Tuesday, 18 June 2024

Jesus said that we'd be hated - but I'm not sure that it was actually following Him and His teachings that led to her^ sacking?
I'm incomparably more concerned about people ignoring Him (often because of mistakenly presuming, without exploring the issue, there's not a case for believing His resurrection to truly have happened) than about being disliked.
 

This brings to mind my ongoing gripe that The Guardian shares articles about luxury items to buy, celebrity interviews etc from its main FB page, but thinks its coverage of issues impacting the world's most vulnerable people should only be shared with its Global Development audience.
We do have a responsibility to educate ourselves - but IMO media platforms have responsibility too, instead they're just profiting from people finding it more comfortable to keep their focus on our Western bubble.
 
 
Plenty of Westerners label themselves Christian for social reasons, but aren't actually trying to follow Jesus.
But either way, there's a fallacious correlation/causation implication in the above comment. A society could have many Christians, and also many who hate Jesus' teachings and want to hurt others. There are also many other factors contributing to social issues.
But Christianity is not solely about social issues - it's about Jesus, who offers eternal life.
 
 
Why on Earth is that comment a problem?
because loving imaginary people is odd….
Why do you think He's imaginary? That's just an internet conspiracy theory, not the view of historians https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...
(but also, things being "odd" isn't a reason to ban them anyway)
Jesus existing doesn’t in any way mean he was the son of the worlds creator”” LOL
Josef smith existed, L Ron Hubbard existed, the pope exists…it doesn’t mean they’re celestial beings, it just means they’re crooks making extraordinary claims, and guess what? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
Why are you laughing, when I addressed the comment that was made? You're bringing up a different point, can you not see the distinction?
There's reasoning/evidence to conclude that Jesus rose from death, verifying His assertions about Himself - but this is distinct from Nathan's claim. And it's a big topic, I didn't believe until I'd read books by academics on it, so I'm not going to be able to convince anyone in a few Facebook comments. Have you explored the issue to weigh it up for yourself?
Here's an into from a former atheist, who's now an Oxford professor - https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection
 you’re not in any way providing evidence, you’re providing links that follow your narrative. This is like an anti-vaxxer using a conspiracy page to prove the vaccine is poison or using the philosophers stone to prove Harry Potter exists.
Jesus was never ever mentioned outside of the bible and all historical records kept a at the time do not mention him or the miracles that were meant to have happened.
I just laugh how it’s white uk westerners bickering over Middle Eastern religions!
As I wrote, it's a big topic, I'm not going to be able to provide comprehensive information here - but no, sharing that article is not simply "following my narrative", it's a text by someone with credentials who's summarising points about the academic discourse. You simply dismissing it on the basis that I agree with the conclusion and don't is not logical - if it's incorrect, you need to show what exactly is wrong about the points made (except of course you don't, in the sense that this debate between us is pointless and I won't revisit this thread).
If an antivaxxer shared a conspiracy theory page, it would be wrong because the information on it would contain fundamental mistruths, which one would identify - it wouldn't be wrong simply because the person sharing it is an antivaxxer.
If you presume things to be wrong simply on the basis of someone you disagree with sharing them, you're not observing reality objectively. (it's also plainly lacking objectivity to make this about ethnicity as you just have - I don't mind you laughing at me, but it's not rational)
You think Jesus wasn't mentioned outside of the Bible? That's incorrect, who told you that?
 
 
It doesn't seriously impact anyone's life either way. People in Britain are worried about bills and public services, not statues in the British Museum.
What we should be discussing is how wealth and natural resources have been and are still being extracted from less wealthy countries https://gfintegrity.org/press-release/new-report-on-unrecorded-capital-flight-finds-developing-countries-are-net-creditors-to-the-rest-of-the-world/, leaving people in poverty and suffering from the violence. Rather than worrying about the marbles, our government should be taking action to stop corporations importing conflict minerals and other goods connected to modern slavery.
 
 
 
The guys whose historical accounts (and letters, and poetry) were collated into the Bible lived in that region, I'm not sure what you think that proves.
And in the 21st century, though people now have information from the rest of the world available, plenty of Americans demonstrably think that the US is the only place that exists.
the point is that for a god who supposedly created the entire universe, yahweh is very fixated on one particular region of one particular planet
Right, because that's where He incarnated (and told followers to go out and share His message). Why is that an issue?
because if a god actually existed, and wanted to send a message to the world, it would send a message to the ENTIRE world.
instead, we see different gods giving different messages to different regions, which indicates that those gods were made up by the peoples of those regions.
He did send the message to the entire world.
That some people have different ideas about the Creator doesn't mean that He doesn't exist.
those ideas are contrary. are you telling me that it's the same god telling catholic priests to drink wine and not marry, while telling muslim imams to have 4 wives and abstain from alcohol? that the same god is telling jews that they can eat beef but not pork, and telling hindus that they can can eat pork but not beef?
man created god, not the other way around.
No. God exists, different people try to find out about Him, some are led astray by false prophets or their own motivations, that doesn't negate that He actually exists.
When scientists have different theories about something, the different theories don't mean that it is non-existent.
all prophets are false
but let me guess. the god you were raised to believe in is the correct one, your prophets weren't false, and it's all the others who were led astray. meanwhile they all say the same.
why is your god powerless to communicate his message to everyone without any ambiguity or misunderstanding?
scientists inevitably form a consensus when there is enough evidence. religion can never do this, because religions have no evidence.
What *evidence*, since you mention it, do you have that "all prophets are false"?
Why would misunderstanding prove that God is "powerless"?
Scientists may form a consensus on something eventually, but that doesn't change my original point.
please learn about burden of proof. if you tell me you can fly like superman, it's not up to me to prove you can't.
surely a god could send a message that could not be misunderstood.
No, the burden of proof is not evidence that all prophets are false.
"Surely..." -that doesn't actually answer the question, you're simply presuming that He'd want to do things in a particular way (that is, to make everyone know automatically, diminishing free will). In reality He can know that the processes of people seeking to better understand Him - instead of simply having total knowledge without seeking - contribute to ultimate good.
I don't need to provide evidence that all profits are false. you need to provide evidence that some prophets aren't false. that's how burden of proof works.
now you're just making up an unfalsifiable claim. a god that works in mysterious ways looks an awful lot like no god at all.
So you have no evidence that "all prophets are false", you're just going to presume they definitely are because you buy into a logical fallacy?
I'm not "making up an unfalsifiable claim", I'm pointing out that God isn't constrained to doing things in the way you'd presume.
 
So, you don’t need any knowledge [of the world] to write a book you aim to sell to the world. Not a good start.
And the Americans you speak of, do know there are other countries but are so insular and parochial, that they feel these countries don’t matter.
It's a misunderstanding to think that the Bible is "a book to sell". The writers weren't making money from publishing. And no, the writers didn't need to know what was going on *elsewhere in the world* to record the events they witnessed.
So what were missionaries doing then?
Certainly looks like selling [the concept] everywhere else in the world to me!
Missionaries weren't the writers, and they don't "sell"

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
On various posts by news outlets about Assisted Dying, I've commented "It's ironic that the public has been so supportive of this, whilst not exploring the issue of what happens beyond this lifetime" - and had many responses of laughter reactions and "nothing". This is the biggest tragedy (though I'm not disputing that the bill itself is tragic) - our nation largely ignores the very most important questions - about God's existence and life beyond this one. Some people just presume they'll go to Heaven because they're "good people", some just presume there's definitely nothing after we die (though there's no way of knowing this), either way most people don't look for themselves at the issues. How can we encourage people - in a seriously secular culture, where theism is frequently derided as belief in "myth" - to consider Jesus for themselves? 
Whilst she was discussing the Assisted Dying bill on LBC this (Friday) evening, Rachel Johnson pitted "Religion" and science against each other. This is really demonstrative of the problem - so many people have misunderstood God (and science), otherwise they'd know that this is a false dichotomy, and they don't take time to find out more. They're lobbying to hasten death, but haven't made an informed consideration of what exactly that means.
I tried to explain (to Rachel Johnson) that it was erroneous to think theism and science are opposed (and I came to believe in God *because* of science), but I'm wondering how we can best use the current public discussion for evangelism(?)
We often hear of people recovering from cancer when they've only been given six months to live and although it's called assisted dying, the person has to take the lethal dose themselves, so it's legal suicide....suicide is a crime in the sight of God
The Bible doesn't condemn suicide. And even if it did, telling people not to do something on the basis of the Bible if they don't believe in the Bible (and/or if they're in a suicidal state) only makes them resent Christianity more. Our priority is to be used by God in nudging them towards *Him*, not to try to make them follow His guidelines (they can do that themselves when they choose to follow Him - but it's their choice to turn to Him that ultimately matters most, not their behaviour).
Yes, this bill is Assisted Suicide - people already have the right to commit suicide, but the offer of assistance will make some people feel guilty for continuing to live.
Since you mention cancer, a family friend of ours recently died from it - 12 years after he'd been told he had 6 months left. He did many amazing things in the meantime. The reason people shouldn't give up on life is that God can work through our lives even if we don't see how - but if a person does give up and commit suicide, it's a tragic result of despair (often of *illness* of one's mind), not "crime in the sight of God". Apologies if I seem argumentative
 
 
Awesome. I got baptised after exploring the historical case supporting Jesus' resurrection (having earlier found that science indicates a Designer - God - exists). Jesus gives life more joy than anything else.
 
 
IMO, spending money on this rather than donating that money to an animal charity an adopting one's next pet indicates not really loving animals.
It's also daft, the clone won't have an identical personality to the earlier pet as they have different experiences - and they may well have health issues and a shortened lifespan (like Dolly).
There are human beings dying of diseases like Malaria which there might already be robust solutions for if scientists working ion nonsense like cloning pets addressed real problems instead.
 
 
What do the recipients think? Has anyone asked them?
Personally, I'm concerned that the Band-Aid re-release seems too much about nostalgia and pride - and the critics of Band Aid are right that Africa is massively varied (as well as that the need is a result of injustices, such as insane interest rates and corruption, rather than too little Aid). But there are some people in extreme need, and charities can make an amazing difference (far more, for any give amount of money, than spending/donating here).
Giving doesn't make us "white saviours", it's simply what we should do - and whilst the song asks "Do they know it's Christmas?", a far larger proportion of the population there know The actual Saviour - and the actual meaning of Christmas - than here.


Elsewhere in our world there are tiny children in need of vaccination and unable to receive because of poverty - meanwhile some of our fellow comparatively privileged Westerners oppose vaccines on the basis of conspiracy theories

She's right. But plenty of people now don't even believe He existed, they ignore history and buy into conspiracy theories that He invented or based on other religions instead. https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...
He was hated by some, for challenging people's pride and selfishness, and for criticising how detached the religious institutions of His time had become from actually following God.
But ultimately, though they were killed for it, His followers spread His message and it became the biggest movement in world history - they did so because they'd seen that He defeated death.
PS - you can laugh at me all you like, I'm not going to spend time reading replies/arguing. 
2024 and people still believe in outdated religions and superstition!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I'm not sure why you think that quote supports your point. And Bart Ehrman has a while book about how it's fallacious to think, as you seem to be implying, that Jesus didn't exist.
 
he was a political trouble maker in the middle east and I'm gonna say he no way had blonde hair and blue eyes like in 15th century paintings
Indeed. Artists (inc in other parts of the world) have tended to make Him look like themselves, in part because He chose to be relatable to humanity, but IMO He should always be depicted accurately (as Middle Eastern)


The media talks so much about prices we could look up ourselves - why not do some serious reporting on supermarket supply chains and how some workers are exploited (including in poorer parts of the world)?
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Ladies, what are the opinions on the new end of life bill that is now going through in Parliament ?
We don't all choose what we do. Some of us feel inescapably compelled to do things that we don't actually want to, the brain's chemistry is complex (see OCD, eating disorders, etc). I'm terrified for those who'll feel compelled to die (and the scope of who qualifies for Assisted Dying *will* expand beyond those who supposedly have under6 months left), and who'll feel mental anguish until they do once it becomes available.
People saying things such as "I want to choose what happens at the end of my life" need to have empathy for the folk with disabilities who feel threatened by the bill, rather than only thinking about themselves.
The references to "dignity" annoy me - they imply that being weak and needing nursing care is somehow shameful, so shameful in fact that one should die. That's an appalling and erroneous message to send folk with disabilities.
What if some people, (in the present situation, without Assisted Dying) in the days in which they're weakened and on the verge of death, think deeply and turn to God for the first time?
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Has anyone been watching I'm a celebrity? What do you all think of Richard?
I've never watched the show - but I've been concerned by what I've seen of him elsewhere. Apologies, that probably sounds really judgemental - but the position of being one of the very few official (ie, it's his job, people know - in contrast to other famous people who happen to be Christian and might not influence public perception of Christianity quite so much) representatives of Christianity with a public platform is a huge deal. He has the most thrilling potential to point people towards Jesus - but he doesn't seem interested in doing so (from what I've seen, but perhaps I've missed something?).
I remember a few years ago, when the perennial question of whether it's a problem that Easter eggs don't have "Easter" written on them was being discussed on Jeremy Vine's show on Channel 5, I called in (fantastic opportunity to bring up Jesus on TV  - what matters is that He died and rose, not the word "Easter" etc). But Richard Coles was on the panel and said nothing about Christ(!!!)
And I've not seen him say anything God in other interviews either - save for a fleeting mention in a Christmas programme a year or 2 ago (in which Sally Phillips interviewed various celebrities about Christmas, it's probably on iPlayer), in which he also said that (whilst he was a minister) he'd been having gay sex with his partner and *lied* about it to the bishops, saying he and his partner "had to lie to get what they wanted"(!!!) He's said similar things in other interviews (in The Times) - whatever one thinks about gay relationships, a minister saying that they lied to get what they want (with no indication of regret) is dire.
 
 
It's so utterly absurd that some people - including some politicians in our world - claim Christianity as a reason to hurt folk. When Christ encountered a woman who'd broken God's guidance RE sex He strategically prevented her from being harmed.
(PS, I'm not going to spend time arguing, feel free to laugh at me etc)
you were defensive before anyone challenged your belief. Why?
Side note, do you understand the concept of "yes all men" and agree with it?
Because every time I mention Jesus on Facebook I get people trying to start long debates about Christianity, and I don't have time.
sure but aren't your curious as to why? Also my question about men does have a point. I promise
Curious about what? I want to understand other people, but I genuinely do not have time for all these arguments.
"Yes all men"? As in, a contrast to "not all men"? I guess whether I agree depends on exactly what about men is being debated.
that as a large group they're a threat. Because so many are a threat, we have to treat every man as an attacker because there is no way for us to truly know if they're safe or not safe.
I get that. I believe strongly that each person is an individual who has their own mind and behaviour, so we shouldn't make presumptions - but I understand that some women feel afraid and I'm certainly not criticising those who want to be cautious for safety reasons. I have Asperger's and am very reclusive, so coming into contact with men (other than my Dad, or when buying groceries) is fairly infrequent, I'm not personally worried about my safety - but I get that things are different for most women. And I *have* learned, through these endless Facebook conversations, that *as a group* man *are* significantly more argumentative, which could indicate other things....
You can say that Christianity and "real" Christians wouldn't cause harm.
The reality is that different groups of Christans believe different things, regardless if you recognize them as such. In the same way that men are called to hold their circles accountable, the same goes for Christians. You can choose to not like it but you post is essentially "no me. I'm one of the good ones". That doesn't solve anything. It's just a way to excuse yourself for the negative consequences of the community you're a part of. That's why people say negative things when you push your belief this way. It doesn't do anything but sooth the person who's doing it
It's not analogous. *Actual* Christianity - as much as it's been distorted, particularly in the US (but I'm a lifelong Brit) - is to follow Christ. The behaviour of people who call themselves Christians (and doing so is a very different thing from having XY chromosomes, that in itself impacts an individual's behaviour and potential to do harm) doesn't change Christ. People should (though I'm not disregarding the hurt some people might feel if they've had particular experiences) decide what they think about Him based on what He said and did, not on the behaviour of some *other* people. Trump called himself a genius, that wouldn't be a rational reason to avoid intellectualism.
I'm not trying to "excuse myself", what people think of me doesn't matter, I just wish people knew Him.
it's not how you perceive yourself. You're creating an exception to remove yourself from everything you see problematic. That's why there's push back against religion. It literally trains you to be a specific person and never change. This allows harm to happen. I know it sucks but just because you don't think you're a threat is not up to you to decide.
"to remove yourself from everything you see problematic" no, it's not about me.
"Never change"? Yikes, changing is a huge part of Christianity. I'm not sure what you're basing your understanding of Christianity on (or why you presume it accurate? Though apologies that that sounds patronising). I need to change. As I've grown closer to God, I've become more patient and empathetic than I was, but I have a long way to go.
"it sucks but just because you don't think you're a threat is not up to you to decide" - this sounds funny, though I mean no disrespect, I'm trying to imagine how I'm a "threat" (and yes, it is up to me to decide, I choose my actions and if I were to do something that meant real *threat* had existed - I don't know, kicking someone? - that would be my outrageous, unjustified decision and my fault). But if someone wants to *think* that I'm a "threat", sure they obviously have every right to that thought (though I don't understand it). What sucks? It doesn't matter what people think about me.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Ladies why do you think we don't see healings today like in the days of Jesus ??
People often imagine that the best thing would be for as many of life's problems as possible to be ended now. But to quote William Lane Craig (who I recommend, in case anyone reading this is unfamiliar), we aren't just Go'd's "spoilt pets" - in fact the ultimate good is that the maximum number of people freely choose to come to Him, and He knows how to optimise this. While we might think that God would want to stop all illness right now, in fact He knows that the existence of illness can be a part of some people's journey in ultimately turning to Him (it has been for me), and consequently finding eternal life (incomparably more time without illness - and with unimaginable joy instead).
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Feeling sick to my stomach due to reading Daily Mail news on the phone App,I'm worried sick cause it's saying we'll be all dead before Christmas This Year due to Nuclear WW3....don't know whether it's worth buying Christmas gifts and a tree incase this nightmare does actually happen.
I'm habituated to referring to it as The Daily Fail. Why read it?
Seriously, it's really good to read news from a wide range of sources, but The Fail is one of the least worthy of your time. It's notoriously inaccurate, more than the other papers.
Buy a second hand reusable tree, and gifts from charities where possible. But why would whether or not the world is about to end change this?
I don't worry. Jesus tells us not to (and as your husband says, it can't change anything). In fact we're safer than people in so many other parts of our world, so I'm concerned for them and grateful to personally be in Britain.
I think it's very plausible there'll be catastrophe in my life time (I can't have kids, though I think about the younger generation nonetheless) - it's also possible (though unlikely) I could be hit by a car or struck with terminal cancer. Worrying won't help - but I'm wondering what I can do for God either way. Whether people are about to be wiped out by nuclear weapons tomorrow, or they live into their 90s, they need to know Jesus. Life here will end for everyone one way or another - but Jesus offers eternal life to those who choose to truly turn/commit to Him. How can we be used to nudge people in His direction?
FTR, in the OT, when life is cushy for people of Israel, they turn away from God - then life increasingly sucks and they turn back to Him again. This is a pattern. And it's evident in our world today. I suspect that the fact things around us are causing worry could contribute to some people re-examining God (having otherwise ignored Him) - and ultimately finding eternal life they were otherwise missing out on.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
 Isaiah 40:31 - "But they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint."
Apparently, part of the context for this is that eagles grew new plumage
didn't know that
I only happened to discover it in a Bible study. It makes me wonder how much about the Bible I'm not fully aware of because of the hidden meaning in the context. So much Bible teaching only takes the text at face value - we can miss things that God was communicating to the audience at the time.
 
 
I am SO disgusted by the Express for this. It is, of course, an utterly idiotic attempt to criticise Labour - it's just some of Overseas Aid budget, which has rightly existed for many years, it's not a new policy to coincide with the change in inheritance tax for UK farmers. But more importantly, they're implying that it's wrong for what is a tiny £amount of public spending to go towards some of the most effective help for some of humanity's most disadvantaged people. The Express wants some human beings to starve to death whilst some Brits with £millions pass on their assets tax-free.
Our country (which *receives* far more wealth from the developing world than we give in Aid) should be giving far MORE to help the world's poorest farmers - but also take serious action to stop our corporations from exploiting some of them/their regions.
 

There's constant debate about levels of taxation, and of spending on different public services (and I'm obviously not denying that those should be discussed) - but surely a fundamental factor in the nation's deterioration is that more and more of the money is being siphoned off by contractors with private investment?
 
 
Corporations are greedy - surely there's a need for legislation? (Even more so for the human beings in less wealthy countries who suffer in the supply chains of things we buy)
So far as I'm aware, KFC is barbaric in its slaughter process also(?) All corporations should be forced to minimise suffering or be shut down.
 
 
Why the hair transplant? Hair loss is a male trait.
FTR, those who are gender critical aren't bemoaning all cosmetic procedures, which are not the same thing as transitioning from one's genetic sex to an appearance of the opposite.
 
 
Our culture is largely to blame for teaching young people that they should have sex as soon as they feel like it.
 
 
The Mirror seems to mostly spout pointless celebrity gossip and clickbait anyway. Then again even you, Guardian, rarely platform the world's most severe injustices, I despair of the supposedly Left wing press.
You must be a nitwit who can't find her way to the Guardian news website, then. Injustices are reported every single day.
I'm perfectly capable of that, thankyou - the issue is not whether I can access information, the issue is what's being platformed to the public broadly, and *what isn't*. I can read about whatever I want to - but there needs to be awareness raised of the world's poorest people, yet the Guardian is more interested in using its platform to share articles about luxury products, celebrities and sex anecdotes.
 
 
FTR, It's actually Jesus who matters, not institutions (and He spent a lot of time arguing with "religious" leaders who were only interested in power rather than following God). 
The disgusting evil of paedophilia needs a tougher society wide strategy. Christianity itself abhors perversion and harm of children - in contrast to some other worldviews (such as those of preceding Western civilisation)
I'm not religious but was raised in a quasi-christian home. I think if Jesus were around now I think he'd have something to say about all the money being held in Catholic and Protestant bank accounts.
What do you mean by "religious"?
I don't believe in a figurehead "god" and I don't believe in the need for organised worship for good people to emerge. I'm an agnostic atheist, which for me is someone who doesn't believe in God but can't prove he or she doesn't exist. I'm spiritual in the sense of understanding the connection between all things in the universe.
That's really interesting - apologies if I seem like I'm arguing (I'm not, I'm intrigued), why do you believe in spirituality but not a Creator? (I used not believe in God myself, but eventually found that much within science suggests there must have been a Designer - but I don't *feel* instinctively spiritual).
It's certainly the case that people can be good without "organised religion" (and human organisations can become terrible when greedy and power hungry people use them for their own ends) - though it's also true that many Churches have helped people to become more forgiving/caring/generous as well as providing community connection and charity work.
And you're right, Jesus would be very angry about some aspects of Churches if He were walking the Earth right now. I wonder if the C of E might ultimately dissolve - that might not be a bad thing.
well, there's a lyric in the Sound of Music (bear with me), "nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could", and I am pre-disposed,on the grounds of logic, to accept the idea of a designer or creator because the Big Bang Theory raises the question of 'what came before?'. Nothing from nothing is simply not logical. What I *don't* believe in is a creator who listens to his creations (ie prayers). A creator of this planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, would have created and moved on. And 'creation' would mean bringing all the elements needed for the creation of life together and letting it happen. As to my spirituality, I feel strongly that at various times in my life I have been given what I needed at that time, that I have been consistently "lucky". You might attribute that to a benevolent God, I would say it feels more like gifts from Mother Nature (Gaia) and/or the Universe. I thank the Universe daily for the things I have and for the beauty of nature. I never ask for things for myself and I never complain "why me?". I see an ambulance flashing its blue lights and I say "be well" to the patient. That's my kind of spirituality. And yes, like everyone else, I'm an imperfect being
I think the song lyrics make far more sense in the context of the universe existing than they actually do in the film. Good things can happen to people in life even if they've not "done something good" "somewhere in their youth or childhood" (and I believe that Jesus offers us something we haven't earned) - but as you say, the universe existing suggests an entity caused the Bang. I'm also struck by how molecular processes within biology are so interdependent (suggesting that evolution couldn't have happened by chance alone, it required direction), and that "The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God. Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological and cognitive—to be what they are" (TIME magazine's summary of a phenomenon observed by the physics community). So I think we agree to some extent - yet I'm unsure why one would presume that "A creator...would have created and moved on" (why would the entity necessarily move on?); and that "gifts" are instead from Gaia(?) But apologies again, I probably seem annoyingly argumentative! And I'm really interested by what you've written, so thankyou 
Part of the reason some of us believe in a God who hasn't moved on is because of Jesus, but I know it could appear that the miraculous things He did (esp the resurrection) seem unrealistic (I've tended to feel this, I can't get my head around anything supernatural - but I figure that the Creator who instigated the laws of nature can override them - and I found the history around the accounts of Jesus compelling) - and selfish individuals within Church institutions have led to resentment of the whole of "Christianity" (ironically, those individuals have not been emulating Christ, and most people who resent Christianity still like Him).
 
