Sunday, 15 December 2024

(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Where did it all come from? Where did matter, energy, order, beauty, specificity, diversity, and time come from? How did our universe come to possess complexity and structure when all we know about our existence moves to decay, disorder, and death? By faith, we know it came from the articulated design of our Heavenly Father! Out of chaotic nothingness, God spoke into existence all creation. Sadly many evolutionists won't believe that God created it all. But, when they're asked where did the first microorganism come from to start evolution, they can't answer that question. That gives them food for thought.
There are different theories amongst scientists regarding the 1st microorganisms, but mathematically there are far too many mutations necessary for life to have evolved by chance alone in the time span of the universe's existence (14 billion years), and the biological world is full of interdependence(including at the molecular level, rending chance directed progressive evolution impossible.
 
 
Trump is antithetical to Jesus, it's ironic that someone who sang "Jesus take the Wheel" will now sing whilst someone so unlike Jesus takes control
 
 
This is so, so not what Jesus taught at all
I agree. I wonder sometimes if the church is teaching(preaching from) the Bible these days or if a lot of churches have just turned into a Christian rock concert. Somewhere the people can stand, swing their hips and wave their arms in the air. It seems like a lot of people who attend church haven’t learned what is actually in the Bible. There are lots of examples in the Bible where God allowed people and their leaders to make terrible mistakes.
I'm a Brit, just observing the US from across the pond, so it's hard for me to gauge, but I'm sure you're right about some Churches. Of course, Churches vary endlessly, the US Church I listen to (The Village Church Resources) certainly does teach the Bible - but it's also clear that there are plenty of people in the country for whom "religion" is a tribal identity and they've missed the point, as indeed happens repeatedly in scripture.
I find it interesting how I often see non Christians on the Left in the US pointing out to the Right various things Jesus said that they (on the Left) like, yet they seemingly don't want to explore Him further because they're so angry with self described Christians who are on the Right(?)
I would call that pointing out hypocrisy. But..I can’t tell you how many of my Christian friends who would normally stand on the right side of the political spectrum and did so for decades until Trump came into the picture are disgusted with what is being called the ‘right’ at the moment. There is anger among Christians on both sides of the isle toward the group that claims to be Christian, but is aligned with leaders who say and do incredibly unchristian things. The same crowd goes to Trump rallies and cheers for his speeches full of morally corrupt messages that go against the core values of Christian belief.
BTW..I’m an American living in Germany..so I’m also watching the horror unfold from across the pond
Yes, I've seen the anger, from Christians on both sides of the political spectrum, about MAGA. And here in Britain, most people are so disconnected from Christianity they're unaware of how actual Christianity contrasts with MAGA, so Trump has an international impact in misleading people - meanwhile our Nationalists are now beginning to erroneously misappropriate Christianity in a way I'd not seen previously, frequently demonstrating connections to MAGA. As you've said, in the Bible God allows His people to make mistakes, some will eventually learn from the resulting mess. I'm wondering how to nudge people towards understanding Jesus Himself - rather than being deterred by faux Christianity - in the meantime (but I don't think I have the wisdom to be able to do so!),
 
 
So you support the killing of small humans at 24 weeks gestation? Or you hate Christians?
(FTR, I don't like Farage and I hate people like him misappropriating Christianity whilst not following Christ's teachings)
It's sad that a supposedly Left wing publication is more supportive of killing small vulnerable humans than of helping the most disadvantaged humans (that is to say, you have time to write this^, when did you last give any time to writing about the victims of Global poverty? Or the war in Sudan? Or modern slavery?)
they don't support forcing women to follow their idea of morality around issues such as abortion. If you don't want to have an abortion, they support your right to decide that. If someone else does, and there is often a biological reason which could kill the mother or both of them, they support that too. They support the right to have the freedom to choose.
"often a biological reason"? No, hardly any abortions happen for reasons of medical necessity - and those that are necessary are still allowed anyway. "Ideas of morality"? Would killing a newborn be simply a matter of "ideas of morality"? You're saying"If you don't want to kill your child, don't, but don't stop other people killing theirs".
you are missing the point completely.
My argument is that it is up to the mother to decide. Your argument is that it is up to your religion (and there are many, many religions and denominations) to decide.
Good grief no, I never said it was about "religion", it isn't. It's about the fact that it's wrong to kill a small human, irrespective of whether or not a parent wants to do so.
it's legally a child at the point of birth.
This is an emotive issue and the women who wish to have an abortion have to have it cleared with two doctors, I believe, in the UK. It's a serious medical step and is taken seriously.
The law is that is is allowed up to some point, 24 weeks, and it is still possible after that in extreme cases but probably requires legal intervention to allow it.
So, this is the law of the land.
The religious comment relates to your original statement.
Whether something is currently legal is not the issue, plenty of things have been legal which are not moral. And asserting that someone has taken something seriously or is emotional about it doesn't change the reality (nor does your assertion that the baby is "legally a child at birth" - they are a human being, and at 24 weeks more developed than some premature babies). In fact, the emotion is the result of this being a tragic thing to do, but our culture has lied to women about it and women suffer as a result.
Which "original comment"? I mentioned Christianity (not religion) only because of what Byline Times - which plainly does not understand Christianity - has written. They could simply refer to a position on abortion, but they've chosen to include the word "Christian", implying that Christianity is, in their view, nefarious.
 
 
Our NHS is struggling hugely - yet most of humanity has less access to healthcare still. It's amazing how much impact things like this^ (or donations to Médecins Sans Frontières / Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Mercy Ships, The Leprosy Mission Great Britain etc) can make, huge kudos to him.
 
 
I followed Trump on here (Facebook) before he was kicked off so that I could understand him better by seeing his own words (as opposed to only following media reporting on him) - I was struck by how antithetical he is to everything I've been taught, growing up learning about Jesus, that we should aim to be like. I cannot get my head around some "Christians" being super fans of Trump, he's everything Jesus tells us not to be.
 
 
They said they don't want God and mocked him, they have to feel his power and punishment.
God uses all sorts of crises to help people to find Him (and the eternal life - incomparably better than life on Earth free of difficulties could be), but crises are not judgement.
"...those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no!..." (Luke 13:4-5)
 
 
(In Unbelievable Facebook Group) 
So Vladimir Putin is a Christian. That's what he identifies himself as. The leader and head of Russia's Orthodox Christian Church (with millions of members) claims Putin's decision to invade Ukraine, resulting in the avoidable death of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people, is necessary in order to fight back against Western liberal values, and to re-assert Christian values.
No True Scotsman would conclude these Russians are being driven by Christianity's objective moral values right?
No, calling oneself something doesn't make one so. Putin demonstrates by his actions that he's not trying to follow Jesus.
(being a Scotsman - and I see people misusing this fallacy constantly - is not analogous, since it's doesn't determine behaviour, following Jesus does)
The head of Russia's Orthodox Christian Church has publicly declared Putin's invasion as divinely inspired
Russian civilians are brainwashed 
Brainwashed? Millions of Christians are brainwashed? I'm shocked.
Whether or not they're Christian is a non-sequitur, Putin has conned his citizens.
Have other Christian leaders conned the billions of followers, or is that somehow different?
And saying that Putin is not a Christian is a perfect example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Yes, to urge people to turn to God (asserting that He should be who people defer to) is very different from seeking political power for oneself. Of course there have been many corrupted religious leaders - and Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with them - but those who want people to have a relationship with God have a different motivation from those wanting dominance.
It's remarkable how often people misunderstand the No True Scotsman fallacy. Its point is that a trait such as being born in Scotland doesn't determine one's behaviour - but genuinely wanting to follow Jesus does.
 
 
It's not faith in humankind that we need. So far as I understand, Carter had faith in God - and God calls us to care for humankind (specifically including those in the world's most disadvantaged places - Carter rightly recognised them why are they otherwise ignored?)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Elsewhere online I've seen some Christians assert that the fires in LA are God's judgement, particularly on Hollywood (such as for the blasphemy at the recent Golden Globes). Sentiments such as this circulating publicly (as opposed to within private Christian groups like this one) deter folk who don't yet know God from wanting to explore Christianity - but I'm also concerned (given some comments made here occasionally, concerned in the sense of sympathy, that is, not criticism) for those who feel that tragedies they face in their own lives are punishment or judgement from God.
Though God may, because of His love, sometimes discipline (Hebrews 12:7), in Luke 13:4-5, Jesus references a recent local (for His audience) crisis "...those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no!..." (Luke 13:4-5). So I hope that those for whom it feels like life is going up in smoke know, just in case it needed saying, that it's not karmic punishment. God can have complex reasons for things, and can utilise tragedies for good (good which may not be apparent to us for a while - but may count in eternity). He has plans that we might not be able to fathom - though I know this could sound trite to those in the midst of agony, so my apologies!
Anthony Hopkins, who had a home burn up, wrote "As we all struggle to heal from the devastation of these fires, it's important we remember that the only thing we take with us is the love we give."
This sounds both lovely and slightly counter-intuitive (in the juxtaposition of take and give). But it somewhat brings to mind Jesus words Matthew 6:19-21 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth..." "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal"; and Paul's in 1 Corinthians 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing"
Crucially though, unlike some (I don't know about Anthony Hopkins) who use the word "love" in expressing sentiments, we know a love that truly does last beyond this lifetime.

