Bloody ridiculous. It's pants that corporations selling sanitary products would work with drugs manufacturers to manipulate women like this.
We should, however, be aware of and concerned about women in developing countries, who lack access to contraception and sanitary products, some of whom are shunned by their communities during their periods.
Should the Nazi salute incident really be conflated with Sandman smiling?
NB, I'm questioning incidents being pre-judged on assumptions, I'm most definitely not suggesting that racism isn't a monumental evil that needs discussion.
Wearing a MAGA hat means supporting racism
No, it doesn't. I think it's wrong that people wear them, but the message isn't about race.
Then what is it? Enlighten us
People are concerned about factories laid to waste and communities consequently becoming impoverished; they miss a time when traditional industries thrived - and are perhaps ignorant of the suffering that those of colour were experiencing in the supposed good old days. People are also upset by the deterioration of traditional families and communities. Ultimately, many people wearing a MAGA hat will do because of the feeling of camaraderie that it gives them with others(which will certainly be a teenager wears one) and or because of resenting actions and attitudes of the opposing side (such as its support for abortion, which they truly believe to be evil). I'm well aware that many who wear MAGA hats are racist, and that everyone should be sufficiently concerned about Trump not to wear a hat even if they agree with some of his statements - but to simply label everyone in a MAGA hat as racist only makes it harder to understand and then change their minds.
Wearing a white robe and pointy hood gave those who wore them a feeling of camaraderie as well. Just like those matching Brown Shirts did. It’s about white nationalism, specifically.
That's a logical fallacy. People also feel camaraderie wearing college sweatshirts, sports merchandise and more - the fact that some uniforms are evil doesn't mean that they all are.
And how exactly do you know that "It’s about white nationalism, specifically."? I'm aware that that's true of some who wear MAGA hats, but there's no evidence that it's true of all, or even the majority. And obviously, there are some people of colour who wear MAGA hats.
Again, I need to stress, I'm not OKing MAGA hats, nor nationalism, and I'm desperate for more to be done about racism, which is perhaps the biggest single evil in the world. But over simplifying these huge issues makes it harder to tackle them.
Sorry, do you actually read anything that’s in the American media about who Trump supporters are and what they believe? Do you actually follow the news and understand Trump’s policies (Muslim ban, border wall, immigrant bashing and stereotyping)?
Yes - how do you yourself know what they believe? Which sources do you follow? I follow media across the political spectrum, so I can see how both sides misunderstand the other. I see plenty of racism, and it both breaks my heart and sickens me - but it's plainly wrong to presume that all on the right are the same as each other. Have you ignored my earlier points?
What exactly do you think the word “Again” means in the phrase MAGA? It means returning to a time when white supremacy was ascendant and unquestioned. A time when women couldn’t get credit without a man co-signing for it. A time when LGBT people didn’t dare even admit to themselves what they were. In short, it’s symbolic of the repression of everything that isn’t straight, white, Christian and conservative. It asks that the country returns to some bullshit Leave It To Beaver paradigm that only ever existed for a few privileged people, while many others were struggling at best. If you honestly can’t see that disgusting red hat is a symbol of divisiveness and hatred, I don’t know how to change your mind.
Why are you entirely disregarding the points I've already made? I'm well aware that those problems existed, but that doesn't mean that those with MAGA hats are in support of those injustices; at the forefront of the minds of many are the issues I mentioned earlier - the decline of industries, families and community. You can't convince misguided people of their error by ignoring their concerns and assuming their motivations for them. It's the epitome of the straw man fallacy. If we want to actually address racism, we need to inform people of injustice, not prompt them to put their fingers in their ears by calling them racist when race isn't actually what they're thinking about.
Ecumenical enthusiasm is all very nice, but a Church is in trouble if it can’t say why people should stay within it, or choose it over other options
It sounds as though you're entirely misunderstanding the purpose of Church (as have many throughout history) - the entire point is to follow Jesus, not maintain institutions.
Jesus created the Church. Which is in itself a holy institution which holds the keys over doctrine and truth. Welby in searching for this ecumenism has undermined the Anglican church which seeks to be a via media. Salvation can only be found within the Catholic Church.
I presume, since ou've used a capital C, that you mean the Roman Catholic Church (as opposed to the other use of the word catholic) - in which case, why do you think that it's the only way to salvation? Have you oerlooked the verses that say otherwise, such as Acts 2:21
"And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" ; John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." ?
Some of the distinctions between denominations are significant - but they aren't by comparison to rejection of Christ. So when Welby talks to an outlet which will mostly be followed by individuals who are rejecting Christ, why would he put attempts to prop up dominance over attempting to nudge people who are missing out on Jesus towards considering Him?
Simply I disagree with the 5 solas especially Faith Alone. I believe in the Catholic Church and it's teaching in that we are justified by faith but sanctified by works.
Not being Catholic doesn't necessarily mean commitment to the 5 Solas. Personally, I think it's a false dichotomy. If we have genuinely accepted Jesus, we will do good works - accepting Him into our hearts does not leave our hearts unchanged. God sanctifies, if there are no good works, there is not saving faith.
JCB? Can he dig Britain out of the hole he's helped to put it in?
It strikes me that "father" is often used by those who avoid using "mother" for fear of implicating the woman's responsibility and the foetuses humanity.
Kudos to her for her concern for the bombing victims; but deifying sex (God is a Woman) and money (7 Rings) is not what any generation needs.
And you can develop allergies or intolerances to things if you avoid them. It's so tragic that, whilst there are people starving who we could help, we're urged to instead spend that money on unnecessarily expensive gluten free versions of food. (EG - $6 can feed a starving child for a month with
Feed The Hungry USA - and $6 to do that could be saved by buying several cheaper, regular food products rather than gluten free versions)
Italy accuses France of stoking migration through its “colonial” exploitation of Africa.
Indeed - colonisation by us, France, and Belgium are the root cause of the extreme poverty and conflict that migrants are desperately fleeing. We're living some of the most comfortable lifestyles that human beings ever have because of the greed that left others poor. And now our multinationals are continuing the exploitation and theft, eg https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
We may not be personaly responsible- but it's seriously wrong that we're so lacking in compassion.
Steve Chalke - Would a God of love really punish people with eternal hell based on decisions taken in their few short years of life on earth? If God's grace is real, amazing, undeserved, uncontainable grace - there has to be a different story.
You can't decide what God does on the basis of what seems right to you. His ways are not ours. However, I think that there's a good case for concluding that scripture points towards experience of Hell not lasting eternally. The destruction of something brings about its non existence - things that burn burn up, they don't endlessly exist in an ending flame forever. We think of souls as lasting eternally because of what Jesus told us about following Him; if a person rejects Him, God won't force them. So Hell is a temporary experience that terminates the existence of those who refuse Christ's offer, and maintains justice. Rethinking Hell has thorough exploration of the Bible passages relating to Hell and why they point to this view.
Yet, when we donate to efficient charities working in developing countries, it's remarkable how much we can enable the world's poorest people to free themselves from poverty.
£for£, money donated to organisations helping the very poorest people in the world makes far, far more difference than anything we can spend it on here. For example, £4/$6 can feed a starving child for a month; £25/$38 monthly can provide a child with mentoring/health checks/bedding and more. If we refuse to be lured by corporations into spending on things we don't need, we can do incredibly exciting things with that money instead
We Asked Couples Why They Opened Up Their Relationship"He gets so much enjoyment from my body—my boobs are huge—but he can't perform in the same way as someone with a bigger penis."
Seriously, you're posting this again? It's vile, you're blatantly endorsing reducing human beings to sex objects.
well.. it’s kind of written in our dna to be sex objects...
Nah - a few of our genes relate to sex drive, but human beings are so, so, so much more than that. And we're biologically designed to become emotionally attached during sex, so the message that our culture's given us is ultimately leading to more heartache (as well as infection and accidental pregnancies).
that’s not even a little bit true. Maybe you should do a bit of reading on our DNA and how we are programmed.
Just telliing me I'm wrong is meaningless - obvously I've studied biology, so why not actually tell me what I need to read up?
Dinghy carrying eight suspected migrants lands on beach near Dover
It's as though some people think that non-Brits are less human than we are. We're mostly oblivious to the hellish places that migrants are fleeing.Centuries of greed by nations like ours have substantially contributed to the conditions migrants are trying to flee. We need to do far more to help their nations develop, with genuinely fair trade deals; action on corporate tax dodging and misinvoicing (https://www.filmsforaction.org/.../aid-in-reverse-how.../), and effective aid programs that enable future self sufficiency and peaceful stability.
Its not nations of countries like ours that made them like they are No its their own leaders filling their own pockets
Our colonisation enabled corrupt leaders to take power - we left countries undeveloped and weakened so that the most ruthless individuals could take control. Now, our multinational corporations exploit poor nations and cheat financially - and did you not read the hyperlink?
Regardless - people are suffering far beyond anything we suffer, through no fault of their own. We should help.
please explain why there are only ever men in these boats and never women and children?
Why do you think that there are never women or children? I've seen them in some of the footage, but even if you haven't, you couldn't know unless you'd been at the coast overseeing all the dinghies.
But obviously, men are more likely to come because women and children are more likely to feel too afraid of drowning.
This art work is daft - but what actually bothers Jesus is that so many people reject Him. How many never bother to explore the case for His resurrection? If He truly defeated death, He's our hope of something beyond this lifetime - but we ignore that and debate sculptures.
Many of his biggest followers (evangelicals) are big league intolerants.
How do you define evangelical? Plenty of people use the label for themselves simply because they like it - by definition, what it actually means is to passionately want to tell others The Good News.
Not hard to reject fictional stories
Y
ou're proving my point. You aren't disproving the resurrection, you're presuming it to be fictional on the basis of your pre-existing faith or preference. Have you listened to lectures from academics who believe in the resurrection explaining their reasoning? I felt like you, until I read Who Moved the Stone, I'm well aware that it sounds like fiction - but given that how we spend eternity is the most important issue we face in this lifetime, it's odd that most people simply ignore it.
https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection
Sex doesn't need saving. What needs saving is genuine love and commitment, and our sex-obsessed media is harming it.
Why should they? School is about preparing kids for real life and work, not about further entrenching the message they'll be fed all over the internet and on TV/film that human beings are just pieces of meat for sex.
I encounter so, so many people who argue that we shouldn't give to charities working in developing countries because and doesn't work - but such an attitude is seriously uninformed. It's thrilling how much the world's poorest people have been able to make changes (to the nations broken by global greed) with the minuscule* donations given in recent decades.
*here - in the UK - overseas aid from the government budget is only 0.7% of GDP, and the % s lower for most wealthy countries.
I'm autistic - and have found Vice helpful in reassuring me of my belief that sex is vile.
And more broadly (excuse the pun) it's seriously unhelpful that our culture today gives the message that sex is necessary for enjoying life and that we should do it as soon as we're 16. Because sex sells, it's been shoved n our faces (on screen, in magazines etc) along with the message that it's normal for everyone over the age of consent, and now it is - but what's actually best for long term wellbeing? We're biologically designed to become emotionally attached during sex, so the message that our culture's given us is ultimately leading to more heartache, as well as infection and accidental pregnancies.
More than 100 migrants dead 'after dingy capsized' off Libya
This is utterly horrific, but based on so many comments I've seen on similar stories, I know that many people won't care.
How many homeless people have died over the last couple of years? Because they are put at the bottom of the list because foreign so called refugees get put at the top ???
I'm deeply concerned about homeless people - but refugees aren't the cause of homelessness. And reports that you see of homeless deaths will include many refugees - have you been to a soup kitchen?
If you genuinely cared about access to contraception and cancer screening, you'd support services that provide them without also doing something that is so divisive.
It's not "extreme right-wing" to believe that tiny developing humans shouldn't be killed. Personally, I'm generally left wing in that desperately want wealth to be shared more fairly; guns to be eliminated; racism to be ended and war minimised. But it makes me angry that Planned Parenthood profits from misleading women into thinking that sex necessary to enjoy life, and then that an abortion is the right thing to do and that the foetus is "just a clump of cells".