 
Lots of discussion yesterday about Ed Sheeran objecting to Band Aid on account of concerns it perpetuates a "white saviour" narrative - but if a white person gives to help starving people in Africa (and it's indeed erroneous for anyone to imagine that Africa is a homogeneous land of ubiquitous starvation - however there *is* horrendous need in various regions of the continent https://www.redcross.org.uk/.../africa-hunger-crisis-100...) it does not render them a saviour at all, it's simply a logical thing to do given injustice of wealth distribution (and these injustices themselves need addressing also - the continent should not require charity, but it continues to be plundered in spite of colonialism *supposedly* ending https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...)
"Do they know it's Christmas"? Yes, in fact a far greater proportion of folk in Africa know The *actual* Saviour, who is the real meaning of CHRISTmas. Contrary to the song, it's not about snow, bells or raising a glass (nice as all these things can be). In our household at Christmas, for as long as I can remember, we've listened to an album by The African Children's Choir, and at one point several children talk about their experience of Christmas. One line that sticks in my mind is "if you visit Uganda on Christmas morning, you will see great joy" - her family celebrate, wearing their best clothes, but they don't have all the consumerism we do, their joy is The Saviour who the children on the album sing about.
 
 
Ed Sheeran agrees, “My approval wasn’t sought on this new Band Aid 40 release
There *is* some severe poverty within parts of the continent https://www.redcross.org.uk/.../africa-hunger-crisis-100... (as well as plenty of variation), that's not "dehumanising" or "undignified", impoverished people have no less dignity or humanity. But banks and corporations in our country and others of the developed world are grossly exploiting the continent https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor..., and that needs to end, rather than there only being "charity". And of course, all Aid should be planned in partnership with recipient communities, it must be about what they themselves actually most need.
I'd concur that the re-release of Band-Aid does not look good. So far as I can see from its site there's nothing about supporting/platforming those in need (such as those currently affected by conflict in Ethiopia or Sudan), it looks as though it's a vanity project (I hope I'm wrong).
We shouldn't refrain from donating to the *world's most disadvantaged* people, it doesn't make us "white saviours", it's simply the right thing to do (and £ for £, it can have a massive impact).
 
 
Some of the world's poorest people are already affected by the harm to harvests/diminished water supplies/worsened "natural" disasters... but our country largely ignores them (even though we could help).
It's odd how certain pundits bemoan younger adults not having babies whilst simultaneously disregarding the ways the planet is being made unliveable for those potential babies' futures.
 
 
This is utterly tragic. But, The Mirror, a suit is not deadly, evidently they were suffering from depression. And you aren't helping nor respecting this person by turning their death into gossipy clickbait that you know people will argue over or even mock.
 
 
Whilst this guy is bonkers, it shouldn't be the case that food corporations exploit people's instincts (to eat lots of calories) just so that other corporations can also profit by selling weight loss drugs


Why does The Guardian do more to promote materialistic capitalism than to promote awareness of some of the most significant issues in our world?
 

Years ago, she was an advocate for World Vision International - which actually does make an amazing difference for some of the people in the very greatest need. Now it feels like her interest is ultimately in self promotion. But how about the tabloids give less attention to her and more to those who deserve our concern like the children we can help via World Vision?
 
 
No, the text doesn't specify that every *species* that exists now was present. The word better translates as *kinds* of animals, and there'll have been speciation since. Of course, plenty of Bible scholars think that the flood wasn't *Global*, so animals on much of the planet weren't part of the equation.

 
How does Clarkson think our country can improve whilst multimillionaires like him (I'm not referring to actual farmers) are hoarding so much more wealth than they need? And how can he pretend to be on the side of real farmers when he's buying up farmland to dodge tax, preventing them from expanding?
Meanwhile, there are farmers in poorer parts of our world - some of whom we rely on for things we buy - in incomparably greater need than people here, yet our media and politicians ignore them whilst multinational corporations exploit them. If Clarkson genuinely cared about struggling farmers, he'd also be using his platform to call for Fairtrade and an end to the oppression of those who provide our tea, cocoa, coffee, bananas and more - but in reality this^ is about publicity for him. 


Though in Empire ended in one sense, corporations and investors based here and in other wealthy countries continue to grossly exploit formerly colonised countries.
 
 
There are still people starving in our world - despite the fact that a lot of progress has been made, and our donations can make an enormous difference £ for £. But it looks like "Band Aid" has become about nostalgia rather than the cause.
Band Aid was monumental 40 years ago. Its anniversary should absolutely be celebrated. We live in different times now, as regards what people think is acceptable but what everyone needs to remember is the intention behind the song was simply to help. Not be a "white saviour" or anything else that it's been criticised for. It was just to help. Unfortunately in today's world, too many people find something wrong with nearly everything. It's really sad
I agree that the aim was to help, and that the "white saviour" attack is erroneous (it's also, ironically, very patronising - what right do Westerners have to decide on behalf of folk in Africa that they shouldn't be offered help?). I'm just sad that there doesn't seem to be an effort to help now.
 
 
Jordan Peterson ..on the most grandiose of subjects: God. But as he’s neither a theologian nor....
Indeed, he doesn't quite understand God. But much of our culture had otherwise been even more clueless about Him (God, that is), particularly following the fallacies of New Atheism, mistakenly thinking that He was somehow disproven by science etc.
And Peterson encouraging people to tidy their rooms etc is really not as nefarious as his critics want to make out.
It isn't proven to exist by science either, so It can be ignored until It is
What do you think science is?
"systematic study of the structure & behaviour of the physical & natural world with observation, experimentation, & testing theories against evidence"
You mistakenly think science has proven God is real. Your definition of atheism is wrong: atheism doesn't require saying God is disproved by science. It only requires saying it hasn't (& likely won't) prove It either
"Systematic study of the structure of behaviour of the physical & natural world through observation, experimentation & testing of theories against evidence" - right, so it's redundant to object that it's not "proven" God, God is not a feature of the physical and natural world (like an artist is not trapped inside their painting).
No, I certainly didn't state that that definition proves God to be real, nor that atheism *requires* believing God is disproven by science. You seem to be arguing with what you *imagine* I think.
it's not redundant. If God botherers demand we believe a thing as preposterous & contradictory as the existence of God (an Omniscient, Omnipotent, all good being that's not to blame for allowing sins It knows we'll do before birth, & punishing us with eternal suffering), prove it with science 1st. Otherwise, don't brainwash kids, don't nag people to worship, don't kill non-believers
Don't lie, you DID explicitly accuse atheists of thinking God was disproven by science in your OP. Wisdom is acting as if God is fake unless It's proven real, that's not saying It's proven fake
You've missed the point I'm making, read it again.
why waste time dwelling on a God if it's not a feature of the physical & natural? There's literally no purpose
You think that understandings a comment you've replied to has no purpose?
Anyhoo, "physical and natural" don't define *purpose*. But why did you choose to *waste time* starting this argument?
Bye - in all seriousness, have a good day
your comments assign purpose to something without purpose. Physical & natural are a required part of defining "purpose". You must wake up & realise it. Your comments also involve lying about the intent of atheists. There definitely is useful purpose in stopping the potential PHYSICAL harms that may result from you doing so
No, it was you who brought up purpose
you implied it by publishing lies about atheists
No, I didn't lie about atheists nor imply anything about purpose
you explicitly said "the fallacies of New Atheism mistakenly thinking that He was somehow disproven by science." A lie about atheists implying many things about your positive view of something pointless, a view that itself is not pointless but the something it regards is
It's not a lie that the New Atheism movement perpetuated the misapprehension that science has disproven God. And I don't know why you think you can determine what is "pointless" or has "purpose", nor why you're bringing that non sequitur up - particularly as you're choosing to waste time on this futile argument.
I don't know why YOU think you can pronounce how atheists think about the God myth. The argument isn't futile unless your mind is closed to the possibility your proselytising about God is wrong. The only thing that is futile is letting God myths effect your life, but religious people insist on inflicting such effects on atheists
"why YOU think you can pronounce how atheists think"? It's been very evident that some people, amidst the New Atheism trend, have thought this, they've said as much in plenty of conversations I've had. I didn't claim to know how all theists think.
"isn't futile unless your mind is closed" - LOL really? You think your comments should be convincing me to abandon the rationale I have for believing in God? Why? And let's say you did - what would be the actual point? How would you have benefitted?
I shouldn't be asking, this whole thread is a waste of time - and again, I don't know why you started the argument, particularly whilst apparently being worried about pointlessness. Let's each do something more purposeful with our afternoon.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group) 
I hate to be controversial, but I really disagree. It presumes that "want" is right, which is very much the ideology of our consumerist culture - but in reality what we want isn't always what's actually best. We *need* to be saved, even though, in our pride, we may not feel that we *want* it.
"Wants to be loved" is ambiguous, since "love" means such conflicting things in our setting (in the Bible's original texts, are were different words for these different concepts). Ultimate love is that Jesus gave Himself for us - Agape, self sacrificial love - but often we feel that we want "love" in the sense of approval.
The statement presents a false dichotomy. We absolutely should, indeed, have and practice love for those around us! But if we actually do love our neighbours in our hearts, we'll also desperately want them to know Jesus. We need to seek God's guidance in how to point them towards Him, since it's all too easy to be misunderstood or to forget to emulate Jesus.
And we must remind ourselves that He saves, not us. We may not see "the world change", we might not see people may not come to God, but His timing is not ours and the point is not what we get to observe - we could be used by God as a part of a person's lifelong journey towards Him.
 
I mean no disrespect to the individuals themselves, but I'm so sick of Drag being everywhere. It's mocking us - women - as much as plenty of people seem not to have realised.

 
(in Unbelievable Facebook Group)
If it actually matters to the Christian God what we believe, why did He let Islam develop and spread? It seems a bit incompetent.
-He doesn't stop everyone from choosing what to believe, Islam is an erroneous belief like atheism etc.
-People don't convert to Islam from being committed to Christianity.
-There are plenty of testimonies of people growing up in Islam, but then discovering The Gospel and being overjoyed by the contrast.
Your second point is false. It happens everyday. Your rebuttal might be to point to your modifier “committed”, but you are not in a position to judge those hearts and minds and commitment prior to converting. It would be true to say that their commitment lessened over time. It would be important to learn the stories about WHY rather than issuing a broad proclamation like that.
No, it's not false. But feel free to provide evidence.
You made the claim. Burden is on you. I will say that I know actual humans that have converted from one religion to another including from Christianity to Islam.
No, there's not a "burden" on me, you're the one who decided to argue. And I don't know how you expect me to prove something that doesn't happen.
I didn’t decide to “argue” as you’re using the word, I decided to refute a false claim of which I have first hand knowledge. This group doesn’t accept dogma as fact unchallenged.
You haven't refuted, that would mean actually showing my statement to be wrong. You've simply stated that you disagree, which you're free to do, but I didn't ask.
I gave you my personal testimony (that thing you referenced in your first comment) of first hand knowledge that conversions do happen. You must have missed that part. Twice.
So, to sum up, you don’t want to believe it so your response is “Nuh uh”. Ok cool.
You already implied that the people you're referring to weren't actually committed Christians anyway. I'm not sure why you think that a person simply referring to themselves as Christian proves your point.
You think Wikipedia is a reliable source RE people's commitment to Jesus?
well, with your claim that NO ONE ever converted from Christianity to Islam, I figure the odds are pretty good out of the couple hundred that Wikipedia caught at least one of them right. With a broad sweeping statement like yours, it's pretty easy to dispel. You want me to dive deeper into one of them? Because that's all it would take to refund your absurd claim.
I didn't say "no one ever".
"People don't convert to Islam from being committed to Christianity."
And your next point was about plenty of people converting the opposite way.
So plenty of people converting both ways. If you deny one, but proclaim the other, your bias is showing.
It's not "bias", it's what's happening.
 
 
You won't convince any abortion supporters with that, unfortunately. And we should be most concerned about *that* - ie, people rejecting God is the biggest tragedy and we should give it more thought.
The more that wider society thinks opposition is based on the Bible, the more people will both refuse to listen to pro-lifers and resent Christianity (for imposing). The only way wider society can be won over against abortion before people have come to God is through demonstrating the humanity of the unborn.

 
They aren't causing anything like the suffering that many people in formerly colonised countries endure, and those people are too often overlooked.
But yes the estates you refer to are an injustice. The land should be gradually returned to public ownership.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with people who misappropriated "religious"institutions for power and weren't actually following God. And in the letters to the first Churches, they're severely reprimanded. The media loves scandals, and Jeremy Vine on Channel 5 has just been asking if we've "lost our faith" in the C of E - but our faith is not in the C of E, our faith is in Jesus (who, FTR, is the reason that our society came to understand abuse to be wrong, see the work of historian Tom Holland).
And whilst there's a tonne of finger wagging at Welby today, I'm conscious that whilst his dereliction of duty has been wholly, despicably unacceptable, I myself have sinned and need Jesus.
Yes, people refer to the Church but don't understand that it's Jesus we worship. We have all sinned of course but to carry on doing the same sin for 13 years and as head of the Church, he should have remembered who he is answerable to. He's let so many down, it's very sad for all.
"A bishop then must be blameless" (1 Timothy 3:2)
There's forgiveness on offer to Welby through Jesus, but he should have resigned sooner.
 
 
How ‘woke’ Welby was undone
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with people who misappropriated "religious"institutions for power and weren't actually following God.
NB, this is not about "wokeness"
Jesus wasn’t even a historical person.
Why do you think that? Historians don't. https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...
Read Richard Carrier. Actual non befuddled historians think him even being a real person is 1 in 12.
There is not one ounce of proof. Not an ounce. There’s no god, Buddy.
I'm well aware of the conspiracy theorist Richard Carrier, he's attained plenty of attention for himself with his bizarre claim, but actual historical scholarship doesn't dispute that Jesus existed. See linked article.
To say "There is not one ounce of proof" simply demonstrates not being aware of the historical texts and also being unwilling to conceive of historical information that one doesn't like existing. And to say "There’s no god" in this context demonstrates the confusion of not understanding that Jesus was a historical person whatever one believes about God.
But apologies if I seem argumentative. Have a good day.
 
 
If the fashion industry cares at all about "purpose" it should tackle the horrendous exploitation of workers in poorer countries who create so much of what people end up wearing (and the damaging waste created by the throwaway fast fashion culture that's developed)
 
 
Guardian will no longer post on Elon Musk’s X from its official accounts
Facebook is no less evil, so if you're quitting Twitter why are you here?
IMO you shouldn't quit either, doing so enables the worsening of the echo chamber problem that's fuelling the madness and hate in society.
 
 
Whilst this is funny, the reality is that some people in Africa (though there's huge variation, by no means is everyone in the continent impoverished) who have to wear what we throw away, because of poverty. When I visited, I remember one child wearing a very old Gay Pride festival T-shirt. We should talk more about need and injustices beyond our own nations - and we can make a difference.
 
 
Significant progress has been made in reducing the proportion of people in our world who are starving, but there's still more to do (and far more money comes TO the developed world FROM the developing world than is given in Aid https://gfintegrity.org/.../new-report-on-unrecorded.../). It's remarkable how much impact we can have, £ for £ https://www.marysmeals.org.uk/campaigns/double-the-love.
 
 
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus specifically commands care for those who *aren't* of the same heritage as oneself
 
 
Trump Signals That He’s Serious About Mass Deportation
“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners" Exodus 22:21
Etc etc
And note that, when Jesus tells us to love our neighbours, He goes on to explain that that specifically includes people *from elsewhere*
 
 
(in Theology for the Thinking Believer Facebook Group)  
Don’t waste Jesus on hate. 
Thr bible is clear that God hates a liar; he hates pride and the shedding of innocent blood. If we hate those that perpetrated these, then we are in good company.
You didn't reference hating *sin*, you referenced hating *sinners*. You misquoted the text, it doesn't say that God hates those *people* (also, we are not entitled to hate on the basis that God does, we are not God).
If we hate other *people* for their sin (rather than hating the *sin* itself) we're not thinking enough about the sins in our own lives that we need to confess and seek God's help in overcoming.,
 
 
Donald Trump is an unsavoury man, but he may be America’s best bet in protecting Christian values
LOL, what? How does he either personally employ or encourage Christian values?
Most concerningly, because he's waved a Bible around etc, he's DETERRING some people from Christianity. We need to tell the world that he's NOT anything to do with Christ.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
 [New Christian, struggling with conservative Christians RE sexuality, abortion, assisted dying]
Some Christians put far too much of their focus on these issues. God *does* give humanity guidelines prohibiting sex outside of straight marriage and against killing - and He *loves* humanity(and has infinitely greater wisdom than us). But ALL of us have done things contrary to His guidance and all are loved and offered forgiveness and salvation through Jesus if we choose to truly repent and turn to Him. We need to concentrate on first and foremost.
It's SO awesome that you're developing a strong relationship with God! Please don't let less important topics, or flawed Christians (we're all flawed! Jesus isn't) deter you.
 
 
Russell Brand -  The Bible is full of information that is beyond relevant. It is the essential molecular document that helps you to understand why you’re finding reality so difficult.
There's much in it that needs an understanding of the original text and context
But yes, it's endlessly meaningful
 
 
"Christian nationalism" is an oxymoron. What you have is a problem of politics in America misappropriating "religion" for the sake of egos and power - and such misappropriation is an issue Jesus argued against in His time.
 
 
What is he waiting for?
NB - Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with religious authorities (knowing that some of them were simply using religious institutions for power, not following God) - so although there are/have been many great religious figures, those who've not actually lived out His commands shouldn't be conflated with Jesus, and yet so many people ignore Him in part because they resent the Church. Welby needs to recognise that he's deterring people from exploring Christianity by remaining in post.
 
 
I'm so sorry if this seems disrespectful, obviously RIP Liam Payne - but why has there been so much more coverage of this one death than of the countless thousands in Sudan?
people can care about two things at once.
That doesn't answer the question. And there *isn't* care being shown about 2 things.
there is. The deaths in Sudan are being covered. But they can't show this much coverage for each individual simply because it's not know who each individual is. Unfortunately they're covered in one lump sum. They cover more with the Payne incident as new information arises. They don't need to do that with Sudan because, as horrible as it is, everyone already know how they died.
But again, they are being given far, far less coverage, even as a "lump sum" than Liam Payne. When did you last see Sudan commented on on the news or online (without looking it up)?
That you think everything going on is as simple as "everyone already know how they died" proves my point, it's not being covered.
yesterday. And no it doesn't prove your point. We know it's not that simple. But what more would you like them to do?
Yesterday? I didn't see that (and I follow news way too much), where was that? But if you did I'm glad. Obviously what I'd like them to do is cover it more, as I've written I've seen way, way more coverage of Lia Payne (RIP).
I want the world's most disadvantaged people not to be so overlooked, because the fact they are implies that people don't regard as being as fully human as ourselves; and the lack of attention means few people donate or call on politicians to act.
if you're only following one news outlet such as the BBC and not reading other newspapers etc you won't see it. I understand that the BBC is the biggest news outlet in the UK but there are other news sources.
Yikes no, I follow all the news outlets I can.
whenever I go onto the main page of Google on my phone where it shows trending stories there's always at least one on mine. 
I'm not sure what you're getting at
well you're saying it's not covered but I'm seeing coverage daily in my main news feed on my phone.
I commented on a post by the BBC, I'm asking them about their coverage. But there's also far, far more about Liam Payne than about Sudan from other outlets.
 
 
Let the 'woke-fest' commence
Woke actually refers to awareness of injustice (as much as some people haven't bothered to learn this and instead use it to refer to anything associated with progressivism, including some nonsensical ideas). At CHRISTmas we remember Jesus coming to Earth - and He absolutely called for the victims of societal injustices to be cared for (contrary to typical worldviews at the time)
Peter worrying about non-white people on screen is irrational.
Thank you I am sick of people using this word as if it’s something negative
I'm sorry, it must feel so hostile hearing so many ignorant people using a word with this history as a pejorative. I think most don't realise the meaning in what they're saying - but they should be less thoughtless.
 
 
I'm more concerned about typical people who suffer home burglaries, and those elsewhere in our world who suffer amidst the trade in gems that she collects
 
 
I wish we cared about the exploitation of labourers in the cocoa supply chain at least half as much as we care about changes to product shapes or sizes.
 
 
Politicians who are *supposedly* on "The Left" have become too focussed on social liberalism rather than improving life for the economically disadvantaged (not that I myself think Trump will actually do the latter, of course)
 
 
LOL what? You think opposition to abortion is about "men's feelings"? Honestly that's hilarious
they have to pretend to believe that because acknowledging the actual reasons people are against abortion makes abortion look like what it is - indefensible.
I think it's the issue on which the media is most biased (ie, whereas other issues have different perspectives represented by different media outliers, abortion is pretty universally supported) - perhaps in part because they have a vested interest. Sex sells, so the media is wedded to perpetuating the idea that the results can simply be erased,
 
 
IMO what was really heroic was him bringing up the tragedy in Sudan recently in parliament. Lots of people criticise Trump (not wrongly), few people pay any attention to suffering if it's happening within any part of Africa.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group) 
deliverance minister ...says he doesn't think the demonized believers can inherit God's kingdom....neurodivergent and have disabilities mental and physical..scared I will forfeit my salvation. 
Who told you that neurodiversity or mental ill health are demons?
considered to be demons in many churches
This is just not true. The Bible does NOT say that illness=demons and it does NOT say that we need to be delivered of these things to be saved. Salvation is through Jesus. And keep in mind Paul's thorn in the flesh.
I'm wondering what you mean by "many Churches" (though I'm certainly not looking to argue with you or criticise you!), I've not heard this from Churches or legitimate preachers.
(FTR, I also have a diagnoses that renders me neurodiverse, as well as an ongoing eating disorder)
Our brains, like other body parts, can malfunction - but God can work all things for good.
ED thing is difficult because people say gluttony is a sin and I worry that I won't be forgiven
I get that eating disorders are difficult - I'm continually torn between feeling guilty for not getting over it, and knowing that it's not really a choice (NB, eating disorders are the result of the brain's circuitry, such as the dopamine reward pathway, not working correctly).
"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I admit that the law is good. In that case, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. And if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." (Romans 7 15-20)
We need to keep on clinging to God, confessing sin and seeking His help. He loves us despite our imperfections - and for some people for whom things in life are seemingly easier, there can be a tendency to forget God, whereas our weakness reminds us that we continue to need Him.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
Sometimes God allows awful rulers as a way to teach people something. But whatever one thinks about Trump, we know that God is ultimately in control.
I think that as Christians in a nation that's pretty clueless about Christianity, we need to relay the message to those around us that whilst there are plenty of Trump fans on our screens endeavouring to link Christianity with Trump ("Jesus is my Saviour, Trump is my President" flags, etc etc), in fact Trump is antithetical to Jesus. I worry seeing the word "evangelical" begin to appear in our media, to refer to staunch political positions similar to Trump's rather than anything whatsoever to do with *The Evangel* (which people here in Britain barely know).
I am, of course, horrified by certain positions of the Democrat party - but we need to make clear to those around us that, even if a Christian concludes Trump was the better option (I'm really not criticising either set of voters), Jesus calls people to a very, very different attitude from that which Trump espouses. And certain fans of Trump's (like some fans of the celebrities who endorsed Kamala Harris) do need to think again about how only God deserves worship.
Is Trump that bad? I think he does a lot of good no one talks about
I followed him on Facebook (before he was kicked off) to see his own words (conscious that media can be an imperfect representation), I was sickened by his arrogance and hatefulness. It's wholly contrary to how Jesus teaches us to be. And things he's said since suggest he's not changed.
Some of his policies are disastrous - I'm particularly concerned about how he'll worsen climate change (both be increasing America's carbon emissions, and prompting the leaderships of other countries to row back on reducing emissions also) which is exacerbating the suffering of some of the world's poorest people, who God calls us to care for.
"America First" is Nationalist selfishness - it goes without saying that a politician will put their voters first, but that slogan filters down and encourages people to disregard those elsewhere - whereas Jesus, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, teaches that people of other nations are neighbours who we should love.
His deceitful claims about Black migrants eating pets (like his past description of the world's poorest countries as "sh*tholes*) plays into evil, braindead stereotypes that have led to the abuse of people of African heritage for centuries - and recently he said that migrants are "poisoning the blood" of the US, which is exactly what neo-Nazis think (apologies if I sound hyperbolic).
Of course, there's also his sexual infidelity and bragging about grabbing female private parts. As with his comments about folk from elsewhere, I worry not simply about the man himself, but about how these things being normalised will contribute to other people (such as boys who are impressionable) thinking it's OK.
And one could go on about the sexual assault he's been found guilty of, the corruption, etc etc...
My biggest concern is that some people who don't know much about Christianity associate him with it because of how he's got some Christians to fawn over him, and this deters people from exploring Christianity.
 