 
By cutting Overseas Aid, the Tories have increased the number of girls who are raped.
how so? Tories are all vermin but how does cutting Aid have the effect you claim?
Aid cuts led to education programmes that enabled girls to go to school were axed. In some of the very poorest communities, some parents feel they have no choice but to marry off their daughters in childhood, being unable to feed them otherwise - when girls can go to school and receive school meals they have a future, but the Tories cutting Aid means more will be made to get married under age (and thus raped).
If people here who endlessly bang on about the evil of paedophilia actually wanted to have a positive impact, they'd sponsor girls in our world who are at risk - but their obsession with child sex abuse is actually just a front for their racism and a way to make themselves feel as though they're on the side of what's right despite not doing anything.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
My 7 year old attends a c of e school today they... had a muslim lady in who had them all using a prayer mat
Though this is indeed grossly unacceptable on the part of the school, please remember that they can't separate your son from Jesus. His relationship with God is ultimately determined by whether he chooses to follow Jesus, and this outrageous school lesson won't change that. You can talk with Him about why we know that Jesus, not Islam, is The Way. He's so blessed to have a mum who knows God.
If I were writing to the school myself. in addition to stating that *practice* is not necessary for learning *information*, I might point out that they've actually appropriated another religion's sacred practice (though obviously this isn't actually your main concern)
 
 
I wish you'd give more attention to some of the world's biggest issues. Why do you only share coverage of crises in the Global South from your Global Development page, as they aren't news worthy of the general public's attention, but platform celebrity interviews and lists of luxury items to buy from your main page?
 
 
I can't believe it's been 4 years since the riot... Here in the UK I was watching live on BBC News, and it was the maddest thing I've seen since 9/11. Particularly mad was that some people had flags referencing Jesus - Jesus would never have endorsed them.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
What’s the age accountability is it 13 years of age ? Do babies or children below a certain age go straight to heaven?
I naturally worry about my children’s salvation. ( please forgive me- I  have Chemo brain)
The Bible doesn't reference a specific age of accountability, nor a "certain age" for going "straight to heaven".
I grew up in a great Christian environment - but I didn't believe until I leant about the reasoning - relating to science, history and philosophy - for concluding it to genuinely be reality (Apologetics).
I am so, so sorry about the worry, and the cancer. Please remember that God has awesome plans (more long-term and complicated than we realise), for instance, any person may end up finding salvation after our contact with them ends but God might use things that we've said to them. God loves your children more than imaginable.
 
 
What I don't get is why we don't also care about Black babies elsewhere in our world(?) There are little children dying in certain regions within Africa (though the continent is obviously endlessly varied) - such as those communities that don't yet have clean water, or in Sudan where there's horrendous war - yet our media/politicians/influencers essentially ignore them, despite the fact that we *could* make a real difference. I suspect that subconscious racial bias is at play.
(PS who's the nurse?)
but that’s not what we’re talking about. Again, changing the subject doesn’t make it any better. Your statement is equivalent to “All Lives Matter.”
"All Lives Matter" is about deflecting from the important discussion about the priceless worth of Black lives, which is not what I'm doing. I'm suggesting further evidence of the problem of racial bias.
 
 
Everyone should live frugally. As 21st century Westerners we have far more than most humans beings ever have, and our culture encourages wastefulness (which is destroying the planet)
What's unfair is that there are people in our world who literally starving - even though we could help them.
 
 
She's both a victim of our over sexualised culture, and perpetuating it. The ideas that sex is just recreation, and that everyone should be having it, are pushed not because of "progress" from "old-fashioned" attitudes, but because *sex sells*, and so many people are ultimately hurt by the greed of media tycoons who've profited from saturating society with it.
 
 
There are scores of people who obsess about the indescribable evil of paedophilia because it makes them feel noble whilst they're not actually doing anything helpful.
If people who endlessly bang on about the evil of girls being forced into sex actually wanted to have a positive impact, they'd sponsor girls in our world who are at risk - but their obsession with child sex abuse is actually just an irrational* front for their racism and a way to make themselves feel as though they're on the side of what's right despite not doing anything.
Musk (who is clueless) is whipping this up to win new fans. He once said that he'd use some of his wealth to end world hunger - if he actually did, he'd end the horror of some parents in extreme poverty feeling that they have to marry off their daughters because they can't afford to feed them. But he doesn't actually care about vulnerable girls, so he's not doing that.
*(irrational since race is not the issue
Race is an issue on the grooming of young girls. It is mainly Pakistani men. A new inquiry would of bought to light those that covered up the abuse. We now know it is still going on and 50 councils want help in dealing with it. Sadly, race does have s lot to do with it!!!
"Pakistani" is not a race.
what then???
It's a nationality. Race is about genetics. Come on, you know that those monsters abusing girls because of their DNA or being brown - no race is inherently pre-disposed to such perversion. The issue is *culture* - in addition to being personally individually evil (as are plenty of white people) they had grown up immersed in the idea that relationships with underage girls are OK, that's not *race* and it's not fixed. Plenty of Pakistani people are fully aware that it's wrong, and within any culture, individuals vary endlessly, with each person ultimately choosing and being responsible for their own actions - but again, it's a component of culture that's contributed to the issue, no one is dangerous because of race.
And consider how varied the beliefs and behaviour of white Brits is - so we can't (though I'm not saying that you're doing so) make presumptions about any individuals from any other race or culture.
 
 
It's frustrating when TV programmes show serious misinterpretations of Christianity, and then swathes of the public think that these are what Christianity is. The way that that^girl was treated by supposed Christians was not Christ like (nor how any of the Christians I know would have treated her)
yes Christianity is very different now but back in the 70s it was very different
Christianity hasn't changed, actual Christianity is, by definition, to follow Christ - but all human beings are flawed; and additionally, throughout history, there have been people who misappropriate "religion" to assert dominance but who aren't actually trying to follow God, Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with such people.

 
If people were genuinely desperately concerned about girls being raped, one thing they could do to actually make a difference would be to sponsor a girl in a part of our world where she might otherwise at risk of being married off in childhood - but in reality people are mainly obsessing over this issue to score political points.

 
IMO the *obsession* with grooming gangs isn't motivated solely by a desire to protect children. Sexual abuse of children is evil and abhorrent beyond words, we don't need to be won over to agreeing with that - I think that some people discuss it *constantly* because other factors are at play.
Obviously, some of them are partially motivated by racism - and they sometimes give away the fact that they fail to differentiate between an idea and an ethnicity, ie if some men from a culture believe that a certain evil is acceptable it tells us nothing about all of the other people who share their heritage, but racists can't get their heads around that. If they were genuinely desperately concerned about girls being raped, one thing they could do to actually make a difference would be to sponsor a girl in a part of our world where she's otherwise at risk of being married off in childhood - but they don't do that, because they think that only white girls matter and they wouldn't give up the cost of a monthly takeaways to change a non British life.
I also think they obsess over paedophilia in part because it's the one evil they'd not do themselves, so they can make themselves feel noble (whilst perhaps not bothering to try to be a good person otherwise) by banging on about the one particular crime.
 