Nuh. Barbie doesn't have giant breasts at all, she's no more than a B cup. She also has normally sized lips. What's abnormal about her is how narrow she is, esp. at the waist.
(Also, obviously, this^ is tragic - in several senses of the word. Men who think that women ought to look like that should look like this^ should be ashamed; that money/surgeons' time is being expended on this^ whilst there are many, many people unable to get the medical care that they desperately need is plainly wrong; and that women feel the need to do this is seriously sad)
Perhaps his priority is to make society more equal, rather than to keep it easy for us to go on continental trips?
Obviously, many believe that the economic effects of Brexit might harm the poor - but if Corbyn isn't convinced of that, which is plausible given that the EU spends so much on extremely highly salaried bureaucrats (and booze for them) and given that Global markets are changing so sign
ificantly.
Personally, I desperately wish that our politicians would put more time into discerning which Brexit and other policies will best help the world's very poorest people escape extreme poverty - such as forcing internationally trading corporations to pay more to plantation workers, rather than arguing about how much we'll trade with Europe.
ISIS are following Muhammed's example, fortunately, most Muslims don't, and are awesome people.
Actual Christianity is to follow Christ, therefore there is no Christian version of ISIS, since Jesus forbade violence and told us to love even our enemies.
Awesome as it is, this is definitely not The Gospel according to Aretha or anyone. The song Amazing Grace is The Gospel. Shackles by MaryMary is pretty close.
The Gospel is that Jesus died to take the punishment that we deserve, so that we're offered eternal life with God (heaven). Gospel means good news, and that good news is that forgiveness and entry to God's presence are offered to everyone - Son of a Preacher Man, though a good song, s not about good news.
not all of mankind are destined to live in heaven. PS 37 v 11 'the meek will … find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.' On earth. Happy day, Grace.
What do you mean by destined I certainly wasn't saying that everyone will end up with God/in heaven, but that everyone is offered it.
Acts 2:21 "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
2 Peter 3:8-10 "The Lord is ...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Joel 2:32 "And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved"
Romans 10:13 "for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
etc...
I find the uncomplicated progressivism of my generation so vapidly shallow, and I find the old-hat conservatism of the past naive and out of touch with reality.
What continually baffles me, is why do our generation our their energy to make the world better into fighting for acceptance of non-traditional attitudes to sex rather than into fighting the causes of extreme suffering in our world? There's more anger about some people not approving of other peoples' sex lives and chosen identity than ther is anger about the injustice that means that some people still lack housing; access to education; healthcare; clean water etc. It's great to tackle discrimination, obviously, but why is trying to force others to agree about sexual ethics seemingly the ultimate cause that our generation feel virtuous for defending?
Wouldn't it be most sustainable not to fly?
You could even use the money saved to sponsor one of the children in severe poverty there for years, literally, enabling them to support their family and community in the future
So for the last few months I've been moaning about R and I still being in a tiny 1 bed flat and me having my bed in the living room. HOWEVER, since being back from hospital I noticed it does actually have it's perks while I'm unwell:
• My bed is close to the kitchen- easier to make a cup of tea, take meds, get water etc.
•Bathroom is easy to get to.
•Finding it difficult to clean so having less rooms is easier
•Living room looks like funky hippie studio flat....I kinda like it!
•I can watch the big TV that has Netflix and Prime while in bed.
•I've already said this, but my bed being close to the kettle is VERY important to me.....I NEED to make tea and hot water bottles. The kettle is VERY important to me!!!!!
See that's looking on the bright side of things people!
I love this - our nation is one of the wealthiest on Earth, and our culture constantly urges us to want more, so we forget how awesome it is to have a secure, warm home with plumbing, electricity, comfortable furniture and endless entertainment. Seriously, how fantastic are those things?! Sometimes I see snippets of property programmes, and feel so, so annoyed by people talking about needing a spare room for guests, whilst much of humanity lives in slums, single rooms for whole families, refugee camps or on the street. If we think about what there is to be glad about, we can be far happier with what we have than we could be simply by having more.
It somewhat depends on how it's interpreted. Those who are already pro abortion considered it as an argument in support of abortion being legal, I just saw it as an argument against sex and an argument for contraception, for accepting motherhood's timing (the patient wanted to have a baby, only later on), and for adoption.
They should have shown the reality of what the sisters were looking at in horror when the foetus passed, but I know that Call the Midwife never would.
We need to make people aware that even legal "safe" abortions today result in casualties - as well as, obviously, that a tiny human is being killed.
How Beauty Is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution
Why presuppose atheism?
Darwinism suggests tiny accidents in DNA leading to gradual change - but for an organism to function and ultimately pass on that DNA accident, it must have scores of other precise DNA codes in place to transcribe the other molecules that work in conjunction with the molecule produced by the aforementioned mutation.
And this scales up and up - eg, a protein molecule within a mitochondrion, if formed by transcription of a random mutation, will only be of use to the organism if other protein molecules have been correctly coded for in that mitochondrion, and if other organelles within the cell are coded for etc. Then, within multicellular organisms, millions of different cell types are working together, and the organism wouldn't survive otherwise. And organisms almost all rely on other organisms to survive.
So why presume that there was no guiding designer?
http://www.reasons.org/.../nobel-winning-dna-research...
Because none of the evidence suggests there was. Feel free to believe that though.
Why don't the dozens of precise parameters required for life that the universe meets (thus overcoming odds many magnitudes greater than the number of atoms in the universe); the innumerable complex and interdependent features of the biological world; and the existence of conscousness suggest that there is?
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isnt correct. I clearly don't understand your blatant stupidity, yet it is clearly there.
LOL, when did say that because I don't understand something, it isn't correct?
Do you honestly think that calling me stupid either wins a debate or hurts my feelings?
Why not specify which errors I've made that demonstrate my stupidity?
Because generally the person making the positive assertion is supposed to provide evidence of its existence, not the other way around
Did you not understand my comment?
What evidence, specifically, are you expecting that's lacking?
No, not all teenagers have sex. I spent my teen years wishing that pers at school would shut up about it; and statistically, though I'm in a minority, teen sex is definitely not "universal"
Family demand justice after 'devil sister' burned and drowned daughter in 'human sacrifice'
And yet occult is increasingly celebrated in our culture.
she doesn't even have the mental capacity to understand religion or Christianity
Are you saying that occult is part of "religion or Christianity"?
of course it is... the occult is built into religion, a component of religion. Not sure where you studied theology, but you really haven't got a clue. I presume you would like to see a nationwide revival of witch trials.
The occult is the antithesis of Christianity, so why, when I mentioned the occult, would you say that she was pa=rtaking in the opposite? Why do you think I don't have a clue when I've only written 2 short sentences? Where did you study theology?
as a blogger you obviously prefer argument to reason, and just so as you understand for future reference, your reasoning is flawed from the outset. You've failed to recognise the 'occult' within your own religious life, and from what I can gather you're one of the evangelist/ Charismatic Christian types. So when you talk to God .. you call it prayer, but when this young woman was spoken to by angels, you suggest that she's engaged in dabbling with the occult. Interesting, because there's a whole lot of Muslims who hold the belief that their prophet spoke with angels. Ever read Al Qur'an? So you waffle on about the occult antithesis of Christianity and then fail to recognise prescribed rituals, celebrating Mass, The Eucharist and the rites of exorcism. Do you wear a crucifix? many Christians do, but in reality that is an amulet. I suggest that you get out more and try to travel, it broadens the mind. You might meet different, diverse cultures that celebrate life and living, dying and death and the afterlife in ways that you won't be familiar with. Their traditions and rituals that predate your religion. You'll certainly have to confront your self righteous indignation and prejudices and you'll be challenged by their beliefs.. some of which you'll consider the occult. India is good for that, it's where deities meet gods meet demons meet spirits, wrapped in layers of superstition. However, I like the states.. I met loads of Christians there, speaking in tongues and wrestling serpents, singing the gospel and speaking about Voodoo. Tibet is cool, can't beat the Buddhists for occultism... they meditate and stuff. I'm sure some Buddhist practice is banned in the Bible. Oh and Africa.. don't get me started, the elders chuck the sacred chicken bones around before they let you pass through their territory.
"perhaps you could enlighten us.." sarcastically mock me as much as you like, but me leaving a short comment on a public post doesn't mean that have time to write an essay. But in response to your previous comment - how are you defining occult? It appears that you're conflating occult and spirituality, but occult is by definition spirituality that is not part of genuine Christianity. Jesus announced the Holy Spirit, why do you presume that 'd be upset about people speaking in tongues? No, a crucifix is not an amulet, why do you think that? It's a symbol to the outside world of what means most to us, and a reminder to ourselves continually of what Jesus did for us. I also had God's
Riches
At
Christ's
Expense - tattooed on my arm, because I ache to tell people.
Why do you think that I'm unaware of other cultures and their spiritual traditions? Though you saying that in Africa elders chuck chicken bones over you is a worrying attitude - I presume you're aware that this is only a minority practice (?). The vast majority of African people are Muslim or Christian. And yes, I have been there, as a teenager - but I won't travel again since the money that it costs to do so could make such a huge difference if donated to the world's poorest people.
What exactly have ii said that demonstrates " self righteous indignation and prejudices"?
Why not eat your own food at home? You could easily save enough to sponsor a child - or several
And you have quiet/privacy/choice of music/option to wear pyjamas etc
You don't really need to - our supermarkets have plenty of options for food that needs no serious cooking, and there are endless superfast meal ideas online.
please,darling, I am 83 and I pretty much do what I want to now. I like to eat at restaurants. I am contributing to the restaurant economy. They employ people who cook for you and people who serve you and people who wash your dishes. Without me and people like me, those folks could face unemployment. Why begrudge me my pleasure and those folks a livelihood?
I'm not begrudging you anything, just making a comment in an online forum, which we all do all the time.
I desperately wish that we could move towards a world where all of the labour that people were doing enabled people to have what they need. Our countries (I'm in the UK) are far, far wealthier than others because some of our ancestors and corporations (https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor... ) have grossly exploited others for centuries. Now we have the option of eating out and moaning about the noise, whilst some equally deserving human beings elsewhere work all working hours - many to provide things that we buy - and have little to choose from other than rice. I'm just thinking out loud because it bothers me, I'm well aware that everyone else can do what they want :)
so you don’t eat out and you do sponsor a child? Just asking!
I sponsor 2 children (and have direct debits to other charities working in developing countries) and haven't eaten out (or bought from coffee shops, takeout etc) since I was a child and it was my parents' decision. And I'm not trying to boast, because it's nothing to boast about, I'm trying to make the point that we don't need restaurants to enjoy life, and it's exciting what we can do instead
'Abortion remains a taboo topic, and this silence harms us.'
But will what abortion exactly is also be discussed? It's odd that so many people describe it as "just a clump of cells" when there are plenty of medical textbooks and pregnancy websites that explain what's developed in each week.
There should be far, far more done to inform people about and support adoption.
Some people cannot go ahead with the pregnancy due to circumstances, adoption is not an option to them. Abusive relationship, financial /housing situation, risks within the pregnancy.
Please do not be so judgemental about somebody's choice. Yes it is a clump of cells, that indeed has the possibility of becoming a child but that is all it is very early on.
What, exactly, did I say that's judgemental?
I'm well aware that it is a clump of cells - but only for a few weeks, whilst abortions can happen up to 24 weeks. By 12 weeks, according to NHS's own guidance, it's fully formed - ie, it has all of its organs, it only needs to grow.
And indeed, there ought to be plenty of support for pregnant mothers who aren't well-off.
And the 14, 15, 16 year olds...no one should force a child to carry a child. Yes, they had sex but poor sexual education can be to blame (at least here in the US)....if we here did more than teach abstinence or just did more in general for sex ed then we could teach more teenagers to be safe.
