judge human beings that like to call themselves evangelicals, rather than forming their own assessment of Jesus Himself.
the only thing atheism is is non-belief of a deity. A-without, theism-belief in god(s)/religion. Not all atheists accept the big bang, they just don't believe our existence happened supernaturally. If people didn't define themselves with their religious belief, that would be possible. In the US, evangelicals is a very specific description of themselves. Not good or bad, just you could pinpoint their exact sociopolitical stances with that word.
So if atheism isn't the belief that the universe came about by itself, atheists believe that the universe doesn't exist?
So far as I can see, a fair few of the people who label themselves evangelicals aren't making clear that they're actually following Christ (or aren't following Him at all); He's what actually matters.
So far as I can see, a fair few of the people who label themselves evangelicals aren't making clear that they're actually following Christ (or aren't following Him at all); He's what actually matters.
The truth is, no one knows if there is a god or not. It's literally just an opinion, and there is a time and place to throw out your opinion. It would rude for me to tell you who to vote for, its just as rude to tell a perfect stranger that they should "follow jesus" and be "saved". Just be happy by yourself and stop trying to rope people into your opinion.
I didn't tell you follow Jesus and be saved, I urge people investigate Him further and make their own minds up. And you're perfectly entitled to tell me who to vote for if you want - I, and a person told to follow Jesus, still makes their own decision regardless of which imperatives are directed at them. But following Jesus is about the person who does so having eternal life - it's more significant than a political vote, and it doesn't benefit the person trying to convince them.
I have investigated Christianity and jesus. That's exactly why I'm NOT christian. Simple, objective research without bias.
Can you summarise which things that you discovered, amidst that investigating, that made you so resentful?
I'm well aware that human beings have done evil things whilst calling themselves Christians so as to appear slightly more noble to some. Anyone can claim to be something, I could call myself a fan of sport to make myself sound more interesting, it doesn't change the fact that I've never been to a sports match in my life, nor change anything about sport. People who call themselves Christians and actually aren't following Christ don't change who Christ is.
I'm well aware that human beings have done evil things whilst calling themselves Christians so as to appear slightly more noble to some. Anyone can claim to be something, I could call myself a fan of sport to make myself sound more interesting, it doesn't change the fact that I've never been to a sports match in my life, nor change anything about sport. People who call themselves Christians and actually aren't following Christ don't change who Christ is.
Atheists don't object to anything about god(s), as we don't have a reason to believe they exist. Our objection is to the belief that people would follow a deity that would create disease, pain, and suffering. That a deity would torture people for all eternity because they don't believe in it.
Ooh, that's a common query - the Bible doesn't actually say that anyone will be tortured eternally, it's an extrapolation made by some Churches many centuries ago and is an ongoing topic of debate because verses about the future are hard to translate; but it's certainly not a Biblical directive.Try RethinkingHell, for example. http://rethinkinghell.com/
There is literally no evidence that Jesus ever existed. That's a fact. Also, your entire argument is a logical fallicy, look it up. It's called " no true Scotsman". You're entire religion is a made up sham designed to control people for thousands of years. And you are living proof that it's still working. Now before you get bent out of shape, answer me this, why aren't you a muslim? Or a Hindi? Or even a scientologist? Is it perhaps because those religions seem ridiculous to you? That's how most of the world feels about Christianity. I don't believe in God, but I also don't NOT believe in god. Nobody knows anything for sure and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Literally no evidence that Jesus existed? Yeah, a lot of people seem to have fallen for this conspiracy theory. Where did you hear it from and why did you believe it? Are you just going to ignore the thousnds of historical documents about Him? If so, why, and what history do yoou believe? What evidence should there be for Jesus that is non existent? https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...
Matthew 13:41-43 "41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the FIERY FURNACE. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."Regardless, because I have no reason to believe heaven or hell exists, there is disease here now. If there was an omnipotent god(s), it could create a place with free will AND no suffering. If not, it's not all powerful, is it? Or it didn't want to which is outright evil.
Fire destroys, that's not "eternal torture" - and everyone is offered eternal life with God instead. If you reject God, you ultimately cease to be, which is what you believed anyway.