 
Donald Trump has suggested that God helped him secure his landmark US election win.
God works in mysterious ways.
(NB, I am *not* wishing Trump dead, but I think that God can sometimes allow leaders who are very, VERY flawed as part of His plan to teach us things, it doesn't mean that God approves of their behaviour)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Do any of you smoke or vape? I came across the question aimed at some Christians recently. The point was that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. 
I think that we shouldn't because it's means spending money that could be spent far better, and because it could lead to adding to NHS waiting lists and being less able to serve God (but I mean no disrespect to those who've become entrapped by these addictions! Corporations use addictive chemicals to exploit people).
However, I think that the verse about our bodies being temples of the Holy Spirit is misused - it's not about health. Whereas in the OT, God's presence was considered to be in the temple, we now have His spirit living within us. Paul, in writing the verse (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), is talking about how this should impact our behaviour, particularly RE avoiding sexual immorality - he's not talking about being healthy.
 
 
Trump has not brought about a reduction in abortions, and his disregard for the climate will lead to the deaths of other children. Most worryingly, his misappropriation of Christianity deters people from exploring it.
NB, politics is not just about voting, we need to write to our politicians.
you see i think climate change is real but if you read the bible it tells us how the world ends and it’s not global warming. We are running out of fossil fuels that’s correct but God knows how much fossil fuel we need .
We are to look after our planet yes but not to over worry as God is in control not the scientist
I'm not sure what you mean by "it tells us how the world ends and it’s not global warming". And this isn't only a matter of the world ending, some of the world's most disadvantaged people are suffering *right now*. Christian Aid and Tearfund are working with some of them. God calls us to care for the poor.
Indeed we don't need to be weighed down by worry, God ultimately has a plan (and I'd be utterly despairing, as younger people are, if I didn't know Him), but that doesn't mean that there's not suffering in our world which we're called to work against. Jesus called us, for instance, to help the sick, He didn't tell us not to bother because God of God being in control.
 
the climate has always changed and managed cannot change the climate only God can, so no matter how much of our money they throw at it, it's not gonna change a thing.
When did the climate last change as rapidly as it currently is? Seriously, there's no need for Christians to reject science.God hasn't prevented human beings from causing changes.
 
 
Would Trump be better?
As a Brit, more than anything else in politics I desperately wish our politicians cared more about people elsewhere in our world (many of them do to some extent, but they're under pressure to only show concern for their voters)
 
 
 
Yes, Jesus deserves to be first - but Trump's slogan is "America First", and his behaviour and attitude are antithetical to what Jesus taught.
I am, of course, horrified by some of Harris's positions (esp supporting abortion), but it's horrendous how Trump has tried to misappropriate Christianity.
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with people who tried to use "religion" for their own power, but who weren't actually seeking to follow God.
It is God's plan and God knows best!!!
He does indeed. Sometimes terrible rulers are part of His plan (and for the record, some policies of the Democrats are also terrible). As Christians, we need to keep trying to point people towards Jesus and following His guidance - and I think it's important not to let politicians hijack Christianity in the eyes of our culture that doesn't understand what Christianity truly is.
And as a Christian we need to start off with forgiveness in our heart and not be led by our personal feelings and emotions.
And your right about the hijacking! I have a feeling the whole thing was tactical however one of them had some very dark policies that targeted children and it is the children we need to protect at all cost.
God bless you
Yes - Trump has said some horrendous things that as Christians we should oppose, but it's also all too easy for opposition to motivated by resentment/tribalism/emotion that's not helpful. I said on LBC the other day (the discussion was about David Lammy previously criticising Trump) that I need to be aware of my own sin - if one spends too much of one's energy being angry with politicians, one might not be giving enough thought to this (and it's not constructive).
I share the concerns about the gender movement and abortion (I presume that those were what you were referring to) - even the trans person I know is passionately against what's happening to some children in the name of trans ideology. It can be difficult, in our acrimonious environment, to discuss this with wisdom - we need to make clear, particularly as Christians, that we don't disdain the *people* we disagree with themselves.
 
Jesus should be first 
I am a Christian in the UK so all the hype and circus of the US politics is a bit lost on me.
Praise the Lord that He is in control and all things work for His glory. May that give us all peace x
I follow what's going across the pond in part because many Christian speakers (and musicians are there) - but also because it has such a huge impact on our culture. Our society's attitudes have been hugely impacted by US media and corporations.
Most concerningly, the misappropriation of Christianity that goes on in the US is deterring people here (as well as there) from Christianity. In recent years I've observed "evangelical" being used here as a pejorative for some Right wingers - because people have mistakenly presumed its meaning on the basis of news they see about Trump's movement. I'm desperate to tell people what The Evangel actually is.
 
 
We're on Stolen Land
The violence that was done to native/indigenous Americans by settlers was evil beyond description. But I'm not sure "stolen land" is entirely accurate, the planet belongs to humanity.
Either way, history is not the fault of people alive today - but we should be addressing *existing* suffering and injustice. For instance, there are US corporations grossly exploiting people in some less wealthy parts of the world - why doesn't that get more attention?
 
 
Jesus saves - I desperately hope that there can be peace for those on both sides of the conflict, but the greatest thing will be for more hearts to turn to the Prince of Peace. If the nation of Israel were free of all violence and enemies, that would be wonderful in itself - but people would still be missing out on the greatest thing gift if they don't know Jesus.


In countries affected by imperialism, Western corporations exploit people and their resources - but I've not seen much concern about this from the Guardian nor the Democrats
(Obviously, this doesn't mean I support Trump)
 
 
Clarkson was branded a "wealthy landowner" who "cynically tries to hide behind a few small farmers" in the piece. 
Unjust distribution of land ownership is one of the UK's biggest problems (see also - recent coverage of the Royals' exploitation of the public through their assets).
On a tangentially related note, there needs to be justice for the *world's* poorest farmers, including those providing food we buy and those affected by the greed of Western corporations.
 
 
Trump victory boosts book sales from "The Handmaid's Tale" and "1984" to "Hillbilly Elegy"
Contrary to what is implied by protesters wearing Handmaid's Tale costumes, restrictions on abortion are not at all the same as rape and enslavement.
And there are girls and women in our world who are genuinely seriously disadvantaged - why aren't they given attention by those currently fulminating?
 
 
Unfortunately, the idiotic idea that white people are superior absolutely exists in our country, I see evidence often - but comments like Butler's are seriously unhelpful (and irrational)
 
 
It's up to them.
Personally I feel that having decorations up too long means I cease to find them as special, but other people can do what they like in their homes.
Ultimately, CHRISTmas is about Jesus - and He probably wasn't born in December, but what He offers us is worth celebrating all year round.
 
 
The Princess of Wales has shown a personal side to herself this year, opening up about her battle with cancer
Illness can lead to people thinking more deeply about life or having a new perspective, and realising that God exists.
For me, being unwell meant time stuck at home in which I ended up exploring debates between theists and atheists, and realising that the reasoning of academic theists is more compelling.
 

 Jeremy Corbyn
Labour's decision to raise tuition fees is a disgrace.
Government ministers might not be in Parliament today had they not benefited from free tuition. Now, they are lumping the next generation with even more student debt.
Young people deserve better. Abolish tuition fees now.
Because of cuts to Overseas Aid, there are young people in our world who can't even go to school (even though - per recipient - their education costs a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of education here)
 
 
And yet people presume that the time since the Earth began has been long enough for the molecular coding of the biological world (including us) to have come into existence by undirected chance alone...
 
 
They're both absolutely disastrous. I think Harris is the lesser evil (as much as I'm furious about her support for abortion and underage gender transition) - and my greatest concern is that the association between Trump and some Christians is a deterrent (from Christianity), particularly in places like our country where people know so little about Christianity (then observe Trump supporters with their "Jesus is my saviour, Trump is my president" merch, etc, and are in turn put off of Christianity given Trump's behaviour). My biggest political concern is that Trump will accelerate climate change, which is already devastating lives in some of the poorest parts of the world.
 
 
Being genuinely starving - seriously underweight as well as currently hungry - is a specifically awful experience. And the communities in our world facing famine are continually ignored by our media and politicians - yet we have the privilege of being able to make a remarkable difference, since the cost of meals for them is a tiny fraction of the cost of food here.
 
 
Why does the nation's supposed Left wing paper give more attention to fine dining than to the human beings in our world who are starving?
You're better off going to the site. They do seem to post a lot of 'lifestyle' stuff on facebook.
Indeed - but my concern is not only about what I can read - there's plenty online that I can access - my frustration is that The Guardian is choosing not to use its platform to raise awareness of the most disadvantaged and overlooked amongst humanity. The world's biggest injustices persist because populations of countries like ours forget about them, and our media facilitates this.
 
 
Whilst we rightly worry about the struggles of our NHS, many in Africa have incomparably less healthcare access than we do - low cost initiatives such as vaccines can make a huge difference
 
 
You really think that opposition to puberty blockers, or wanting to retain single sex spaces, are simply motivated by wanting to "ruining lives"? If so, you're very, very much in an echo chamber.
I concur that there needs to be more done to make health care and other support available to those in need. Capitalist greed is behind both poverty, and the hurrying of vulnerable young people onto trans pathways.
well what the bloody f**k do you think it is then? And don’t give me sh*t about protecting children. If you wanted to do that you would close the pedophile churches and reduce the guns in society.
When did I say I oppose action against pedophiles or guns? Were it up to me, both guns and the testicles of pedophiles would be eliminated from the world.
As I wrote, echo chambers - otherwise you'd know "what the bloody f**k it is".
And if you think pedophilia is a "Church" issue, I'm afraid you're much mistaken. It's tragically inevitable that perverts will choose enter institutions where they can access victims - that's included Churches (and Jesus repeatedly argued with others who misused religious institutions rather than actually following God), but pedophilia is a problem across human society.
 
 
How would it be feminist?
Our culture has conned people into thinking that sex is just a recreational activity (partly due to capitalism, sex sells), but this ideology is indeed damaging to so many people.
 
 
It's typical for people to presume that God is just mythology (perhaps in part because of all the examples of irrational spirituality we see around us and through history), without looking at the intellectual arguments for concluding that a Creator does in fact exist.
Which part of the God argument is believable the talking snake part or where god created himself from nothing just so humans can worship him 24/7 and if they refuse he has a special place called hell for us. If you believe that fairy story you need help.
You're proving my point. People are so *unaware* of theism, they don't even know that the beginning of Genesis is not considered literal by Christian academics.
I am aware enough that it’s all a load of nonsense since even after thousands of years of god claiming to exist not a single shred of evidence has ever been provided by so called theists.
Again, you're demonstrating that you've not explored the issue. How do you know there's "not a single shred of evidence"? Have you explored the writing/lectures of scholars who conclude that a Creator exists for yourself?
 
Notice how you use intellectual arguments, not factual ones.
Should one include all possible words in every Facebook comment? Is intellect objectionable to you?
One should realize you had to use intellectual arguments, because you know there is no factual argument….
Why didn't you answer my questions?
Why do you think I "know there is no factual argument"? Evidently, as I commented originally, you're basing your view on presumptions rather than reasoning/evidence.
Lol. Literally the opposite. I base mine on the facts. I don’t need to invent anything in my mind.
And since there are no facts…
There are plenty of facts supporting the existence of God, but the word doesn't need including in every comment as though one is insecure.
Really, that you won't answer my questions demonstrates that what's in your mind is what you've decided you want to be true and you won't explore reality.
 
 
Davey has tonnes of personal experience caring for vulnerable family members - too much of the public discussion has been people demanding supposed autonomy (& equating humans with dogs, etc), with too little deference afforded to those who have relevant insight.
And what of those with relevant insight who'd vote in favour ? Tough decision.
It is a tough decision indeed - but the polling shows that the more closely people have lived/worked/volunteered with dying and/or vulnerable people, the less supportive of Assisted Dying they are
I don't know Grace, I'm 70, been close to numerous family and friends, some who died slowly and in lots of pain, with no hope and lots more of the same. It's a discussion that needs to be had. I think the vote will be No but I'm inclined to be a Yes.
I'm so sorry.
The Doctors I've spoken to about this have said that pain relief is available and sometimes under utilised (and in Canada, provision of palliative care has worsened - seeing the country fall 11 places down Global rankings - since Assisted Dying was introduced), but I'm not disputing how difficult these situations can be.
Personally I'm worried about (the deaths and otherwise mental anguish/false guilt of) those who'll feel compelled to die once the option becomes available, having a lot of experience myself (and seeing other patients) having (because of one's mind) to do things that one doesn't actually want to or which are harmful to oneself. Real "choice" isn't accessible to everyone's brains, hence OCD, Eating Disorders, self harm etc.
I've often felt that I don't deserve to be alive - I believe that God might somehow have a use for me (as He does for everyone, including those who've lost their capabilities), but for those without this belief and/or depression, I really worry there could be a feeling that the option of Assisted Dying should be taken up once it's available. When I've starved myself etc, I've not really "chosen" to (and I don't think that those in my Eating Disorders units who've died chose to), but my mind determined that I *had* to (my Asperger's also makes me feel that I must do things, whether or not I want to - and there are increasingly many people on the Autistic spectrum and/or with OCD, etc). So the human brain can't always genuinely "choose", and when something is an option a person can feel inescapably obliged to do it.
And many people with disabilities have huge concerns about Assisted Dying, having felt/been made to feel a burden (have you seen the documentary Better Off Dead? 
 
He previously bemoaned the births of African people. It's the nature he likes - but it's human beings who actually ultimately matter. Many people on the African continent are impacted by wealth extraction by corporations from nations like ours https://gfintegrity.org/.../new-report-on-unrecorded.../ (and the instability that results), significant suffering could be mitigated if those with power in our part of the world cared more.
 
 
King Charles's brutal five-word dig at Church of England in never-seen-before letter
There are serious issues with the institution of the CofE - but it's Jesus who ultimately matters.
Granted, but the Head of the Church of England happens to be King Charles who must see to it as duty bound that the Church of England is properly managed. Is that not what Jesus expects from King Charles as the head of Church England as well as the rest of us? 
Absolutely 
I'm making the point in the context that most people reading this comments section aren't currently following Jesus, and many mistakenly lump together everything related to Christianity. Some people end up ignoring Jesus in part because of their resentment of Church institutions, so my point was simply in case someone reading might be nudged to think about Jesus Himself instead.
 
 
Charli XCX’s ‘Brat’ crowned word of the year by Collins dictionary
'New definition: “characterised by a confident, independent, and hedonistic attitude”.' New? It's close to the earlier meaning, only now our culture (secular and capitalist) increasingly celebrates hedonism and disregard for others.
Of course, I'm not criticising anyone for confidently strutting around, but it doesn't need celebrating - and hedonism isn't something to *aspire* to.
kids love to think they are inventing new stuff it’s aways just recycling. Bless their little hearts I’m sure we did too
Absolutely. Though Charli XCX is my age, we aren't kids anymore and we need to grow up 
I don’t even know who she is  I have heard of her that’s it, I’m way too old for it.
I try to have a rough idea of what's going on in charts, I don't listen to it much otherwise. I generally listen to modern Christian music (which sounds far more like chart music than like old hymns) because it has deeper meaning for me - but at least in previous decades there was a fair bit in the charts about real issues, now much of it is either endless bitterness with exes or bragging about fashion, bling etc. In the lead track from her Brat album, Charli XCX says several times "so stylish", sounding like a line from a Bratz doll advert (they were popular when we were kids), and as much as clothes interest me I just don't give a toss about someone feeling stylish
 
Ultimately, this is an exemplification of of culture's shift - whereas hedonism and disregard for others had long been considered negative, it's increasingly celebrated. Of course, part of what Charli XCX is doing is claiming a word used as a criticism as a mark of defiance, in the way that Queer is now being adopted by those against whom it was previously a slur or how some Black folk refer to one another using the N word. To the extent that she's declaring she doesn't care if people call her a brat, I have no issue - and if one wants to strut around confidently as is the primary theme of her video, fine. But the defiance in our culture upon which this draws is not exclusively against oppressive expectations of young women - and the reference to hedonism in the dictionary definition is particularly striking as a demonstration of the worldview shift from Christian values back to those of earlier civilsations.
 
 
Sure. Can we please also talk about how the parts of the world with the most melanin are the most exploited and brutalised *today* whilst being continually ignored (by our media, politicians, even most Corbynites), and about modern slavery?
 
 
He mentioned that our country had taken "Christian values" to other countries - to some extent this is true, but colonialism and enslavement are themselves wholly contrary to Christ's teachings. And whilst we are not responsible for evils perpetrated by past Britons, we are beneficiaries, and we should be doing far more to address *current* injustices, including unjust exploitative developing nation debt, modern slavery and extreme poverty in some parts of our world.
 
 
He pretends to be on the side of Christianity - but Christ teaches us to care for the needy from elsewhere, and climate change is hurting the world's poorest people, so Trump refusing to take it seriously shows yet again that he's a con artist.
 
 
Push for black and Asian soldiers’ input in world wars to be taught in UK schools
Absolutely!
On a side note, in addition to history (which comes up a lot ATM) we need more discussion about how *today* there are some Black and Asian people elsewhere in our world contributing labour to our lives in the 21st century, working hard (sometimes horrifically hard or even under enslavement) providing things we buy
 
 
Which is what exactly? Trick or treating is rooted in Druid priests going house to house demanding sacrifices from people, cursing them if they declined. Indeed capitalism is scary, but I'm not sure Halloween of the past is better.
Most made up statement of the internet today. Christian All Hallows or All Saints harvest festivals was being practiced before druids could write and were living in dirt holes. The only history you have is what Roman’s and Christian’s recorded and it still took them 600 years to teach them to write…
Made up? No, I've read it from multiple sources. And I'm well aware of Christians celebrating All Hallows, but Druidism existed here in Britain first (I'm thrilled that it was replaced by Christianity). Some Christian leaders tried to stop people from participating in the paganism by having All Hallows override pagan festivities at this time of year, but plainly paganism won out. It's also still a celebration for modern pagans.
 
 
#Budget Day...and on the subject of budgeting, it's remarkable what impact can be had when money is spent in certain ways.
A totally different Budget tangent - I was reminded earlier of an American Old Testament scholar I heard recently. She said that understanding some of the things that seem confusing (for instance, why didn't God prohibit "slavery"[?] though this was very different from what we now describe as slavery and more akin to employment) necessitates cognizance of the differing context. What seems objectionable to some people might simply be the norm in another setting. The setting was millennia ago in a very different part of the world. She drew an analogy using a less removed context, explaining that during news coverage she'd been shocked seeing some elected officials being very rowdy, but that this was obviously typical behaviour in its context - the news coverage she was watching was showing our House of Commons.

 
(in Theology for the Thinking Believer Facebook Group)  
Is the phrase “Jesus is Lord” a political or religious statement?
I personally find the word "religious" can refer to things that are detached from what Christianity is genuinely about, I'd prefer "theological". And it should be that - but some political actors are grossly (and blasphemously) misappropriating the phrase as a slogan for their tribalism (see also "Christ is King"), it's *horrifying*.
Of course, Jesus' teachings should absolutely influence our politics, and many of Western society's values and laws have His teaching as a foundation - but seeing people waving "Jesus is Lord" flags at Nationalist marches, or tweeting "Christ is King" as a substitute for telling opponents in an argument to F off, is an outrage.
 
 
I completely agree - but I wish we could also talk about more serious injustices against women and girls in our world. Sponsoring a girl in a developing country can transform a life, and is more significant than anything to do with sports, but the fact that such a girl might otherwise miss out on education and be obliged to get married is barely discussed.
Obviously I agree such behavior is terrible But it's not British people's responsibility to look after other people's kids and try to change their culture They haven't in hundreds of years. They arett going to now 
Why do you think that? Do you think that they're intrinsically different and less human than us?
In reality, where girls' education etc has been implemented, there's been remarkable progress.
The question is do you since you brought it up? Just cultural and religious differences in other countries That are not our problems to fix most British people, especially the younger generation Will most likely never be able to retire We have our own problems. We can't babysit others
"The question is do you" - do I what? You've not answered my question - and you seem to be making multiple erroneous presumptions
hey, I'm not the one who brought up the less human comment  As well as expecting British citizens to be The ones always paying for them out of some sense of superiority. Do you believe you hold The high ground over them What business is it of yours? What goes on in another country.
That you consider some people "less human" is the implication of your comment, I think you just haven't realised it (and you've not been able to explain otherwise)
What are you talking about? Are you off your medication  So because I believe British people shouldn't be paying or telling other people what they do in a different country means I believe they are less human No my dear, it's the opposite. I believe they can stand on their own two feet Like everybody else. Unlike you who clearly believes they are less.
It's not a matter of "standing on their own 2 feet" or not, they've been born into countries left with conflict and deficient infrastructure by injustices that meant we were born into comparative privilege.
Yes, it is. It's not for another country to help the population of another country  And absolute BS Europe has been through enough wars And most of them aren't even at war or have the problems of war It's just a cultural difference they have when it comes to women and men that will only change when they want it to change.
Why, because you say so? Again, they're just as human as us, they deserve food, clean water and shelter. And you're plainly ignoring swathes of history and political realities. But I don't know why you're so keen to argue, I'm not sure what you think you're achieving by turning strangers' comments into argument threads where you show off your disregard for others. I have other things to do.
 
 
Part of the reason is that the Tories have been giving ridiculous contracts to middlemen and contractors (and at least 1 hotel chain owner who's a Tory donor) https://archive.ph/ixuxa
 
 
Also, why has there been so little concern about our government (under the Tories) having cut Aid to the world's most disadvantaged people?
the IMF have already warned that our National Debt is increasing too fast and unless steps are taken to reduce borrowing then there is a likelihood of bankruptcy. Basically, we can’t afford to keep paying out to other countries other than our International obligations.
Aid is 0.5% of GDP (a chunk of which is spent in Britain), it's absolutely not the reason that the UK has debt (NB, all countries have debt, many other rich countries have a higher debt/GDP ratios than us and developing countries have to pay many, many times the interest rates that the UK does) - and £ for £, Aid can do far, far more than money spent here.
that doesn’t negate the fact that we must reduce the National Debt, reducing foreign aid is only one of the steps being taken to do that. If you were struggling financially would you take out a loan and then give it to others?
Reducing Aid hasn't reduced UK debt. And national debt is not equivalent to personal loans - but yes I would take out a loan to save lives.
well I’m just hoping you never enter Parliament with that attitude of seeing your own family go without in order to give to strangers. Any saving that the government can make in expenditure will obviously help the reduction, that’s just basic budgeting, but as you didn’t seem to understand the loan analogy that may not be one of your strengths.
As I wrote, the analogy is false.
So, I guess you think we should stop spending on the NHS, education, pensions etc? They cost many, many times more and make far less impact per £.
But ultimately, with all due respect, I didn't ask about whether you think I should be a parliamentarian nor about anything else. Bye.
 
 
The full interview of Archbishop Justin by Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart for their The Rest is Politics: Leading podcast
Welby was asked if he now has an answer (RE gay sex) -he said that he has, but then talked only about the PLF. He didn't actually answer, there was no explanation of WHY Christians (on either side of the debate) believe what we do, so observers will continue to think that those of us with an orthodox view are simply hateful (and that the Church has always been bigoted).
Ultimately our role is to point people towards God - I really wish that Welby had better utilised this opportunity to draw attention to The Gospel, which most of the podcast listeners likely seldom contemplate. People need to hear that whilst the topic of sex is very popular (it sells), there's actually a very different, far greater love available.
 
 
There needs to be more done on prevention, instead of the absurdity of some people bemoaning a "nanny state".
FTR, even with the struggles of the NHS,we have incomparably more healthcare access than much of humanity - but it's amazing how much impact we can have (particularly as compared to spending money here) when we give to organisations aiding the world's very most disadvantaged people.
 
 
Some of his bunch state that this is a "Christian country" (in fact being a *genuine* Christian means personally choosing to follow Jesus) - but Christ told us to love our neighbours.
as if "tommy" and his melts are practicing christians
Oh I know they aren't. But they foolishly misuse the word, and at the march (for "Tommy" on Saturday) some people were again misusing Christianity (such as on banners)
 
 
Catholics in Belgium demand to be ‘debaptised’ amid anger over clerical sex abuse
Utterly evil things have been done by some people who've used institutions to access victims - but they don't change Jesus (who commanded that we care for others, and who spent a lot of time arguing with people who misused "religion" for power grabbing).
Baptism shouldn't be about allegiance to an institution, it's a symbol of an individual's choice to genuinely follow Jesus, who died in our place.
 