Cult. 
right not a cult they are Christian’s with Christian values. Unlike the anti British Labour
no, they absolutely do not have Christian values.
yes they do heaven has borders hell does not
Which verses are you referencing? Even if that were true, it doesn't tell us how to relate to our fellow humans on Earth - but still, I'm not even arguing for open borders, I'm pointing out that Reform's principles are unChristian (merely having borders isn't all that they're about).
what verse ? God has 10 commandment and Jesus blood to be holy. God holyness kills us sinners.
Everyone is welcome to hell we all sinners.
Question what party do you follow Christian is Rightwing Labour is left see what they done towards groom gangs just evil and Torysmiddle wing
"God has 10 commandment and Jesus blood to be holy" - that neither makes sense grammatically nor in answer to my question. The 10 Commandments and Jesus' blood have nothing to do with borders. Seriously - I mean this, I'm not saying it in an attempt to argue or to insult - please read the Bible.
God is holy Jesus said no one goes to the father except though me. We need to accept Jesusblood to be righteous (Holy) because we all sinners and unrighteous . God holiness will kill us with out Jesus being dead on the cross. Like to be save from the angel of death in Egypt the people that put sheep blood indoor way was not killed. We need Jesus blood
*Why* have you written that as a reply? We do need Jesus, who died for our sin - but that has nothing to do with borders or Reform, other than that Jesus' teachings are *opposed* to Reform (see, in particular, the parable of The Good Samaritan)
I am saying all that because we are a Christian country of the free slowly being taken over by Islam religion where they do not respect our laws making there own up . We need our borders protected from this . 
"We are a Christian country"? Being Christian means personally choosing to commit to Jesus (which those who have no empathy for non Brits evidently haven't done). It's not about the country. No one is Christian because of the country they're born in. And Christianity is not British - it comes from the Middle East and in our world today the places with the highest proportions of Christians are in Africa and South America.
Our country has very few people who take Jesus seriously - and that's nothing to do with Islam. Most white British people today choose to ignore God.
 
 
Musk is ignorant. There's been much done - including by Starmer - to attempt to address child abuse, yet opportunists want to feel virtuous by moaning about it and appropriating the issue for their own political ends.
 
Also, people look at things from a limited perspective - the Western world has become richer (though - crucially - it's grossly unequal), which is not the same as better, but in the process the lives of people elsewhere in our world have been devastated.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
How do you love those that annoy you and, manipulate people around you so see you as not good enough. I want to love them because the bible says so but don’t know how as they are making it difficult for me to love them…This person lives with me (living with physical disability) and require me to take cater for their daily needs.


(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Scripture says out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks A cursing/swearing Christian is a contradiction
It's true that words in general can tell us about a person's heart.
But RE swearing: what if a swear word has no meaning in the person's heart? They may say it simply because they've been living in a household or community where they're used to hearing it, it doesn't feel significant to them, so their voicing it doesn't actually tell us anything about their heart.
IMO what's actually a tragedy (I do mean a tragedy, I'm sad for - not judging - them) is when people use God's name (or Jesus') in vain
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
YES. Our culture now is obsessed with the quasi religious dogma of "listen to your heart", it's nonsense. (IMO in addition to sin, the idea is fuelled in part by capitalism - telling people to follow their hearts sometimes means telling them to buy things they don't need but want)
 
 
Yes. Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with people who feigned religiosity but weren't actually seeking to follow God (as demonstrated, He pointed out, by their refusal to help others), people falsely asserting "religion" has been going on for millennia.
RE Carter, I'm SO thrilled that he did so much to help people in far poorer parts of the world, not only those he shared a country with (and Jesus' parable of The Good Samaritan emphasises that we should be helping people of other nations), if only more politicians cared about humanity rather than potential voters or book buyers.
 
 
*Ending a tax exemption.
It's unfair to give children such differing life chances by having the rich cosy up to each other so much. It's also unfair that some children in our world can't access school at all - one could transform the lives of dozens of them with the cost of a single private school fee.
British kids should grow up learning about kids from other backgrounds, private schools add to the disharmony of society. Mixing with those from very different families from mine in high school was a helpful experience.
 
 
The world's least wealthy were unable to access vaccines and other healthcare, whilst here in the wealthy West conspiracy theorists with the privilege of access to medical science have been rejecting it.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Is a Christian living an excessive life a bad testimony , in excessive I mean expensive cars , large houses ect
Is it even possible? "If anyone with earthly possessions sees his brother in need, but withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God abide in him?" (1 John 3:17)
I'd query whether a person who spends a lot on cars or homes is actually trying to follow Jesus (ie, I'd doubt that they're Christian, even if they claim to be). If you love Jesus, why would you want to buy luxurious cars and homes rather than spending that money on sharing Him with our world? It's incomparably more exciting to fund ministry and practical help for the poor than to buy a flashy car.
And in answer to the original question, yes it sends a *catastrophic* message, the extravagance of some *so-called* "Christians" *is* something that plenty of npn-Christians cite as a reason for rejecting Christianity.
I think it depends on how much wealth the person has in the first place. If they can afford a luxurious car and house and still have surplus money to help the poor then I don't see the issue.
(Apologies if this sounds argumentative!) the issue is still that they're still spending a huge sum on a car that could transform lives.
Again, I honestly don't know why a person who loves Jesus - who calls us to love others - would *want* a flashy car, the ministry that could be done with whatever they're spending on the car is so much more exciting.
And as I wrote, people observing Christians with lavish things are deterred from Christianity, deeming it hypocritical (I see comments to this effect daily).
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
 
 
 
 
I get so exasperated by the people who assert that the super rich "earned it". I'd like to know why, if those people defending the super rich think the one can become a billionaire simply by "working hard" they don't work hard and become billionaires themselves.
Also, let's not confine this to the West - some of the human beings who work the hardest are those in mineral mines, tea/coffee/cocoa/cotton etc plantations, or sweatshops - labouring for unimaginable hours, some of them to produce things WE buy, and being paid so little they have to subsist on rice.
 
 
Since Meghan's been an advocate for World Vision USA, years ago I'd really hoped that she and Harry would use their position in the royal family to raise awareness of some of the world's very most horrific injustices. The charity is working with victims of forced labour, and of famine, people who are continually overlooked - it was exciting that there might at last be some attention given to those in the greatest need. It seems such a shame that this hasn't happened, even when H&M were provided with such a great platform to highlight issues.
They do, through their Archewell foundation.
Whenever I've looked at its site, it's looked as though all Archewell does is enable Harry and Meghan to ride the coat-tails of other people's efforts.
If they wanted to make an actual difference, they could use their social media, and Spotify/Netflix deals to raise awareness of Global poverty, instead of the lavish lifestyle they've chosen to indulge in.
Huh? Archewell is a private foundation, meaning it’s THEIR money. They don’t have social media, until Meg’s two days ago, and their charitable work is well documented.
What exactly is "their money"? Their report seems to show they've given far less than they've received (for their foundation).
NB the many $millions they have personally are mostly the result of Harry being born into the Royal family (who accrued wealth by grossly unjust means), and Spotify/Netflix paying them daft $amounts *because* they're famous on account of Harry being Royal (I'm well aware that Meghan was already an actress, but not famous enough that Spotify/Netflix would have been so desperate)
"don’t have social media"? Of course they did, they just didn't use it often, but they could have done - and made a real impact raising awareness of the poorest people in our world. Instead there was a post about "American Riviera Orchard"
Wow. They don’t solicit donations or fundraise. The vast majority of funds in their foundation are their own. Archewell has a website, but no social media, and Harry cannot help he was made internationally famous from the moment he was born. Be glad he chooses to do something good with that fame, like his mother did. He certainly doesn’t have to.
But they *do* receive donations to their foundation, it's documented on the website.
I didn't say he chose, my point is that it means nothing to say that it's "their money". Some of it ultimately came from the slave trade.
Again, they COULD have been using social media - and their Spotify/Netflix shows - to raise awareness of those in extreme poverty, who are continually ignored. Instead the podcast was chatting with celebrities, and the new show is evidently showing off their mansion.
 
they are doing fine for all the charities they support you really should not take notice of gutter press rubbish.
I don't trust a thing The Express says, it's the epitome of trash (and it should stop bullying Meghan), but from what I've seen by looking at their own activities and foundation I'm sad that they aren't using the amazing opportunity to raise awareness of the very poorest people as I thought they would. Instead of using the incredible platforms of Spotify and Netflix to remind our wealthy Western world of those human beings who are *literally* starving (without even having access to food banks) and how we can make an impact, Harry and Meghan are mostly making content about themselves and celebrity friends. They could use social media to inspire scores of Westerners to, for instance, sponsor a child in one of the poorest parts of the world (something the charity Meghan previously advocated for organises), instead the only thing Meghan's apparently posted about in recent years on social media is "American Riviera Orchard". I'm genuinely disappointed about the good that I thought might be done not happening (I'm not supporting the press, nor the monarchy).
 