RE God "allowing" suffering on Earth - Have you asked Him? Seriously, sometimes we understand things better when we pray. God is incomparably more knowledgeable than we are, yet we frequently presume that just because we don't know the reason that God allows something, there is no reason, and we act like children who won't talk with their parents about things they don't understand. A parent will do/allow many things that their toddler might not like at the time; in the same way, God can have reasons that we don't understand now. Ultimately, God wants us to choose to follow Him, so that we'll spend eternity with Him in heaven. That is infinitely more significant than the brief time we spend on Earth. The tragedies of life are, for many of us, what we need to be prompted to seek Him. When life is perfect, we ignore God, and will miss out on heaven. When we seek God in difficult times, He gives amazing comfort, and we can find eternal life. Throughout history and around the world, there have been/are many people whose lives have been far, far, far less comfortable than ours are in the 21st West, but who've followed God, and consequently had the deep inner joy and strength - and who'll have endless joy free of sadness as a result.The gap between our knowledge and God's is many magnitudes wider than that between a child and their father. Sometimes things happen - that we really don't grasp the underlying cause of at all; and sometimes barbaric things happen that are/were in fact entirely necessary for beneficial reasons that are beyond our comprehension.
RE God "allowing" suffering on Earth - Have you asked Him? Seriously, sometimes we understand things better when we pray. God is incomparably more knowledgeable than we are, yet we frequently presume that just because we don't know the reason that God allows something, there is no reason, and we act like children who won't talk with their parents about things they don't understand. A parent will do/allow many things that their toddler might not like at the time; in the same way, God can have reasons that we don't understand now. Ultimately, God wants us to choose to follow Him, so that we'll spend eternity with Him in heaven. That is infinitely more significant than the brief time we spend on Earth. The tragedies of life are, for many of us, what we need to be prompted to seek Him. When life is perfect, we ignore God, and will miss out on heaven. When we seek God in difficult times, He gives amazing comfort, and we can find eternal life. Throughout history and around the world, there have been/are many people whose lives have been far, far, far less comfortable than ours are in the 21st West, but who've followed God, and consequently had the deep inner joy and strength - and who'll have endless joy free of sadness as a result.The gap between our knowledge and God's is many magnitudes wider than that between a child and their father. Sometimes things happen - that we really don't grasp the underlying cause of at all; and sometimes barbaric things happen that are/were in fact entirely necessary for beneficial reasons that are beyond our comprehension.
Is there anything your god could say that would excuse the painful death of 20,000 children a day? If so, what would it be?
You've not addressed my earlier answer.Hypothetically - What if those children go straight to heaven, and some of their parents who had ignored God turned to Him in their frustration and ultimately ended up having eternal life also? In fact the rationale supporting the conclusion that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead is significant - and if He did, He has defeated death and thus can be trusted in having promised eternal life. So the hypothetical scenario is plausible, as much as I know you'll disagree.Also where are you getting your 20,000 figure from? It sounds like you're referring to the very, very old stat about children dying from poverty telated causes; fortunately, that number is now markedly lower, though indeed there's a long way to go - the suffering isn't God's fault, it's the result of human selfishness for centuries. We have the massive privilege of being pat of the solution.
You still haven't addressed my question. Is there anything your god could say that would excuse the painful death of 15,000 children a day? If so, what would it be?
As I said, human greed is the direct cause. God wants for more impoverished people to be helped - He's given us the means, it's our failure that's standing in the way. And you're ignoring that the eternal life people end up experiencing is incomparably greater than the pain of the tragedies of life, and infinitely longer lasting. Most of us privileged Westerners will miss out on that greater experience because of choosing to reject God's offer.
What made greed exist? Your deity. Your deity knew we'd commit the atrocities we have over millenia even before making us. There's no chance we'd do anything but what we've done because your deity would be omniscient. If the end point is heaven, why not just put those "souls" right into heaven and never make those that were evil in the first place.
What made greed exist? Your deity. Your deity knew we'd commit the atrocities we have over millenia even before making us. There's no chance we'd do anything but what we've done because your deity would be omniscient. If the end point is heaven, why not just put those "souls" right into heaven and never make those that were evil in the first place.