Only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of abortions are because of genuine physical risk, obviously, I'm not going to debate those. Abstinence? Young people are growing up in a society that gives the message that it's good to start having sex ASAP. And it's ultimately because sex sells - featuring it in programmes and magazines constantly serves corporate interests, and people suffer as a result.
Because, let's face it - if a teenager wants to have sex, they will. It's extremely important to keep them safe and educate them about it, whether you WANT them to be doing it, or not.
Of course - but part of them "wanting" to do it is the result of misinformation - programmes/films/adverts that make it appear far more glamorous than it often is; lack of awareness of the emotional risk; peers who make them feel that they're losers or losing out if they don't become sexually active etc. So yes, they should DEFINITELY get information about protection - but also about why abstaining might not be such a bad idea.
yep. Plenty of scientific evidence that there is no contiguous brain activity, denoting a sentient being until 28 weeks and until that point it’s a collection of cells
"sentient" defined how exactly? Newborns aren't sentient. Would you think it OK to kill them? The scientific community is still trying to understand brain development in the womb - but there's evidence of flinching at being prodded around 8 weeks, and last year a prize was won for a study showing that 16-week foetuses' facial expressions changed in response to music.
Grace Dalton ahhh it's been a while, still not got two brain cells to rub together.
Care to explain how exactly I've demonstrated that - or do you just not like my opinions?
you're opinions give away your lack of nowce.
So I was right -you can't actually explain what's incorrect about what I've written, you just don't like it.
they do a lot to inform about adoption they try not to let you pick the abortion option and adoption isn't all that a lot of kids end up in bad homes or not being adopted at all unless your gonna adopt all these kids I don't think you have a right to judge tbh
Really? Who's "they"? The reason that there are kids in need of homes is that their parents wouldn't/couldn't look after them when they're a child - there's an excess of couples desperate to adopt new babies.
they as in the hospital, doctors and nurses will inform you of everything you need to know also that's false many ppl can't even be allowed to adopt we have plenty of children in Foster homes nobody once them I think it is you who is misinformed about the situation and what gets me is that you've most likely been on this planet longer than I have but don't even know the basics of abortion, adoption and the Foster care system
I'm not sure what you're saying - you said that people aren't informed about abortion and implied that they should be, then that they are in fact given all the information they need(?)
so you think it's only young girls who are not wise that have abortions?
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about educating them but plenty of women know exactly what they are doing, know what the risks are and have made a very tough decision.
Judgemental people who assume that the best way is a always to have the baby despite every reason not to have no place in this form of arguement
What, exactly, did I say that's judgemental? It would be judgemental if I described women who have abortions in negative terms, but I never did.
No, there are plenty of babies in foster care, particularly drug addicted babies nobody wants. They'd have been better off as abortions.
"They'd have been better off as abortions." Wow. According to who?
According to discussions I've seen with teens who said they wished they HAD been abortions, for one example. And have you ever witnessed a baby going through withdrawals? Plenty of unwanted children out there who never should have been.
Wow. It's tragic that increasingly many people feel depressed and might say (not necessarily feel) that they shouldn't have been born - but if they're made aware of how precious they are, they can become incredibly strong people who have amazing lives. It's tragic that you'd just agree that they should be dead.
Tell that to abused children. The point is not every pregnancy is a blessing. Better to terminate a few cells way before it becomes anything than to bring a baby into the world unwanted.
You're entirely ignoring my original comments - I'm not arguing about a few cells. Within the first half of the period in which abortion is allowed, sensitivity and all organs have appeared.
And its still nonviable. Bottom line, for all your angst and ranting, abortion is legal and will stay that way. And if it wasn't, women would still do it. Don't like abortion, don't have one.
It's not a matter of "Don't like abortion, don't have one" (which I've seen repeated so, ludicrously many times) because this is just discussion - we all talk online about things that we have opinions on; and because this isn't just about the mother, it's also about the human within her. The issue is that you deny and or don't care that that human exists. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not arguing about pregnancies at the stage when the embryo genuinely is only a cluster of cells, but the pro-abortion lobby endlessly refers to any abortion as "just a cluster of cells", when in fact that stage lasts only for several weeks of the 24 in which abortion is allowed.
No matter what your argument, abortion is legal, early or late term for whatever reason. You arguing yourself blue in the face is not going to stop it. Not all pregnancies are blessings. Obviously you have never been in that situation so you don't have room to talk. You can have an opinion, but you can't condemn anybody who has a different one.
I can argue myself blue in the face? I just made a comment, and you've made it into an argument. Why? Why not just comment on Metro's post yourself?
And when did I say that I condemn anyone?
Every time you parrot "killing little babies is murder
LOL, but I never did! You're just proving that you've not been reading my words properly, you've just been arguing with your pre-judged characature of someone who's not pro-abortion.
"Why is it ridiculous to want a tiny human being not to be killed?" Pretty much the same thing.
No, it isn't. That a tiny human is killed is the most straightforward, unemotive way to state what abortion actually is - I deliberately didn't use the word murder, nor baby. If you don't like that a tiny human is killed, stop arguing in support of it.
If your that bothered about your view point do something about it...otherwise it's just noise with no motion
I hope that I can do in the future - whilst I'm unwell and unable to afford anywhere of my own to live, I'm not sure what I can do. I donate whatever I can to people in developing countries, since it makes far, far more difference £for£ than donating here; but I hope that I discover ways to be more practically useful in the future. But the internet is full of "noise", we all comment on things whether or not we're capable of changing them.
i was enjoying reading all the comments, then someone brought up the imaginary friend in the sky. That ruined it.
I never said anything about an imaginary friend in the sky. If I did, why that "ruin" anything? Surely you'd have no reason to care?
More to the point, as I've already asked, how much have you investigated apologetics? (ie, the scientific, philosophical and historical arguments to support God's existence)?
What are your thoughts on the points made by academic professors who are theists as to why they've concluded that God is real?
I got to the point around 12-13 that I just couldn’t accept it as being true. I researched it thoroughly over a period of several years before finally concluding its fantasy. It’s Brothers Grimm meets Hans Christian Anderson
Ooh, it definitely isn't (Brothers Grimm meets Hans Christian Anderson), I think you've been given a very false impression. I certainly wouldn't expect you to believe in God just because you were told about Him as a child. I came from a Christian household, but it was when only whilst looking at uni level science text books that I started to genuinely believe that it's most probable that God exists.
There are hundreds of thousands of kids that are already *here* who need families.If adoption was such a great thing,why are there so many kids in foster care. Whenever anyone brings up the adoption trope,it just proves you're not pro-life,simply pro-birth
As I already said, there are adoptive parents desperate to adopt a new baby. Sadly, older children can end up waiting years for adoption because adoptive parents want to raise a child from infancy, and, tragically, because they may be nervous about adopting an older child who's been emotionally abused. I see the trope that those opposed to abortion are "not pro-life,simply pro-birth" all the time - what I am is upset about killing that's ultimately mainly the result of misinformation and manipulation (by corporations that profit from selling entertainment by glamourising sex, and from telling people that a foetus is "just a clump of cells so that they can sell sex products and abortive treatments).
any woman that’s had termination has their own personal reasons. And there’s no good spouting off about planned parenthood and selling body foetal parts. You can’t force a woman to go through a pregnancy, then to hand the child over for adoption, just for the sake of not going through a termination. Ridiculous concept. Defeats the idea. Never judge.
I know I can't, but I can have an opinion. I never said anything that's actually judgemental, other than about the corporations involved. Why is it ridiculous to want a tiny human being not to be killed?
I urge anyone who doesn't already to check out Reasons to Believe - tonnes of articles on all areas of science, and how it demonstrates that God exists.
Back in my day..."... "In the good old days..."..."Look at the world today"... - day isn't necessarily a 24 hour period. And "son" in Hebrew uses the same word as grandson, great grandson etc. Thus I reckon we should accept mainstream geological findings about the age of the universe and Earth, rather than presume that the Bible is telling us that creation happened 6000 years ago in 6 days.
However, based on my study of biomedical sciences, I myself can't accept Darwinism - Darwin knew nothing about genetics, and thought that offspring receive a mixture of their parents' traits because their sexual fluids mix. His idea became so well accepted that scientists can't dispute it as their work would be rejected by scientific journals, institutions and the academic community - but now that DNA is understood, the idea that we evolved from apes which evolved from bacteria doesn't work. Stretches of DNA rely on each other; so a mutattion, as Darwinism recognises, can create a minuscule change such as eye colour, but it can't produce the complex functioning components of cells, let alone the systems of cells that interact with each other; and rely on separate organisms within tthe ecosystem.
Is it not also because we're increasingly realising that we have enough stuff? It's far more exciting to buy a goat for one of the world's poorest families than buy an additional top/bag/trinket etc when you already have plenty, or to buy what you need from a charity shop so that the money helps a good cause and the impact on the environment is reduced.
When you post your opinions on these horrible asylum seekers, you are talking about me.
In addition to the fact that we should have far, fsr more compassion for everyone, I'm utterly baffled as to why plenty of people seem to believe that every migrant is the same. Recently, for example, when I commented on a public post about the migrant "crisis" that we should have empathy, one person replied that we shouldn't allow migrants because of their attitude, since she's recently seen an African woman haggling in Primark. I'm simultaneously amused at the lack of logic, and very angry.
Awful, beyond words. My fellow Brits and I forget how inredibly privileged we are to live in as much freedom -including from poverty- as we do.
As a Brit, I am BORED TO TEARS hearing about Brexit constantly. More importantly, there are incomparably more serious issues in the world - like making trade fairer so that the world's poorest people can be helped, and fighting modern slavery - but our politicians and news have been stupidly obsessed with Brexit for 3 years.
President Donald J. Trump’
s schedule for Wednesday, January 9th:
· Signing ceremony for Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation
· Senate Republican policy lunch
· Meeting with Congressional Leadership
Please, please keep in mind that migrants are every bit as valuable and deserving as Americans.
only legal one
According to what science or scripture?
What would you do if you were born in a country with the world's highest murder rate?
I would move my family to another country Legally. Just like your family did when they came here
"your family did when they came here"? My family aren't there. We've been in the UK as long as there are records for. When the settlers/pilgrims etc arrived in the US, did they have the bureaucratic processes to go through that are now required? Donald Trump is in America because his grandfather emigrated illegally.
no illegal. no matter what your gifts are. we are nation of laws
You say people should just move legally - what if they can't? Do you know, exactly, how it's done? What if they lack phone or internet access? What if they're denied, as many will be?
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be controls, I'm saying that there needs to be more compassion, because it's only by the luck of the draw that we've been born into wealthy nations whilst others have been born into poverty - and that wealth/development gap is largely due to greed by some of our ancestors and corporations.
God tells us repeatedly to help the poor - including "aliens". Surely you know the parable of the good Samaritan?
That's awesome - but why is
The Independent continually eager to post (and repost, and repost...) about community work done by Muslims specifically?
Seriously, I'm not trying to oppose Muslims, I just can't help but feel that there's a serious bias here.
It's clear from countless comments on posts from
The Independent and similar sources that a lot of people think that Christianity is only a force for bad, since the charity/community work done by Christians is never reported. And if we're hated, that's fine - but it bothers me that the resentment apparently is part of the reason that people never explore Christ.
The imbalance suggests that
The Independent isn't particularly independent after all.
cos Christians aren't getting demonised daily in the UK, stop continually comparing and accept some people doing a good deed.. that's a Christian way of thinking I would have thought?
That depends on which media you're referring to. Indeed it's evil that Muslims are sometimes misrepresented by certain papers; but I can tell from countless comments, and survey data, that many people assume that Christians never do anything useful, and whilst indeed it doesn't matter whether or not people like us, it bothers me if a misunderstanding deters people from being open to finding out about Jesus.
the media isn’t big enough to mention every story in the country as it happens. I’m sure you can find publicity of other organisations if you use your brain and google. And in what world are Muslims getting good press? We are mocked daily and the minute something nice is said it’s only the nice things highlighted. Don’t be jealous, I actually feel sorry for you.