 
Why does our society have so many elderly people living *alone*? It's a problem in so many ways.
are you insane?
What do you think is insane?
you wondering why many elderly people live alone. Why is it a problem? Many wish to be alone.
It's clear why it's a problem, they're struggling with bills. They're also targeted by scammers, at risk of being left alone if they fall, and some are lonely (additionally, reduced social interaction is a key contributing factor for dementia). I could go on.
you have a very dim view of the elderly.
"Dim" how?
These points aren't comprehensive as my "view of the elderly", there are many other things that I think about the elderly, such as that they have priceless accumulated wisdom and that most of them have character attributes which I think our society now is lacking (such as frugality and selflessness). But the points I made are real issues, causing suffering, do you think that they don't matter?
just because someone is older doesn't mean they've lost control of their faculties. We are all open to scammers. I'd much prefer my own home than being shoved into an institution.
I didn't say, at all, that "just because someone is older they've lost control of their faculties". And of course we can all be scammed. But scammers particularly prey on those who are senior. I don't know why you oppose me being upset about that.
"An institution"? I never suggested that.
 
 
Who said that it is a science book?
Go to any Jesus-leaning FB page and post "Thank God for giving us the Bible to give us a guide to true science! God is great!" And see how many people give you "Amens!" and "Blessing from God!
There might be a few people who respond like that (particularly on your side of the pond), but it's not representative of the Christian community as a whole, nor does Christianity actually teach this.
You haven't seen an American political campaign. Nevertheless, yes, it's what your Bible, and the Abrahamic faiths teach, and have commanded for thousands of years.
Right, so the issue is with a part of American culture, not actual Christianity itself (and that applies to other issues too, such as the ideas spouted by some televangelists).
"it's what your Bible, and the Abrahamic faiths teach, and have commanded for thousands of years" - what?
 
I know someone who recently told her mentally ill son, with bipolar disorder and in a crisis, to "read the Bible and pray." Not "see your doctor" or "Get professional help." How does a person possibly think that reading the Bible will be effective "treatment" compared with medication and counseling?
An awful false dichotomy. I really hope he's ok.
Christianity doesn't oppose medical help (and some Christians feel keen to work in the healthcare field in part because being committed to Jesus increases a preexisting desire to help others. I used to work for a Christian Medical fellowship)
thank you for your kind wishes for my mentally ill acquaintance.  Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I'm not convinced that I have presented a false dichotomy in this specific case. I'm simply stating something I have observed, that is, a case when a person presented the Bible, and only the Bible, as a solution. This person is recommending using the Bible INSTEAD of science as a treatment for a mental health crisis. And I think it's pretty obvious that there is nothing in the Bible to treat the chemical imbalances in bipolar disorder. If I had made the claim that treatment could only involve one or the other then it would be a false dichotomy. I understand what you mean, however, because I realize that some people use BOTH religion and science. I am not convinced that being committed to Jesus, or any religious beliefs, increases "preexisting" desire to help others. As an atheist, I believe that we should make our current existence pleasant for everyone BECAUSE I am not religious and I do not believe in an afterlife. I am very motivated to help others and to enhance everyone's enjoyment of life BECAUSE I believe that our existence and conscious awareness ends completely when we die. While being religious may motivate some people to be helpful and kind, I also see where it causes some people to rationalize NOT sharing or helping others because they seem to believe that suffering and poverty will lead to greater favor in getting into "Heaven." Or, some people seem to believe that unpleasant circumstances and events are "part of God's perfect plan" and offer prayers as a solution instead of taking real action. I can concede that in some cases, religion (and belief in Jesus's teachings) may encourage good behavior, but it's also a contributor to people being judgmental and controlling. Granted, those people seem to be misinterpreting and distorting the teachings of Jesus. At the end of the day, I am not convinced that ANY form of religion is necessary for making the world a better place for everyone; in fact, I suspect that it sets us back overall because it puts authority and responsibility on a "higher power" that is likely a construct of the human mind and wishful thinking.
You weren't creating a false dichotomy, the false dichotomy was what the woman said to her son.
The Christian speakers/thinkers/writers I follow make clear that professional help *and* the Bible can help. Though I am aware of one well known Bible teacher who is stupidly dismissive about mental health - as Christians we need to avoid taking what a Bible teacher says as Gospel (pun intended), we should continually seek to be discerning and to have better understanding (and the Bible says often that we need to aim for wisdom). From a Christian perspective, we should only ultimately "follow" Jesus (rather than idolising a pastor) and be conscious of our own ability to misunderstand; and whilst many Christian leaders have a lot of wisdom, all are flawed (and some are actually con artists). The Bible doesn't say that people shouldn't get help from doctors.
FTR, my own experience (with mental health problems) has been that professionals don't help (of course, that doesn't mean others shouldn't try). For me getting closer to God has helped a bit and medication helps a bit but I don't think I'll ever be without my eating disorder (having been in hospital against my will during a previous Christmas, I'm grateful at this time of year to be managing).
You say that you're "not convinced that being committed to Jesus, or any religious beliefs, increases "preexisting" desire to help others" - I wouldn't expect you to be. Note though that, as an atheist, it's an unknown, just as I don't know how it feels to be American so I can't say either way what I'd feel like if I were. Honestly, I find it almost impossible to get my head around anything "spiritual", so I'd be inclined not to believe the claim I've made either - but my *experience* has been that getting closer to God has made me feel more keen to be helpful and compassionate than I was previously.
It's *not* that Christianity teaches people get into "Heaven" by helping people (though I know plenty of people feel like this, and some denominations have implied it) - it's only because of Jesus we can get into Heaven, we don't earn it. But when one loves someone, one wants to do what makes them happy, so when we love Jesus we feel added desire to do what He taught (and if the Holy Spirit exists, He acts to change our feelings towards empathy).
Since you mention "some people use BOTH religion and science", I find them complementary - as I've written, I can't get my head around "spiritual" things, but as I studied science I began to see that there could be a Designer (and I subsequently observed how aspects of physics and biology imply that things couldn't have come about by chance) - but I know this might sound mad.
 
 
I desperately wish that more politicians would, like Carter did, act to help human beings in the most disadvantaged parts of our world. I'm so grateful to him (Carter) for representing Christianity more accurately than most US politicians who claim to be Christian.
good works does not just represent Christianity. People of all denominations, etc. do good things for humanity. However, I do agree with your point.
I didn't (and wouldn't) assert that doing good is unique to Christians (though those of us who choose to truly follow Jesus find that our desire to do good increases).
My point was that the actions and attitudes of some who call themselves Christian imply that in fact they *are't* actually committed to Jesus (since whilst we don't *earn* salvation - only what Jesus has done can achieve our salvation - being committed to Jesus causes one to *want* to be humble and compassionate). In Jesus' own time, there were similarly some people who feigned being "religious" since it enabled them to attain power, but Jesus argued with them because He knew from their failure to help the disadvantaged that they weren't actually trying to follow God.
 
Well he was properly Christian. Many Ayn Rand types seem to think Jesus was a prosperity gospel type who wouldn't be radical and divide wealth fairly on the planet and in the USA .Alqays baffled me when I lived in Reno1981-3 that ppl there tended to hate Carter & loved Reagan. Seemed obvious to me Carter was far better.
Jesus made it very clear that we should help those in need and reject greed - I don't know how a person could be genuinely committed to Him and not aim to follow His teachings. Personally I've found that as I've developed my relationship with God, I've felt a stronger desire to support justice for the poor than previously.
An interesting thought experiment to try to reverse-engineer the idea of a god who enjoins us all to get Alltwen cash we can, care nothing for people who can't boost and enrich us...and behave like, for example, the disgusting rich Christians like that oaf Pat Robertson and the obviously fraudulent televangelists. They ARE very funny...then you realise "People BELIEVE this rubbish!" 
I wonder if they *want* to believe it, so they convince themselves(?)
I've seen quite a few non-Christians claim that Christianity is invented as wishful thinking - in fact Jesus' teachings (such as that we should give up things of ours to help others) are challenging, not things people would invent out of wishful thinking, but some televangelists *have* misappropriated Christianity to tell people things they want to hear (so that money can be made)
 
 
There are plenty of academics who are Christian, and who can explain why we can conclude Christianity to be true from their expertise in fields other than writing. Folk should try listening to, for instance, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Alistair McGrath, Francis Collins, Hugh Ross...
 
 
There are people in our world who are literally starving (without foodbanks etc - though we can fund meals for them incredibly cheaply). Anyone who chooses to buy themselves fish and chips is seriously privileged.
 
 
IMO, the reason they didn't want her to attend is similar to the reason that many people today don't care that some of the children in our world with high melanin can't access school. The world's most disadvantaged people are generally ignored - and I reckon that subconscious racial bias is part of why.
Huge kudos to those linked to this page who support education in India BTW
 
 
Our capitalist culture has (because sex sells) conned people into thinking that sex is just recreational and people should be as liberal with it as possible. People have been misled.