 
"Christian Nationalism" is an oxymoron. Jesus said that we cannot serve 2 masters - those who are considered "Christian Nationalists" are not only showing, by failing to love their neighbours (note, neighbours, according to Jesus, specifically include people from *elsewhere*) that they aren't really following Christ, they're *also* making a false god of National identity.
not very familiar with the Old Testament are you?
Christianity means following Christ, not seeking to re-enact the Old Testament. And of course I'm very familiar with it, as well as how it's misinterpreted and misused.


No, it's never been Christian to designate Jewish people as “Christ killers”. But trust Al Jazeera to spout this kind of nonsense.
The first Christians *were* Jewish people.
Christ was crucified by the Romans, at the urging of some Jewish religious leaders, but that doesn't render *other* Jewish people responsible, each individual chooses their own actions. And Jesus died, ultimately, to take upon Himself the punishment our sin requires - it was humanity's evil that killed Him, not an ethnic group.
When some people who *claim* to be Christian have been hateful towards Jewish people, or any other ethnic group, they've actually been contradicting the definition of Christianity.
 
 
The main character discovers catastrophic issues amongst some fellow Mormons, and the history that enabled these issues (which shouldn't be a reason for disdaining other Mormon individuals) - and the happy ending - spoiler - is that he seemingly abandons belief. Why? Why might not such an individual instead change their relationship with God? That some human beings have a twisted concept of "religion" doesn't disprove God.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
[brought up a Christian...recently I have been struggling with faith]
I think that most of those of us who are raised Christian have to wrestle with what we believe at some point - and it can give us a deeper relationship with God and greater ability to do great things for Him in our secular society.
If you post in the group about some of the specific questions you have, some people might be able to point you towards some potential answers (there are also many great Christian websites tackling the difficult questions)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
YES. I am so sick of our culture saying that people can become or achieve whatever we want (in terms of careers etc), it's harmful nonsense (and obviously, what kids need is to look up to God, not just dream about amazing success in life)
I don't even think career is the problem, I think it's when you focus on other wordly things which go against God's will that's the problem.. our careers are vocations and gifts given from God
I'm certainly not saying that careers are a problem, and indeed vocations are important. My point is that the frequently espoused the idea that people will be able to have whatever career they want (or "you can achieve anything if you try" etc) is wrong, and unhelpful in multiple ways.
Many children want to be famous (and being a YouTuber - with enough viewers to earn an income - is now one of the most common answers when kids are asked what they want to be) - but there's not an unlimited amount of fame to go around (nor an unlimited number of places in football teams, film casts etc) - it's simply not logically possible for many people to become what they dream of. And the disappointment can hurt (I wasn't thinking about being famous etc, but contemplating the job I'd really thought I'd be able to do, and haven't, since I've messed up my life with an eating disorder, is painful) - as well as leading people to misuse a lot of time/energy (some children think that they don't need to do their best at school because they plan on being an influencer etc).
And more importantly, God has better plans than we do. Many people won't get to do/be what they want - but God has vital purposes for each person, just as much for those in the least glamorous or esteemed careers.

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
[depressed waiting for a husband] 
I've always been single and always will be. Occasionally I feel upset about that, but most of the time I'm enjoying the company of my family. Are you able to live with people who support you?
I have a relative who's gay (and Christian), so has chosen to always be celibate and single for that reason (though I know some gay Christians have opposite sex marriages for company) - they're now in their 70s and a very happy person. I know of other gay Christians following this path too, as well as straight singles at my Church - they have great friendships with other Christians that make up for not having partners (of course, one also avoids the stresses and restrictions involved in relationships - as Paul writes, one has more freedom to focus on other things, including doing exciting things for God, if one is single).
God may well have a spouse in store for you, and good reasons for the waiting period - but even if He doesn't, life can be just as awesome without.
 
 
He now claims to be a Christian, and perhaps he is - but genuinely becoming one doesn't only mean undeserved forgiveness through Jesus, it also means truly repenting.
you mean like all those pedophile Priests did (& continue to do)?
Nope. It's unfortunately inevitable that evil individuals seek to infiltrate existing institutions to attain what they want, that doesn't change anything about Jesus (who Himself spent a lot of time arguing with those who feigned religiosity for power grabbing)
In other News, ALL religions are man made, You believe in a bunch of fairy tales. You may as well talk about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
You realise I've seen that comment countless times, right? And I've thoroughly explored the arguments made by theistic and atheistic academics. So whilst I don't mind at all, why make the comment (which is, of course, fallacious, God is not at all equivalent to Santa etc)?
Yeah, you're right, because Santa does actually turn up!... and the Elves don't molest the Children!
I don't think you've researched it thoroughly enough.
So despite all the glaringly obvious plot holes (The fossil record, the solar system, the ludicrous creation story, Adam & Eve, the Nativity, Noah's Ark, etc, the list goes on and on.)..you still continue to delude yourself.
Oh my goodness, what do the solar system, the fossil record etc have to do with this? Evidently you've very much misunderstood Christianity.
Hahaha.... yeah that's me.. "totally misunderstanding" The Bible and Christianity. hahaha, meanwhile you believe there's an all seeing, omnipotent invisible man in the sky!
So you fail to see the FACT that the Dinosaurs existed and ruled the Earth for millions of years and yet there's absolutely no mention of any of that in "God's book"....didbhebjust forgetabout that in the whole..."in the beginning part?..similarly, the fact that the Bible stated that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system...(maybe you still believe that!), how could your all seeing "god" not know the orientation of the planets?
Other massive flaws, such as the FACT that civilisations all around the world all dreamt up their own (localised) religions, many of which flourished for thousands of years PRIOR TO WHEN some bloke dreamt up your particular variant...which again buggers up your "one god" nonsense.
Similarly how come no God Ever went global? again, because they are all man made.
These are the facts
Again, you're just demonstrating that you've seriously misunderstood Christianity. No, Christianity doesn't reject the dinosaurs, nor the solar system - and it doesn't say that God is a "man in the sky". Your other points are logical fallacies.
Hahaha the rest is logical falicies...(aka "never mind those pesky FACTS...i know what I believe")...tell you what, go stick a fork into the toaster....and see how that scientific fact of electricity works for ya..
Yes, logical fallacies, do you not recognise them?
Why exactly do you think you know "facts" about Christianity? Or, as you imply, that it's opposed to science?
Because the Facts, science, logic and even just the most rudimentary critical thinking drive a bus through all the nonsense you believe in.
Thousands of years ago, LONG before JC, the Egyptians worshiped their gods. Then later the Greeks and then Romans worshiped their gods...at the same time in South America, the Mayan's worshiped their gods.they all fervently believed that they all existed...just the same way you do. But, They can't all be right can they? Again that points to a fundamental flaw in ALL religions...The FACT that they're all localised, none of them ever "Did Global!"
Howevr, Sadly, you just deflect and refuse to even consider anything that doesn't sit with your delusions.
I haven't deflected (you have, by going on about ancient belief systems).
What I did do was ask why you think you know what Christianity is (or what I believe), particularly given that you've demonstrated that you've very much misunderstood it - but you've not answered. And I never opposed facts, science, logic or critical thinking, quite the opposite.
(FTR Christianity IS Global, were you not aware of that?)
rolls eyes...here's a thing Grace, I took a look at some of your FB posts...what struck me is that you seem to be doing a lot of really great lovely things, it looks like you're a kind, considerate person, and that you're keen to look after less privileged people, ALL of those things are all VERY admirable qualities and quite frankly put me to shame in that department. However, when it comes to organised religion, I'm vehemently against ALL of them, because they're ALL SO inherently bad...particularly when it comes to manipulation and indoctrination - things that I find particularly loathsome. I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter how much evidence I provide, you're really just not getting it at all. It's ALL there, right in front of you, and yet you're just not seeing it.
I'm not sure what you think I'm not seeing(?) I'm acutely aware that some people have done awful things whilst *claiming* to be Christian (anyone can call themselves anything, Trump calling himself a genius doesn't mean he is one or that he's a reflection of intellectualism by which it should be judged) - but it's not them I follow, I follow Jesus (after reading far more than can be summarised here about the historical case for concluding that - mad as I know it sounds - He actually did rise from death, proving what He'd said about Himself). Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with those who feigned "religion" yet in reality weren't seeking to follow God, as evidenced by their power lust and their disregard for the needy (He also said that there'd be people who falsely claim to be connected to Him).
Thankyou for the compliment (though I don't think I deserve it). Have a great Sunday :)

 

Who's pretending this?
I agree of course, those of us who genuinely believe in God, particularly in Jesus who told us to love our neighbour from elsewhere, WILL care about refugees (so those who don't care about refugees aren't actually following Jesus, irrespective of *claiming* to be Christian). But this is a photo from our (British) media, here people who want to get into the UK do indeed cross the Channel (the sea, between us and France) rather than a dessert/fence that people wanting to get into the US face (I presume they're approximately equally awful things to endure) - and here in the UK, few people are either talking about abortion or pretending to be religious. There's far more fake Christianity where you are than there is here.
 
 

No, Torygraph, he did not -as the *headline* asserts- stab because of "frustration", he stabbed because he's an evil racist Nazi. The headline stating, without quotation marks, that he stabbed because of frustration implies he'd simply suffered something that rendered him upset.
 
 
Nature is magnificent - but humanity is incomparably more important. I get frustrated by how preserving rare species is often given more attention (or funding) than helping the world's most oppressed or impoverished human beings. It's vital that climate change is mitigated - but the primary reason it matters is that climate change contributes to the suffering of human beings (particularly in some of the world's poorest places).
 
 
He's right. And those supporting this bill seem unaware of how it feels to be *compelled* to do something one doesn't actually want to, or to feel unworthy of life.
Don't be so bloody stupid. No one will be compelled to do anything, do you know anything about nursing and conditions like MND etc ? Perhaps you should take a look at the information on dignity in Dying before you talk utter bull****
You're proving my point, you've not experienced compulsion.
And "Dignity in Dying" is a lobby group.
nobody is compelled to do something or made to feel unworthy of life, it's about being able to choose to die in a way that is " comfortable" for you not how other people think you should.
Again, you're unaware. The mind is not as straightforward as you think.
Do you think that someone with OCD who washes their hands red could just "choose" not to? Do you think those of us on the Autistic spectrum who have repetitive behaviours could just "choose" to do things differently? When I had anorexia and starved myself, could I have just "chosen" not to? Did the women I knew from my Eating Disorders Unit who died have simply "chosen" to eat?
When a person feels so badly about themselves that they cut their wrists or commit suicide, could they just "choose" not to?
If you really can't at all *imagine* feeling compelled to die, lucky you.
 
 
Phil Vischer - White evangelicals: break out of the box
Observing from the UK, I despair at how the word Evangelical is often misused on your side of the pond (and I'm grateful for Phil Vischer's explanation video on the history of how this misuse has come about). Here in the UK, I grew up in the Evangelical Church and understood it to be far more racially diverse, and less interested in robes/tradition/buildings than our national Church (the Church of England - this is sometimes referred to on the Holy Post, but please note that's only one of the denominations here) - seeing how the word is often now used as a synonym for Trump-supporter has me despairing, and now it's starting to be misused as such in our mainstream media (by people who have no experience of Christianity and presume it's a political descriptor for the far Right). Can we use it to bring up The Evangel? In the many arguments going on here and where you guys are, people really need to hear what The Evangel is.

 
Oh no, please don't do this. Racism, including subconcious bias, is one of humanity's biggest problems - things like this^, which will be viewed as a defence of a violent criminal, just lead to people being less willing to take the issue of racism seriously. Chris Kaba does not represent anyone but himself, don't help racists link other Black people to him.
 
 
EyeWitness News (South Africa) -  Some of Moscow's key allies rallied round Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday
Putin is a modern day coloniser
(FTR, I absolutely HATE what some powerful people from here in the West have done to Africa - but Putin, like them, is brutal and power hungry)
says a white settler whose a direct beneficiary of colonisation and apartheid. How interesting
LOL, what? I'm not a settler* or beneficiary of apartheid, I live in London where I was born
*(FTR, most white South Africans aren't "settlers" either, just as the Black people who are born here in Britain aren't "settlers", they're wholly entitled to be here)
unfortunately I don't give a sh*t what you think. You clowns colonised two thirds of the world across five continents murdering, plundering, looting, pillaging, maiming, raping and enslaving billions of people and suddenly you think you can preach to Africans and the Chinese? Shut the F up clown
I didn't ask or expect you to care what I think, and I'm not "preaching".
And no, I didn't colonise anyone. That I was born on the same island as some *other people* who did evil things doesn't mean that I carried out their actions, each person has their own brain and choices - do you have control to determine the actions of the other people born in your country, throughout history? If someone from your country carries out a murder, are you responsible?
do you support reparations for colonised people's?
Which people? Who do you think is colonised?
How are reparations defined? Things that have been endured by folk who have now passed away cannot be "repaired". Folk alive today did not themselves carry out nor endure the evils of centuries ago (for instance, I don't deserve compensation for something terrible that was done to my grandmother, I did not experience that thing and the perpetrator is no longer alive). But I do believe strongly that more money should be going from my country to Africa. However, it's also vital that banks and corporations here in the West are prevented from continuing their current exploitation of Africa, and trade/supply chains must be made fair (for instance, I am *deeply* concerned that some workers within certain areas of Africa, who provide materials for goods that are sold to us, such as cobalt, cocoa, tea, etc, are seriously underpaid and mistreated).
Additionally, money that is given in Aid absolutely must be used to support Africa's most disadvantaged citizens - it's very wrong that politicians (here and in Africa) sometimes use it for their own power/priorities.
 
just like the whole West but you quite abouDt it says alot
Do you mean "quiet" about it? No, I'm not. I mentioned in my comment that I HATE what some people from here in the West have done - and I frequently discuss it, such as on phone-in TV yesterday. I'm continually desperate for our politicians to do more to address the injustices, and I often write to them about this.
 
 
For frick's sake, plenty of America's murders happen because of the ubiquity of guns, which the Republicans are super supportive of. But I'm guessing that this headline is designed to wrongly criticise Matt Chandler for rightly expressing that both parties are flawed and that Jesus is more important than any political issue. And if you think that abortion is the only issue in politics that Christians should be concerned about, you need to read the Bible again.
it’s a start. In fact a great start.
Believing in the sanctity of life at any stage, would indeed curb criminal acts.
But changing the laws RE abortion (though I support it being very much restricted) doesn't cause criminals to recognise the sanctity of life.
as a society it does. The more society embraces death, the more depression, hopelessness, and cruelty result.
Life, at any stage should be sanctified.
Based on what mechanism or evidence does a law change on abortion cause a criminal to respect life?
People's attitudes are not determined by laws.
as a society, if more people embrace life, hearts and minds are changed. The family grows stronger.
My point is obviously going right over your head.Why did republicans not have abortion on the national platform before the 70’s? Do you even know why? Hint: roe v wade.This man is a false preacher. Why is he even giving such a sermon.
No, you've not answered my question, your point isn't "going over my head", it's an unfounded presumption. And no, Matt Chandler is not a false teacher, it's extremely concerning that so many people seem to think abortion is more significant than the Gospel.Note too, Trump isn't even pro-life anyway.
 
 
We aren't personally responsible for our ancestors' actions - but as Christians we should continually apologise, to other people and to God, for what we do wrong.
I find it remarkable how so many people are so bothered by Welby.
 
 
What does Lidia Thorpe expect Charles to do? He doesn't even have any control here in Britain. And history cannot be undone - people talk more about *current* injustices between formerly colonising countries and formerly colonised countries, such as that vast wealth is still being extracted https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
 
 
Louisiana is the only state that will require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every public school classroom
You won't get kids to follow God by putting these up, they can and should decide for themselves what to believe. But they are good guidelines for life (as well as being hugely historically significant, children should learn history), and there's no reason for opponents to be so angry about them.
Jesus didn't teach us to try to exert power over others, but those opposed to displaying the commandments are mistaken in presuming that they're somehow harmful or that children can't think for themselves.
if you want a Biblical display, how about the Sermon on the Mount instead?
Why "instead"? IMO that'd be a great thing to put up too (though Jewish folk might argue that the 10 Commandments have the advantage of also being part of their history/culture). But it's not that "I want a Biblical display", I personally feel that children should learn about culture and history, and also about the *reasoning* for theism so that they can decide for themselves what to believe with ample information.
 
 
If only Trump had an ounce of actual humility.
I followed him on social media to get a better understanding - and what struck me most (having already heard about his policies etc) was his amazing arrogance. I grew up with Christian parents (though I didn't believe until I looked at the evidence myself) so I'd always heard that one should aim to be humble and think more highly of others - Trump's attitude is fundamentally unChristian, so it amazes me that some Americans who claim to be Christians are strong fans.
 
 
God indeed calls us to care for others. As such, I'm bemused by how so many people who claim to be Christian can be so keenly supportive of (as opposed to simply voting for) Trump. But Harris should also consider where compassion is lacking, such as for the unborn, and for the human beings in our world in the very most severe poverty.
Abortion is the sacrament of the left….. they bow down to worship it every day.
That depends on how one defines the Left. Ultimately each person is different, with their own set of beliefs. Generally the Left are those who want wealth and power to be more equally distributed than they are now ("Left/Right" in politics originates in pre-revolution France, where supporters of the King sat on his Right in court and opponents sat on his Left), wanting more support (than at present) for the vulnerable, and an outlook that prioritises community over individualism and people over profit - and that doesn't necessarily mean supporting abortion. In fact our culture's support for abortion is partly due to a disregard for some vulnerable humans (the unborn), and an outlook that's individualistic (ie "MY body MY choice" - though it's actually more about the unborn's body, of course) with people being told that they must be entitled to do whatever they want to sex-wise and then end the life if a resulting human for any reason (personally I don't oppose abortion that's *genuinely* necessary for medical reasons, but I know that almost all are not). The Left often decries capitalism, but it's because sex sells that abortion has become so common.

Abortion is never mentioned in the bible as wrong. In fact, it says that fetuses are the property of women. As such, women can do with their property as they so please. As for poverty, she has spoken many times on ways to help lift people out of poverty. The responsibility falls to the local people to help their impoverished.
The Bible tells us not to kill. And no, it doesn't say "fetuses are the property of women", who told you that?
"she has spoken many times on ways to help lift people out of poverty"? I mentioned "the human beings in our world in the very most severe poverty", when has she talked about them? (I mean, she may have done, I'm just a Brit observing from across the pond so I've not heard all of her statements) I suspect your comment may be evidencing what I'm concerned about.
 
 
IMO it's really not just dining rooms. The Western idea that everyone should move out upon reaching adulthood and aspire to having their own place is the root of so many problems. In other cultures, there's far more intergenerational living, so the elderly can pass on their wisdom rather than being left at risk of loneliness (or being isolated when health deteriorates etc), instead we have younger adults struggling with housing costs because everyone's expected to live apart so there's not enough housing to go around (also carbon emissions are higher than they could be, etc etc).
 
 
IMO, since "woke" originated in the African American community, it's really gross how wilfully ignorant Right wingers have misappropriated it. I'm not sure we should effectively endorse their redefinition (as this^meme is doing, whilst I get that this isn't the point it's making)?
 
 
There needs to be more discussion of the present - formerly colonised countries (in addition to being left in disarray and ripe for corrupt politicians to oppress civilians) are still being exploited by our banks and corporations https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
Banks and corporations are owned by anyone anywhere who invests. You can not really blame a voting public in a democracy for their actions.
I never said that I blame our population, but we *should* be calling on our politicians to crack down on the exploitation (and consider giving towards helping the very most disadvantaged humans in our world, since they're equally human, and what we have/earn is connected to their poverty, if possible)
The most disadvantaged humans in the world are malaria prone children in Africa.Approximately 260,000 children under the age of 5 die from malaria each year in Africa, according to the World Health Organization (WHO)....not exactly a western problem. 
Those are some of the disadvantaged people to whom I was referring, I'm not sure what your objection is(?)
I am suggesting that kids getting bit by bugs has little to do with ancestors from Europe having trading posts set up in African countries and everything to do with the down side of living in such a place
Again, they're fellow human beings, so if you care at all about people suffering illness, why not care about them? And their countries are underdeveloped, lacking the healthcare we do, because wealth has been and is being extracted by countries like ours.
It is right to care about suffering people and it is proper to care about those nearer to you. We still have not charged the rest of the world for ending slavery, as our navy did. Nor for the ending of the slave driving empire of the Moghul in India or Ottomans in the middle east. We should settle the first imbalances first I think. And then we should consider what ethical framework asks decedents to pay for one of their ancestors mistakes. Certainly it is not Christian or Islam. Perhaps it is international socialist thought. A politics I detest
"proper to care about those nearer to you"? Says who? On what basis? You reference Christian thought, but it's very much not that (try The Good Samaritan, for instance). And to be clear, I didn't say that "descendents have to pay for their ancestors' mistakes" - yet you are now claiming that we should be paid for our ancestors helping to end slavery (though they shouldn't have been involved in it in the first place, you wouldn't reward an abuser for stopping their abuse).
The Jews and the Samaritans were neighbours geographically...I am all for helping French citizens or Belgium....and we did in two world wars. I made the point that if we are to pay for our ancestors faults then perhaps we should charge for our ancestors benevolence first, charge others for their transgressions ( Algerian Barbary pirates stealing Cornish people) etc and then we can work our way through the agenda in a timely manner. That would be the Unchristian method. The Christian method would to not condone paying for ancestral transgressors .
Jews and the Samaritans were different, opposing ethno-national groups. Jesus was teaching us that it's *not* the case that we should care more for those of our own nation than for human beings from elsewhere. We should care for those in the greatest need, such as those children afflicted by malaria, not only fellow Brits. And you never answered *why* "it is proper to care about those nearer to you" (don't try to, there isn't an answer and I'm tired of this thread).
"to not condone paying for ancestral transgressors"? AGAIN, I didn't say that we should, why not read what I've actually written?
 
 
An odd thing about pronouns is that they're not used when one is talking to the person concerned - so if a person demands that we use specific pronouns for them, they aren't talking about how they want to be spoken to, they're making requests about other people's conversations. If someone wrongly referred to me as "he" out of spite, it'd be whilst talking to someone else about me - and I'd find it offensive (as a biological female conscious that I'm not pretty enough) but ultimately it wouldn't affect me, and there are actual issues in our world for me to think about.
Still, I think that we need to try to avoid antagonising people, remembering that they're human beings loved by God. If others think that we're spiteful, they won't listen to us (and the most important thing is that they hear about Jesus).
 
 
I didn't notice the Rolex when I saw it, but I did notice the Tassimo and thought what others have been saying.
Meanwhile, Aid to human beings in our world who are literally starving to death (and who could be fed for a year for roughly the cost of one person's winter fuel payment each) was cut by Sunak.
 
 
As defined how?
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)
Ultimately it was Jesus' teachings that the poor should be cared for, that we shouldn't only look to our own interests, that the powerful shouldn't exploit others etc, that brought these ideas into Western culture (whereas previously those such as the ancient Romans believed Might is Right)

 
No one foolish enough to endanger service people (if not the country itself) by publicly, wrongly spouting about extrajudicial killings as he did recently should have any position of power. He made a comment - in his seeking his own gain - that will obviously be a boon for terrorist recruiters.
 
 
I'm terrified* that Trump's disregard for climate change will contribute to making crises this worse/more frequent.
*Not for myself personally, I live in London, but "natural" disasters hurting people elsewhere (including in some of the poorest parts of the world, where even less government help is available) really upsets me.
And isn't it obvious to people making comments like "ppl should be evacuating" that it's monumentally difficult to leave one's home? I desperately hope that the damage is minimal.
Without doubt. He still calls it a hoax. We can’t expect climate care from him.
One of the things that sticks in my mind was seeing him talking to officials in California during wildfires there, they were trying (very amazing patience) to encourage him to take climate change seriously, and he said "it'll cool down, trust me"  His arrogance and stupidity would be hilarious if they weren't so dangerous (for humanity as a whole, as well as for Americans)
That’s so true. One, stupid lying old man who, sadly, is considered presidential by millions.
Indeed - though I'm not sure how many people consider him presidential, and how many just don't care (or even like that he isn't presidential). There's so much resentment of the "political class", some people want someone without class. And many resent the UN and buy into daft conspiracy theories about Globalism, they see Trump as a saviour defending them from it - something I find particularly frustrating as a Christian is that there are so many people who claim to be Christians whilst worshipping Trump and ignoring the actual Saviour.
 
 
Capitalism - sex sells, so it's been put on screen more and more as a route to $profit, and it has to become more extreme to get attention. Now girls and women are being hurt because boys/men think this^ is normal.
 