I'm not jealous - as I said, I don't care what people think of us for the sake of reputation, it bothers me that I see, constantly, people arguing that Christianity does nothing helpful and they use that as a reason not to find out about Christ. All I care about is people knowing Him.
Whatevs. What actually matters is people unable to afford to afford homes, and people ending up on the street, not celebrities' studios.
Why are my fellow lefties seemingly far, far more concerned about balancing demographics than about actual suffering caused by severe inequality? It's great for there to be more diversity on screen - but why don't we spend a bit more time discussing, for example, those of other ethnicities still living in other parts of the world and experiencing famine there?
Are we allowed to say that scores of people in the most severe poverty could have had their lives transformed with the £millions that have been spent on security for him?
Yuh, to counter the obesity crisis that's estimated to cost society £27 billion. Corporations manipulating our natural appetite mean that everyone is suffering; some because they themselves are overweight and thus developing heart conditions, cancer, diabetes, knee issues and more; or because the cost to the NHS means that other treatments are restricted or delayed; or because they're watching loved ones suffer because of the situation. You really think that a sugar tax from Labour is the thing we should be opposing?
Maybe if they did not keep building houses for most of the third world to come and not building schools just putting more buildings on their playing feelds so they have no where to exercise mite be a start .
Obesity is mainly the result of eating too much. Activity has reduced over the century because of changes in jobs and technology - not fewer empty fields. No one needs a field to exercise.
schools need them for organised exercise. We had at least 6hrs lesson-time exercise - gym, netball.
I am blaming the fact that every Tom dick and Harry can come and they have paid nothing in try that in America or Spain you have to get your card out if you have no insurance .
so you're upset about non residents using the NHS? That's only 0.3% of the NHS's spending, it's nothing compared to the cost of obesity.* And without people from elsewhere moving here and working in the NHS, it wouldn't exist.
*I'm not trying to blame obese people - but the issue itself, mainly, as I said, the fault of food corporations' exploitation, needs addressing.
Hockey tennis etc etc. per week. What do children have now?
Hockey, netball, and football were a waste of time - I and other non-sporty kids were never passed the ball. The best exercise was cross country running around the streets, or in circles around the playground. But this isn't just about PE - we all need exercise, and it can be done at home - we can all watch workout guides on Youtube, and buy some dumbbells and an exercise bike
We really, really should keep in mind that our nation took huge amounts of wealth from India. Though there are now some very wealthy people there, and amazing scientific developments, there are still many people in extreme poverty (and oppressive labour, sex slavery etc) because of the greed that contributed to nearly everyone here living relatively comfortably.
Whatevs. We'll all have been destroyed by global warming, superbugs, WW3 or a robot take over before we're retirement age.
Perhaps we should spend a little more time trying to work out what happens next? Consciousness can't be biologically identified, and the complexity and interdependence of the biological world suggest design - so what f there is, in fact, a creator that we could be with after this lifetime- ie, heaven? Obviously, it seems ridiculous, because it's beyond our experience on Earth so our brains can't fathom it - but given the significance of the issue, why do we mostly ignore it?
All she's done is made some of the people who are torn between voting left and right less likely to vote left, by giving the impression that her side is rude/bitter and has to curse for lack of hard hitting arguments.
I desperately wish that my culture (in the UK) was more concerned about the inequality of people living in slums; struggling to get enough to eat; not having access to healthcare; being forced to work absurd hours for almost no pay in factories and plantations; or being forced into marriage, FGM or slavery.
But here the media is almost silent about these, and instead very, very interested in female multimillionaire screen stars being paid less than their male colleagues.
It seems ironic that some people are staunch believers in Britain's strength and sovereignty, yet have a hissy fit over a tiny number of immigrants and demand that France deal with them.
In 2017 there were 33,780 asylum claims here, compared to 99,330 in France and 222,560 in Germany.
Why do so many people react as though the migrants aren’t human beings? Some are fleeing extreme violence (even if
the conflicts aren’t ones which we see often on the news, such as those in parts of Africa) – or the famine that results as people are driven from their land; even if they’re “economic migrants” they’re coming from places where life is far, far harder than it is for anyone here. No healthcare; no opportunities; no welfare state; no reasonable accommodation –what would you do? They’re no less feeling or deserving than us; centuries of exploitation has led to us being born into comfort and wealth (compared to most of humanity, and previous generations) whilst places that we’ve taken from have been left impoverished and disorganised. Our government should be improving Aid so that fewer people want to come; and assigning those who do come to jobs that need doing (including as carers and builders) – they are no less worthy of enjoying life than those of us lucky enough to have been born here.
[Deleted comments]
LOL, I've lived in London all my life. We have "white" hairdressers up the road, but I bet an African barber (though I presume you mean black, not necessarily straight from Africa) could cut your hair.
Which figures are a lie? How do you know? Which figures are accurate?
this country is the 2nd most generous nation in the world and gives more foreign aid than France & Italy combined. So, how should the government "improve" the aid we give? The current crop of migrants trying to get into the U.K rather than the 190 other countries are from Iran. A country that is not at war. Or suffering from famine. Nor was it ever a colony of Britain.
It needs to be better organised and monitored (as does every other area of gov. spending) - but per £, it makes more positive change than anything else.
Our nation is one of the very welathiest, largely because of greed by previous generations and our inetrnational corporations grossly exploiting impoverished communities in the developing world (historically the slave trade; now sweatshops, plantations, stealing people's land, misleading new mothers into using all their money on powdered milk, etc and see - http://www.filmsforaction.org/.../aid-in-reverse-how.../).
By providing people with clean water, education, farming tools, vital healthcare (and contraception +sex ed, which they otherwise often don't have) we can make a thrilling difference. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get.../myths-about-aid/
vacuous virtue signalling. Most of the world does not have the welfare state, access to education, health, housing etc you receive due to the endeavours and excellence of your ancestors. You should literally live a subsistence life, donating all but the most essential of income (such as to buy turnips) to people in Burkina Faso for example, to show how much you love this global equality thing. Insincere rubbish
It wasn't excellent that our ancestors stole the equivalent of many trillions from other nations.
How do you know I'm insincere? What did I actually write that you disagree with?
how many refugees are you personally taking in and providing for their well-being?
That's a non-sequitur, the refugees aren't asking to live in people's houses. If I could, I'd give a refugee my bedroom and sleep on the sofa myself - but it's not my property, I'm not allowed. In the meantime, I donate (instead of going to cafes/restaurants/getting takeaways/having pampering/beauty treatments/going out for entertainment/ having memberships or subscriptions to anything/travelling/drinking etc - which I only say because you're apparently so interested in my life)
I was behind a black lady in Lewisham who had these vouchers in primarks and she was still trying to barter the price!
Wow, you're honestly letting your experience of one person of colour determine your view of immigration? Where is the logic in that? How do you even know if she was an immigrant? Do all of us white people behave in exactly the same way?
well she has an africain accent! She could hardly speak a word of English. Lefty loon
So, she could have been a tourist. That 1 person you saw bartering in Primark would be an argument against immigration makes no logical sense at all. Do you behave the same as every other English person?
You clearly don't know what you talk about. The Middle East is extremely rich! and taking in all people from there won't solve the problems in the Middle East, it will only cause problems in the UK too.
No, much of Europe's wealth, and Africa's lack of it, as well as the fact that the wealth they do have (in Africa and Asia) is entirely inaccessible to many people, are the result of colonialism, and continued exploitation by Western multinationals.
What would you do if you were born into a slum; grew up having to spend hours collecting water each day or farming; were weakened by malnutrition and/or disease (that we with an NHS are kept from/treated for); and had no job opportunities anywhere near by?
they are not migrants fleeing danger. There illegal immigrants that have travelled here for freebies passing several safe countries on the way. Stop watching YouTube videos with your little foil hat on.
I haven't watched Youtube videos about immigration, I use Youtube for music and lectures. How, exactly, do you know that they're all "here for freebies" and "not fleeing danger"? What would you do if you were born into the situations that they are?
Immigrants make a net contribution to UK economy - https://www.ucl.ac.uk/.../fiscal-effects-immigration-uk
well I can see how weekends in Paris could be classed as a war zone.
If you were in a genuinely safe country, why would you risk your life in a dinghy to leave?
In France, refugee camps are being torn up.
Also, they're far more likely to be able to speak some English than French, therefore, here, they'll be most likely to find work. Our government ought to assign them roles as builders and carers.
where will they live while they ‘find work’
is that why they leave the women behind so they can fight while the men invade other countries.
They don't leave all women behind; but it does make sense for men to come, as they're more likely to be strong enough to swim for their lives on the dangerous journey, and are more likely to find jobs.
They pay 4K to be smuggled in to the UK via the channel. That money should of been used to settle them in the first safe country they entered!
How does the fact that they pay their life savings, and often money donated from relatives, justify leaving them to drown? They wouldn't be risking their lives on dinghies if they had opportunities to build lives for themselves elsewhere.
Are they escaping from France?
People want to come here because they're most likely to be able to speak some English, and/or they'll be most likely to find work. As I said, we need builders and carers. And in France, refugee camps are being torn up.
the iranians that come here are normally homosexuals or deviants
"homosexuals or deviants" according to what data? I know quite a few Iranians, what they deviate from is Islam - ie, they're Christians, so life in Iran was dangerous.
Charity begins at home and our own house is far from in order unless you walk round with eyes and ears shut...
"charity begins at home" - why?
It's not a statement of fact, or a logical argument, it's a slogan people use to try to avoid admitting that they think of people like them as far more important than those of other races. Why not do as much as possible to reduce suffering? That means helping the people whose agony is most severe; helping the people with fewest opportunities; and helping the people for whom, £ for £, donations make the most difference.
Indeed, far, far more should be done to help the homeless here - but in war torn and developing countries, people could only dream of access to food banks; shelters; job centres; welfare state benefits and the NHS.
And we can make a huge difference - educating a child in a developing country, for example, costs roughly 1/10th of what educating a child costs here. For the amount that many of us would spend on a meal out, tools or a goat (to milk) could be provided to make a family in one of the poorest parts of the world far more able to support themselves. Just £4 can feed a starving child for a month. Why would we not?
Consider also, that our home country is far, far wealthier than most because of centuries of exploitation and injustice, which is ongoing. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries
i agree in theory but which country are you specifically referring to which western and or 1st world countries have been stripped of their resources and abandoned? I see it more that the immigrants see a safety net in the form of welfare. Otherwise, why not go to countries such as Armenia, Georgia or Turkey. They are much closer in distance
People want to come here because they're most likely to be able to speak some English, and/or they'll be most likely to find work. As I said, we need builders and carers. And in France, refugee camps are being torn up, whilst in Turkey and other countries there's political unrest. Turkey can't take in more and it's leading to conflict with Turkish nationals. I agree, if people can find new homes nearer to their home country, that's absolutely better - but we can't just expect other countries to deal with the issue, esp. when Britain is so comparatively wealthy. We need to start with compassion and work out a solution that's genuinely best, not just a solution that keeps as many people out of the UK as possible, which appears to be many peoples' priority.
I read a survey once indicating that the overwhelming majority of Telegraph readers identify as Christians. No, really.
It doesn't surprise me - plenty of people like the label of Christian because it feels like part of their heritage, and they feel that it makes them superior - but in fact Christian, by definition, is to follow Christ, and many of the comments here show that people aren't.
Here's another snowflake you all need shooting do your research isis members smuggle them self's in to these people I don't want risks coming in to my country thank you. Did you hear about the beheading of louisa and her friend? These people don't like us westerners they want to take over the world and take of our heads wake up ffs
"These people don't like us westerners" - you honestly think that if a few people from one part of the world are terrorists then everyone from that part of the world is? We're (British people) from the same country as Ian Huntley, Dr Shipman, John Worboys etc - what does that make us?