We have freewill. Otherwise we'd be meaningless robots. There's no legitimacy in blaming God for things that we've done wrong, and there's no logic in claiming that God could have done things differently - we're specs within a vast creation, why would we presume that our notions of how the universe might have been were feasible?
Anyhoo, this thread has gone on way too long, surely we both have better uses for our time?
Anyhoo, this thread has gone on way too long, surely we both have better uses for our time?
In heaven, those there will have already chosen to be with God, and will no longer have any means or desire to sin. Our time on Earth is giving us the opportunity to decide whether we want to spend the future with Him, or whether we're going to reject Him.
All of this is rather missing the point - we'll never get our tiny human minds around God, but wht we need to decide on is the evidence that Jesus defeated death. I recommend Who Moved The Stone, but there are loads of differing opinions to weigh up.
All of this is rather missing the point - we'll never get our tiny human minds around God, but wht we need to decide on is the evidence that Jesus defeated death. I recommend Who Moved The Stone, but there are loads of differing opinions to weigh up.
there is no evidence he defeated death, nevermind the belief that he is "god" and would therefore be immortal.
How do you know "there's no evidence"? Have you investigated? The book that I mentioned is one of very many that explains all of this better than I ever could - and you might disagree still, but you should investigate rather than saying "there's no evidence" as an argument.
Yes I have, but more importantly an immortal being couldn't "defeat death" as it is immortal, making the point moot.
Which books/ lectures etc have you considered? Jesus wasn't immortal, He died, but either way, on what basis have you concluded your criteria for defeating death?
The difference with evolution is that there is evidence of the vast changes over millions and billions of years. We can literally look back in time and observe something that happened billions of years ago while it happens.
No, we can't "literally look back in time" - Darwin had an idea, and biologists have been assuming that he was right ever since. What has actually been observed since - the discovery and understanding of DNA, the interdependence of biological systems etc, demonstrate that whatever the details of how the biological world came about, it had a designing, driving force behind it. Many Christians accept Darwinism, others have a variety of views - for example, we all accept microevolution, though not necessarily macoevolution. I've been studying biomedical sciences (at uni) and feel frustrated by people constantly telling me that evolution has disproven God when they've not learned about biology at all(I'm not referring to you).Since you mentioned faith - faith is to believe in something that we cannot know definitively, on the basis of the evidence we've seen. Indeed, many Christians have faith without looking for evidence - but not all of us. I don't believe that the testimonies of the witnesses of the resurrected Christ were all lying, as you seem to have assumed, in particular since they gave their lives to spread the message, and convinced others by highlighting Jesus' fulfilment of prophecies and through demonstrations of the Holy Spirit.
Many religions make that claim about their god(s) too. My dad believes in Usen (Apache god) who created everything. Muslims believe allah created everything. And on and on and on.
Comparing beliefs could go on and on; analogies need analysis, it can't be assumed that the evidence for each is equivalent. And the prophecies made were specific and centuries old, hence they convinced fervent Jews whom converted after hearing disciples' preaching. You reference a personal experience, which sounds fascinating, but specifically took place in a state of extreme dehydration, was individual to you and which you've now realised was a hallucination. Jesus' followers hadn't just spent hours in a sweat lodge; they all saw the same thing; and they continued to testify of it until they were brutally killed for it.
Jesus' followers lived in a desert and fasted after their "bridegroom was taken away" as matthew said they would before jesus was killed and acts and corinithians reiterated the apostles fasted after his death. I skipped a meal before going out to sleep in the woods at night, they didn't eat for days after his death. If anyone hallucinated it was them.
Where does it say that the disciples fasted? Obviosly I'm well familiar with verse you're referring to, where Jesus talks about the possibility of them fasting in hte future, but they don't then actually fast in the dys after His crucifixion; and it wasn't only His disciples who saw Him. The prophecies about Jesus were far, far more complex, including whre He'd be born, how He'd be killed and more - but seriously, I'm desperate for us to stop this conversation.
UK High Court Rules That Declining to Bake ‘Gay Cake’ Not Discrimination
THATS BECAUSE MUSLIMS HATE QUEERS
Oh my goodness, what is the US right's obsession with Muslims in Britain? They're still a minority, and here certainly weren't any among the supreme court who made this decision.