 
At CHRISTmas the birth of Jesus is celebrated (though obviously, people celebrated pagan deities at this time of year previously and most people now are interested primarily in family/gifts/parties). I like Strictly, but it's hilariously trivial by comparison to what Christ offers.
(and yes, I know that the headline isn't serious)
 
 
This row demonstrates that the media and Tories don't have good arguments against Labour.
Politicians have always received unjust freebies, sure it's unfair but there are incomparably more serious injustices that should be receiving this attention instead. For instance, there's been loads of time given to Starmer receiving some free clothes, but when was it last discussed that some people in our world have no choice but to wear clothes we (in the West) have thrown away (not in good enough condition for charity shops) whilst many people in our society continually buy new clothes for the fun of it, produced by sweatshop labourers.
The actual problem in politics is when freebies or donations induce those in power to alter policy or give contracts to their wealthy supporters, but all those moaning about Labour have been unable to produce evidence of this (in contrast to the situation under the last government)
 
 
Jenrick is undeniably the worst of the 3 candidates remaining - but I worry that the members (who are differently minded from the MPs) will choose him, partly due to subconscious racial bias.
not really, the right wing of the party are backing Kemi.
Amongst the *membership*? Is there data on that?
Honestly if the Right of the Tory membership are willing to back a Nigerian* British woman over a white man who wants to leave the ECHR and slash Overseas Aid, it's a great thing (though obviously I wouldn't vote for the Tories myself)
*Of course, it's not a person's heritage that actually matters either way, but given that antiBlack racism plainly exists I'd love to see evidence of it diminishing
The right don’t like cultural difference and change, not skin colour. Kemi talks their lingo, and she’s the furthest right candidate, so she’s favoured. Kemi is the biggest anti immigration candidate out of all of them.
I've not seen how she's further Right than Jenrick(?)
And oh my, if only it were true that skin colour's no issue, I'm afraid it really is. It's partly subconscious bias, but there are also plenty of people spouting open racism ATM, I see it constantly. See, for instance, the reply to my comment on this post earlier today - https://www.facebook.com/.../pfbid02e9PZsUQCXqesnj4pYn8dY... - I presume that the vast majority of Tory members aren't as evil and braindead as Andy MacLean, but such people do exist.
again that comment is about culture. It’s just that in a lot of cases culture and race come hand in hand.a lot of the left would argue that the Conservatives are misogynists too, but they’re the party with 3 female PMs.
Why presume that the comment is only about culture and not both culture and colour? Particularly since he refers to children born here. I think racists hate the culture, and they presume that the things they hate are intrinsically connected to colour, whilst also having subconscious bias against pigmentations different from their own. I've seen plenty of comments, particularly recently, showing that some idiotic white people think Black people are inherently different, it's sickening.
Again, I'm not sure why Kemi is supposedly further Right than Jenrick - it's Jenrick who's boasted that he wants to cut Aid to the very poorest people.
That the Tories have had 3 female PMs doesn't disprove that some within the party are misogynist, but I wasn't expressing a view on that either way, it's not my primary concern and indeed it's not party specific (I'm increasingly seeing misogyny on the Left)
look at William Hill betting odds. Both the black candidates are favourite. Cleverly slightly higher. But both well ahead of Jenrick. That’s everything you need to know about racism and perceived racism in the Conservative Party.
No, polling amongst the membership would what one needs to know (and still there'd be more to know, racism is complicated) - I do look at Odds Checker (as opposed to William Hill alone), but betting odds aren't a perfect indicator, and they'll be based largely on what's happened so far, which is that MPs have voted not members (and the membership doesn't precisely mirror the MPs, as we saw with Truss and Sunak)
 
 
Around 20,000 human beings in our world die of starvation each day, despite the fact that funding a day's food for one of them would cost us a fraction of the cost of a highstreet coffee. We need to think differently about food and resources.
 
I don't mean to seem to deflect from the concerns of those who are bothered by the poster (though honestly, I don't think it will have occurred to most people walking past, and I personally wouldn't presume that a father being absent means that he had left the family) - but could we talk more (it's continually overlooked) about food corporations exploiting people of colour elsewhere in our world?

 
The idea that there's something beyond this lifetime feels incomprehensible - but given how significant it is, it's odd that most people don't seriously explore it.
 
 
Anne Hathaway confirms Princess Diaries 3 is in the works at Disney
I read the books in my early teens - the 2nd film absolutely destroys the concept and main storyline.. Personally I think a 3rd film needs to somehow mitigate this, or not be made.
And why is Hollywood SO obsessed with sequels,, prequels and threequels ATM?
 
 
I recently saw Corridors Of Power (a documentary series, featuring various former White House staffers etc, narrated by Meryl Streep) and the episode on Rwanda was the worst IMO - not only were the brutality, evil and suffering indescribable, but additionally there was grotesque racism in the response (or lack thereof) by the West. I think this is an ongoing issue - our part of the world doesn't care enough about human beings in Africa.


Duchess Sophie wows in a cosy peach cashmere jumper you can replicate for just £7
Why do some people want to copy what other people are wearing?
PS, we (Britain) throw away 360,000 tonnes of clothes each year, buying unnecessary new clothes for the sake of copying famous people or following trends isn't doing wallets nor our land/world any good. And if we get our clothes from charity shops instead of buying what tabloids tell us to, we can help vital causes.
 
 
Children are human beings who deserve the best start in life, simply moaning about lazy parents implies that children are simply accessories and it doesn't matter what happens to them because their parents deserve for things to go badly.
 
 
Africa is continually overlooked - why?
The western media always show Africa as a destitute continent to promote a negative propaganda. That's why i have been asked ignorant questions like " do you have roads in Africa? Do you travel by boat because Africans can't afford airfares? What do you do/ use to store your food because Africans can't afford fridge , people need to travel and learn what is portrayed in the media isn't true. It's a developed continent and we do have tribes who still haven't embraced current way of living but doesn't mean they represent all Africans. I feel showing Africans as poor is the start of our predicament, that's why people are mean to us because they believe we are all poor. People need to travel to educate themselves
I'm so sorry that you feel hurt
IMO, our (Western) culture and media ought to pay far more attention to Africa in general - but it's inevitable that when it's in the news, it's usually because of sad stories, since news generally focusses on crises and problems rather than on happy normality.
And I think people most need to hear about the sad situations. Unfortunately, though I'm very aware there are many people in Africa who aren't impoverished, there are also many who are, ultimately mostly because of some people from our part of the world exploiting the continent, and in turn enabling some corrupt politicians to take power. People here should know about the human beings in our world who are suffering, so we can donate and pressure our politicians to address ongoing injustices (like exploitative debt and the greed of our corporations) - it's interesting that you presume people would be mean to those who are poor (I would absolutely agree that poverty should not be shown if you're right), that's not the world-view here. Here in the West it's generally believed that other people being poor means we should be kind to them, not mean (however, we mostly fail to be kind enough).
However, I think there's a slightly different problem - some idiots (a minority) mistakenly presume that the poverty shows that people are less intelligent, thinking the poverty means African people haven't been able to run the continent well. The people with this view are MONUMENTALLY STUPID, and a disgusting embarrassment to my country. They need to learn some basic history. Fortunately, their stupidity is dying out.
 
 
Reddit - Complaint that the Bible is used to control people and supports slavery, rape, murder, sacrifice, ref Billy Carson
God *isn't* for slavery, rape, murder and sacrifices. And Billy Carson is a hilarious conspiracy theorist.You complain that the Bible was written by many people - why do you think that those many people are wrong but Billy Carson (who, unlike the Bible's writers, profits from his attention seeking narrative) is more reliable?Apologies if I seem argumentative, I get that these topics are complicated. There's plenty in the Bible to show that God is not supportive of the things you mention, and you can look up explanations, many Christian writers have articles online that highlight and explain relevant scripture. Just a few verses to start off with - "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6); "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13); "sexual immorality [that'll include rape] and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you" (Ephesians 5:3 )One point on slavery that many don't consider is that the slave owners in America gave enslaved people Bibles that they'd chopped parts out of - ie, they wanted enslaved folk to follow teachings about moral behaviour but *had* to *remove* parts from the Bible to avoid enslaved people learning that God doesn't support slavery. Today folk of African heritage are, as a whole - while endlessly varied individuals of course (Billy Carson being an example) - more often Christian that us white folk, so it'd be odd to think that all Black Christians (with ancestry of suffering enslavement) are wrong in finding the existence slavery and the reality of Christianity to *not* be incompatible. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-bible-pro-slavery/?s=09&utm
 Ultimately (ie, one should look at all the topics in more detail, but to keep things simple) Jesus tells us to love others (in Mark 12:31 and elsewhere also), therefore God plainly opposes slavery, rape and murder (but there are many other verses backing this up) - but Jesus (God) also *sacrifices Himself for us* because of our sin. 
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
...love the idea of celebrating Christmass but knowing how it originates with paganism
It doesn't really. People have celebrated pagan festivities in winter, and the Church marked the celebration of Christ's birth in winter so that people would celebrate Him instead of paganism - pagans don't have a monopoly on seasonal celebrations. Many things were done by pagan civilisations before Christianity existed, that doesn't mean that doing similar things is paganism (unless we're actually celebrating pagan deities ourselves)
 
 
Got a question for Marvin?
In addition to racial injustice within our society, some parts of Africa are still being exploited by our banks and corporations. Colonialism arguably hasn't truly ended https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor..., and our politicians & media seem least concerned about those people in our world with the most melanin. How can we tackle this?
 
 
Statutory maternity pay is "excessive", says Badenoch
Another Tory maternity story, of which there's been little awareness - "Cuts to the UK’s foreign aid budget have “directly” caused a “horrifying” rise in worldwide deaths during pregnancy and childbirth and must be reversed, a hard hitting report from MPs has concluded." (BMJ)
 
 
‘I can’t afford the rise in private school fees – I have no choice but to homeschool my son’
There are children in our world who can't attend school at all because of poverty (NB, we can sponsor some of them, transforming a child's future costs us only around £1/day, many lives could be changed with a private school fee) - but there are parents freaking out about their children being around typical British children
 
 
Melania Trump champions abortion throughout all nine months
I've just read the excerpt (RE abortion, from her book) published by the Guardian - I was reminded that, from a Christian perspective, this isn't exclusively a matter of killing (not that that isn't serious enough), it's also about selfishness
 
 
I keep on applying for jobs I'd be able to do in spite of my diagnoses, but not succeeding. I hate myself for being so useless. Why isn't the government doing more to connect people with jobs that we can do whilst inhibited?
 
 
Reddit - Newish Christian asking about raising child (Church schools etc)
I've grown up (in the UK) with parents for whom a relationship with Jesus is paramount, I enjoyed Church, Spring Harvest, Veggietales etc (and kids at school thought I was odd - but that made me resilient) - yet personally (of course, people vary!) I didn't really believe until I looked into the *reasoning* for concluding Christianity to be *true* for myself (how science implies, particularly given the improbability of the universe accommodating life etc, that there must be a creator). I really passionately believe that kids need to learn not only *what* we believe but *why*, otherwise many eventually abandon Christianity.PS I am SO thrilled to read about you finding God , and wanting to share Him with your child :)
Thanks, I often look back to those kids at school and really don’t want mine to be treated like that. But you’re right, kids can be resilient! 
Obviously I hope that your child has a great experience at school! I just thought it was worth mentioning that even seemingly negative things in life can ultimately have positive longer term consequences (this is a part of the answer to the perpetual objection to Christianity from atheists "how can God exist when bad things happen?").
That I have parents who were taking me to Church is incomparably more of a good thing than some kids mocking is a bad thing. It was endlessly good in itself that I had the experience of Sunday School, Bible stories, and having Jesus as a role model - but ultimately I later came to develop a relationship with Him myself, and that means more than any unwanted life experiences.
You asked about Church schools, but I think the answer could be yes or no, depending on the schools in your area and on your child. I went to a non-faith primary school then to a CofE highschool (though getting in was slightly difficult since our family isn't Anglican, we attend a Baptist Church - my sisters both went to the same schools, today 1 is Christian and the other isn't, so the exact same parents and schools can have different outcomes, obviously). Hardly any of the kids in my class (at a CofE highschool) were Christian, and I still (in addition to primary school) remember some thinking I was odd for taking Christianity at all seriously (though I was very much questioning at that point). Of course, that's because loads of secular parents cheat the system to get their kids into Church schools, and the reason for that is that Church schools are - on average - better (in terms of behaviour and results), but of course this will vary by area (I remember, when I visited highschools near me as a year 6 student, the one I liked most was a non-Church school, but I figured I'd be more likely to be around nicer kids at a Church school). And it was great that there was a Christian fellowship at the school for those who wanted to attend (we also had Communion - which no one took seriously, and I was just disgusted by how gross real wine is, after growing up in a Church where we use grape juice instead, I've not had alcohol since 🤣). More importantly, RE GCSE was compulsory (and we sat it a year early) - for me this meant I ended up learning some of the answers to common queries about Christianity, which was ultimately really helpful for me personally. But if a child from a Christian family goes to a non Church school, it could be that they're a source of light to other kids around them - and what matters for the child is that they come to know God for themselves, this can happen irrespective of which school they attend. For me, it was in science lessons that I started to feel most convinced that God really does exist (having long wanted to believe what parents do but not being able to).
 
 
(in Unbelievable Facebook Group)
Do any theists believe in the "seven mountains mandate,” a prophecy that says Christians must conquer the “seven mountains” of societal influence, including government and media, in order for Christ to return to Earth?
More broadly, as a Christian, I'm seriously bothered by the war-like narrative I'm seeing from some people who call themselves Christian. They've missed the point of Jesus.
 
 
Good grief, the shallow entitlement. Just don't buy them.
What's actually disgusting is clothes being made by women paid pennies and forced to labour absurdly long hours in dangerous conditions.
 
 
Russell Brand’s ‘Jesus’ complex is complete and fuelled by right-wing conspiracy theories
FTR, it's not normal to baptise people wearing only underpants.
It looks to me as though Russell Brand could be having a change of mind (following his past), and that can happen when a person turns to God - but it's impossible to tell if it's for show.
Since you mention the Right, please know that Jesus doesn't fit into either political tribe.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I've not been following the Mike Pilavachi scandal very closely (I gather that Premier's podcast Soul Survivors is very good if one wants to do so), though I'd been aware of Matt Redman's testimony (and the vulturous Telegraph idiotically referring to him in a headline as "Matt Redmond"). Anyone who's not been following might want to see this new comment from yesterday.
I might be biased, having heard his music for as long as I can remember, but I think he (Matt Redman) is incredibly important - so, so many atheists perpetually object "how can God exist when bad things happen?", and/or they reject Christianity because of abuse that's happened within Churches. But here's someone who lost his dad to suicide in childhood, then was abused by his stepfather, then had an abusive mentor/Church leader (Mike Pilavachi) - yet he knows and loves The Father so much that he's written songs of worship sung by countless people around the world, showing that the aforementioned atheists are demonstrably fallacious in their reasoning. The evils in this world, even by those who make use of Church institutions as a route to access vulnerable people they can abuse, don't change the reality of our immeasurably good God.
It's so sad that things can go on being hidden for decades because people are frightened to come forward incase they are not believed and worst of all in church , i think we look at it differently when it's someone that is not a Christian like with jimmy Saville, huw Edwards , Donald trump and even Russell brand but when it is a well known church minister I have to wonder why safeguards wasn't in place and if they were why did they fail , and more over why do so many Christians stand up for the abuser and not the victims , I sometimes think would this be the case if it was a family member , good job to Matt Redman for speaking out ..
There are safeguards in place now, but sometimes there haven't been in the past and sometimes they can't be enough, human evil can be devious. Presumably, in Church contexts, some people are all the more prone to not thinking bad behaviour will happen because (even more so than in other settings where there's a need for safeguarding) they presume that those there will be following God. Yet not everyone in a Church actually is trying to follow God, and if a person is an abuser, they'll seek places where they can reach victims. (Of course, it's also the case that as Christians we're still flawed - but personally I think that someone actively abusing like this isn't trying to follow Jesus, 1 Corinthians 6:11) Obviously *part* of the reason others don't do enough if they know of abuse going on in Churches is that they observe non-Christians hating Christianity and worry they'll add to this if they talk publicly about the abuse (though I'm not suggesting this justifies the silence).
It's incredibly important that we follow *God* rather than idolising anyone else, and can be are prone to the latter. We can all too easily put seemingly inspiring figures like Pilavachi (before he was rightly exposed) on pedestals, and when they come crashing down it's an important reminder that only God deserves our adoration. 1 Corinthians 3:4 springs to mind.
 
I have always found his music very touching. I have a huge respect for him. This all goes to show that abusers infiltrate the church, therefore proper safeguarding is vital. To protect the most vulnerable, we do have to judge...
Yes, it's so often mentioned (particularly by non-Christians seeking to chastise Christians) that Jesus warns about judging, but people forget that He also tells us to "judge correctly" (John 7:24)
 
 
Do you cover the many other incidents of men killing their partners/exes, or only immigrants? Here in the UK, 2 women are killed by partners/exes each week, apparently "Every month, an average of 70 women in the U.S. are shot and killed by an intimate partner".
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
the more I read on theology, the more I doubt my belief, not in Christ but in how I should view Him, how I should live my life. Every preacher seems to have a different interpretation of the Gospels, saying that words used in the bible are mistranslated and mean something different. Some allude that works are necessary, others say that eternity doesn't mean what we think it does. All these learned people from prestigious universities can't agree. How then can anyone know we're on the right path? I naively thought that to love our Lord and to spend time with Him, believing that Christ redeemed us on the cross, trying to lead a life where He comes first and following His word was enough.
I'm so confused! X
I think God wants us to keep on seeking greater understanding, remembering that He is who we ultimately follow (no teacher will be entirely perfect). If we just swallowed what a few teachers said and it were super easy, we might not apply our minds as extensively, and the intellectual wrestling can bring us closer to God. At the same time, He doesn't need us to be geniuses with all the answers, He wants us to humbly desire Him.
Which words have you been told are mistranslated? It is true that the original language can't always be perfectly translated into English, but we can explore this.
Who said that works are necessary for salvation? Salvation is only through what Jesus has done, not our works - but if we've genuinely turned to Him, we will want to adhere to His commands (such as to love/help others).
What's being disputed about eternity? I think that it's a mistake to think (as many do) that the suffering in Hell will continue for eternity (rather, there's justice and annihilation), it's the life Jesus offers that's an eternal experience. RethinkingHell is a site exploring this more.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
[Praise of Russell Brand's Christian comments]
I agree that he's been sharing some brilliant things, and we know that it's true people can turn their lives around and have their hearts transformed by Jesus.
However, I'm concerned that many observers - who don't share our belief in transformation - presume he's simply seeking to rehabilitate his image and to evade retribution for his past, and some of these people in turn are even more convinced that Christianity is just a tool for personal gain. I think - though I can't imagine how hard it would be - that he needs to publicly apologise for the past (I'm not certain he's guilty of everything he's accused of, I just don't know - but at the very least, his insanely perverted rhetoric on stage and in print will have enabled other men to feel justified in exploiting women)
you are completely right he’s been showing some amazing beautiful stuff and it’s really cool that he’s spreading the word about Christianity and the gospel and that is wonderful
No we can never be certain anyone to get whatsoever and we are all guilty one thing or the other and that’s the thing it’s like if someone has been judged by the courts of the law and found guilty and they’ve done their time their crime whatever it’s done if someone has only been accused of not been to court or something else during it I think this is where people can choose to carry on playing Chinese whispers and doing other things when they should not
There are so many men in this world that do that all the time it right no not whatsoever and I think we have to remember that we are all sinners at the end of the day and we are all human would do things wrong
Why does he have to publicly apologise? We don’t owe you publicly apologies we usually do apologies at which the individual person.
Indeed, all of us have sinned. And it's sometimes erroneous that the public demands public apologies for things that haven't us (the public). However, as I wrote, because Russell Brand made the comments he did *on stage* and *in print*, he's contributed to the culture of men thinking of women as sex objects to exploit, ie he has impacted the public. But additionally, because he's now asserting Christianity, he needs to think about the impression he's giving to observers of it. As I wrote, currently many people are watching him and feeling even more strongly that Christianity is just a tool for personal gain (or avoidance of justice). And it's fundamental to Christianity that we acknowledge our sin. So rather than reinforcing the misconception that Christianity is simply a cynical get-out-of-jail-free card, he could demonstrate to the public that it means a genuine conviction and heart transformation by stating his remorse for past behaviour alongside gratitude for what Jesus done to free us from sin.
completely right Jesus this set is free from 10 and when we choose to bring Chris into our lives and into our heart and we used to follow him
I’m sure we’ll get attacked from every side and everything and people always judge people for it. People do wrong and they have to make amends from him. Is it supposed to dictate how they do that, sorry no it’s not. It’s not a thing at all.
For someone that’s only just come to Christianity, they have to be patient and they’re still new and they’re learning their journey and I think that’s important. He’s really taking his faith in such a strong way.
I think anyone can put on the show I think anyone can do things. I also do you believe that people do depend on people that are sorry and people truly do except Chris as the Lord and Xavier than it’s the best way for them to go and he hasn’t changed in the fact of he was doing media and other things beforehand he’s carrying on what he’s doing but he’s been Christ like in his behaviour and what he’s doing.
And we are all human at the end of the day and this is what we shall have to remember.
Jesus is our Lord and saviour and now he whistle is a brother in Christ. He is a son of our heavenly father that loves you so much and we have to remember this.
"we have to remember this"? I wasn't doubting it at all. As I wrote, I'm conscious of what others are thinking - it's utterly fantastic that Russell Brand is saved, but we should want other people to be also (not to be deterred because of misconceptions about Christianity).
that good and we can pray that we are all saved if you truly believe and practice what the Bible says
Indeed we can pray that others are saved, but it's not a matter of prayer alone. We need to tell people the message, and show how it transforms us. Many Bible verses refer to others observing us, for instance "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honourable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation." (1 Peter 2:12)
"Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; " (Philippians 4:5)
"give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all." (Romans 12:17)
God doesn't want us to only presume "we’ll get attacked from every side and everything and people always judge people for it". Yes we'll always have many critics - but Christianity can have *less* criticism if Christians emulate Christ, some people will always resent God, but it shouldn't be that they also resent Christianity because of unChristlike behaviour by "Christians" - consider the contrast in 1 Peter 4, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or fas a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God din that name." It's extremely clear, if one looks at the opinions of nonChristians, that a huge reason they reject Christianity is misbehaviour by people described as Christians.
Apologies if I seem argumentative BTW! And again, I'm so thrilled to see what Russell Brand has been learning.
 
 
I find it interesting that, after Chappell Roan's depression was made public, scores of supposed progressives have still attacked her brutally online (for having a different perspective on the election). Do they want her to hurt herself?
 
 
Right, but people and culture are not the same thing. Plenty of people from elsewhere have values that benefit society, plenty of my fellow native white Brits don't.

 
Were it true that abortion restrictions cause women's deaths, pro-choicers wouldn't be relying on one tragedy anyway,they'd have statistics showing that it's a repeated occurrence.
 
 
United Humanists - [Meme about religion hurting people throughout wold history]
"Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world" James 1:27
Note that Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with people who misappropriated "religion" for power but who weren't actually trying to follow God.
I feel like most xtians overlook the nasty parts...[hyperlink to atheist page with tough Bible passages]
I feel like most atheists mistakenly presume that everyone who calls themselves a Christian actually is, and/or that Christians haven't explored the whole Bible because they themselves (atheists) have only skimmed it as surface level and not examined the original language and context. Plenty of theologians have addressed misunderstandings like those in that article.
there's nothing misunderstood about telling men to go hide in the bushes, kidnap the girls who show up there, then force them into a sexual/domestic slavery. There's nothing misunderstood about telling men to unalive all the men, boys, and non virgin women and girls and kidnap the virgin women and girls to force them into a sexual/domestic slavery. There was nothing misunderstood about the man who offered to let psychos grape and unalive his daughters to "save the angels" and then later his daughters graped him.
Read the Bible, ffs.
"the man who let psychos..." - this evidences a fundamental misunderstanding, the Bible is a compilation of records, poetry, and teaching - not just teaching. Something happening in the Bible very much does not mean that God necessarily endorses it. There's so much more to write on this, but I suspect it wouldn't be a good use of my time
it's a storybook about an imaginary sky daddy that narcissists used to brainwash mentally ill people to create their cult and mistreat anyone who stands against it. That's literally all it ever has been and ever will be.
Very much proving my point.
no, you're proving mine if you believe in that sickness
Evidently you don't know what I believe, and you seem unaware of the point of mine that you've proven.
just because you use big words doesn't mean you're more intelligent. Clearly you missed my point. I don't care what excuses theologians came up with for it. I care how your storybook has been used to groom children and abuse people who stand against it.
"just because you use big words doesn't mean you're more intelligent"? Strawman fallacy (and ironically I didn't even use any "big words"). I didn't miss your point, but in terms of what I've actually written it's a non-sequitur.
 