They have crossed other safe regions so could have settled there. The reason they want to come here...BENEFITS!
Do you speak French? Many migrants are desperate to come here because English is the language they've learned, and vital for trying to find work. Also, France has been demolishing migrant camps.
I like the ones with iPhones and Nike Air Max
Exactly what proportion of refugees have Nike clothes and iphones? Where are you getting your data from? Do the photos you've seen show you the age/model of the items clearly The fact is that what those people own is stuff we've thrown away.
and rightly so to demolish illegal migrant camps. Perhaps if the migrants would register accordingly they would get help. But since most of them are not refugees, they won't declare themselves, as they would face to be deported.
Right, so if they would get deported back to countries where they're struggling to survive, what do you suggest they do? What would you do?
It is not our problem what they do. Our responsibility is to our own people and country. Your silly attempts at guilt-tripping does not work any more.
"It is not our problem ... Our responsibility is to our own people" according to who? That's a statement purely of opinion with no logic or data to support it. And as I said, our nation's become wealthy through the injustice and exploitation that's made other countries poor.
in order to exploit another country you would need the consent of their regime. Obviously if a corrupt african leader is selling everything in his country and pockets the money, he doesn't care for his people. For generations we are paying foreign aid, with no success to fund Africa. They wouldn't be poor if they had an import tax on european agricultural products, that way local farmers would be back in competition. Large areas of Africa could be in much better condition if they wanted to be and would change their economic systems.
How could people make their situations better, exactly? What would you do, if you were born in a slum, had no access to education, had to spend all day farming and gathering water just to survive, and were continually threatened by tropical diseases and terrorists? The money given in aid is just 0.7% of our budget - how could you expect that to eradicate poverty? Yet it has made an amazing difference - eg https://www.vox.com/.../thanksgiving-poverty-war-hunger and note, we actually take far more from developing countries than we give - https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
if foreign aid had made a difference over the past 50 years, then they wouldn't have all the problems you've just described. So obviously that's not the solution. Again, local corrupt african leaders are not investing in their people. They sell to foreign Corporations and don't feed their people. So if they would care, there wouldn't be any slums, they would have education, infrastructure, etc. Africa has the potential to supply itselve with enough food. Instead Europe is exporting the overproduction of funded agricultural products to Africa. They don't impose import tax, and therefore local products are more expensive, which puts farmers out of their jobs. The solution is easy.
And note: they will have to fight their crime and terrorist, just like anyone else has to do. Each country is responsible for their inner safety. It can't be used as an excuse to become an illegal migrant.
That makes no sense. The point is that Aid has helped significantly, but because it's such a tiny proportion of national expenses, and because corruption means that our (Western) corporations are still taking from the developing world, there's still work to do.
Your source is VOX which is considered far left on the political spectrum and for it’s biased
It's highlighting data from official sources; posted that link because it summarises relevant information well, the political views of the site's editors don't invalidate it. And who, exactly, defiined it as "far left"?
what a load of crap, we have been feeding theses impoverished nations for decades with billions £ still they have not learnt to care and improve their lot ,there comes a time when we say enough is enough put Britain’s people first , then when we have looked after our own I don’t mind helping others
Have you ignored my earlier comments? The Aid given is proportionately tiny - and Western companies are still taking from the developing world. Why should we only help British people first? Here there are already - though imperfect - many welfare state services that help the poor, suffering in developing countries is far, far more severe - and inescapable. And £for£ money spent helping the poorest people in the world makes many times more difference than it does here - for example, providing schooling for a child in Africa costs roughly 1/10th of what t costs here, so by spending there, we can help far, far more suffering people
if they are so deserving why dont they get together and make life better for themselves how much has it cost them to get to here already ,and why has no one questioned all the money that has been sent as foriegn aid and what charities have begged for that never seems to get to the people ,only to fat cats wages ,if they cannot help themselves how are they able to help us ,remember or pot has got a bottom what happens then ,once its gone its gone remember that ,dyna mic .
ow are they going to "make life better for themselves" in countries with no infrastructure, virtually no government services, no healthcare, virtually no education, and no opportunities?As I said, the Aid given is proportionately tiny - 0.7% of our GDP - and Western companies are still taking from the developing world. Why would you expect that to eradicate poverty? Yet it has made an amazing difference - eg https://www.vox.com/.../thanksgiving-poverty-war-hunger
£for£ money spent helping the poorest people in the world makes many times more difference than it does here - for example, providing schooling for a child in Africa costs roughly 1/10th of what it costs here, so by spending there, we can help far, far more suffering people.
the last part of your comment... puts the rest of your jibber jabber down the pan to be fair. “Lucky enough to have been born here”. Get a grip you self righteous imbecile, our grandparents kept this island safe for us to prosper, we rebuilt after the wars to become the country we are now and not to let migrants who are fleeing no wars in for no reason what so ever.
More people died fighting in WW1 in Africa than Brits died. Either way - our grandparents' actions don't mean that we're more entitled. And why on Earth do you think that people are fleeing "for no reason what so ever."?
i see you were born yesterday ! We as in western nations have sent billions upon billions of dollars in food aid then some dim whit political snow flakes decided to join the UN & send billions of dollars / pounds in cash & the amount just keeps going up ! All whilst the population of these countries has lessened by hundreds of millions of people ! So tell me why does our money increase whilst there population lessens ? Any ideas ? Ever get the feeling were paying for our own invasion snowflake !
Who told you that the populations in developing countries are falling?
We give 0.7% - why do you think that "billions" should have resolved the poverty when it's such a tiny amount in terms in national economies? Besides, we take far, far more than we give - see: http://www.filmsforaction.org/.../aid-in-reverse-how.../
in total derrrrr & yes decreasing because millions have dispersed into Europe & western countries ! Told you born yesterday !
No, actual population data. Seriously. You can simply Google "Population time graph Africa" and immediately get that in 2015 the population there was 1,194,369,908, and it's now 1,287,920,518 (data from the UN). Charities educating people about contraception, and providing it, is having an impact, but your idea that the population's decreasing simply from your own speculation, rather than data, suggests that you ought to look for information more and presume things less.
I know of some charities who are looking to place refugees with families in the U.K.
Any chance I can give them your name so they can get in touch - do you have any spare rooms or even a sofa?
I wish - I'm afraid I can't afford (nor am I healthy enough) to move to somewhere of my own, shameful as that might be. I don't have permission to take in a refugee where I'm living.
of course not. Funny how that pans out on every occasion isn’t it?
Oh yeah, I'm just loving the fact that I have no prospect of buying a home, I totally chose this. Why do you think that means that people should starve at home or drown in the channel?
they are two utterly different subjects.
Your inability to choose a lifestyle and career that means you are incapable of buying a home has nothing to do with immigration - apart from the obvious pressures on the housing market caused by mass immigration of course.Your inability to correctly use logic in an argument may also show certain things too...
"inability to correctly use logic" - would you please clarify what you're referring to?
I never said that my situation is linked to migration - I was asked about housing migrants personally, so I explained why that's not possible ATM. But this discussion was never about anyone having people in their houses anyway.
But feel free to virtue signal on behalf of hard working British taxpayers, just getting by, paying rent/mortgages, struggling to get food on the table, while our Gov send BILLIONS in Foreign aid from our overtaxed labours to these corrupt, unproductive populations.
How exactly are you calling corrupt and unproductive? The people who work all waking hours to provide crops and items that we buy? Or those who have to walk hours each day just to get water? Or those who've been driven from their homes by war or terrorism?
As I said, Aid is 0.7% - and far, far more is taken from those countries by our corporations.
Stop basing your information on charity videos! Try actually visiting these places and see for yourself..
Why do you think that I base my understanding on charity videos? I read coverage from outlets across the political/ideological spectrum. And I've visited Mozambique - but won't go abroad again anytime soon, the amount that it costs can sponsor a child for years.
Any of us could die in January. Some have to handle illness as we get closer, and it's awesome when such people are still able to be positively-minded amidst the struggle.
Why do so few of us think about what might happen to our consciousness beyond this?
If you're not truly in love with a trying to follow Christ, you are in fact, by definition, not evangelical even if you claim to be. The word "evangelical" means wanting to tell others good news - ie, the news that though we are ALL impure, and undeserving of God's presence - heaven - Jesus has offered us The Way to be forgiven and to spend eternity in perfect peace with God. Truly believing that message will cause a person to want to emulate Jesus, who told us clearly to be loving to others, and not to seek wealth.
Whereas Vice generally ignores science for unacknowledged societal ends?
What science would that be?
It's hard to answer which is not considered, you're asking me to identify a negative; but I'm thinking particularly of its celebration of sexual habits that have hurtful consequences; its promotion of satanism and witchcraft; and its endless horoscopes.
the right proves how dumb they are with every sente4nce, wow. vice is clearly better with biology than lobster boys
I'm not sure how Vice's expertise in biology is clear, perhaps I've missed lots of articles. Who are you referring to as "the right"?
lmao there's no inherent differences between genders or races, it's harmful pseudoscience that persists today
Yes, there are literally inherent differences. Genes.
There is, however, no inherent difference in worth. And there are many, many other genes (than those determining skin tone and gender) as well as life experiences and epigenetics that determine personality traits and skills. Therefore, it is wrong and daft to harbour thoughts of any group or person being superior to any other; to presume that any race or individual will be less mentally able than another; or that an individual in one group will be like the others in that group in ways other than the group that.
Ie, a female has inherited one chromosome that's different from those inherited by any male, and it's in every cell n her body (other than denucleated red blood cells, obvs) - but she also shares genes with some males that she doesn't share with some females; and is impacted massively by her life experiences, so she can't be presumed to meet expectations of stereotypical females, nor be presumed unable to undertake traditional male tasks well.
A black person has a gene for more melanin than a white person - and likely also have genes for better athletic ability - but their other genes and experiences will determine their personality, skills and interests, so it's unscientific and evil to treat them as though they're any less important or intelligent than a white person.
Why should Jeremy change position to appease paid-up members? Surely we want politicians who are trying to consider the views of as many citizens as possible?
Whether or not we can easily travel to Europe is out of the equation - all that matters is helping those in greatest need. Yet more time being taken up tangled with the EU might not be the best way to address serious injustices.
Why not instead buy an exercise bike or treadmill and spinlock dumbbells and workout at home (where you can watch TV/ lectures online etc at the same time, skip travelling to a gym and have privacy)?
With the money saved (by not having a gym membership), we can literally save/transform lives (by donating to charities working with the world's poorest people - eg, sponsoring a child with money save
d from not using a gym will mean they have lessons, healthchecks and protection from traffickers).
Just mentioning because many people haven't thought of it -corporate forces want us to spend on ourselves so that they get our cash, thus they work to make us forget that we have a disproportionate share of humanity's wealth, and -excitingly- we have the privilege of genuinely changing lives
So true. You can feed a starving child in a developing country for a month for $6, why spend that on more expensive "clean" versions of food you can buy cheaply?
LOL, I'm a Putin troll, just because I'm not pro-abortion?
What you do with your uterus is NOT my concern and what I do with my uterus is not YOUR concern!!!!
I never said anything about YOUR uterus specifically. But, in general, it does bother me that people choose to kill the tiny humans that are the result of personal decisions to have sex. Before 12 weeks, the foetus has all of its organs, and has brainwaves. I'm well aware that the decision isn't mine, but I'm still upset that another human would be chopped/suctioned - it's that which is the issue, not the uterus.
nothing lives without God's breath of life. It is a clump of cells until then.
God? When did God say that inhalation determines life? The Bible mentions the unborn as being alive on several occassions.
it comes down to science you dolt. A fetus is not a baby or person until a certain number of weeks. Get an education and stfu about what women do with their bodies. Not your choice or your concern!