Wow! That's astonishing for the U.K.; it's good news.
May I ask what you're referring to? I live in Britain (always have) and follow left wing and right wing news outlets both sides of the pond; so far as I can see, our society isn't more liberal overall than yours. Indeed, my heart breaks constantly about the take over of sex as the foremost religion here, but it's just a microcosm of the US. Afterall, we largely feed off US music/film/TV/websites. Don't let Fox and right wing media mislead you - things aren't particularly different here from where you are, and a nation, our attitudes aren't as lberal as much of Europe.
What really matters- at least in my opinion - is what people decide about Jesus. Celebration of sex against God's design is tragic specifically because it demonstrates rejection of God; but indifference wouldn't be any better. If our nation had more conservative attitudes to sex, but no more people were in love with Christ, the situation would be just as tragic.
What really matters- at least in my opinion - is what people decide about Jesus. Celebration of sex against God's design is tragic specifically because it demonstrates rejection of God; but indifference wouldn't be any better. If our nation had more conservative attitudes to sex, but no more people were in love with Christ, the situation would be just as tragic.
Obviously I'm concerned for those workers - but I also think that it's fundamentally wrong that we live in a world where much of our nation would deem it normal to spend several £ on one serving a of cake, whilst a substantial chunk of humanity has to survive almost entirely on rice.. And some are entirely starving; but we can pay to feed a child for a month for £4 (Feed The Hungry UK) - why do we want to buy posh cakes, coffees and restaurant meals when we get enjoyable food in supermarkets and do something so exciting with the cost saving?
Please note - society isn't divided into 2 homogenous sides at war. Those on the left aren't all the same as each other, nor are those on the right - thus it's illogical to be angry with people purely on the basis of being red or blue. We need to spend focus more on fighting problems, less on fighting each other.
Pope Francis compared having an abortion with hiring a hitman in front of Vatican audience
To compare is not to equate. But indeed, abortion is to end a tiny human life. It's a complex topic - but it shouldn't be presumed morally right as it now frequently is in our culture.
It's a complex topic, and yet you explicitly frame it in pro-life terms. I have to wonder how complex you actually think it is.
Which terms are you objecting to? I specifically avoided "child" "baby", or even "kill"(though that would have been biologically accurate). What in my comment are you disagreeing with?
"End a tiny human life" Implying that society is immoral for allowing abortion. Avoiding particular words doesn't change the message.
But is ending a tiny human life. Therefore I personally, in nearly every case, deem it immoral - but that wasn't what I actually said. You're making the connection between ending a life and something being immoral, so perhaps we don't disagree so much after all.
Crucially, in trying to follow Jesus, I need to fight any judgementalism within me - but there's a distinction between one's feelings towards a person and one's feelings about an action. So I hate abortion - but that doesn't mean that I hate or judge the women who are involved.
The Pope (“il Papa” ) is the archetypal patriarchal figure. This particular Pope appears to be a pretty decent, liberal and empathetic human, but he still doesn’t have a uterus and he will never have to face being raped, or the prospect of bringing a severely damaged or handicapped child into the world, nor even having to live out an accidental and unwanted pregnancy without the means to bring up a child. Abortion is simply not a question which in most cases any man should feel entitled to comment on.
I don't think that there shouldbe a Pope - we're called to follow Jesus, and it's He who defeated death offering us a way to eternal life; deification of Popes has evidently not worked out too well. Though he, and Catholicism, have some positive aspects so I'm not trying to bash them, I just needed to point out the distinction between Catholicism and Christianity. The anatomy of the person making a point doesn't determine whether the point is legitimate - abortion isn't any more OK if those who object are men (of course there are plenty of women opposed to it also)
As an atheist, I - by definition think all religion is nonsense. The definition of people who “are called to follow” any mythical figure is “psychotic”. No religion is ultimately better than any other, and sooner or later they all become perverted by authoritarianism and/or patriarchy and become tools for the manipulation of others. The abortion issue is a classic case. A foetus is NOT a human being, certainly not until it’s viable, and forcing a woman to bring a foetus to term and then give birth against her will is completely contrary tomher human rights.