 
(in Eastenders Facebook Group)
I've just been catching up on earlier episodes, and wanted to comment how great it was to see Yolande finding joy in Jesus again (though obviously, He's not white like the image she was looking at as she contemplated Him).
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with corrupt religious authorities, who - like Clayton - weren't actually following God. Unfortunately there have, of course, continued to be some men who misappropriate "religion" for their own selfish ends, and aren't genuinely seeking Him.
Prior to His movement spreading through the Western world, it was often presumed (such as in Ancient Roman society) that powerful men are entitled to sexually those with less status - what our culture now knows to be wrong was shaped by His teaching.
He came into humanity, as we remember at Christmas, to make it possible for anyone who chooses to turn to Him to have eternal life (heaven) freed from evil and the pain it causes. And He entered normalcy - not a position of wealth nor power - since each person matters to Him (irrespective of status); He endured immeasurable mistreatment, so He can relate to those who've been mistreated.
(Of course, I wholly understand that this might also sound daft and/or hollow to those who are victims of abuse, I can't apologise enough if I seem trite)
I'm well aware that most people presume that Christianity is fiction, you're free to laugh at me. I truly hope you're having a great Christmas either way 
 
 
Sure, but how would that actually help the people of the Global South? (And the Indian folk I've seen discussing this say they'd rather the jewels stayed here, since Modi would pocket them otherwise - though I'm not presuming others would necessarily agree). What the people need is for the *money* that's been extracted to be invested in their infrastructure, not a few gems. And they need for Western corporations and banks to cease the *ongoing* exploitation and wealth extraction.
 
 
Yes - the Gospels (the accounts of Jesus' life) compel us to love those who are different from ourselves. Those complaining about the speech, whilst also claiming Christianity are seriously mistaken.
Though unity isn't the *primary* point of Christmas - fundamental is that Jesus came to live amongst humanity so that He could ultimately make it possible for us to have salvation ("heaven").
 
 
Irrespective of "traditions", there's "cheer" - and so much more than that - because Jesus came to humanity, albeit that it wasn't necessarily on December 25th.
(And I'm well aware this sounds daft to many people, I only came to believe in Him myself after reading substantially about the historical accounts - and I'm not going to spend this afternoon debating with those who like to argue) https://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...
 
 
It's about Jesus coming to humanity. And whilst certain people presume Him to be mythical, there's ample historical evidence to the contrary.
Unlike your earlier comment, which was absolutely spot on, there is in fact basically zero evidence that Jesus existed.
That's not me arguing 'Jesus didn't exist', and in fact it would be more surprising if there were any evidence he did - the vast majority (well over 99 per cent) of people who have ever lived throughout human history did so without leaving any evidence of themselves whatsoever.
But there is effectively zero historical evidence of Jesus' existence.
Why do you think that?
Because there isn't any. What evidence do you believe exists?
Whilst I know it may sound daft, I think that the texts which have been included in the New Testament count. They weren't written in the genre of myth, nor, as those who discount them seem to presume, to sell books, they're historical texts, with more reliability than other history. https://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm
I think that the existence of Christianity is evidence - the new movement that began and spread in spite of such opposition can't be accounted for if He didn't exist.
And there's evidence for Him from non-Biblical historical sources https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/
But there's far more that ought to be expounded, and I didn't believe in Him myself until I'd read far more than could be summarised here, so I know I can't change your mind.
 
The Bible is based on a fictional 6,000 year-old Earth where Neanderthals never existed. In the real world, most people have some Neanderthal DNA because our human ancestors mated with Neanderthals. Further evidence is the fact that Africans whose ancestors have never left Africa have no Neanderthal DNA. But religion still survives and thrives because of its very real attributes for its many powerful, wealthy vested interests i.e. mega cash-cow and powerful tool of political control. While the majority of religious believers are good and sincere in their beliefs, the powerful, wealthy religious institutions are firmly embedded with the ruling elites in every religious country. 
No, the Bible doesn't say that the Earth is 6000 years old, nor does it deny neanderthals.
Note that the creation account in Genesis is not literal, it reflects linguistic conventions from the time.
Indeed there are greedy and corrupt individuals within some religious institutions - Jesus spent much time arguing with such people.
 
 
Religion is defined differently by different people (it's misused by folk who are power hungry, but that doesn't prove Atheism to be correct - Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with corrupt religious authorities). More specifically RE the existence of a creator - what if the reason we crave the things that Marx mentions is that this hunger was part of the design for us? 
 
 
Outside of the West, there are many places in our world where Christians are persecuted (far more severely than having a tree burnt - but this incident will be causing concern about terrible things to come). Part of the reason they persist in following Jesus is that they have supernatural experiences of Him (mad as I know that may sound) 
 
 
To make for serene festive imagery? But indeed, it wasn't a Christmas card - what's awesome about the incarnation is not a pretty picture, but that divinity chose to come into the mess of humanity.
 
 
Best of luck to them!
I'm continually bemused by the dearth of scrutiny on evil corporations exploiting folk outside of the West. Many of my fellow Westerners mostly seem to think that Israel is the only entity to complain about, but there are other injustices we should be protesting.
 
 
History cannot be repaired, and those who've been hurt and passed away cannot be compensated. But we *should* be addressing the severe injustices and suffering that exists now, much of which is linked to the past. The Church should be helping the world's poorest people and victims of current slavery - including those in countries that were left unstable by the transAtlantic slave trade.
 
 
Churches do many awesome things in communities. But they vary endlessly, and some ate being run by folk who are interested in power rather than following God. Jesus spent a lot of His time arguing with "religious" folk like this in His day.
The awful things that happen in some Churches aren't a reason to disregard Him.
 
 
In England, roughly half of local authority spending on adult social care goes to support people aged 65 and above - how does GBeebies propose caring for the elderly?
How about using the foreign aid budget instead of squandering it abroad?
It's not squandered.
Of course it’s squandered, it’s not being used to help people in this country who actually generate the money in the first instance. it’s the answer to a proposal you asked for.
Much of the wealth of our country has come from elsewhere. Mitigating the most severe suffering is not "squandering", particularly given that far more impact can be made with a given amount of money in poorer countries than it can here.
We’ve been giving £billions upon £billions to other countries for decades and those ‘poorer’ countries haven’t even tried to better themselves because they know that idiots like us will continue to throw money at them. Charity begins at home and there are currently millions of people here who need help. We can’t solve (only salve) the problems of other countries around the world by borrowing then putting ourselves in debt, that is a crazy notion. We have differing views on this subject and that’s fine, you believe we should continue to give borrowed money away, I believe we should use it on the very people who have to help pay the debts incurred.
There are always "charity begins at home" comments - why? Says who?
It's not a statement of fact, or a logical argument. 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.
There are many programmes helping the homeless, and indeed, more should be done to help them (and there should be higher taxes on the super rich to fund it, not a reduction in the tiny 0.5% of GDP given to the world's poorest people). But in war torn and developing countries, there are people who could only dream of the access to food banks; shelters; job centres; welfare state benefits and the NHS that people have here.
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 country is far, far wealthier than most because of centuries of exploitation and injustice, which is ongoing. https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor... - countries have not been refusing to better themselves in spite of being given Aid, they've been continually exploited.
Oh dear, quoting the Guardian, you’ve given away your true identity. Let people from other countries dream, let them do something about changing their lives in their own homeland. No matter how much money we send abroad things never change, we can’t save everyone on this planet. The U.K. gave many countries democracy, railways, civil service, roads, schools, hospitals etc, building blocks to self govern but that is never mentioned, only what we took out; it was a quid pro co arrangement. You asked who says charity begins at home - it was me in this instance and something I firmly believe in. In my opinion we should only proffer assistance abroad to underdeveloped countries during times of natural disasters only. Again, this is my personal view that foreign aid should be stopped and used at home. Thank you for your exchange of views and have a lovely Christmas.
"Quoting the Guardian"? So you just reject information because you don't like a newspaper, and don't look at the source it's citing? It appears you simply want to stick to your existing "opinion". Feel free to read about the issue from other sources.
I'm well aware that Britain contributed in some positive ways to other countries - but our banks and corporations have also pillaged vast natural resources from them, and enabled the most unpleasant individuals in these countries to take power over their compatriots (who, born into far more severe poverty than we are and without the state services we have cannot simply "better themselves" as you seem to expect). Ultimately your assertions imply to a presumption that human beings of a different heritage from us are intrinsically lazy, ignoring the historical and present day realities.
It's not true that "things never change" - as you'll see if you look up the data on the %s of people starving, without water etc - but issues have not been wholly eradicated because institutions such as UK based banks continue to exploit former colonies (and the conflicts that have been stoked, and exacerbated by Jihadism and Russia, prevent innocent civilians from progressing as they otherwise might). Here's one example of how corporations from outside of Africa have continued to both take resources and fuel bloody conflict - https://www.politico.eu/.../totalenergies-mozambique.../
So it's not the case that Aid is "squandered", just as the fact there are so many sick people in the UK doesn't mean that all NHS money is "squandered" (though some is misspent - and note, again, that £ for £, far more impact can be made with spending in the poorest parts of the of world than here).
Having said all this, I genuinely hope you have a lovely Christmas yourself
 
 
As much as she's a victim of our pornified culture, she's also worsening it. She needs to stop both for her own wellbeing, and for the sake of women who suffer via men seeing them as objects due to content like hers.
 