What science are you referring to? Science uses specific terminology, and the fact that it doesn't refer to the fœtus as a baby or a person doesn't change the fact that it's a living human. In fact, if to read scientific literature, the words baby and person are virtually, or absolutely, never uses anywhere (for born humans)
NB - Mormonism is not Christianity.
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.
Seriously - contrary to what Vice thinks, sex is not the greatest thing in life. God is incomparably greater, and loves EVERYONE beyond measure. It's tragic that anyone feels excluded from coming to Him because of issues around sexuality. Jesus died for them.
Ever been divorced?Were you a virgin when you got married? Yeah. I doubt either. Careful what
stones you throw.
Did you read my post? It's specifically about not throwing stones. But no, I've never been divorced, and yes I'm a virgin.
Because the Bible itself states the world is only about 5,000 years old, despite a ton of scientific data that proves the world is far older than that.
Where exactly does "the Bible itself states the world is only about 5,000 years old"? I think you've been misinformed.
all you have to do is track the dates. I get math and science are of the devil to you.
No, maths and science are vital, and I along with Christian scholars don't dispute that the Earth is roughly 4bn years old (and the universe roughly 13bn). Genesis's early chapters are not strictly literal, and the original Hebrew words don't all translate perfectly to English; so what has been translated as "day" didn't refer to 24 hour periods; and where the word "son" is used to describe Adam's family tree, it will often have meant descendent. Only a tiny minority of Christians reject mainstream geological dating.
Eg, see https://reasons.org/.../the-nature-and-duration-of... and https://reasons.org/.../2003/01/01/the-genesis-genealogies
even with all that Judaism only began roughly 5 thousand years ago so the judeo-christian God is only as old as his oldest group of followers. consider civilization began almost 15,000 years before Judaism came about. So I again prefer my Gods to predate that. I mean if I'm going to believe in purely fictional onimpetent asshats who let the world burn, it might as be ones that are at least as old as the oldest civilizations.
What if some earlier people were worshipping what is, in fact, the same God? Why do you think that God is purely fictional?
considering the earlier civilizations were all polytheistic the likelihood of them worshiping the same "god" is about the same as a person being nailed to a cross, dying and waking up three days later. in other words absolutely none. as to why because mankind created gods in their image to explain where we are going and why, to make it easier to get through life when their only purpose was just to survive in the earliest hunting gathering tribes and for the ruling class to control people through fear of the unknown. that and to make money. That is why no one has ever seen these fictional deities. they will say such bullshit is I see him in fill in the blank. but ignore his/their absence when humankind burns the world to the ground.
Why do you think that the first faiths were polytheistic? Even if they were, why would that disprove that there is one creator God?
If Christianity was simply wishful thinking, it wouldn't include the belief that we're all flawed and in need of forgiveness. What if, instead, people now convince themselves that there's no God because they can then feel better about doing whatever they want?
Of course people don't see God - we see because waves of light are reflected from atomic structures and create nervous signals in our optic nerves which are transmitted to our brains. God is not made of atoms.
because it is a matter of historical facts. you know things that actually happened unlike dead Arab guys walking on water.
Crikey, you're conflating Jewish with Arab? I'm wondering what sources say that the earliest faiths were polytheistic. I recently read an article that said the opposite. Either way, it doesn't tell us whether or not God exists.
not a single mention of Jesus there[in linked article RE Bible and homosexuality]. And Paul never met Jesus. He turned up decades after Jesus' death. So are you a follower of Jesus?
Jesus spoke to Paul supernaturally - initially startling Paul so much that he went blind and changed course from killing Christians to giving his life to being a Christian. And Jesus did specifically discuss one man and one woman in marriage being God's design.
But why debate this? It's trivial compared to Jesus Himself.
And Jesus said to Paul on the road to Damascus, "Saul, gay people are bad." Is that how it went down? Jesus was answering a question about divorce when he spoke of that relationship. Different context. Quit telling homosexuals that their love is sin. It's not.
I didn't tell anyone that their love is a sin; firstly because this thread is only abstract opinion, I wouldn't discuss an actual person or challenge them about it; secondly because I never mentioned love, it's only sex that I believe God has warned against.
It's great that it's challenging racial disparity - but it's simply celebrating another instead. We need fewer films about the super rich which make us less aware of how privileged we are. There are scores of Asians with no choice but to work every waking hour in factories producing things that we buy, or picking tea, rice etc, for salaries that they can barely survive on. Pretending that this film is heroic is not helping the real suffering.
It is important for MPs to have holidays, migrant "crisis" or not
How is it right that some humans have enough excess wealth to spend £1000s on something that will only last a week, whilst other humans live in slums?
Because they work for it maybe
People in developing countries often labour for as many, or more hours, in far, far, far more uncomfortable/boring/dangerous work
Well it all depends on your attitude to life. People can live in slums because they make no effort and are lazy. Others have the drive to succeed and work hard. They deserve their success! Why should you have things when you don’t bother striving? People are all different. You shouldn’t be jealous of those who work towards success.
No, they live in slums because our ancestors, and now Western multinationals, have stolen the natural resources and farm land of now impoverished countries, and left them unable to develop, without the infrastructure, services and opportunities that we have from birth. People who sew our clothes, make our electronics, pick our tea etc work harder than politicians, but have no way to leave slums and survive on little more than rice. Plenty of those trying to get here on dinghies have worked hard - then had their homes blown up by wars (that our government is partially responsible for).
what a load of idealistic tosh .. time to grow up .. but then some people never do ..
I discovered recently that the word tosh derives from people in Victorian times searching through sewage in the streets for dropped coins. But things are better than that now - so why shouldn't we hope to reduce the agony of those in the poorest parts of the world?
Jill Oberlin-Harris you honestly think that the reason Javid was on a luxury holiday whilst others are risking their lives to get here from warzones and slum dwelling is that he tried hard and they're lazy?
Indeed money doesn't grow on trees - but the reason that some people earn more per hour than others do in a month is that injustices have made our economy, and some professions, vastly wealthier than others.
you do realise that India, where a lot of the poorest people live in slums, comes 4th in the league of countries of billionaires, unimaginable wealth that most people on here can only dream about, struggling to get by. And you are trying to make ordinary citizens feel guilty, when we already pay millions in aid to these poorer countries, who have the means to have a space program, but won't spend the money for basic sanitation for its people.
But Aid isn't handed over to governments, it's used to run programmes that directly help the poorest people to become self sufficient. The injustice and lack of state services in India is largely because Britain exploited it so much and left it ripe for unjust individuals to take control after the Empire.
Try this - https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/countries/IN
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34398449
[Those on expensive holidays] have worked hard at school and maybe university and have striven to better their skills and knowledge to enable themselves to get a well paid job and their families to have a better life. Money does not grow on trees Many of these countries have corrupt leaders and governments who do not rule in the interests of the general population
You honestly think that the reason Javid was on a luxury holiday whilst others are risking their lives to get here from warzones and slum dwelling is that he tried hard and they're lazy?
Indeed money doesn't grow on trees - but the reason that some people earn more per hour than others do in a month is that injustices have made our economy, and some professions, vastly wealthier than others.
Indeed, there are plenty of people who call themselves Christians yet aren't actually following Christ. It's odd that so many others consider those hypocrites (who call themselves Christians but aren't following Christ) as a reason to ignore Jesus.
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.
Please note – many people who’ve called themselves Christians aren’t actually following Christ; Jesus was consistently peaceful and compassionate.
No where in the Bible does it refer to homosexual relationships. Try looking at Tony Campolo or Steve Chalk for examples of ministers who support same sex relationships....
It refers to men having sex with men, in the old and new testaments.
The reality is, we don't need sex to enjoy life - at least, not when we have the joy that a relationship with God can provide. There are plenty who can testify to this, Sam Allberry, Rosaria Butterfield and David Bennett are just a few with particularly awesome testimonies of being gay but leaving gay sex behind and loving life. (I'm also celibate, though straight, and not missing out).
I'm well of Tony Campolo or Steve Chalk.
My point was not to argue about homosexuality - my point was that the man in the photo with a plaquard s not behaving as Jesus would.
but we have already established that the instruction in the Bible was not specifically about gay relationships/sexuality.....That's an interpretation you and others have made... I am a Christian but do not agree with that interpretation, along with many other Christians and Christian leaders......it is a matter that divides in the church...we must be open about this otherwise people might think all Christians think as you do. I would encourage you to look at the Jayne Ozanne foundation to appreciate a different view.
How/what exactly have we supposedly established?
Of course I'm familiar with Jayne Ozanne.
What's agonising is that our culture worships sex, and so presumes it absurd to suggest that anyone could be happy without it, and is oblivious to the joy of knowing God which more than compensates. https://www.faithwire.com/.../gay-christian-provides.../...
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.” C.S. Lewis,
I desperately wish that more people would explore Jesus, and not ignore Him on the basis of comparatively unimportant issues like this.
I'm pretty sure vanity is a sin too, one look at your profile shows you for the hypocrite you are.
If following a deity works for you then fair enough, but the majority in this country are not religious so telling us we are sinners is ignorant and judgemental. But then why should so called 'Christians' change the habit of a lifetime.
What exactly is hypocritical about my profile? I had to do several photo shoots 8 years ago for work and still use those photos, I hate my face too much to take more.
You say that "telling us we are sinners is ignorant and judgemental" - what is it you think sin is?
I don't believe in sin, I believe in what's morally wrong and right. You may get your kicks from a book of fairy tales but don't you dare try and tell people they are living in sin because of it. If you want to be celibate then that is your prerogative, but others have the right to enjoy sex. You do your thing and let them do their thing.
You didn't answer - as to what you think sin is - even if you don't believe in sin, you must have some opinion about it since you're furious with me for calling gay sex sin. And if it doesn't exist, as you believe, why does it matter?
Why do you think that the Bible is "fairy tales"?
It also says love thy neighbour but it seems Grace Dalton only cherry picks those things she agrees with.Love is never wrong and quite frankly neither is sex between consenting adults
I'm well aware that it says love thy neighbour - my comment isn't hateful. I mentioned that the Bible says that people shouldn't have gay sex - that doesn't mean that those who do are any less precious than any other human being. I specifically said that it's wrong to harass people, the whole point of my comment was that bullying is unChristlike. All I did was to say that God has said that a particular thing shouldn't ne done. If a child had a sibling who was doing something that their dad (WHO knows far better than they do) had said they shouldn't do, it wouldn't be unloving for that child to tell their sibling what their dad had said.
He Was a Gay Man on Staff at a Catholic Parish. Then the Threats Began Coming In.
This (abuse) is so, so, so antithetical to what Jesus taught. The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - but [I commented as for above headline]
where specifically in the bible does it say that people should not have gay sex?
I could quote the verses, but added explanation is helpful; try this - http://www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa
I want the specific book, chapter and verse and not in an altered version bible, but original text.
Original text, as in Hebrew/Greek? What do you consider altered about the verses in the article to which I linked? What Bible do you use?
I think that what you shared is not original but someone's translation. I also believe from what you wrote and the text that you shared both are judgmental.
Again - what translation do you use? We all use translations if we aren't using Hebrew/Greek, but those translations are carefully developed by teams of scholars to ensure reliability. Still, obviously, we can compare different translations - but they still give the same message about homosexuality.
What exactly have I written or shared that's judgmental?
Do you not see my original point?
These are the only two verses in the entire bible that explicitly deal with homosexuality and they are both part of what’s called the ‘Holiness Code’ from Leviticus 17-26. The holiness codes outlaw a lot of things, like wearing garments of two fibers such as cotton socks and a wool sweater, eating shellfish, getting a tattoo, or working on Sunday. Leviticus also calls for the death of those who commit adultery, or brides who on their wedding night are discovered not to be virgins, or even disrespectful teenagers. There are all sorts of violations that we overlook now because times have changed and what is seen as an abomination has also changed.
Things like not mixing fabrics refer specifically to pagan customs of neighbouring tribes at the time, and thus are not relevant now, as made clear by numerous verses in the NT. Sex, however, is a timeless human choice, not a cultural phenomenon, so the OT's command to avoid it still stands - and this is made clear by Paul in the NT. Why not look at the article I linked to?