When did I say that I hear voices? I'm well aware that "religion" has been misused by human beings to serve their greed - that doesn't change the reality of God or Jesus. The reality of God, and what Jesus did, need far, far more discussion than a Facebook thread. Some Christians believe primarily because they have faith - I didn't, it all seemed implausible, but in examining the huge field of debate about history, science and philosophy regarding Christianity, I concluded that it must be true. But to discuss it all here would take time that I don't have right now - and you clearly have n intent on reconsidering your personal faith.
They're right, he wasn't proven innocent. He wasn't proven guilty. Neither could really be proven, unless there were a confession of substantial photographic or video evidence provided. But this isn't really about the abuse case, is it? Surely this is actually about what laws might be changed with BK in the SCOTUS?
The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - but that doesn't mean that gay people are to be bullied in any way. We ALL sin, and that's why Christ died for us. He made religious leaders to leave alone a woman they'd been about to stone to death for her sexual sin, and said to her "Go and sin no more" . Christians should be welcoming everyone, urging everyone to fight the sin in their lives (which God helps us with), and recognising that we're sinners too.
the bible says thou shalt not wear certain fibers..eat certain foods..but you do that anyway. its interesting how jesus addresses the woman but not all the men that wanted to sleep with her..descriminate much jesus?
Those commands were refences to pagan worship customs among neighbouring tribes at the time, or guidance for the sake of health and safety at a time when people didn't know about it. In the NT, it's made clear that it's OK to eat all foods, but also that gay sex must still be avoided. Jesus talks to the woman caught in adultery because she was the one brought to Him by religious leaders to be stoned - and He forgives her. He's not discriminating. He makes very clear that men have a responsibility not to let lust fester.
Yes, praying with debt victims makes us queasy – but it’s the state that’s failing them; Backlash against the dodgy ethics of evangelical debt advice in the BBC’s The Debt Saviours masks a broader problem.
Dodgy ethics? Why? Why is telling people about God unethical and queasiness-inducing?
What exactly are you concered about?
Either Christians are wrong - and those they've been trying to help just feel a greater sense of hope and fulfilment in life; or they're right and there's actually a God wo loves them and offers eternal life. "Religion" has, sometimes, been misused to take advantage of people - but this isn't what actual Christianity (following Christ) is, and it isn't what was happening in the programme^
What exactly are you concered about?
Either Christians are wrong - and those they've been trying to help just feel a greater sense of hope and fulfilment in life; or they're right and there's actually a God wo loves them and offers eternal life. "Religion" has, sometimes, been misused to take advantage of people - but this isn't what actual Christianity (following Christ) is, and it isn't what was happening in the programme^
Because its abusing vulnerable people at a moment of weakness. Inherently deceptive, borderline abusive.
How exactly? How are the vulnerable people being abused?
because there is no god. They would be better served with constructive assistance with a realistic appraisal of their situation, than brought into a lie.
They are receiving constructive assistance - how much do you know about the charity (CAP)?
And "there is no God" is your opinion, how much have you investigated the reasoning (not just faith - philosophy, history and science) for concluding that there is? Do you not think that CAP's beneficiaries can decide for themselves?
And "there is no God" is your opinion, how much have you investigated the reasoning (not just faith - philosophy, history and science) for concluding that there is? Do you not think that CAP's beneficiaries can decide for themselves?
Can you explain how on earth praying solves anything? Is praying going to help them pay their debts? Praying always makes the person who does it feel good with themselves but, in practical terms, it solves nothing. If your god if so compassionate, why does he allow so much injustice? There is no evidence of the existence of god and praying is a waste of time, an exercise in delusion that, in practical terms, solves sod all. But you can always pray a lot so tonight, you can go to sleep feeling good with yourself. That there are good theists who help in practical terms (I said practical, not praying) those who are in need, granted, but that is not proof that god exists, it is proof that there are good theists, that's all.
If you watched the programme, and investigated the innumerable Christian charities working around the world, you'd see that they are helping practically. A lot. And the fact that praying makes people feel better in themselves is vital - we spend our lives trying to feel good within ourselves, and concerns about mental health are all about how we feel within ourselves.