 
Capitalism generally has plenty of immoral greed in it - but adverts aren't immoral for showing things that people won't have, one just learns that seeing something doesn't mean getting it. It's very important to learn that one is not entitled, nor well advised, to attain what's advertised. The items in Christmas ads are out of my price range, but why would I care? I don't need them, I don't feel sad.
The real moral issue is people in poorer parts of our world being exploited in the supply chains of items we buy.
 
 
This has nothing to with theism vs atheism. You're simply reinforcing the harmful misconception the Christianity is anti-science (perhaps specifically antivax)
no , I think they are just saying fact. You don't need to be a Christian to see this. If anyone with any intelligence and not a Christian does digging they will discover so many assumptions, brushing over, selected answers amongst many discarded against the agenda or direction wanted by the person paying for the results....which likely will benefit them personally etc
I'm well aware that there are issues in some science, and I specifically remember one of my University professors talking about incidents he'd observed -but this meme is not addressing any actual error (or lie, or misuse of data, etc), it's just flat -out implying that science as a whole is to be opposed. In the context of the debates of recent years, it brings to mind rejection of Covid measures or climate science, both of which are seriously un Christian positions (in that they're based in putting selfishness above concern for the vulnerable).
And what do you think the impact (or point) is? Folk who already feel suspicious about science may like this meme, but what does that achieve? Meanwhile nonChristians who see this, in this group about opposing atheism, will think that Christians disdain science because of a desire to disregard those affected by our actions.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I saw a comment recently by someone about occasionally feeling suicidal. Given the time of year, I was reminded of It’s A Wonderful Life (although it’s ages since I’ve seen it. NB, there’s also a VeggieTales version🤣). And as Christians, we know there’s a deeper reality than a Hollywood film.
It crosses my mind sometimes that I shouldn’t be alive because I’m such a failure - but God has a purpose for each of us. I’m well aware that this doesn’t eliminate the real pain that suicidal folk feel, and our neurochemistry can render it seemingly impossible to assuage painful emotions even if our circumstances are awesome or if we focus on joyous truths - but it’s worth trying the latter nonetheless.
In the film, the protagonist discovers that many things would be worse in his absence. I’m blessed to live with family who I hate to see cry enough that I’ve no intention of hurting myself ; but even if one doesn’t have the privilege of great family or friends - or the achievements of the lead character in the film - God has reasons for your life. Again, I know this doesn’t stop the hurt of depression, and hugest apologies that I likely seem trite, patronising and cliched - but I think it bears repeating that God has reasons for the life of each person reading this, even if they don’t currently seem wholly apparent.
The Nativity reminds us of God’s choices to include those who weren’t highly esteemed; shepherds, for instance, were seen as lowly in their society - yet have a vital role in the revelation of the incarnate God).
If anyone is feeling really, really low, please reach out for help - God wants you here.
I don't watch The Chosen myself, but there's an episode imagining one of the shepherds that's nice. Our culture luxuriates in spending and celebrity at Christmas, but the Nativity reminds us that Jesus came to folk in unglamorous circumstances, and that He uses all variety of people.

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Yesterday someone posted here asking for toys for their children. She said that her partner had abandoned her with 8 children, and she needed pre-loved toys so that there’d be something for them for Christmas.
Requesting things for oneself is not the purpose of this group, this group exists for us to build one another up in our walk with God. And for clarity, no I'm afraid a post appearing in the group does not mean it's been validated (though we try to monitor what has been posted).
One of the other Admin team members kindly put time into trying to understand this woman’s needs, and another eventually discovered proof that it was a scam.
Since at least one person in this group had been keen to give to her, and since scams are so rife ATM, I wanted to warn you guys to please, please be careful. It is so brilliant that some want to be generous! God calls us to help the less fortunate. But unfortunately, some selfish individuals can take advantage of this generosity - and they come up with schemes to override our caution (for instance, this particular scammer said that she’d provide “proof” of her 8 children). I’d personally recommend using any resources that you can afford to instead donate to a trustworthy organisation. I also want kids to receive toys - I do this via Operation Christmas Child (the charity that began the shoebox scheme, though others now do similar things), which takes boxes of gifts to children elsewhere in our world who may not have any toys otherwise, whilst (when possible) also telling them about God’s love for them. If anyone’s interested in supporting OCC, you can now provide a shoebox by packing virtually (choosing the items online) and/or donate towards the shipping costs of the scheme (and I could give tips about buying toys and packing boxes IRL for next year, I’m obsessive about it🤣).
There’s a (albeit secular) charity called Teddy Trust which can take any teddy bears (in very condition, obviously) you’d like to go to a new home to children in serious need (including refugee camps. Hospitals and projects for homeless children). Of course, if you have other toys you want to rehome, you could take them to a charity shop (ideally as soon as possible, they might be used a Christmas gift) so that the money raised will help a cause, or connect with local projects etc (and your local neighbourhood Facebook groups may be a good place to ask about these - but again, please be careful, as anyone looking to scam a generous person might contact you looking to take advantage).
Another well established Christian organisation working with children is Compassion (and I’ve received many letters from children via them, including about what they’ve received), some might like to give to their Christmas appeal or buy an alternative gift. Christian charity Embrace The Middle East has alternative gifts including books and pens for children in that part of the world, as well as crafted items you can buy (raising funds) to give to your own loved ones. The Leprosy Mission also sells items that we can give as Christmas gifts whilst raising funds to support folk who desperately need to know that Jesus loves them. Of course I could go on and on, there are many other great Christian charities! And it’s remarkable how much impact we can make. We can steward resources God has entrusted to us to share His love with our world. 
It might also be kind to enquire if a person is in need where they are located and point in the direction of avenues of support.
It's all well and good saying only support reputable charities but A) Jesus didn't play by those rules. B) not everyone is captured by the charities.
Perhaps a group resource could be cobbled together for areas of support.
If a person that was in genuine need were to read this post, they may well be put off asking for help.
Of course scams exist and diligence is necessary
But compassion at the point of need is also important .
Apologies I seem argumentative (truly!), but surely Jesus didn't play by those rules because such organisations didn't exist at the time (and nor did scammers like this one). If a person is in genuine need as you say, why should (as you imply) they ask for help by posting here? It's not what the group is for (and is against the rules) - and they can contact Admin, or organisations local to themselves (which will be far better placed to pass on items).
What is "compassion at the point of need"? A Facebook post does not prove that a person is in need. There's a real issue whereby some folk who are themselves not very well off *feel compelled* to give - and their compassion can all too easily be exploited. Each of us has a finite supply of resources to give, we can be effective with our compassion if we direct it through the right channels.
Again, apologies if I seem argumentative, and it goes without saying that folk who want to can give to people on Facebook if they want to - but evidently, we need to warn against scamming.
for some, this may be the only place they can think to ask help. Not everyone has a real life community or is even linked uo to local places.
I think when the emphasis is on following a rule rather than displaying the model of care Jesus has left for us it's a slippery slope.
Scammers have always existed. People will always fall for it. Of course warn. I'm not suggesting we all give willy nilly.
Just not all need looks the same and not all are able to seek support from the avenues you suggest.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the model of care Jesus has left" - He called us to help the poor, not to help everyone who *claims* to be poor. "Rules" in this case are necessary to prevent vulnerable people being taken advantage of.
This can not be "the only place they can think to ask help" - it's a group to discuss Christianity, not to ask for things (and the reason that individuals like yesterday's scammer will be particularly keen to target groups like this is that they know Christians could be duty bound to give to them). There are many local area Facebook groups, and other forums, where people can seek items - ultimately if they want advice, they can contact Admin for guidance (and some of my fellow Admin members *have* sent items, such as kids coats, to women who've asked, carefully looking into requests and protecting vulnerable group members from being preyed upon).
Again, genuine apologies if I seem argumentative - my concern is simply that folk avoid the many scams that are around, and that the generosity folk have instead makes a great impact for people in real need.
I think you're missing my point.
Jesus helped those that approached him and those that were around him.
When the lady sure of her own faith touched his hem in Mark 5: 21-34 , she was healed.
When the crowds in Matthew 14: 13 - 22 he didn't turn people away because they could feasibly eat elsewhere, he just fed them
That's what I mean by his model.
Love first.
I'm not suggesting that people would only have this group as a means to request help. Just that if we let worldly suspicion skew our perspectives we may miss someone that is in genuine need.
Caution in this world is necessary but care is paramount.
I'm not disputing that love and care are paramount - but again, we have a finite amount to give, and we should want it to go to those who are truly in need. It's not "worldly" to be prudent with what God has entrusted to us, and the Bible repeatedly calls us to be wise.
Again, Jesus was not being approached by scammers as we are. And there are people who cannot approach us, because they're born into a poorer country, who warrant our help.
 