Obviously some older folk need support (more so in the colder part of the UK)- but generally as an age group, they're statistically better off than most other age groups. Ultimately our society needs more intergenerational living, to tackle the loneliness crisis (which contributes to Dementia etc), reduce energy bills and enable sharing of wisdom between different generations. In terms of human societies, it's not normal (or sensible) that here in the West there's such a push for independence that mature or vulnerable people end up alone and cut off.
 
 
Air pollution contributes significantly to dementia (as well as other health issues), it's amazing how keen you are to oppose its reduction.
 
 
The loss of Madeleine McCann is tragic beyond words, a child's life is immeasurably precious. Yet there are children elsewhere in our world who are dying wholly avoidably because of starvation or preventable disease, and they're ignored whilst endless money and attention is spent going over this one tragic incident as though it's a soap opera for our entertainment.
 
 
I can't imagine how distressing this must be for those whose homes are affected. And elsewhere in our world, increasing incidences of extreme weather are affecting many more people, including plenty who won't have the option of insurance or state support. Yet plenty of people want to ignore climate change.
 
 
Corporations also need to stop exploiting people who don't live in the West. Politicians should be cracking down on the companies that sell us products produced via sweatshops, modern slavery, child labour etc elsewhere in our world.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
RE images of Jesus - graven images or OK because God loves creativity
He does indeed want humans to be creative and artistic - but I worry that there's a *possibility* (it certainly won't always be the case) of people becoming emotionally attached to a picture that supposedly represents Jesus rather than to Jesus Himself (again, this certainly won't always be the case, for some people it might be that the art helps people to think about Jesus Himself, but we need to be conscious of our hearts)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)  
In Starmer's speech he said "those who say...hate your neighbour because they look different...you will never win....we stand for, not just the rule of law, but a love for this country and our neighbours"
The concept of loving our neighbours is part of our society's world-view because of Jesus' teaching (The Parable of The Good Samaritan, which is about folk from elsewhere who are different from ourselves, not those whose homes neighbour ours), in contrast to the common human tendency towards tribalism (obviously, there are plenty of non Christians who are extremely benevolent, but it was the arrival of Christianity in the West that brought about people here thinking that caring for those who are different is something to aim for). At the Reform conference, Farage and Ant Middleton asserted that our country is based on Christian values - yet demonstrated that they don't know what these are.
I apologise for being so political! There are many things that disagree with Starmer about profoundly - and most importantly (for him) he currently rejects God. I think each of the parties have some positions/policies we (as Christians) can support and some that we should oppose, so I'm very much not asserting that anyone should vote in a particular way. I'm making this point because I'm continually eager to bring Jesus into mainstream conversations (so that we can nudge people who are ignoring God to think about Him)
Can you explain what you meant by saying Farage demonstrated that he doesn't know what Christian values are?
In particular in this speech, he said that family, community and country are THE most important thing.
Generally, other things he's said or proposed concern me from a Christian perspective, particularly cutting Overseas Aid.
On one of the occasions on which I spoke to him on LBC, he was asking if we feel pride in the flag. I talked about how we ultimately have a cross on our flag because Jesus died on a cross for our sin, it should remind us to be humble rather than proud. His dismissive response suggested he's really not personally interested in actual Christianity. (Of course, I can't know this for certain, it's between him and God)
 
 
One doesn't become an actual Christian by seeing a poster (especially one that doesn't even mention Christ). People decide for themselves whether or not to follow Him (of course, many don't, yet still call themselves "Christians" for social reasons). I'm not sure why you think kids are going to be harmed by a poster, are you yourself not able to observe things in the world and form your own opinion about them?
When I was 8, I remember a poster in our classroom showing Tutankhamen, I didn't feel compelled to take up Ancient Egyptian religion, I was just more aware of world history.
 
 
(My FB page)
Ant Middleton (speaking at the Reform conference) declares that the *most important thing* is "our culture, our history". A few hours later, Farage says that *most important* are families, communities, country. They both claim "Christian" values, they're both wrong.
Jesus said that we can't serve 2 masters, Reform UK cannot legitimately claim to follow Him whilst declaring culture, history, community, country or even family are "most important". Ant Middleton also concluded his speech by repeatedly shouting "identity first", which is hilarious given how the Right decries identity politics, but it also sounds and best stupid and at worst borderline Nazi.
Jesus told us to love our neighbours - even if one restricts who may settle in the country, stoking hatred as Reform does is definitively antiChristian. Their extreme opposition to Net Zero is also in defiance to Jesus' teaching - Global warming is devastating the lives of our neighbours in parts of the Global South.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23)
 
  
Though racism against POC is obviously very real, Jesus being depicted as white is not necessarily this^ deep, people around the world have depicted Him as their own ethnicity because part of the point of His coming to humanity is that He relates to us.
NB, our - Western - culture generally ignores the parts of the world where populations have the most melanin (whilst our institutions exploit them https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...), so perhaps in rightly worrying about the of white superiority we should actually show more empathy for those people?
 
 
Fascinating how the media only takes an interest in anything Christianity adjacent when there are arguments to be had, but Jesus Himself is largely ignored
 

It is fundamentally unChristian to spout evil, idiotic tripe like "make America white again". Jesus - who was not white - explicitly taught against the racsim of the time in the parable of The Good Samaritan; He also spent a lot of time arguing with those in His time who misappropriated "religion" for personal power-grabbing whilst not actually seeking God.


On the one hand it's hilarious how absurd Reform is - but I'm really concerned by the reality that many clothes are produced via exploitative labour in poorer countries. It's fun to laugh at Farage - but what can we do to oppose the serious Global injustice highlighted here?
 

(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I've just been reading a story about jk Rowling standing up and calling the transgender sprinter , valentine petrillo a cheat for running in a woman's race in the Olympics this week , what are your thoughts on this ??
(Though I might be the only millennial who's always eschewed Harry Potter) I agree with JKR and I'm generally grateful for her taking the stand she does against the rejection of biological reality (and God's design). But it can be all too easy to become combative in this debate - and it's particularly essential *as Christians* that we continually consider what Jesus might say and how we can keep the humanity of those with whom we disagree in mind. I think that, if people are honest, anger with opponents can sometimes overtake actual concern about harm in our minds (ie, not all comments against the trans movement are wholly driven by a longing to honour God's design or to oppose the damage of trans meds/ops, males in women's spaces etc).
We can comment against aspects of the trans movement, but we need to keep in mind that each of the individuals is a human being loved by God. Some of the debating I've seen indicates that people - understandably of course, as most people aren't Christian - not thinking this. I think that it might be ideal, from a Christian perspective, for JKR to sometimes be less abrasive (though given the disgusting comments made against her, and death threats etc, I'm not surprised she's lost patience). It's incredibly important that we think about how we come across - others can presume that Christians are hateful, and whilst we likely won't be able to eliminate that presumption, we mustn't bolster it.
The trans/gender movement is definitely a false religion, including its own metaphysical beliefs, morality codes, ritualistic marches, liturgy, iconography etc. But opposition to it can become one also, it's the primary moral cause for some women, but we know that something else matters more. (Sport is also a false god in our society - and whilst it's obviously wrong for males to be in female sports competitions, sport is actually not anywhere near as important as our society imagines).
Crucially, as Christians, the Gender wars are not our *primary* battle, and we really need to both remember and demonstrate that. Some Christians and organisations (cough cough Christian Concern cough cough) give the impression that this issue is paramount - but in reality it's incomparably less important than The Gospel. We need to keep thinking about how we can point people towards Jesus.
FTR, trans folk themselves have differing opinions. The 2 trans people I've been getting to know online (1 of whom - Scott Newgent, who's in the documentary "What Is A Woman" that's been much discussed - is regretful they ever transitioned, the other, Buck Angel, is not) are *big fans* of JKR's efforts in this debate. They absolutely oppose males in female sports (and the transitioning of young people, etc).
 
 
THIS is what matters, not suits or tickets. It is EVIL that money which should be helping the world's very poorest people is ending up in the pockets of hoteliers.
 
 
Because the GOP has been corrupted by Trump (who, FTR, is only "pro-life" to score votes, he doesn't actually care) and needs to reset. ATM Trumpism is deterring people from the pro-life cause, and more importantly from Christianity.
NB, Trump has not actually brought about a decrease in abortion. And God does not call us to care *only* about unborn lives, Trump is a threat to countless other lives also.
 
 
She's definitely my preference from the proposed candidates for Tory leader (but I never have voted Tory and don't ever intend to) - but this article doesn't seem particularly relevant to Christianity. There's absolutely much in politics that relates to how we should live out our Christianity in the world, but this article really is first and foremost about the Tory party.
 
 
It literally was a conspiracy theory, it was a theory about people conspiring. There are many crackpot conspiracy theories, but not *all* conspiracy theories are wrong, sometimes people *do* conspire.
 
 
Mark Driscoll - You cannot be biblical without being political.
God is involved in politics and so is Satan and demons. Christians, get in the fight! 
Indeed - but whilst politics is incredibly important in itself and in our world, it's always unimportant *as compared* to The Gospel. As you used to say often, "it's all about Jesus".
 
 
Plenty of Brits assume God must be fictional, but aren't aware of the arguments (rooted in science, history and philosophy) for which some academics conclude that He exists.
 
 
I'm so angry about this nonsense. It plays directly into the centuries long IDIOCY that irrationally imagines folk with more melanin are less civilised. It's such a mind-numbingly stupid ideology, and catastrophically dangerous.
Trump and his fans will claim they aren't racist, but they're driven by primitive, wholly unintelligent instincts - ironically, it's *they* who are acting more animalistically, not the immigrants about whom they make such presumptions.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Today I heard someone on TV credit "the universe" for a seemingly coincidental, fortuitous course of events. Unwanted circumstances ultimately led to good things, so she conjectured that "the universe" was trying to tell her something. I've long observed that in Neighbours, phenomena or "messages" are attributed "the universe" like this. Whereas we might say that God has a plan, or that God wants to teach/tell us something, or that God can bring good from bad, increasingly our culture thanks "the universe". I think it suggests that they are, to some extent, presuming a higher consciousness, but don't want to recognise that this IS God (in part because of resentment of "religion", or of His authority).
I'm wondering how one would, if this came up in conversation, direct such people towards Him. It's slightly like Paganism - worshipping nature - and perhaps akin to Paul's observation in Acts 17:23.
Have others noticed this?
(NB, for me, the Fine Tuning of the universe is compelling evidence for God)
 
 
(in Doctors Facebook Group)
Though it was funny seeing Kirsty reprimand Graham (because of his surprise, and Bear's), it reminded me of my sister saying last night that (perhaps in contrast to other aspects of identity) or society still often neglects to afford adequate respect to folk with physiological differences. Some people who have so much to offer society are hindered from fulfilling their potential because of foolishness like Graham's.
Some things are difficult for the rest of us to navigate, since we're concerned about inadvertently causing offence* - but some things, like taking Kirsty's stool without asking, are unnecessarily inconsiderate (and he's a *doctor*, he should be less prone to such mistakes than most). I think I now need to take Al's advice and get better informed, about these differences.
*It didn't seem to me that Graham was trying to be respectful and simply failing when he referred to Luca as "a Queer", and I'm not sure why he was prying, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it(?). So far as I've observed, whilst parts of the media and some LGB/T folk are now embracing the word (though generally as an adjective, not a noun[?]), there are also plenty who don't (I've seen many on Twitter state that they still consider it a slur). On one occasion, my Grandmother referred to my sister and her husbands' veganism as Queer, it's funny how words change.
Hugest apologies if any of this came across as disrespectful in any way! (I'm just thinking out loud., I should shut up....)
Kirsty overreacted and should know her place she is a receptionist and not a manager and all the doctors and nurses at the surgery are her bosses and she has no authority to reprimand them that is down to bear or one of the partners and not her if he steps out of line then she should approach them to deal with it if she's got a complaint and let them deal with it and not overstep her position and do it herself it's not the first time she's done it she does it with all the staff
"should know her place"? Which is what exactly? She'll be well aware that she's a receptionist, receiving far less money per hour (and far less adulation etc) than the Doctors, but she's just as much of a human being.
It's not a matter of "authority" - the Doctors have authority to make medical decisions, Bear and the partners have authority to make decisions about the running of the practice, their authority is not over her property or aids. Does a boss have "authority" over their colleague's glasses?
 
 
Charles doesn't make decisions about anything here in Britain, his only purpose is to shake hands and occasionally wear silly outfits. IMO the monarchy's wealth should be given to formerly colonised countries. Best wishes to this boy, it's utterly tragic that a child is separated from their mother. 
you just wanted to brag about being in the UK, these whites
No, why would I?
I was born here in London and have always lived here (I follow some Facebook pages from other countries so that I have a better understanding of the world and the opinions of other people). It's not a reason for bragging.
why didn't you just make your point without mentioning that you are in London? Or you were just trying to be superior??? You are late. South Africa is no longer a British colony. We hate British and the west. We are BRICS+, Western hegemony can go to hell
Because being here means I'm acutely aware of the fact that the monarchy is pointless and powerless (including RE who comes into our country).
How could it be that I was "trying to be superior"? Being British doesn't make me superior to anyone, obviously.
Yikes, why do you think you need to tell me that "South Africa is no longer a British colony"? I'm well aware of that, I'm disgusted and furious that some people from my country previously colonised other countries (and that some institutions from my country continue to exploit others, I spoke to my MP - ie a politician - about this on Friday).
I know that SA is in BRICS and that many people hate us, but not everyone in one country thinks the same as the other people in that country (just as we in Britain have different opinions from each other, and think completely differently from the British individuals who colonised)
I never advocated Western hegemony, I don't support it.
sorry my bad, you sound like a reasonable person. Forgive my tantrums. Continue being a good a person. Don't allow people like myself to change who you are. I was so quick to charge and crucify you
Goodness, thankyou, it's incredibly kind and admirable of you to say sorry, I hardly ever encounter people online with such integrity.
I understand why many people are angry, I absolutely hate what some of our ancestors/leaders/corporations have done too (I think that, in human society across the world, it can unfortunately quite often be the most selfish, power hungry individuals who end up in positions of control), as do most people here (and the others don't know). I'm personally continually wondering what can be done to undo the exploitation of Africa, but it's hard to get those with power to listen because they're mostly thinking about things going on here.
Thankyou again, have a great next week
you have just changed my perspective about white people, I'm not going to lie to you, I have always regarded white people as enemies. But people like you , may you impact your wisdom to everyone. Stay safe and your family
The colour of a person's skin doesn't determine their brain/mind/heart, so there are good and bad people in all ethnic groups (also, each individual person can be a mixture of good and bad, I need God's help to overcome the things in my heart that are bad, such as sometimes being short tempered). I know that often people instinctively have presumptions about people who are different, it's good when people talk and understand each other better.
Thank you for the conversation 
Blessings to you and your family
 
 
As much as it's funny that he's so unhinged, I really worry about the racism he's stoking.
Even if it were true that Haitians eat pets, it wouldn't be as ridiculous as the reality that Western society cares more about pets than about Haitians or about the continent of their ancestry.
 
 
As compared to much of humanity, we have a lot of healthcare - some people can't access it at all*. But too much of the funding is ending up in the pockets of agencies and contractors, whilst Big Food corporations and others profit from making people ill.
*(unless amazing organisations like MedAir, Mercy Ships or The Leprosy Mission International - which can achieve many times more £ for £ with our donations than can be done with healthcare spending here - turn up).
 

(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Following several controversial topics being discussed in this group (last week, I think)…
All of the political parties have a mixture of OK and not-OK stances. As Christians we’re politically homeless, we have to choose the best option on balance, and this may seem different to different Christians as different issues weigh more on some minds than others. The Bible makes clear that we should care about the poor and speak up against injustice, but no party does this consistently - and Jesus frustrated some of His followers by declining to initiate a political crusade. He taught that we need to question the sin in our own hearts, and to share His Good News with our world - political topics can be massively important, but The Gospel is always more important. God’s mission for us, first and foremost, is to share Him and to follow His guidance in our world, not to be warriors against politicians we think aren’t in our tribe. If we're focussed on disdain for politicians we see as the antiChrist, and proudly think ourselves to be the defenders of righteousness by comparison, we'll forget that we ourselves have sinned and need Jesus. And if we're too wedded to one political ideology, those who see the world differently won't listen to us regarding what (Who) is actually most important.
And FTR, God is not going to be thwarted by the WEF.
I’ve been catching up on The Holy Post, the podcast of Phil Vischer (co-creator of Veggietales), which acknowledges the complexities of issues such as the Middle East conflict, abortion and US politics from a Christian perspective (The Church Politics podcast is also great). On this side of the pond, Tim Farron has a great podcast (with Premier Christian radio/media), A Mucky Business, talking to politicians from different parties and underscoring that Christianity doesn’t align with binary political partisanship.
 
 
Michael Gove claim’s Treasury blocked his efforts to punish Grenfell cladding firms
I'm not normally very vitriolic, but it is VITAL that people are LOCKED UP for the Grenfell scandal.
Our country is rich (in no small part because of, as was discussed earlier this week, centuries taking from elsewhere, and this is ongoing), but more and more of the wealth is being siphoned off into the pockets of greedy, profiteering middlemen and contractors. The decline of our country is continually blamed either on immigration or austerity, depending on where on the political spectrum people are, but things are getting worse because selfishness within systems means things get worse even when money is doled out. Severe consequences are desperately needed to deter future deadly corporate greed.
Hugest condolences to bereaved.
 
 
It opposed the NHS at its founding - its aim is that Doctors can make money (so they can give to the BMA), not to support healthcare. Both the strikes, and the support for the lucrative Gender Med industry, evidence this.
 
 
Jesus humbled Himself to arrive in an animal shelter...now at Christmas corporations manipulate some people into thinking they need to spend £hundreds on cosmetics for the Christmas season.
 
 
People have long misappropriated "religion" for personal power, Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with such people - and He warned about future fake Christians. Trumpism epitomises this. Trump is antithetical to Jesus' teachings.
agreed. There are also a lot of Christians in the USA who don't support Trump but their voices don't get heard.
YES there are indeed - our media likes to report on Trump fanatics because doing so gets clicks, and so people outside of Christian circles end up with a completely fallacious impression of Christianity and the Christian community.
totally. Someone like Jim Wallis won't get reported on.
Of course, ultimately people disliking "Christians" is not in itself particularly important - but even though many people think Jesus was *nice*, they ignore Him in part because they so resent what they've been (mis)led to think Christianity is like.
 
 
No. One can sponsor a child for just over £30 per mLastly, we'll debate if takeaway coffee is worth the moneyonth and transform their future  - spending that on week or 2 of daily coffees is not a good deal.
 
 
It may be somewhat popular in *your country*, but it's not at all as common amongst Christians as is often presumed. Plenty of us understand that the opening of Genesis was not referring to 24 hour periods.
is 24 hours (+/-) on Earth. Days differ for each planet. Saying gods day is differnt means it isn't pertaining to Earth.
Back in the olden *days*, people understood that some words have more than 1 meaning. This^ has really only become an issue these *days*, in this *day* and age.
Seriously, in the *original Hebrew*, the word that's been translated - centuries ago - as "day" is essentially "era", not 24 hours.
SPECIFIC length of time is a god day? Is it static? Dynamic? How is it measured? ERA a long and distinct period of history with a particular feature or characteristic.
They don't need to be a fixed, specific length, just eras aren't of a fixed specific length. I don't have time for a debate, but there are plenty of articles on this, for instance https://biologos.org/.../how-long-are-the-days-of-genesis-1
 
 
He complained (in his interview with Amol Rajan this week) that migration is now increasingly of families from Asia and Africa rather than of Europeans, disgusting comments
 
 
Is he not concerned about how the unGodly attitudes of Trump (extreme arrogance and boastfulness etc) whilst trying to cosy up to Christians, contributes to people being deterred from Christianity?
good question bcz he was not a Trump fan b4 but now are together to fight for this country..meaning, he saw something in Trump that made him join the boat.. also, if Trump is ungodly, moreso or greatly so is left.. we can't just be fixated that Trump is ungodly.. God can see the heart but not the man- we can only see the appearance.. he's too old to play the games like the left is doing; he's focused on the job tho.. coming from a person who's not a hardcore Trump fan, he has more God consciousness than others..
Nds, and that out of the mouth the heart speaks - I didn't dispute that God knows a person's heart better than we do but you can't use that to excuse Trump's extreme disregard of God's guidance.
I didn't say anything about "the Left", that's whataboutism. The issue is not which side is better (or less bad) to vote for, the issue is Trump pretending to be on the side of Christianity whilst being so hateful and boastful, such that observers dislike Christianity and don't find out more about Jesus.
God consciousness? No, Trump doesn't show evidence of that.
You seem not to have understood what I've written. Try reading it again.
NB, Jesus matters more than politics.
but we only have options b/n republicans or democrats  & btw, he's not an extreme disregarding God's guidance...don't u follow his interviews when asked about God? forget abt the past, just go to the recent ones after his attempted assassination. And let's not forget that evangelical pastors and leaders had the access to be involved in praying in the WH when he was in the office
Yes I've heard him talk recently, he said he'd stop being so vitriolic towards political opponents but he hasn't. He seems to think that not dying means God supports him, which is daft. He's also revealing, as was always clear, that he's not actually pro life. But again, the issue is not politics, it's the message sent to the wider population about Christianity.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Psalm 138:7 – Though I walk in the midst of trouble, You will revive me; You will stretch out Your hand against the wrath of my enemies, and Your right hand will save me.
Pray for Israel! Stand with Israel! You'll be blessed!
I'm not normally very vitriolic, but it is VITAL that people are LOCKED UP for the Grenfell scandal.
Our country is rich (in no small part because of, as was discussed earlier this week, centuries taking from elsewhere, and this is ongoing), but more and more of the wealth is being siphoned off into the pockets of greedy, profiteering middlemen and contractors. The decline of our country is continually blamed either on immigration or austerity, depending on where on the political spectrum people are, but things are getting worse because selfishness within systems means things get worse even when money is doled out. Severe consequences are desperately needed to deter future deadly corporate greed.
Hugest condolences to bereaved.
Note that, at many points in the Bible, God is angry with Israel's behaviour. Honestly I'm somewhere in the middle on the current conflict, some of the pro-Palestine rhetoric is concerning - but Israel's government should not be acting so indiscriminately in its efforts to eliminate Hamas, a Palestinian civilian is as human and valuable as any other civilian. When David speaks to God in the Psalms, he's trying to follow God - the Israeli government is not doing that, they just want power.
 
 
God and The Big Bang are not incompatible, and it was a monk who came up with the theory. IMO it's a different perspective on God saying "let there be light".
God told us exactly how He created the world - by the word of His power! He didn't need to use evolution at all, as He is omnipotent! He is also not a liar.
When did I mention evolution? Or disagree that He made the world? Or say that He's a liar?
Well you mentioned Big Bang. That is the premise on which the theory of evolution is hung.
Oh my goodness, no it really isn't, why do you think that???
That's how much of the (false) reasoning starts. Actually, the whole thing - big bang, primordial soup, evolution, whatever, starts with unbelief. The rejection of God's Word, the rejection that God is the Creator. Once someone is starting from the wrong place & denying God, then ANY theory they propose is going to be incorrect.
No, you're just lumping together different, complex topics and making irrational presumptions. The Theory of Evolution was developed initially by Darwin, who was agnostic, based on is observations of birds - not on The Big Bang Theory (the Primordial Soup is a newer theory that extrapolates from Darwin's ideas). The Big Bang Theory was developed by a monk, he didn't "not believe", and believing in it isn't in any way incompatible with belief in God. That you write "whatever" implies total disregard of science or of thinking seriously about things, but God calls us to be wise. I came to believe in God *because* of science.

 
What does "proud" mean? We're *lucky* to live in a country where Jesus' teachings led people to think that care for the poor is a good thing (though many chose to ignore this and to be barbarically selfish nonetheless, hence colonialism). I like the fact that some great things have been achieved in our country, but they aren't our own achievements, they were done by other people born on the same land mass - and plenty of evil has been done by Brits. Importantly, wealth is *still* being extracted by countries such as ours from poorer countries. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries
 

(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
There are plenty of weird Biblical marriages - a marriage in the Bible is a Biblical marriage, and some of them were *not* God's ideal.
I presume the post is against gay marriage - and whilst I agree that God prohibits this (and those following Him will want to adhere to His law), telling people "Biblical marriage is..." isn't going to convince them, just make them angry and make them think that Christians are hateful. *If* the topic is being discussed, we could share that we believe God has a plan/design for relationships, and He knows and loves humanity more than we could imagine, so in giving guidance He is not "bigoted".
But when the topic isn't being discussed, we should instead concentrate on telling people about a far greater relationship than that between lovers. At the end of the day, even if people only had committed heterosexual marriages, but didn't have relationships with God, they'd still miss out eternal life, we need to be more concerned by that than by our culture's absurd ideas about sex.
Apologies if I seem too argumentative!
 