I did read the article you linked to. My post still stands. Tattoos are a timeless human choice. Eating shellfish is a timeless human choice. Non-virgins getting married is a timeless human choice. You shouldn’t pick and choose which specific passages you believe should be adhered to and others ignored.
No, the word tattoo didn't exist, the phrase was markings on the skin for the dead, and they were prohibited because it was pagan ancestor worship. Eating shellfish would have been extremely dangerous because of food poisoning, but people at the time didn't understand that, so it would make sense for God ban shellfish for the sake of peoples' health. And as I said, teachings about sexuality are reaffirmed in the NT.
regardless as to how tattoos, eating shellfish, etc. were thought of in the past, they are accepted now. You either accept it all or deny it all. You seem to choose just what fits your personal beliefs and ignore what you dont like.
"regardless"? You're simply ignoring the explanation because you dislike it. There are many situations in which some rules are kept whilst others aren't. When I entered the sixth form, I no longer had to follow school uniform rules - that didn't mean that it would suddenly be OK to stand on the desks. There's no logic in "You either accept it all or deny it all."
Because we expect the state to pay when we need bariatric surgery, diabetes medication, and the myriad of other medical treatments that obesity leads to.
Corporations have been exploiting the population, normalising eating more than is good for us so that they profit whilst people suffer. The government's plans won't stop anyone eating what they want, they'll just make it harder for food retailers to take advantage of people.
We're all overindulging this week - let's remember how stupendously lucky we are.
It was great, truly - but I'm not sure if there was a huge amount of emphasis on the "revolutionary love of Jesus Christ. Jesus' love is not only to care about others and social justice, as invaluable as those are, but that He willingly died to offer us The Way to God, though we are undeserving and stained by sin. The message of social justice and compassion is monumental and indeed in need of far, far more attention - but we aren't loving our neighbour if we fail to share Jesus' ultimate message with them.
Love is love and the same reason Jesus Christ laid down his precious life on the cross of cavalry was because of his love for you and me.
"love is love"? Meaning what? The original Hebrew/Greek Bible texts have several different varieties of "love" described. Love between 2 people in a sexual relationship is extremely distinct from the love Jesus has for humanity. Love of a football team, love of a parent for their child, and love for the poor who we help, are each again entirely distinct.
How do you understand Jesus' love?
The Bible termed it "love". If it's real in your heart, then it's real love cos the Bible did not give us various forms of it.
No, the Bible termed different types of love with differing names, and in our English translation, just one word is used because the English language isn't broad enough. Seriously, "love" is not homogenous - you know that love between sexual partners is distinctly different than from the love between a parent and child, or between friends, or the love a person might have for a thing or cause. The love of Christ is different again - He sacrificed Himself for us though we deserve punishment.
At Christmas we honour Jesus' birth. But it wasn't today, and that wasn't his name
We all know that it wasn't the 25th of December, and obviously, His name might have been pronounced differently in Aramaic. But there's a good case to support the Gospel's historicity - yet it's a huge, complex field - why would we believe the opinion of the Telegraph over the many different historians whose views we can explore and weigh up online already?
For example - https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection
My (pretty limited) understanding was that they weren't written down until around 100 AD. Plus they are contradictory! They certainly have historical inaccuracies, such as there being no census, the plot device to get them to Bethlehem!
As I said, this is a hugely complex topic - but, in short, the Gospels were written (initially, they were spread by oral tradition, which was a specific skill and custom at time) onwards from around 60AD, not 100AD, and some other New Testament books are suspected to have been written sooner. The "contradictions" are minor and can be explained, such as by exploration or turns of phrase from the time.
There is nothing to to support the Gospel's historicity, only that communities of believers formed and eventually became the Catholic Church, amid a plethora of 'Gospels' in circulation. .The only historical records merely record what the Christians had been claiming about Jesus. No first hand accounts of anything that Jesus said or did, or of His fate. Just as no one witnessed how Muhammad pbuh came to be able to recite what was subsequently two centuries later recorded as the Quran.
Why would you ignore statements from Christians automatically? If Jesus truly rose, most people who chose to write about it would also believe, and thus become Christians. Would you refuse evidence that the Earth is not flat from people who themselves aren't flat Earthers? Would you only believe testimonies about a place from people who weren't from that place? It's not like a company or political party where members stand to profit from their organisation's success such that they'll be biased and potentially inaccurate.
Yet, there are pieces of supporting evidence from historians the time who observed parts of theGospel events, eg https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non.../
The most reliable source is our common sense. If we use our common sense, we would agree that people at that time were very likely to exaggerate. His followers were greatly disturbed by his death. People in OUR DAY keep on claiming that "Elvis is alive", how hard it is to imagine people in the 1st century AD to claim that "Jesus is alive"? Perhaps they have seen someone similar. Perhaps they have not found his body where it was supposed to be. Rumors started that he "is alive". Naturally, the power of his teaching combined with this story of "resurrection" was enough to sufficiently impress contemporaries in order for them to create a record of what happened - "New Testament". How reliable is it? Common sense tells us, that it is full of exaggerations. After all, it claims that Jesus repeatedly violated the laws of physics, and, as we now know, this is literally impossible. Again, it is understandable, since people at the time did not know what the laws of physics are, believed in miracles, and the record itself was meant to impress and to gain new followers, not to "establish the facts". Hence if we want to use common sense, we must agree that:
1. Jesus was a very interesting person
2. He died a very tragic death
3. That gave rise to speculations and exaggerations, recorded in what we know as "New Testament"
But, of course, if we want to be deceived, we can convince ourselves that it is "true", and since there is no way to check it, we can remain in this self-deception forever. Fair enough, I suppose.
A few people claim that Elvis is alive - and they aren't believed because they're people who are otherwise evidently confused, who've not been in the vicinity of Elvis, and whose stories don't add up (with each other). Jesus was witnessed resurrected by crowds, and their testimonies were believable enough to convince others, and thousands of people suffered and died for holding to their beliefs.
There's over 2,500 Gods throughout the different religions... but of course yours is the real one! lol.
No - I believe in the existence of one God, on the basis of inexplicable complexity and interdependence in physics and biology, I didn't simply pick a god from a selection.
Separately, having looked at arguments on both sides for years, I've reached the conclusion that Jesus did, absurd as it seems to our limited minds, rise from death. I won't expect you to take me remotely seriously, because as I've said, it's only after much reading and many lectures that I've reached this conclusion and I can't convince that into a Facebook comment to present to you. Because Jesus declared that He is The Way to The Father (God) and eternal life, then proved Himself, I follow Him; and I and countless other people (many, many times more than for any other "god") have experienced that choosing to accept Him leads to unmatched inner peace.
The other "gods" you're referring to are based on ideas that people in differing cultures had about how what hey saw around them might have come about - Christianity, by contrast, is based on the calculation of a creator, and historical events regarding Jesus.
Of course I accept evidence from Christian witnesses, such as what probably happened at the Council of Chalcedon. But there are no witnesses to Jesus. All of these well known references to Jesus have been written incidentally by Chroniclers not even based in the Holy Land, just repeating what Christians believed about Jesus. Your link to the the internet site Probe shows how dangerous you are. In its founders page it features 'Kerby Anderson (who) provides various perspectives on the link between Islam and terrorism, including how Americans and Christians can think about its encroachment on our culture'. You do not keep good company.
What evidence do you have that "All of these well known references to Jesus have been written incidentally by Chroniclers not even based in the Holy Land"?
I don't "keep company" with Probe, the site simply has a useful summary of info relevant to the discussion - and did you even read it?
How on Earth am I "dangerous"?
The fact that a lot of people believe something is irrelevant. A lot of people believe in Islam. A lot of believe in Hinduism, a lot of people believed in a lot of other stuff. So are they also correct? Your “but lots people believe it now, so it must be true” argument is stupid.
“but lots people believe it now, so it must be true” is not my argument. What I wrote was that more people follow Christianity than anything else, but that wasn't my argument. My argument is that that's where the arguments lead.
there were many writers/historians in the area around the time that Jesus is alleged to have performed his miracles; it's very revealing that none of them mentioned him at all.
Btw do you believe that Noah's ark is a true story - that a 600 year old man built an enormous boat to house and feed ALL those animals for a year??
Who are those "many writers/historians"?
BTW Noah's ark was afloat for 40days, not a year, and he needn't have had anything comparable to the number of animal species that exist today, since those have developed through microevolution since Noah. It's very plausible that the "world" flooded was the known world to the writer at the time, not necessarily the globe. And are you aware of the evidence of a flood from other cultures, supporting the notion that one indeed took place and that future people groups descended from Noah's family? It's also plausible that the story is an allegory - in reality, it's not something I have strong views on because what matters is Jesus.
does it not bother you that the whole 'gods son in mortal form-killed by people-resurrected and ascends to the heavens- is a story line recorded in multiple religions predating the Jesus myth?
The architects of the Christian church picked a well tried formula.
Which multiple religions? A lot of people make that claim, in fact Christianity is distinct from myths, and there are plenty of explanations of this to read, just one example - https://jamesbishopblog.com/.../23-reasons-why-scholars.../
....Gravity, mathematics and recognising the irrationality and mental health disorders related to religious belief.
When did I dispute mathematics or gravity? What does any of this have to do with mental health problems (which have, BTW, become more common in the West as Christianity has decreased).
I am a philosophy Professor, I teach this stuff. I’m am well familiar with the subject not to feel any need to browse dubious “websites”. I read original arguments by St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and their refutation by Hume and Kant. I discuss this with students in class on a regular basis. Leaving a comment on Facebook takes about 5 minutes of my time, not a huge investment
Indeed they had no TV or radio – thus there wasn’t fame to be gained that might inspire making up extraordinary events as there would be today. And because of the lack of media, people learned and committed to memory things that they’d seen far, far, far better than we do. As you’ll have read, and perhaps even experienced, our abundance of media and technology today mean that we don’t have memory capacity as good as our grandparents, and when 200 years ago; and in Jesus’ culture, it was a specific practice that people precisely memorised and repeated records of events – oral traditions. In a culture where only some would read, whilst Christians thought that Jesus would return soon, there was initially no urgency in creating a documentation of events. When the Gospels were written, they were the first accounts which survived – that doesn’t mean that no stories appeared until years after the fact. The gap between the events and writing was far, far less than that of other history of millennia ago.
Still, this conversation is futile, I wouldn’t be convinced by the few naff comments I’ve made – this is far too big a topic for this thread.
What are your thoughts on the book Who Moved the Stone?
Kudos on your philosophy credentials – but why should that mean that you ignore the work of other scholars? Obviously, Kant’s ideas have not settled anything, others highlighted issues with his reasoning, eg http://www.catholicapologetics.info/.../philosophy/kant.htm
- And there are numerous arguments for God’s existence aside from Aquinas’s anyway, as you know. But we could be here until next Christmas discussing them, and I’m sure that, like me, you have other things to do :) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
Archbishop urges people to put rivalries and hatred aside
"Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ " Matthew 22:38
I don't think that Jesus would approve of quite how lavish some Churches are. Nor certain other aspects of the institutions. Those flaws shouldn't deter people from Christ Himself.
he certainly wouldn’t have approved with the mass covering up of child sex abuse either..
Obviously He's more furious about it than we regular humans are even capable of being. Which is why it seems odd that so many people cite the scandal as a reason for rejecting Him.
so furious there are no consequences for those those that do, but eternal damnation for the poor victims of said rape who then commit suicide unable to cope with the emotions?
Who told you that? The Bible doesn't say that suicide is a sin. If a "Christian" told you that it is, they're extrapolating dangerously; ie, they're presuming that because God created life and tells us not to murder, it must also be sinful for a person to kill themselves, but there's no clear statement of this point itself in the Bible, and to call suicide a sin is obviously unhelpful and insensitive.