But how do you know that it's a delusion? You may not agree that it's sufficient to draw a conclusion that Christianity is true, but if you think that the evidence is simply non existent, I'd urge you to investigate, you seem not to have looked into the topic.
But how do you know that it's a delusion? You may not agree that it's sufficient to draw a conclusion that Christianity is true, but if you think that the evidence is simply non existent, I'd urge you to investigate, you seem not to have looked into the topic.
thats highly condescending. Have you read the Torah, Quran, Rigveda, Satanists Bible and other tomes?
When did I say anything about reading the Bible? (obviously I recommend doing so, but that's not what we've been discussing)
I don't think you have understood my point. I have said that there are good theists (I used this term because it applies to all believers in a god), and Christian charities are a proof of that. Christian charities are not a proof that god exists (your god I should say). Investigate? You obviously have a twisted idea of what we atheist stand for. We don't say that god doesn't exist per se, we say that there is no evidence that god exists, none whatsoever, so the logical conclusion is that there isn't one.
I don't help people in poverty because I think I'll be rewarded, I just find that I want to. Desperately. Far more since I've grown closer to God. It's an urge, it's not with the thought of future reward. I didn't say that Christian charities are proof of God, I mentioned them because you stressed the importance of practical help. The account of creation in the Bible is a simplistic, poetic description written to suit the audience at the time, it's not precisely literal. But how much science have you studied BTW? Personally, it was studying the molecular mechanisms of photosynthesis that nudged me to think that it might be possible that God exists (many years ago....)
Little girl in tears after being stopped from boarding plane for £6k Disney World holiday
Why spend £6k on a holiday when there are children in our world living in slums? The word "spoiled" used to be used with good reason - kids (but we adults too) will be made unable to enjoy less lavish things in life if parents treat them like this. You can have awesome holidays here in the UK - what matters is ime as a family Holidaying here will also prevent the catastrophic climate change being discussed today, and ave time spent on form-filling etc. Then you could use the remaining money to support several children born into severe poverty with sponsorship for a decade - and that will help the British child to learn about our world and to derive far more happiness from what they have than they will if they're spoilt.
If I want to spoil my children in this country or another, I will do so. We don’t need a busy body putting a downer on how we bring up our children, what we buy them and where we take them. As a parent that is OUR choice.
of course you get to make that choice, I'm just giving an opinion, because that's what we alldo here. Think about it; we - British people - have far more money on average per person than most of humanity because of centuries of injustice, so even though parents in developing countries work far more hours in far more brutal conditions, some can't afford to send their kids to school; to get them even basic medical care; to feed them more than rice; or buy them any toys - nevermind holidays. So since kids here can in fact be very, very happy without being taken to Disneyland, why would you?
I have great memories of holidays in youth hostels, and camping, here in Britain. And I know that if my parents had bought me all of the toys I wanted, I'd be unable to enjoy everday things or handle money sensibly now.
I have great memories of holidays in youth hostels, and camping, here in Britain. And I know that if my parents had bought me all of the toys I wanted, I'd be unable to enjoy everday things or handle money sensibly now.
[criticisms]
This is hilarious. I'm well aware that it's not my decision, but we all comment online about things that have nothing to do with us. Why do any of you feel the need to criticise me, why not just ignore me? And I know that we all spend some money on things that aren't the very most basic essentials - but do you really think that it's better to spend £6k on one holiday than on providing education that will change lives? Have you completely missed the fact that we only have the money we do because of injustice - so it's invalid to claim that people in poverty aren't at all our responsibility. Do you think our grandparents felt sad as kids because they didn't get to go to Disneyland? Do you think that buying kids everything they want is the best way to help them prepare for adulthood?
Why don't you go to Africa?
I would (go to help in slums) but I wouldn't be much use because of my health issues. I can help more if I can earn a salary here and donate most of it.