I am never keep to deal with big charities because the amount of money ceos etc make. I also believe charity starts at home and like to support those around me too.
"charity begins at home"? Jesus never said that, He specifically told us to help those who *aren't* part of our own country (see The Parable of The Good Samaritan). Folk born into poorer countries are no less human than our fellow Brits.
I agree that some CEOs are paid far too much - but not all, and it's still a tiny % of charities' income.
home being thay I can physically go and do go for said charity not big companies. I've did shoe box appeal and helped other "communities" through the church but I'm less likely to give to big organised charities
That’s *volunteering*, and it’s awesome to undertake it if able 
The topic has been *donating*.
Please consider:
Charities’ sizes are not correlated with their distance, there are small and large charities here and overseas.
A charity being large doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t give to it. And sometimes larger charities have benefits such as more experience and the ability to utilise resources more efficiently (as thy can buy supplies at scale).
All charities have to spend some of their income on fundraising and admin - but the % spent on these is not higher for large overseas charities, in fact the list of charity gifts suggested by Martin Lewis today (as an example) shows the charities working in poorer countries spending a lower % of their income on fundraising than charities working in the UK.
If we only helped the people we can physically get to ourselves, the people *most* in need, and for whom each £ makes the most impact, would be overlooked.
 
 
Does it prompt people to think about something higher?
no empirical evidence of anything higher.
You mean you presume something doesn't exist because it hasn't been recorded with instruments that aren't designed to record it?
yeah that's an exact description of things that don't exist.
So if you couldn't measure heat energy with a wooden ruler you'd presume there's no such thing as heat energy?
we can measure heat , duh .
Again, that didn't answer my question. And you seem to be missing my point.
yes because the heat would set the wooden ruler on fire , ffs what a poor analogy.
Yikes, do you think that classrooms with wooden rules are entirely without heat energy unless the rulers are on fire?
yikes, do you think any would try to measure heat with a wooden ruler .
No I don't, yet apparently you expect instruments to measure God when they've been created to measure entirely different things.
instruments are designed to measure things.that are real , but your correct right now I'm going start inventing a device to measure Leprechauns so I can prove they are real so I can find their pot of gold .
Instruments are designed to measure specific matter or energy. That God is not comprised of matter or energy that instruments have been created to measure does not prove that He is not real, just as a ruler not measuring heat doesn't mean there's no heat.
It's interesting that you have faith in physics whilst admitting not to know about it. Of course, I'm not opposing faith in physics at all, but Mike Goss has just pointed out that physicists (not wrongly) believe in things that they *can't* empirically measure, and you seem to not have understood this.
Leprechauns are not comprised of matter or energy either.
I never said he wasn't real I said there was no empirical evidence that he does exist .
I have trust in the reliable consistency that empirical evidence coninsides with reality, not faith , I'm not a scientist neither are you or MG .
Scientists don't "believe" they research and use scientific method.
How do you know what MG does? And either way, it's an Ad Hominem. I never claimed to be a scientist, but I do at least have a degree in it, how about you?
Again, you're missing the points that MG and I are making. Empirical evidence is vital in many contexts, but it's not always the way something is known. You still seem not be getting that physicists *can't* empirically measure quarks, or dark matter or energy - so, do you reject their existence? Do you think physicists are wrong for believing in them?
I never said that I disbelieve in leprechauns because they're "not comprised of matter or energy", I have other reasons for not believing in them - and there *are*, by contrast, reasons for believing in a Creator (whilst there aren't such reasons for leprechauns).
Ad Hominem is when you attack the person not the argument, I didn't attack anyone personally.
I know you didn't claim to be a scientist , so why use science that you deny in an argument for science.
Empirical evidence is vital for a reliable measure of truth
What other ways are there to know things that are consistent with reality?
What criteria do you use to dismiss the existence of Leprechauns ????
"Science that you deny"? I didn't deny science. And I mentioned that I have a degree in a science (BioMed), why didn't you answer my question about your qualifications?
It was an Ad Hominem, you implied that I and MG are wrong because of the presumption (without empirical evidence) that neither of us are scientists, rather than addressing our actual arguments.
*Again*, do you reject the of quarks, or dark matter and energy? Do you think physicists are wrong for believing in them?
Before I explain why I dismiss leprechauns - a Red Herring - what criteria do you use to dismiss the arguments for a Creator?
I didn't imply you were both wrong I told you were wrong , not because you weren't scientists because you attempted to use science (Quark's ) in an argument against me when I'm not quantum physicist when neither of you were quantum physicists I've HNC in Engineering, I've already said Ad Infinitum because there is no empirical evidence that gods exist and your god specifically exists.
"I told you were wrong"? You think the point about quarks is wrong because we don't work in science? (again, that's a logical fallacy, the point being correct is not determined by the career of the person who makes it) And even if we have higher scientific qualifications than you do?
*Again*, do you reject the of quarks, or dark matter and energy? Do you think physicists are wrong for believing in them?
Saying "there is no empirical evidence that gods exist" does not answer what I asked, which was "what criteria do you use to dismiss the arguments for a Creator"
no I don't " reject the of quarks " or dark matter I just don't know enough about it .
I don't think scientists believe in them .
Oh ffs, the criteria I use dismiss gods is the complete lack of empirical evidence, how many times do I have to say this .
How answer my question what criteria do you use to dismiss Leprechauns !
Good, I'm glad you don't reject quarks or dark matter - but there isn't empirical evidence for them, so why do you reject God on the basis of your presumption of a lack of empirical evidence?
"answer my question what criteria do you use to dismiss Leprechauns" - I really don't have to, I've no obligation to reply to someone who's chosen to start an argument with my comment, but either way, you've still not addressed what I asked.
 
 
I'm in Britain (and always have been), but IMO the West in general has made a mistake in prioritising independence over community/family. In human societies at other points in time/location, there's been far more intergenerational living, instead we have older folk experiencing loneliness (which also puts some at risk from falls and from scammers - and which increases dementia risk), whilst younger folk can't afford homes and miss out on the wisdom of elders.
 
 
Blood thirsty? Whilst I don't endorse the assassination, folk are upset by the figurative blood spilling by the greedy heallthcare system.
 