We all sin in other ways, however - but we're all offered forgiveness through Christ. IF we genuinely take up Jesus' offer, we'll naturally want to become better, and He'll help us to become more and more compassionate. Those who've abused children have demonstrated that, although they call themselves Christians, they weren't in fact following Christ at all. And yes, they'll face consequences - though I don't think that the Bible actually indicates that Hell keeps people suffering eternally (fire burns things up) but it's a debated subject amongst Christians.
Brexit will add an extra £113.50 to winter holidays
There are people in our world living in slums, lacking healthcare and even clean water. Holiday costs really, really do not matter. Seriously, we should be using our campaigning energy to urge politicians to make trade fairer, tackle modern slavery better and improve aid, not bicker about potential consequences for us that won't stop us from continuing to live more comfortably than almost everyone in human history.
And how on Earth can we purport to care about the planet and then fly unnecessarily?
what a load of absolute nonsense that could only come from those posh private schoolboys behind Brexit Farage, Rees-Mogg: try to convince people that by damaging our economic prospects it's somehow for the greater good (easy for those posh twits who won't be impacted by Brexit to say that), as if destroying something in an economy somehow allows something else to grow instead.
So you're accusing me of being posh private schoolboy, and you think that just because I'm not super pro EU I must want to cut foreign aid? Where's the logic? You honestly think that you can win an argument by telling someone else what they believe based on the stereotypes in your own mind?
Helping people in developing countries matters more to me than anything else in politics. It's driving me nuts that so many people - leave and remain - seems only concerned about themselves. Often Remain seems to presume that it's more compassionate and cares more about social justice - yet holidays apparently matter more than tackling starvation, and even climate change.
Can you point me to where in the article it says that holidays matter more than tackling starvation?
I didn't say that it did, but the fact that there's plenty of discussion about the issue, and virtually none in the media about issues causing severe suffering for scores of people, gives the impression that our culture, even Remainers who consider themselves socially aware, cares far more about holidays.
Congratulations are given when someone earns or wins something, the word isn't used for Christmas. Christmas is about all of humanity beiing offered something (Jesus); not some people acheiving something.
Christians? There's nothing in Christianity that suggests that the specific site of a prayer matters - what does matter is that a person's heart truly seeks God. Thus, we can pray anywhere. Jesus was enraged by money being used to try to win God's favour.
It always astonishes me how many people make comments like "God is not real" as though they've just made some interesting or compelling argument. Why not present some persuasive rationale to support your point? How much have you examined the arguments made by Christian scholars, historians and philosophers as to why they've concluded that God does exist? Or are you just presuming that He's not real, since He's not comprised of the matter that our senses detect, and you'd rather not believe in Him?
Jesus. Not family or giving, awesome as those things are. That Christ came to Earth to offer us a way to be forgiven and reunited with God is more significant than anything else.
Does he not just make borderline Brexiteers less able to take Remain seriously?
Kudos to Piper. I'm horrified by the pro-gun comments here, I cannot get my head around the fact that so many Americans think it normal to own guns, especially those who consider themselves to be followers of Christ.
Regardless of race, we all need to stop "aspiring" to be crazy rich. It's because of this materialism that there's such disparity of wealth distribution in our world, and billions of people are far, far poorer than we privileged Westerners have ever experienced.
And ultimately, being rich doesn't bring happiness, as we all know, so it seems odd that there's been so much praise of Crazy Rich Asians - but Vox, I presume, s getting paid for it, since you've been posting about it insanely often (why have you started AGAIN?)
Great - but it seems odd to me that anyone twisted enough to defy God as such "priests" have would do what a mere human tells them.
There aren't words for how furious this abuse scandal makes God - it's absurd that so many non-Chrstans quote the scandal as a reason for ignoring God.
Nah. I really have no idea how some of these could "restore faith in humanity" - in particular, the giant phallus sculpture. Seriously, why on Earth would anyone find that inspiring? I find it genuinely depressing that so many people reduce humanity to genitals.
But there are plenty of real homeless people in desperate need - we mustn't let them miss out on donations that they would have received otherwise because of scammers. if we give to homeless person who in fact is a fake, it won't affect us (and we'd still enjoy the feeling of having done a good deed); if we don't give to a homeless person because we think that they might e a fake and in fact they're genuinely homeless, it could mean that they're hungry for the day.
Because of the risk to them of being lured to buy alcohol or drugs, I think that it's probably better to give food/drink/toiletries, and ideally ask them what they'd like - but we shouldn't ignore them on the basis of fakes.
Why spend £120 on a ticket for anything? It's almost enough for a television license for a year, which provides plenty of entertainment.
And it's so, so ironic - the show is "Nativity" - ie about the film in which children put on a performance, demonstrating that there's joy in imperfect, inexpensive performances - we don't need West end stage shows that cost enough to educate a child in a developing country for a year.
And the events that children re-enact in nativity plays are incomparably more exciting and long lasting than any stage show.
Sorry, but I don't see how it's OK - let alone in any way admirable - to spend on a pair of shoes an amount that could sponsor 10 children for a year.
She's allowed to spend HER money on herself. She has a lot of charitable causes that she supports, what does Melania do? Besides struggle with English and copy Michelle? As a matter of fact, what do YOU do? Were you also complaining about her bearing her arms? Dumbass
"what do [I] do?" - shall I list all of the charity donations I make? Why are you assuming that I do nothing? Frick, of course I was never one the people complaining about her arms.
Whether or not you see how its ok is irrelevant, the woman raises funds for charity and earned her money from books and appearances. She can spend her money on whatever the fuck she wants whether or not you're ok with it. You wanna bitch and whine no one is stopping you from sponsoring kids
I know she can. I'm simply expressing an opinion, as we all do here, since Vice seems to think the expenditure heroic.
It sickens me that priority will be given to those on high salaries. Individuals fortunate enough to have had training and opportunities that enable a highly paid job could have an enjoyable life where they are, and where people with their training are needed - we should instead be letting in those for whom life in their home nations is unbearable. We should be letting in refugees, and those from the most impoverished places, who desperately need to come here for a chance to earn a living in safety; not nicking other nations' doctors.
If people have no contribution to make to our economy or services they shouldn't be allowed in. They'll stretch our services further giving nothing back in return. I think more emphasis needs to be given to our own people, like the 1000s homeless children or those living in poverty. Charity begins at home
"charity begins at home" according to who? It's not a fact or logical argument, it's just an endlessly repeated slogan attempting to justify devaluing people from elsewhere. But they're every bit as human as us - they don't deserve to be bombed; raped by jihadists; forced to work every waking hour and still struggle to eat. And why do you presume that they'll give nothing in return? They work and pay taxes no less than those of us lucky enough to have been born here.
For centuries, we've been taking from their nations, and that's why our country is so much wealthier than theirs that they're literally dying to come here.
Australia have the exact same process , it's about the UK not being abused by everyone anymore.
The UK became rich by abusing other nations for centuries. And with the government's acceptance, our corporations still are - https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
We - Brits - don't suffer "abuse"; people in warzones, sweatshops and plantations do.
Stop talking codswallop. We all have the opportunity while at school to improve our chances in life. You get nothing for nothing in this world. Work hard, save & prosper is the way forward in life. Sit on benefits all your life & you will have nothing, that is the way civilisation works. Even in the jungle, if you don't go out hunting then you will not eat, don't go to the river for water, you will not drink. That is unless you are a sponger on your fellow human beings.
What are you talking about? People born into severe poverty don't have opportunities, plenty don't even get to go to school as you mentioned.
What a snowflake. Open your eyes as to what is going on around you. Living in the capitol where crime of all types has escalated We are being overun with migrants. A refugee is someone who flees their country in fear of their lives and take refuge in the next safe haven, once the leave that safe haven and travel further afield they become immigrants and to be quite frank we have plenty of those here already. We give aid to many countries including billions to India, they have their own space program while large numbers of their citizens live in poverty makes sense huh?
What are you saying about "living in the capitol" (it's capital, BTW) - I've been in London my whole life. Crime is not correlated to migration. Foreign Aid is 0.7% of our GDP - absolutely miniscule. And though some aid is misspent (as is always the case with our government's spending), it doesn't get handed over to governments to use on space programmes, it's used to fund schools, water systems and clinics.
being skilled doesn’t mean you have or come from a high salaried family. What an odd assumption
The government plans to let in only those with a salary of over £30,000; I wasn't making an assumption.
money might not be given specifically to pay for space programmes, but why are we even giving money to countries with a space programme in the first place? £700 mil was spent improving roads in 1 country. £25000 was used to train A girl band, which was supposed to teach young women how to have more respect for themselves. Now £25 k isn't much, but it could be spent A lot better to achieve the same goal. The fact foreign aid money is being spent on anything other than aid is simply wasted.
Using 0.7% Of GDP on it is fine, but that money should be used to help those in crisis. It shouldn't be a target to be spent regardless. When the Caribbean was devastated by hurricanes the foreign aid budget wasn't allowed to be used, yet that's exactly what it's there for.
It's not the fault of people living (and dying) in slums in India if their government has a space programme. Ultimately, our country grossly exploited India, the aid that we give is nothing by comparison.
yawn it was only us then with history? We are talking now the past is gone dear
No, the past isn't simply gone - the world's impoverished nations are still poor because nations like ours stripped them of their natural resources; made it impossible to develop the infrastructure, services and governance we have; and left the most brutal individuals in control. Now, multinational corporations continue to rob developing countries, by stealing land; grossly exploiting workers who provide things we buy; and cheating financially (through misinvoicing and tax evasion)
Tax evasion is a criminal offence; tax avoidance is a legal way, open to anybody, of reducing the tax you pay. One of the main ways to avoid paying tax is to donate to charity - you can do it in a roundabout way by giving your old clothes to your local charity shop. In order to save around £25 on
your annual tax bill, you would have to declare (and prove) that you had directly donated £100 to a registered charity. However, by using gift-aid, any charitable organisation can claim back the tax on what you pay for entry or donate to their shops. Either way, the IR loses.
What are you referring to when you mention school being legislated? My original comment was arguing that we should prioritise letting in the people who are so underprivileged that they're missing out on schooling - such as those with no schools nearby; those whose schools have been bombed; those disallowed from attending school because their parents can't afford uniform; those forced to skip school to carry water or work.
we have enough here unskilled whom we have to keep, re-educate house and feed...they should take jobs as they already live here.. there is no room for more.. and if we need certain skills then it they who should have first call.
"enough"? There's no "enough", this is about the needs of people dying in conflict. There are human beings who don't have enough food, water or security. Our problems don't compare.
No we shouldn't. Life is getting more and more unbearable for pre existing Londoners who have lived here for generations. Genuine refugees, if let in at all should be sent to the Shetlands or sent home. London is full. No wonder pre existing locals can't afford London properties, their wages are being driven down by unlimited immigratinin the name of a principle. Time to stop that in its tracks. Bring on a New Zealand style points system, PDQ. It works for the Kiwis, they have life chances to die for.
"unbearable for Londoners...refugees should be sent home"? Seriously? Are you unaware that refugees are refugees because they've fled war and terrorism? THAT is unbearable. I'm well aware that house prices here are insane, and Ill never be able to buy ahouse, but life is incomparably etter than it is for refugees. I didn't mean, by my comment, that migrants should come to London, I was referring to the nation as a whole. But house prices in London that you're concerned about are worsened by high salaried incomers, so as I said, the government iswrong to give them priority; and it's concerning that you're so uncomfortable with refugees that you want them packed off to the Shetlands.
So far as I can see, there are a fair few people who mistakenly call themselves evangelicals whilst not actually following Jesus.
Gez Xavier Mansfield -
Gilles Rolland-Monnet - Krista Mangulsone - emma Evans - Wai Siew - hannah grace - Nathalie SPEHNER - Koryssa Risteen - Ramdan Authentic - Karina Vorozheeva - Scott Webb - Helena Lopes
How was your blue Monday?