 
There are people dying of starvation elsewhere in our world, why is *so much* attention being given to a few concerts???
sadly people dying of starvation all over the world will always be an issue. However many people are entitled to love their life how they see fit (I wouldn’t pay to see oasis and it’s wrong what the ticket sellers are doing) but me paying £350 isn’t going to stop world hunger.
Since you mention it, £350 could feed multiple people (in one of the poorest parts of the world) for a year. I'm really not telling you what to do yourself, but I think the media should, more often, remind us of the *most important* situations, partly because if people were reminded some would realise that we have the privilege of making a real difference for a few people (also, it'd help us to appreciate what we have). Again, I'm not telling you what to do, or saying that people can't go to concerts, but I can't help but feel that it needs to be said in response to your comment that "people are entitled to love their life" that food is a more primary entitlement (ie, our news should talk about people being denied it, that's a bigger story) and we really don't need to attend a concert to love life, it's awesome that we have endless entertainment at our finger tips.
Ultimately this is about what's *news* (as opposed to whether people should go to see Oasis), and tickets are not so newsworthy that they merit *this much* coverage, particularly given how little coverage is afforded to serious situations (also, I understand that the news should include a few non-serious/fun stories, but ticket prices are not fun).
 
What are you doing to alleviate world hunger?
There's not much I can do, but News Media has the power to have an impact by raising awareness so that people consider donating and so that people call on politicians to act. Instead it goes on and on about concerts. Obviously I live very frugally so that I can donate, and contact politicians, but unlike media outlets I have little power.
Ultimately what I do is irrelevant, your comment is a classic example of the Ad Hominem fallacy.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Does anyone take active part in groups which seek to help and support Christians in countries where we are persecuted? Such as Moslem majority countries? Once Christian Lebanon as an example. I don't mean only prayer but help in material ways where they might be lacking regular food and essentials due to the 50% Zikka tax for not being Moslem?
Does anyone know of organisations which help them, where the CEO's aren't receiving huge remuneration and most of the money actually goes to the Christians?
I HATE that CEOs are paid so much - but it's still only a tiny % of the charities' income, so when you donate it's still the case that virtually none of your donation is going to the CEO.
Unfortunately, sometimes the individuals who have the skills that a charity needs to grow its income will disappear into the corporate sector without generous pay, the increase in the amount a charity raises with a certain CEO can far exceed that salary. I still don't think that this justifies it, if it were up to me *no one*, in any sector, would earn ridiculous salaries - but given that your money isn't really going to the CEO I wouldn't avoid donating on that basis, your donation can still make a huge difference for a few of the most disadvantaged people.
And we should support persecuted Christians - but not *only* Christians, God calls us to help *the poor* and to share His message with those who don't yet know Him.
 
 
(in Theology for the Thinking Believer Facebook Group) 
“Love means you are standing in the way of evil”
Too often, people say that Christians are being hateful when we call certain things of this world sinful or wrong.
In reality, Christians believe we are being loving by attempting to stand in the way of evil on behalf of others, believers or not. We believe us pointing out sin, hopefully in respectful manner, is done for their own good so that none may perish. But between their flesh and Satan, the intention gets reversed.
What do you mean by "standing in the way"? And is actual love the motivation?
I suspect you're referring primarily to matters of homosexuality(?) given that this is the issue over which people are accused of being hateful (as opposed to standing in the way of evil like abuse, of course we should stand in the way of that). What action are you suggesting? If we tell people that they're sinful without prompting, what do you think it will achieve?
In all things, we need to think about how other people are hearing us. It's like speaking different languages, you might not mean that you hate them, but if you tell them they're sinful without them asking your opinion (and without you also explaining that we've all sinned and are all offered forgiveness through Jesus who loves them) they hear that you hate them. And if one doesn't care enough to try to communicate in a way they can understand, does one really love them?
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law. To those without the law I became like one without the law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some" - we should certainly not shy from telling the truth about sin, but we should do it with care in a way that minimises *misunderstanding* by thinking about how our listener hears us in their cultural context.
IMO, if someone *asks* if we think they or something they do is sin, we should start by asking (note, Jesus replied with questions) we should first ask what they mean by sin. What ultimately matters isn't that they stop doing something that's sin - imagine you telling them that they're sinful actually did prompt them to stop (it won't), they'd still miss out on eternal life. What matters ultimately is that they turn to Jesus, that should be our priority if we love them.
 
 
The NHS is falling apart, but here people are defending something that contributes to cancer, heart disease and dementia
and all of the junk food , takeaways and sugary drinks and snacks… shall we also ban them ? No let’s go after smokers .
That's just whataboutism. Junk food does need restricting, but this^ is about smoking. And ultimately obesity is about too many calories, but we all need calories every day, so it's difficult to address - whereas no one needs cigarettes.
no it’s not “whataboutism” or whatever stupid phrases you want to spout from that moral high ground . Junk food and all this other crap has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to cause cancer , it also leads to obesity and diabetes.. but I guess that doesn’t matter.
Of course it's whataboutism, what do you think that is? It's not about "moral high ground", it's a basic matter of logic. I'm also hugely concerned about junk food, but that's not what this is about, and it doesn't make smoking any less harmful
 
show me 100 per cent proof I know people that have died of lung cancer never smoked in there life.
That something can happen without a particular factor doesn't mean that that factor doesn't cause it. Things (including cancer) can be caused by various factors. Your comment is like saying "eating kilos of chocolate every day doesn't cause weight gain, I know overweight people who don't eat chocolate". So sorry for those you knew who passed, they may have - for example - developed cancer on account of rare gene variations, that doesn't mean that smoking doesn't also massively elevate the likelihood of cancer.
 
 
You're essentially saying that being prevented from working, being prevented from speaking in public and being forced to wear a tent (and I could go on) are of no significance. This post is seriously offensive to those suffering in Afghanistan, you should reconsider our Western privilege.
 
 
Yes. But I think it also means asking what the impact of either might be on whether or not people turn to God - I'm seriously concerned that, though it's not logical, some people resent Christianity even more because of Trump. Either way, we need to keep pointing people towards Jesus Himself, not letting politicians on either side determine what the public feels about Him.
not illogical at all. People are definitely resentful of Christianity bc of Trump. I know many.
I know they are, that was my point. What's illogical is that resentment, actual Christianity - to follow Christ - is not determined by the stupidity of people who misappropriate it for political gain, observers should recognise that Jesus is independent of Trump et al. But I'm aware that emotion can compromise logic for any of us.
 
 
Plenty of people now don't even know that Jesus was a real person 
plenty of people now don’t even know that Jesus wasn’t a real person.
You're proving my point.
no eye witness accounts. All legends long after he supposedly existed.
Says who exactly? Rhetorical question, I don't think I should spend time arguing about your conspiracy theory, start by reading the article I linked to.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case, the existence of Jesus. No eye witness accounts. Only stories handed down. I perused your article. The Romans were prolific at record keeping yet there’s no records from the time of their interaction with this person. You can believe what you want but you probably shouldn’t be accusing others of providing conspiracy theories.
It is a conspiracy theory, you're theorising that people have conspired and you're rejecting mainstream academic opinion.
"Burden of proof"? Says who? And as defined how? I could demand "proof" for your claims, but as I wrote, I'm not interested in spending time arguing.
"Perused"? Why, you don't like it and want to ignore it? Should I provide more articles from historians? I presume there'd be no point.
 
You're a desperate coward afraid of not existing. You are the PERFRCT PERSON to follow this nonsense.
What about my comment makes you think I'm "a desperate coward afraid of not existing"? And why do you think I'm interested in your opinion of me?
So you think that sharing the consensus of historians that Jesus existed means I'm "brainwashed", and that your attempt to insult (NB, I didn't say that it's not "fair game", I'm amused by your desperation to rile up a stranger who doesn't give a toss about strangers' opinions) me will somehow save someone else from being "brainwashed"? Really? Interesting.
 
Telegraph, as much as you're desperate to attack a superior media outlet, it's actually paedophiles who are responsible for their own actions, not the BBC. IMO there should be more discussion about actually protecting children, and castrating abusers, instead of continually trying to misappropriate this evil for culture war point scoring.
1. Because you're religiously brainwashed and likely stuck in it until the end
2. I don't think you're interested in my opinion. You put a public comment up, which is fair game for anyone to reply to. Maybe someone still with a chance will read the exchange and avoid that religious nonsense.
So you think that sharing the consensus of historians that Jesus existed means I'm "brainwashed", and that your attempt to insult (NB, I didn't say that it's not "fair game", I'm amused by your desperation to rile up a stranger who doesn't give a toss about strangers' opinions) me will somehow save someone else from being "brainwashed"? Really? Interesting.
Who cares if anyone named Jesus existed? That means nothing.
There is no part of your religious belief that applies to anything in reality. Zero. Zilch. It's wishes for fishes and nothing more. Prayer does nothing. There is no heaven or hell, because both concepts make no sense whatsoever. Your bible carries thousands of contradictions and archaic nonsense.
You poor woman. You're STUCK with this mental prison for life. It's your right to believe in it and revolve your life around it, but the United States and it's laws are NOT a Christian theocracy. End of story.
"Who cares if anyone named Jesus existed?" evidently you do, since you've chosen to try to start an argument about it. All this spiel attacking Christianity, I really don't know why you think I'm bothered or why anyone else would find it compelling. And I never suggested that the US should be a theocracy, that you've brought up that total red herring demonstrates that you aren't actually addressing what I've written (nor what I actually think), you're just eager to have a moan and somehow get kicks out of thinking you've offended some "poor woman" (that made me laugh) - honestly you could have a better time doing something else. Bye.

 
They should start by learning enough English to know that "whiteness" literally just means being white. White supremacy, white privilege, subconscious bias and other aspects of racism certainly do need addressing where they exist, but "whiteness" is just the existence of white.
 
 
I personally (it's not my business) don't think she should let him go, but how dare someone waste the time of social services who need to fight actual abuse?
 
 
Wherever there are huge numbers of people, some opportunists may commit crime, that's the nature of flawed humanity
I agree. But, compared to a normal day or equivalent events how does it compare?
On a normal day, crimes do indeed occur around the country. Comparing events is difficulty for various reasons, and opportunists are more likely to take advantage in packed streets than streets on normal days. Fullfact's comparison finds 3.10 arrests per 10,000 people at Glastonbury and 3.76 per 10,000 at Notting Hill Carnival, which seems a small difference given that Glastonbury is ticketed and away from a city.
 
We're incredibly privileged compared to most females in our world. What's happening in Afghanistan is horrific. There are also girls who can't access school or other essentials (but most of us can afford to sponsor one of them - and it's amazing how little it costs us to transform a future)
We should keep in mind women in poverty and/or oppressed like these^ women and be grateful for what we have.

 
The BMA has opposed patients' best interests from its founding. It exists to profit from "healthcare" - of course, preventing children from going through puberty and telling them they're in the wrong body are not healthcare, but they're ultimately profitable (whilst young people are hurt) 
 
 
Why use "Israelis" in the headline? You're just encouraging hatred of Israel's civilians. If you can rightly refer to Hezbollah by name, why not also refer to other fighting forces by name (instead of nationality)?
 
 
It isn't. People who call themselves Christians whilst not actually seeking to follow Jesus are misusing the word, why let them?
The Bible repeatedly tells us to care for the poor and oppressed. Note though, that that isn't the ultimate message - most significant of all is that Jesus offers each person the choice of salvation through what He's done in our place. If we've accepted His offer, we will *want* to adhere to His teachings and example (Trump demonstrates the opposite)
 
 
Fascinating how certain people think that arrests at riots mean the police is unfair on white people, but also that arrests at the Carnival mean illogical sweeping judgements can be made about Black people. Maybe if the rioters didn't want to be policed they could have simply not gone out and behaved like fricking hooligans?
 
 
Christianity had underlain our country, people at least heard whilst growing up about Jesus and this impacted what was considered acceptable behaviour - but now our society is more secular, many people don't have this moral framework (and capitalism, which profits by telling people to seek their own interests first and foremost, dominates) and so amongst some people there's regression towards behaving like animals.
You sound like a straight up communist
OK. How exactly?
(and capitalism, which profits by telling people to seek their own interests first and foremost, dominates) the opposite of capitalism is communism, and i live in America. i can tell you right now the uk is no longer capitalist, your high taxes and over regulation of business have stifled uk economic progress to the point that you are psudo communist already. paying out welfare to the poor and having collage and healthcare be free. if you're making fun of capitalism and you currently live in the uk. its because you enjoy the communist parts of the society you live in. thus "you sound like a communist"
Disapproving of capitalism does not mean that one supports Communism, that's a blatant logical fallacy. But your assertion about me, and your serious misunderstanding of my country (especially thinking higher education is free, LOL if only) are a great laugh nonetheless.
 
Diversity
No, the rioters were white Brits.
in reaction to Government mandated & taxpayer subsidized immigration =
Forced DIVERSITY
"in reaction"? No, there's no excuse for the rioters idiotic behaviour.
"Government mandated & taxpayer subsidized" is a wholly fallacious way to describe immigration, you're apparently unaware of the reasons people come here (to Britain).
You're angry about "Forced diversity"? And think it's a reason to riot? Racist much?
 
 
Whether or not it was actually wrapped around Jesus is not the most important thing. What's most important is that He rose - but plenty of people have mistakenly bought into the ahistorical conspiracy theory that He didn't even exist https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...
that is because there is no proof he actually existed. If you think there is some tangible undeniable proof please share it and scripture is proof of nothing
Why ask me to share something when I've already shared an article?
that is not proof
It's a scholar's summary of the proof.
NB, Scripture is not "nothing", it's historical text. There's plenty to read to explore why we might consider it reliable https://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new..., but there are also plentiful sources outside of scripture for Jesus.
 
 
 
Wee Flea - "The greatest privilege on earth and the greatest pride is being an American". If a MAGA Trump supporter said this it would be ridiculed by the ABC and BBC and Guardian. Instead they laud it as some great insight because it was said by Kamala Harris. The racism, hubris, and irrationality of it all is stomach churning. What about the rest of the world?! This is 'Progressive' imperialism at its very worst.
Generally (beyond this speech), they seem not to care about the rest of the world (unless it's the Israel/Palestine conflict). They claim to be on the side of the poor, and also of people of colour - yet the banks and corporations of the US (and the UK) continue to grossly exploit some of the poorest places, inhabited by those people with the most melanin, and "progressives" don't care. Being able to dismember the unborn is apparently a social justice cause, addressing the reality of Global hunger or modern slavery isn't.
 
 
Tragically, this indescribable evil of this history cannot be changed, and both the victims (save for a very few) and perpetrators are now gone. But the corporation should act to oppose present suffering, by ensuring the labourers in its supply chains are fairly paid - and treated - *forced labour* still exists and must be ended.
 
 
I've just read a piece from The Times about how teen boys are behaving horrendously with female teachers (this is contributing to the crisis of teachers quitting)https://archive.ph/wfSOF . Tate is substantially responsible. Of course, he also contributes to violence against women and girls, and to sexual abuse (also in yesterday's Times "Violent attacks against women on trains rise by more than 50%")
I've heard it said that boys need "role models" - humanity has had a perfect role model for 2 millennia.
I haven't been in school for twenty eight years but they were educating us on respecting women even then so how is it possible that this still goes on with all the modern methods of teaching? The answer is because discipline is lacking.
I think that this is part of it, and there are other factors also.
Obviously, the internet (particularly porn), and fatherlessness* can be contributing factors - but IMO another factor is that a previous world view has been removed. People used to be raised with the idea that other human beings should be respected, because they're created by God and because of Jesus' teachings. Of course, many didn't really believe (I'm not doubting that plenty of atheists behave brilliantly), and human beings are seriously flawed, so there's always been some mistreatment of others - but I think that having this moral framework will have somewhat mitigated the extent of disrespect. Now, a world view of putting oneself first is what people grow up surrounded by in our culture instead (partly due to ubiquitous advertising)
*I am, of course, not denying that single mums can be amazing and some raise amazing young men
 
 
En route to collect my GCSE results, a song that came on prompted my Dad to talk about his reasoning behind choosing my name - that God offers us salvation without us working to attain it. My parents emphasised that I was loved irrespective of the exam results I attained, and God loves human beings irrespective of our achievements.
 
 
The behaviour of such *individuals* is utterly abhorrent.
There ought also to be discussion about the fact that, because of exploitation by our country's institutions, *populations* of innocent African people are disadvantaged, and our leaders have long failed to address this. (this does not excuse the aforementioned gangs at all, but it shouldn't be overlooked as it is)
 
 
NB, actual Christians are angry about con artists like this too. And Jesus warned about them.
but they still pray, which is no different.
It's very different, can you really not work out how?
no it isn't, it's asking a non existent sky fairy to alter the real world - and claiming that it works. ie it's the same claptrap.
Why do you think that what you think about God is relevant here? This is about the person praying as compared to the con artist. The person praying believes (as much as you don't yourself) that God may help and wants the best for person for whom they pray - and they don't personally profit from prayer. By contrast, the con artist knows they're achieving nothing but personal gain, and their interests are in attaining fame or wealth for themselves (by misappropriating what others believe)
because it is, theism is a con. You're arguing semantics, both the televangelist and prayerful lie that prayer works, they con others into joining their cult, they both profit from dishonesty and delusion in different ways.
Tbh it's pointless talking to brainwashed people, whichever cheek of the rear-end they happen to be.
Again, that you don't believe in God is not the determining factor here. The motivations of the 2 are clearly entirely different (no, actual Christians are profiting from people coming to share their belief, and no it's not a cult), I'm not sure why you don't comprehend this(?)
(2nd commenter) are you one of those people that call violent nem "not real nem" too?
Christian is not a synonym for good person.
"nem"? I presume you mean men? And no, a man is determined by his having specific sex-determining genes (on the Y chromosome), not behaviour. Actual Christianity is determined by following Christ.
(2nd commenter) And *you* are the one that decides whether or not these Christians "follow christ"? They don't decide for themselves?
Those conning others show by their actions that they aren't trying to follow Christ (as, for instance, Trump shows by his statements that he's not a genius even though he describes himself as one)
(1st commenter) no, the motivations are the same, they lie and get others to believe them.
No, "lying" is neither the reality nor a motivation. You might think that people who are genuinely praying are daft, but that doesn't mean they're insincere.
"Don't understand biology"? I have a degree in Biomedical Sciences, I understand it well enough. I'm well aware of the existence of androgen insensitivity, it's a Difference of Sexual Development - ie a person of the male sex who develops differently from others of the male sex. Which authority declared that "The sex of many androgen insensitive people is NOT defined by chromosomes"? I suspect you've copied this idea from the recent boxing debacle. Either way, you're obviously keen to try to insult me (which is fine) but you've missed the point I was making.
people with CAIS are women.
None of us could care less what the motivation of you christo-fascists is, imposing your beliefs on others. Yes the motivation is insincere, Christians behaviour is entirely predicated on reward and punishment, the idea that being good gets you some eternal reward.
Those of us who know that stuff is all just mumbo-jumbo and are good people do it simply because it's the right thing to do.
The fact you inject your own personal delusions into a non theistic space is just pure unwanted and frankly tedious arrogance, no one is running into your churches and promoting atheism yet arrogant theists constantly jump out of their lane to infest spaces where they're neither wanted or needed.
Why can't you get it? No one is interested in your specious distinctions, all prayer is inherently selfish as it all is believed to result in eventual personal reward and all prayer is dishonest because it's no better than any incantation or spell.
So no scientific source, you're simply making a pronouncement, as a man, about what a woman is, to a woman? OK. Again, this wasn't even the point.
"You christo-fascists"? What about my comments exactly do you think is fascistic?
"Imposing"? I'm not, I'm commenting on a social media post. It's really interesting that you think a Facebook page is a "space" that people should stay away from - why do comments that you disagree with bother you? Personally I think it's better to avoid echo chambers, and to see the opinions of those with whom one disagrees to have a more comprehensive understanding of the world. If anyone's "running into" anything, it's you replying to my comment on a public post and turning it into an argument (and of course, you're entitled to do so, it's just ironic - and I wonder why you don't do something more fun with your time?).
I'm wondering who's misled you about Christianity(?) - no, Christianity absolutely does not teach that people earn rewards by praying. Presuming "arrogance", or that people pray for others out of self-interest, appears a projection. Christianity is very much not about "reward and punishment", that it isn't is the most fundamental aspect of Christian theology. Christianity teaches that we can't earn salvation, it's offered through Jesus and our behaviour doesn't determine it. If we genuinely have chosen to follow Jesus, we'll *want* to seek to adhere to His guidance, and also for other people to know the joy we've found.
literally no atheist cares about your sky fairy. Littering your rantings with logical fallacies you just sound desperate, desperate to feel like you're achieving something.
You're the one that opened your initial comment with a no true Scotsman fallacy, went round and round in circles and is still just someone who wants to persuade people who think all theists are wrong that there's good wrong and bad wrong.
It's so so tedious that you just keep dragging goalposts all over the place.
Tedious, but laughable at the same time.
 "no scientific source", I trust you can prove that god exists and Jesus was the son of god? What scientific source are you using for that?
You've really misunderstood the No True Scotsman fallacy. It presumes that being Scottish determines other things about a person, but in fact a nationality doesn't determine behaviour - being a Christian is not equivalent to a nationality, it *is* a matter of world-view, and that in turn impacts behaviour.
It's interesting that you've said you don't care (I wouldn't have thought you did), yet you've chosen to argue and argue. You seem perturbed that you think I'm "trying to achieve something", what are you "trying to achieve" by turning this into an argument?
Asking for scientific evidence RE God in response to the discussion about biological sex is whataboutism that demonstrates my point (you don't have a source), and it was you who brought up biology. Science doesn't *directly* assess God, to ask that it proves Him demonstrates a misunderstanding of science. But there's plenty within science that shows that there must be a Creator, ie God.
 
 
They shouldn't even need to ask. Our continent's wealth is in no small part the result of (ongoing) exploitation of theirs (even if it weren't, medicine should be shared with those in need). Yet Africa is continually overlooked.
 
 
Mirror, elsewhere in our world, there are mothers losing their children due to poverty, and our media ignores this reality* - how many articles have there been about this^ one story?
*(in spite of the fact that we could make a difference - unfortunately the Go Fund Me wasn't going to save a life, but there are organisations through which donations CAN save lives)
 
 
Many people aren't aware of the reasons for concluding Christianity to actually be true. And if Church is just a social club, more and more people find other things to do.
That's a very vague idea - "Christianity is true". What specifically does this mean?
That Jesus rose, authenticating His assertions about defeating death. But I'm well aware this seems absurd, I thought it with mythical myself until I studied, so I'm not expecting anyone reading my comment to agree.
Has any believer ever noticed that everything that God is claimed to do or be is metaphorical and apparently unprovable? I'll study when the god shows up. It's up to believers to show me now. I thought and studied and asked and prayed for 35 years - no god.
No, who said that everything is "metaphorical"?
I don't know what you've studied, there are academics whose arguments/explanations I could suggest exploring but I suspect you don't want that(?)
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "showing up" - and note that He's usually not going to *force* people to believe. But I'm genuinely sorry if you feel hurt or frustrated.
Who said anything about forcing anyone to believe. How about make it easy to believe? Then people can use their "free will" to choose to worship or not. Wouldn't that be a much better design?
So what do you mean by "show up", if this wouldn't mean a person was left with no choice but to believe?
How would you determine it being "easy"? IMO it is if one looks at the arguments (as much as I'm typically not spiritual at all)
 
 
"Query the concept of gender" could be misleading. People like him have been trying to redefine the word. I'd say instead that he's encouraged children to query their own gender, or biological sex - and that's awful.
 
 
Who the frick is laughing at this? Personally I think it's wrong that some people accumulate so much wealth and own yachts given that there are people elsewhere in our world dying of extreme poverty (people our media ignores whilst it obsesses over the deaths of a few rich people as though the latter are a soap opera storyline to entertain the public) - but it's still an absolute tragedy for the families of the deceased.
 