 
The people who provide our cocoa beans are to poor to access chocolate themselves, and you're moaning because of 1 empty door on an Advent calendar? I bet you didn't even buy Tony's in the first place.
Stop whingeing and read about the children who have to carry out hard labour for our confectionery.
(NB, the amount of chocolate in the calendar will have been on the packaging anyway )
 
 
Prayer doesn't oppose medicine (and plenty of people have had their keenness to help the sick increased by their theism), it's antivaxxers and RFK Jr you should be worrying about.
but all the people who are antivax are strangely also pro gods
No, they aren't. But even if they were, it wouldn't be a rational argument against God.
Rational argument against god? Merriam Webster's defines Faith as a belief in something for which there is no proof. There is no rational argument by definition. Thats why it's called the Christian faith
Apologies if I seem argumentative, but that's a strawman, I didn't mention "faith" (also, I'm not bound by Merriam-Webster)
That is not a straw man argument. That was an academic definition. You don't have a legitimate argument because your argument is a distortion of the terminology to suit your agenda. Your faith is no more Superior than any other faith in the world. Your God isn't any more important than any other God in the world. Your religion isn't any more important than any other religion in the world. You are no more spiritual than any other religious followers in the world
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things "Hoped For"
Hebrews 11:6
Without faith it is impossible to please God
It is a strawman, you're arguing about something I didn't mention, and you're debating your own mistaken idea of what you think I believe.
You don't have to mention it. You said, and I quote "it wouldn't be a rational argument against God"
That is an oxymoron, because belief in God requires faith, not rationality, and without faith it is impossible to please your God. That's why they call it the Christian faith, because it requires you to believe in something even though there isn't a single solitary shred of evidence to substantiate it
Hebrews 11:6
Without faith it is impossible to please God
Trying to rationalize your deity is an attempt to walk by sight, not by faith
2 Corinthians 5:2
"walk by faith, not by sight"
We're really going round in circles, you're arguing about things I haven't written (and effectively misquoting the Bible, in that you've decided "faith" means something other than what the Bible means whilst citing the Bible). Whether or not you're aware of the rational arguments for God doesn't change the fact that the point I referred to, in your quote of me, was not a rational argument against God.
There is no rational argument for God
"you've decided "faith" means something other than what the Bible means"
You are under the impression that the English version of the Bible that includes "faith" is using it's own definition of the word, when the Bible was translated by Scholars who know the English language, and the definition of faith. They are not using another definition of the word.
You told yourself that there's another definition, because you don't know what the Bible is. It was written in ancient Hebrew. What you're reading is the English version. The English version was written by people who speak english. It was written by people who know the definition of the words they're trying to use to reflect what is said in the bible
"There is no rational argument for God" - why do you think that?
The Bible's definition of faith is not the same as Merriam-Webster's (and what you've quoted is itself is seriously incomplete, it also says that it can mean "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" - and Oxford's dictionary is superior). I'm well aware of what the Bible is, thanks - that you say it was written in Hebrew suggests you might not be(?), since plenty was written in Greek. And many words don't translate precisely between languages, so those of us who are serious about it look at the nuances of the original words. See, for instance (and scroll down to the commentaries) - https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm
 

I know it's France, obviously (and I mean no disrespect to the French folk for whom this feels significant), but at a level of Global humanity (and people around the world donated to Notre Dame), as a Christian, I really wish that resources could be expended first on ensuring that human beings have shelter before stupid amounts are spent on elaborate buildings.
 
(in Christian Women Facebook Group) 
does anyone do bible study with their Children/family? I want to start doing this but have no idea how to start. Any tips please?
It's none of my business, and I obviously know nothing about your child/ren, but may I recommend considering introducing Apologetics too? I grew up with committed Christian parents, Church etc - but I started to realise that I didn't really believe that Christianity is actually *true*. Sunday School just presumed we'd all believe the Bible, but I started to wonder why one would do. Eventually, I started to discover the reasons for concluding Christianity to be reality, but I worry about the many young people who grow up in Christian families and then abandon it (including one of my sisters).
Again, obviously I know nothing about your family, so my apologies for being patronising! And I recommend VeggieTales and What's In The Bible
I hadn't heard of apologetics before you mentioned it. Thanks for your comment.
Most people in our society aren't aware of it, it's presumed that Christianity is only faith tradition, in fact there's a whole field of arguments advanced by academics (including former atheists and Oxford University professors) showing why we can be certain that Christianity is true (of course, atheists try to argue against these points, but their rebuttal attempts are flawed)


YES. I have Asperger's instead (and a related eating disorder), but the same issue - I'm desperate not to be so useless, but am rejected for everything I apply for (though I'm only applying for very basic things) and I don't understand why the government doesn't connect those of us with limitations with jobs.
 
 
Prince Andrew's reduced life now from title snub and crumbling home to 'spy' link
He has more wealth and privilege than most people on the planet. Meanwhile there are teenage girls around our world who are exploited, and/or trapped in extreme poverty.
Sponsoring one of humanity's most vulnerable girls (in a less wealthy country) can transform their life and costs very little - he should be moved into a normally sized home, living with typical living costs, and the money saved could change huge numbers of lives.
 
 
I wouldn't have voted for Trump myself, but you insinuating the Black men are obligated to vote for your candidate o the basis of skin colour seems absurdly patronising. Apparently you think that skin colour is all that matters about or to them.
Maybe you should educate yourself on why people voted for Trump.
 
 
(in Christian Women Facebook Group)  
A certain TV personality is in the news bemoaning "middle class women of a certain age". I'm not often massively aware of misogyny, but this has made me really angry (I don't think I'd count personally, but I feel very conscious of not being "young" any more - to quote Miley Cyrus  who was born in the same year as me, I used to be young - and I'm concerned for women he is referring to). Fortunately, most people in our society recognise that this is an utterly daft thing to say (all the more so given that he's older than the woman whose accusation is in the news today, older than the woman whose famous husband rebuked him, etc). But we have even more assurance as people who know God. In the Bible, it's because certain women are no longer young that God can do amazing things through them. We don't only go through the stages of ageing, we walk closer and closer with God, and He can make use of us at all stages of life.
Job 12:12
"So with old age is wisdom, and with length of days understanding"
Isaiah 46:4
"Even to your old age and grey hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you"
Psalms 92:14-15
"They will still yield fruit in old age"
One of the aforementioned women in the Bible is Elizabeth - who, as read in the daily reading, was used by God to display His miraculous power whilst she was *of a certain age*. If she'd been younger it wouldn't have been so remarkable - and being older was no hindrance to God's plan. Our culture can be ageist towards women, but God has far more exciting ideas
Why get so wound up about one person's comments. Come on what do we care. We know who we are. Just ignore it.
I'm not "so wound up". But I commented, because how we feel about ourselves isn't necessarily correspondent with what we *know*. As someone with an eating disorder, I *know* that I don't need to be thinner, but I can't escape the *feeling* that I do. We *know* that appearance doesn't matter, but we can still *feel* anxious about how we look. Knowing that being middle aged doesn't diminish value can't necessarily stop people feeling hurt.
 
 
You've taken a screenshot from The Times (UK), things here are not the same as they are in the US (for instance, "the war on Christmas" isn't really a thing here, and very few people agree with you about trans issues).
Evidence of the class war issue here was most recently demonstrated a rich celebrity from a "working class" background making grossly misogynistic comments about women based partly on their class backgrounds - nothing to do with taxes, and why would you take his side?
 
 
Russell Brand - Why would Jesus say, "Love thy neighbor," unless there was real merit or value in doing so?
NB, His point was not about those who live next to us. Of course, we should do this too - but it's often overlooked that in this parable He's teaching us to love and help those in/from *other* places/ethnicities. Sod "charity begins at home" - we can instinctively feel more connected to those who share our nationality, but Jesus is countering that primitive instinct, countering racial prejudice, and calling us to love those who *don't* share our country. Today, we can support some of the world's poorest people, who don't live near to us but are *neighbours* by the definition of the parable.


The grotesque exploitation of folk in the Global South for their labour and resources, and the disregard of the impact of fossil fuel usage on them (via climate change), are indeed wholly at odds with Jesus' teaching (and other Biblical instruction)
 

(in Christian Women Facebook Group)
How can U deal with bitterness?
God has forgiven us, though we don't deserve forgiveness. Reminding ourselves of this and dwelling on it can help in forgiving others - but we also need God's help, for Him to work in our hearts to enable forgiveness. One could also pray that He illuminates any misunderstandings that have contributed to the conflict - often people don't disagree as much as they perceive, but one party or the other is perturbed by something which s in fact a misconception (though of course, I don't know your situation, so apologies for seeming patronising, I'm just pondering on the conflicts I've observed)


Devastating? How? He's a multimillionaire, who started a farm to avoid tax.
Actually devastating is that there are farmers in the poorest parts of our world struggling to feed their families, or exploited by multinational corporations that sell food to us.
 

The Bible does say that wives should submit to their husbands - but also that husbands must submit to their wives. Marriage entails both parties having sacrificial love for each other - and a man who wants to dominate his wife is not following Jesus' fundamental teaching to love others as ourselves.
'Sacrificial love'??? Have I got that right? It's new to me!
Yes. Giving up always getting one's own way or doing all of the things one might want to. At a basic level, I see my each of my parents put up with having things they don't love on the TV, on the table, or on the calendar because the other of them wants something and they love each other more than personal preferences. Ultimately, spouses might have to change more significant individual life plans to find mutually agreeable plans (in contrast to our culture's notion of always going for what we most want for ourselves) - but if they love each other, they'll want to.
So far as I've read, this "influencer" was reprimanded because she shared a clip suggesting a woman should do everything their husband wants (including wearing Muslim attire) - but a husband like that doesn't love his wife.


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)