Oh the irony!!!!!you ask is not to criticise you and to ignore your comment if we don't like it and that we all comment on things that are nothing to do with us.Well for starters,take your own advice,if you disagree with them then ignore it and secondly this is a public forum making it open for comments
LOL, I didn't "ask you not to citicise because I don't like it" - I said it's hilarious. There's a difference between commenting on a public news site's post and commenting on the comments of strangers, so I did the former and I'm not sure why you're bothering with the latter, but I don't mind
The fact you are using the internet and on Facebook would suggest you are either using a phone or a laptop etc which is a luxury that you don't need. The contract you pay out or the amount you have paid for said items could have been donated to charity but yet you have your luxury when others as you said can not afford to feed their children etc???? Is that a kettle whistle I hear?And also it may have already been stated but you do realise that poorer countries benefit from the travel industry right? Without tourists there wouldn't be any need for hotels and the extra jobs that brings in alone
My laptop was my birthday present, cost 1/30 of the holiday we were discussing and is obviously essential for work. I don't have a phone contract - I use Tesco pay as you go (on a cheap 2nd phone) which gives triple credit - meaning that all of the money that I spend on it I can then use as text donations(to charities working in developing countries) and I can use the free credit (that can't be donated) for texts etc. You're right, poorer countries can benefit from tourism - but this is about a Disney land holiday. And still, if one spends on going Africa, for example, impoverished people receive hardly any of it - think about it, the money is being spent on flights and on providing luxury for people lucky enough to have been born into a country where we already have a very comfortable life. Imagine if those resources were instead used for classrooms, toilets and clinics for people who don't have them....
Oh and Grace the people that are in poverty aren’t our responsibility, they are the governments responsibility...yes it would be common decency but I don’t think taking care of people in poverty or homeless people is ‘compulsory’ and you shouldn’t be advising where people spend THEIR money, they’ve earned their money one way or another so they can do with it as they please
Like I said, I know that people can spend the money they have as they want - but why do you think that I can't comment? And it may not be compulsory to help others - but the money that we've earned is in our economy largely because of our ancestors and corporations taking from others. So people in the poorest places work far, far longer hours in far more uncomfortable jobs. You have the option not to care. I was just reminding people that we can do something far more exciting and life changing with our money than spend a fortnight in Disney land. I find it exciting that if we ignore adverts trying to convince us to feed cash to corporations, we can transform lives
Why do you think that people only receive "a small percentage" of the money from donations? It's often said by people who hate charities, but if you look at the data, it's not true. And yes, yes, teach a man to fish - that's why I've been talking about giving children education, and providing things that enable them to become self sufficient. They should be given the resources and training that they need to build up their countries - not spend their lives carrying bags for us.
Type in Google aid received by poor and you will see news articles as well as blogs telling you they don't. Maybe spend a bit more time researching rather than commenting before accusing me of hating charities.. I'll be sure to let my children know the next time I buy them something with my hard earned cash that they are selfish and spoilt for having the audacity to have a luxury when given the opportunity to do so.. I mean with all the money you expect us to give to poorer countries they'll be richer than us in a few years reckon they will give it all.back to us?? I think not
Kirsty Newman as I said, I'm well aware that people say that lots of aid is wasted - but tabloid news and blogs aren't credible sources of information. It's them who I'm accusing of hating charities, not you. And where's the logic in saying that poor countries will soon be richer than us if we give the money I'm suggesting? If you or I sponsor a child, it costs £25/month - equivalent to giving up a few takaway pizzas for example. Right now the government aid budget is 0.7% of of nation's GDP how exactly have you calculated that suddenly we're going to be the poorer nation?
And your more credible? Well you expect no one to have holidays or luxuries and give our money away to another country if we did that we wouldn't have any money ourselves hence be poor and they will hence be better off than us.. I already pay more than 25 a month for a child three in fact I can't afford a fourth hence why I haven't birthed another so I'm.nit about to set up a standing order each month and pay maintenance for a child when I don't receive that myself for my kids.
LOL, no, I didn't say that I'm more credible - external bodies such as CharityNavigator, and the Charities Comission, are more credible. If you think that us simply not having holidays and luxuries would make us equal to the world's poorest people, so that they could then become richer than us, then may I suggest that you find out a bit more about life in the poorest communities?
Also, this is worth a glance - https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get.../myths-about-aid/
Also, this is worth a glance - https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get.../myths-about-aid/