 
And yet you now spend half of your funds in our wealthy country, where £ for £ it makes a faction of the impact. Last year you showed us (in Comic Relief night on the BBC) how you're helping a man move into a luxury Thames-side flat. I'd rather give to Habitat for Humanity itself (it's amazing)

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Unbeliever: Why are you following the colonizers God? Stop, being fooled.
Me: Christianity was in Africa long before it was in Europe. The Ethiplopian bible is the oldest bible in the word. The propaganda that US and British told the slave was false doctrine. They created a slave bible twisting the words of God to keep slaves in bondage. Its called "the slave bible". Had these colonizers actually been Christians, they would have to free the slaves as soon as they converted. Look it up and stop allowing the past lies and propaganda to steal your faith and right to your living God. The word of God says, let no man add or remove anything from his word. Read the bible for yourself and stop relying on people's understanding.
It's amazing how much of my cultural brothers and sisters are humbled and actually never knew there was a difference. Some even went as far as saying, we should be Muslims and not Christians. All because they do not know their history. 
They are losing out on their salvation because of propaganda still being past down generations.
Thank God I've always loved history to be able to answer these questions and start a change in their hearts.
So well said. I see this argument (made by the unbeliever) increasingly, and it's so frustrating - it's also illogical. Ultimately it's the Ad Hominem fallacy - a concept is not proven wrong on the basis of the person who relays it. Even if the unbeliever's ahistorical presumption were correct, it wouldn't change whether or not Christianity is *true*. Over the course of history, there have been many evil people who have discovered things - being morally wrong about some issues (though I know this is an understatement with respect to colonisers and enslavers) doesn't make people factually wrong about everything.
Christianity spread in Europe (inc Britain) largely via Roman Imperialism - so if the unbeliever thinks Christianity arriving somewhere because of an empire means that it's wrong in that place (as they're suggesting with their criticism of it being in Africa), they should consider it not to be European either, and that defeats their argument.
And the unbeliever's argument patronisingly implies that the many millions of African people who are Christians are all gullible and unable to think for themselves, which is obviously nonsense (potentially even unconscious Western-supremacist nonsense).
You're quite right that, had enslavers genuinely been following Jesus, they wouldn't have done what they did (those who fought to end the trade were Christians who recognised that all people are made by God) - and the fact that enslavers felt it necessary to edit the Bible shows that it's ultimately opposed to slavery (contrary to what atheists claim). And yet, still many enslaved folk came to love God, hence the amazing legacy of their songs, and the God-infused wisdom and bravery of Harriet Tubman and so many others. Though enslavers presented an erroneous version of Christianity, plenty of enslaved folk encountered God.
 
 
'"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ' This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' (Matthew 22:36-40)
Teacher, why is the preacher a paedophile? [link to Wikipedia article on abuse in Catholic Church)
I'm not sure what your point is? Disgusting, evil people exist, throughout society, sone take advantage of certain jobs so that they can access victims. That doesn't change anything about Jesus, (who they evidently aren't actually followers of, even if they've been able to attain priesthood), who spent much time arguing with supposedly religious figures who He knew were simply taking advantage of the institution rather than following God.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I was reminded of the scripture this morning when Jesus said the poor you will always have with you , but as Christians what can or are we doing to help fight poverty ?? 
The verse is frequently used (I don't mean by you!) as an excuse not to help those in poverty, but the fact that poverty won't be fully ended doesn't mean that it can't be reduced, and Jesus was talking specifically in a situation involving His physical body.
IMO we should donate to organisations that are both helping the poor - especially the very poorest people in our world (not just fellow Brits, note that Jesus teaches in the parable of The Good Samaritan that our "neighbours" to help *aren't* just our nearby neighbours), for whom each £ makes far more impact - and also share God's message. It's an amazing privilege that we can make a difference, and it's exciting to see what can be done. For instance, many Brits could afford to sponsor a child, for just over £1/day (people who have takeaways could give up 1 or 2 of these per month to afford this), and it changes life for their family whilst also raising them up to know and speak about Jesus (I get a lot of letters from my Compassion sponsor children, it's awesome to see the impact)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Random Ramble, I just felt the need to say....
It's A-Level results day tomorrow. I actually can't remember mine, but I have a strong memory of the conversation I had with my Dad en route to collect my GCSE results. He explained why he chose my name, and how it means that what we do or achieve is not the *very most* important thing.
The song “Outrageous Grace” came on whilst he was driving, and he spoke about how grace differentiates Christianity from other “religions” - whereas in other belief systems, one earns things by performing rituals and adhering to rules, in Christianity we do not earn salvation, it is only accessible through Jesus, and is offered to us though we’re undeserving.
Whilst I was happy with my exam results, my life since has been a failure and I’m painfully ashamed - but ultimately, God’s grace is offered to each of us irrespective of our achievements. I’m blessed to have extremely supportive parents, and they’ve always stressed that they won’t love me any less if I do poorly in exams or anything else - God is an incomparably greater Father still, and loves us in spite of failures.
I spoke on LBC about this earlier (probably very poorly!), the question for the hour was, in light of exam results; should students aim towards careers where they'll make money or towards what they enjoy (arts subjects etc)?
I think it's grim that this is how much of our culture thinks, all the more so when it's what's being fed to young people. We're so blessed that we know there's a greater meaning to life than money, or even our interests (awesome as these can be)
 
 
Why can't there be similar public outrage over things done by food corporations that actually cause suffering, such as the horrific exploitation in the supply chains of cocoa, coffee, tea, and certain fruit and seafood? Or the fact that there are people literally starving to death in our world?
 
 
Christianity (that is, to actually commit to following Jesus, not only to adopt a label) is more important than conservatism. Both candidates are, from a Christian perspective, absolutely terrible, but it's perfectly rational to conclude that Harris is the lesser of 2 evils.
FTR, Trump isn't even conservative anyway, he's just a power hungry opportunist who's changed his positions repeatedly for the sake of votes (in contrast to David French, who you're criticising, who actually has values and reasoning)
 
 
 
As a Christian, I'm very aware that there are significant differences between Christianity and Islam (in contrast to people saying "all religions are basically the same") - but I'm also super happy that Muslims are seeking God. It's pretty basic that Christianity teaches the ultimate problem in our world is sin, not Islam, and Jesus very much teaches that we should love those from differing groups (that is the point of the parable of The Good Samaritan - it's not solely about doing nice things for others, it's also about countering the presumption that others are enemies or that we should prefer those from our own group)
what makes us Christian?
Just that as an english person born and raised In England, i had assemblies at school with hymns and such , but I don't know one single person who goes to church at all. At all. Nobody I know even discusses Christianity, at all, or the bible at all, and nobody I know openly prays, at all.
I'm glad you're super happy that Muslims are seeking God, but Christians have since discovered oil , and they are very happy lying and slaughtering Muslims for it.
Happy to discuss.
Being Christian means being genuinely committed to Christ, not attending certain schools etc.
No, Christians absolutely are not "happy lying and slaughtering", anyone who is is not a Christian, even if they describe themselves as such, because they evidently aren't trying to follow Jesus.
 
you have clearly cherry picked the parts of the bible that you want to follow. I never read quotes of the instructions of God from the old testament which is similar to Islam imo. Neither are liberal in terms of women, other faiths etc.. I suggest you research the history of religions and you can maybe enlighten me as to why the other 3000+ religions are wrong but yours is right!
Explain what about my comments imply "cherry picking"(?)
Why wouldn't there be one Truth? Many questions have 1 correct answer. There aren't "3000 religions" that are equivalent to Christianity (what source exactly is that figure based on?). Christianity is based on historical events. There's far, far more to say about why one can conclude Christianity to be true, but I'm not sure you're interested(?)
it's always "Jesus taught us" and rarely "God said". If you were to live by the teachings of the entire bible the world would be a barbaric place. Fair enough my guess at the number of historic religions may be off but they definitely number in four figures with many older than Christianity and Islam. Maybe take a trip to Pompeii and learn about the various different religious groups who took over the city with convert or die tactics and why they all have very similar stories.
I'm not sure why you're telling me to read about world religions whilst also making things (3000) up about them(?) And again, the many figures to whom you refer are not equivalent to Jesus, they don't have billions of followers and historical records https://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new... Again, Christianity is based in historical events, and the movement has grown Globally, in the face of persecution, because people have seen the reality. (including the first followers, who saw Jesus risen, and present day converts to Christianity in countries with extreme persecution - though those in both of these groups and others in between have risked or given their lives for their belief)
"the teachings of the entire Bible"??? The Bible is not all teaching. It's a compilation if texts including allegory, poetry and record keeping. Christianity means following Christ, not re-enacting the history of the Israelites prior to His birth. The OT includes, in the contexts of accounting events, guidance given by God - but some of this is specific to the people at the time at which it was given, and some is difficult to understand in our very, very different setting - Jesus' instruction is relatively clear and how we should aim to live (though guidance was not His *primary* mission, first and foremost He came to offer salvation).
Pompeii is a non-sequitur, that some other people have had some other beliefs (and different ideas about the Creator) doesn't make the reality of Jesus untrue. What are the "very similar stories?
 
 
Thugs rioted because they thought they could get away with it – it’s that simple 
It's slightly more complicated, but this is a good point. It wasn't simply because people feel hard done by, or because they think that there's "2 tier policing", or because they're angry about the murders in Southport, or because they're racist, or because they'd been stirred up by Tommy Robinson/Elon Musk etc - most people could have any of those thoughts and still behave. But some human beings evidently don't know how to behave and get a kick out of thuggery, which is a problem as old as humanity.
We're fortunate to live in a time and place in which factors such as, historically, Jesus' teaching shaping attitudes & norms (in contrast to what they had been in primitive or ancient Roman times), enable us to live more peacefully than many other human beings have - but there'll always be idiots.
Some people have foolishly imagined that we white people are somehow inherently more civilised, the last fortnight has done a marvellous job of showing that this is nonsense.
 
 
I'd put it the other way around - we should listen to those with "concerns" (and explain why they're mistaken) BUT there's absolutely no fricking excuse whatsoever for smashing things up.
 
 
OK, but does it help? So far as I've seen, racist people don't respond by taking it on board and thinking about how they can tackle their own prejudices, they react to being called racist by becoming less willing to listen to explanations of why their ideology is wrong, or even by becoming more willing to accept that racism is OK. Sorry if I seem like I'm arguing (and obviously I'm not disagreeing with Nels Abbey that there is racism in the rioting etc, nor disputing that he has more wisdom about this than I do), I'm just genuinely wondering how best to actually reduce the problem itself(?)
when people are struggling with years of economic mismanagement they are broke and angry. Then those getting free hotels etc as new arrivals will become an easy target......fix the wealth distribution for the average tax payer.
I think it's a combination of factors - they're indeed angry about things worsening over the last 14 years, but I think there's at least subconscious racial bias in then presuming that migrants are the issue, and I have seen plenty of comments that are outright racist. But because of the reality you rightly mention, people react to being called racist by simply denying that they are (ie, "I'm not racist, I'm just angry about...") and no progress is made. I think we need to acknowledge that the rioting is multifaceted.

 
Kudos to some of my fellow white Brits for helping to dispel the popular fallacy that we're more civilised.
Certain pertinent voices, such as Farage, claim this is "a Christian country", but Christ told us to love our "neighbours", who He explained are people from elsewhere. I understand the *concern* about some immigration, but the *hatred* and *violence* are primitive stupidity.
This is predominantly an atheist or agnostic country
I'm very aware of that (although many of our values and institutions are historically rooted in Christianity - it's not always been the case that society accepts that the vulnerable should be cared for etc), I wasn't suggesting that Farage is correct. He, like so many, doesn't act know what Christianity is.
 
the problem with this is that not all our neighbours are loving us.
Jesus' command is specifically *not* dependent on that. He also tells us to love our enemies. Of course, I don't expect those who don't follow Him to take His teachings seriously, but they're what I'm personally going to *aim* (and I'm not doing well enough at it) towards, and I find it jarring that some people use the word "Christian" as an identity label whilst disregarding Christ.
and now I say why should we when our enemies don’t love us.
Who's "we"? I didn't say *you* have to, I said it's what Jesus instructs, and those who call themselves "Christian" should follow His teaching.
Of course, I think people should follow His teaching because I believe He has ultimate wisdom, but I'm not imagining that anyone should do things because of what I think, each person must have free will. And more importantly, I wish that people would choose to follow Jesus Himself (not only adhere to His teaching) because, as daft as I know it sounds, I believe He offers eternal life (Heaven) since there's sufficient reasoning (but I only came to think this after reading books on the history) to conclude that He rose (defeating death).
If people loved their enemies, there'd be far less conflict in our world. But for those of us who believe, an additional reason we should love our enemies is that God loves us even when we have enmity toward Him, Jesus showed love towards those who were killing Him.
 
if you get rid of every religion in the world you’d have no violence, no war and no famine. Simple as that, religion is the route of all the conflicts over thousands of years across the globe. So maybe keep religion out of this post. Most of the idiots rioted because of media influence not religion. Most of them have never set foot inside any form of religious buildings. Most of them were influenced by peer pressure not a fictional deity or deities.
No, human beings can be selfish, territorial and violent (as you've just noted, "Most of [the rioters] have never set foot inside any form of religious buildings. Most of them were influenced by peer pressure ", so how can you also think that "if you get rid of every religion in the world you’d have no violence"?). Far more people have been killed by regimes that happened to be Communist (see death tolls under Stalin, Pol Pot etc) than "religious" wars. It's inevitable that some people claim "religion" as an attempt to legitimise their deadly greed, but that doesn't mean they're correct. Jesus teachings are *opposed* to violence, and no one else being violent changes that.
Also "religions" are different, and not responsible for one another. Saying "religion" is to blame is not logical, it'd be like blaming Churchill for something done by Corbyn because "politics is to blame".


I really don't understand how Islamophobes supposedly concerned about crimes against girls can be such fans of Tate, who claims to have converted to Islam and boasts about abusing girls. 
 
 
Human beings are a mess, there's abuse throughout society (this is not to make light of it) - but rival media are super excited to score clicks by drawing attention to despicable behaviour by individuals at the BBC
 
 
St George had a cross on his shield and that was because Jesus died on a cross to make it possible for our sin to be forgiven.
(St Andrew was crucified on an X cross, because he refused to denounce The Gospel).
So we should have humility and a desire to follow Jesus' teachings about loving our neighbour and breaking down ethnic divides (see The Good Samaritan, for instance) - the opposite the attitude of these "protesters".
your grasp on history is hilarious, what a baffoon.... But funny.
NB, telling someone they don't have a grasp on history but not giving any rebuttal isn't very convincing
St George never had a red cross on his shield, he lived, died hundreds of years before the church adopted the red cross as a sign of crusade or the papist land grab in the middle East....
Right, so why do you think he's portrayed with a cross on his shield?
The reason we have the flag that we do is linked to Church history/imagery and ultimately to the crucifixion.
it fitted the religious mantra of the crusades to have the bloodied cross as its symbol as the popes who instigated them needed to create a mantra of noble chivalry and self sacrifice, copyright theft out and out.......
Again, it's a cross because the Church - grotesquely unChristlike as it was being - was drawing from the crucifixion. The twits rioting, some of whom say things like "this is a Christian country" should go home and read what Jesus taught.

Oh for goodness sake, go away with all your "Jesus" nonsense. It's 2024 and most of us on Facebook are grown-ups
Why, as a grown up, are you so flustered by me mentioning Jesus?
Sick and tired of it, any excuse, any subject, the God-botherers are in like Flynn with their empty-headed propaganda. You've had hundreds of years to make your case and all you do is talk vague fluff and hold back progress by crippling people's intellects as they're growing up. It's simple enough: do as you would be done by. Don't follow leaders and leave children alone.
Sorry, what? I'm not sure exactly what's made you so angry, but what does it have to do with my comment? What progress am I holding back? How is anyone's intellect being crippled?
You have to ask? You're known by the company you keep and religionists are one of the banes of humanity. Apart from its divisive, misogynist, proscriptive, moral blackmailing, religion has always held back progress because, unlike science (which forever asks questions, answers them, then asks more) it deals in unproven "certainties" which must not be challenged, but which are so full of contradictions and absurdities, they deny the exercise of the proper intellectual process from childhood. Which is perhaps why you don't comprehend my previous message: it just doesn't compute?
"Known by the company you keep"? Who is that exactly? And why? It's not logical to judge people by the actions of other people - though I don't care if you do judge me. All you've seen is a comment by me, to then get angry about what some entirely different people have done doesn't make any sense - as it happens I don't keep company particularly, I'm weirdly reclusive (partly on account of Asperger's), but I'm not relevant. It's Jesus who matters.
Why react to a reference to Jesus on the basis of the behaviour of *other people* have done - particularly if those people *aren't actually* following Him (whatever they may label themselves as) anyway?
Jesus spent plenty of time arguing with those who were considered religious (and wanted to be seen as such for reasons of status and pride) but weren't actually seeking to follow God's guidance. Anyone can call themselves anything (including "Christian"), it doesn't mean that they necessarily are - Trump called himself a genius, that doesn't mean that he is, nor that he should influence what one thinks about intelligence. Why let some people who evidently haven't been trying to follow Jesus determine what you think about Jesus?
I'm not sure why you're bringing up science. Taking *your* line of reasoning, it's worth pointing out that science has been appropriated for evil - eugenics springs to mind, Hitler was one person took advantage of contemporary ideas to justify racist ideology. That doesn't mean that actual science is to blame, just as Jesus shouldn't be hated for the actions of those who misappropriate His name.
Many scientists have inspired in part because as theists they've been inspired to explore Creation, and I personally came to conclude that God exists whilst studying science, the common presumption that theism and science are in conflict is a misunderstanding of science.
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being... This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont, to be called Lord God or Universal Ruler.” (Isaac Newton)
One thing I've noticed about arguing with theists us how they always ignore/avoid/sidestep the valid points non-theists make and simply continue re-asserting their "beliefs" by paraphrasing them or using circular reasoning. Anyway.......
So this bloke Jesus, who is alleged to have lived 2,000 odd years ago and of whom various tales were told 30 or 40 years after his (non)-death, is your main man, it seems. Quite reasonably, you feel that he can't be held responsible for anything said, or done by people who hijack his "ministry" and that he is essentially the fountainhead, and anything and everything else can, possibly should, be ignored. So while the immediate impression is that you're a Christian, essentially, you're a Jesusian. However, you also extrapolate that to include "God" (indeed you have no choice, if Jesus was also "God" and the Holy Spirit: "The Holy trinity" - three in one). You see, it's already getting illogical and complicated: he (sorry "He") begat himself, to kill himself - a primitive blood-sacrifice to himself to atone for our "sins" - to rejoin himself, while keeping an eye on the rest of this infinite universe of which we are a mind-bogglingly insignificant part - less than a grain of sand to the planet Jupiter. And we humans are SO important, that this all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving ubiquitous entity has a special interest in every one of us and all our intimate affairs. Wow. It doesn't get much more solipsistic than that, does it?
It's all so unnecessary and anachronistic, ultimately meaningless. Just assume responsibility for yourself, do the right thing (because you know, deep down, what that is) and demystify your existence - it doesn't depend on some imagined personal relationship with someone who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago who went around stating the obvious to a bunch of primitive goat-herders and making extravagant claims without any verifiable basis.
You see why I'm so tired of this nonsense?
No, I really don't see. If you think it's nonsense, why not just ignore it?
You seem to be accusing me of sidestepping something, though I didn't, then you sidestep into a very different complaint from that which you began with. I don't mind, but I'm honestly wondering why you bother(?) I think that there are other beliefs that are nuts, I don't expend my time writing about them.
That you question whether Jesus existed makes me wonder which voices you've been informed by, since mainstream historians don't take the mythicist conspiracy theory seriously https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical.... And historical accounts we have from similar eras are written *longer* than 30-40 years after events https://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new.... In a culture in which few people read/wrote, folk were practised in precisely relaying information orally, it's a very different context from now https://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new... I wonder why you think that Jesus' followers shared accounts of Him, and His resurrection, in the face of lethal persecution(?)*
You say that we know deep down what's right - to an extent that's true, but it's also in no small part because our culture has been shaped by Jesus' teachings (see, for instance, the work of historian Tom Holland), prior to which people here in the West believed it fine to leave unwanted babies to die, to disregard the vulnerable, etc. But I do think that we know deep down, to some extent, what's right, and I don't think this can be accounted if we're ultimately only molecules.
Theologians have been writing about what happened on the cross for centuries, so I'm not sure it's worth our debating it here - nor why you presume it'd be easily *made sense* of as something metaphysically so beyond our experience of life. Have you tried reading explanations?
Ultimately Jesus took upon Himself the guilt/evil that humanity has accumulated. But what's fundamental is whether the resurrection actually happened, not whether we have a complete comprehension of the theology. I thought the Resurrection made no sense, I'm instinctively inclined towards naturalism, but I've read enough about the history to be convinced that it happened (I'm not expecting you to take me seriously) - have you looked for yourself at any of the explanations Christian academics as to why they believe it to historically credible? And however one chooses to interpret the crucifixion, we are each being offered the choice - to be with God or not.
 
Calm down dude fkn religion is the problem
"religion"? As defined how? I didn't mention it. 
Your whole comment is in relation to religion And you're welcome us whites are doing a great job
No, the word "religion" is nowhere in my comment. What exactly are you criticising? And why not answer my question?
I answered your question old boy.
Your whole comment was sayings from the bible you even quote the great man himself Nigel farage " a Christian country " I'm sure you know Christianity is a religion right ? Think about it old lad think about it
I answered your question ffs and yes you are a guy ffs
No, you didn't. I asked how you're defining "religion", a word you brought up, and what exactly you're complaining about.
But given that you're calling me a lad/boy I'm aware that you're being deliberately illogical.
" A Christian country " , " christ told us to love our neighbours " just a couple of Bible that the imaginary sky fairy made they're religious quotes.
Come lad wake up
So your answer to me asking what you're saying is "the problem" is: Jesus telling us to love our neighbours? That's how you define "religion" and that's (to quote your original, "the problem") why people are rioting? People can't be rioting because of loving their neighbours, they're rioting because they don't. So I'm not sure what you meant in the first place(?)
Why bother referring to God as a sky fairy? Do you not think I've come across that misnomer countless times? It's such a cliché. I'm guessing you've written it in an attempt to annoy me (or to get a kick out of thinking that you have), in which case you should really know that it doesn't annoy me (as I've said, it's so hackneyed, I've come across so, so many times), it only leads me to infer that you're unaware of the reasoning, relating to science, history and philosophy, that those of us who are instinctively not spiritual have for believing.
Try going back to my original comment and you will see I said religion is the problem.
People are rioting because some people love their neighbours kids a little too much and then end their lives.
Do you get it mow old boy ?
I did look at your original comment, I cited it, and I know you used the word "religion", though I hadn't done, which was why I'd been asking you what you mean by "religion". You still hadn't been able to define what you mean by choosing to use the word "religion", so I asked you to specify what you think is "the problem". So, you think "love your neighbours" is the problem.
You think people who love kids end their lives? How does that make sense? I'm not sure whether you're talking about the evil that is paedophilia(?), in which case it's a fatal mistranslation of "love" (see: agape vs eros), since I'm aware that's why some people have claimed that they're rioting - but the event that sparked the riots had nothing to do with that, and crucially, rioting was not helping any children at all (in fact it does the opposite, it means more public money has to be spent on clearing up rather than improving communities, and police time has to be spent on dealing with rioters rather than stopping child abuse).
" But christ told us to love our neighbours " just one quote from a RELIGIOUS story book.
You make RELIGIOUS quotes it is RELIGIOUS and RELIGION is the problem fs 
Must be all those tablets you take to try to become a woman
"Must be all those tablets you take to try to become a woman", I'm not trans (nor intersex, nor supportive of the trans movement), but I presume you know that and are just trying to annoy because you feel the need for an ego boost. NB, it doesn't really help your general argument to repeatedly say something untrue.
We really are going around in circles. You're saying that "love your neighbour" is "the problem" - or, rather (as I've been aware all along, but I wondered if you might be able to think harder) you're wholly irrationally lumping together entirely disparate or antithetical concepts and calling them "religion", which you imply you aren't able to define. Your original point, in reply to my comment, was to use a word that I didn't and that you don't have an explanation of - I'm not sure what you think that achieves(?) It might be a better use of your time to do something else, I certainly ought to be doing better things with my time.
It'd be worth your time instead to ponder on the fact that "religion" is used to refer to things that are completely disconnected or opposed. It'd be like saying "politics is the problem" and blaming Churchill for the actions of a Corbynite, the word can refer to completely different things and to people and ideas at odds with each other. Jesus told us to love our neighbours - things done by some people who *call themselves* "Christian" whilst doing the opposite, or things done by Muhammed or his followers, etc etc, don't in any way change what Jesus said and did.
Bye, enjoy the rest of your week
 
 
The priority is not politics. It was far more important for Paul's audience (when he wrote Romans) to share Jesus' message than to unnecessarily get into trouble because of opposition to any unjust political leadership. Today I think it's sometimes right to speak to our political leaders about policies that hurt the poor and vulnerable (I write to my MP often about Global poverty), and God calls us to do so - but we shouldn't be fighting the authorities for the sake of our own interests or worrying extensively about conspiracies, because it's incomparably more important that we focus on trying to share The Gospel than, for instance, on opposing Covid restrictions.
 
 
 
Seriously this is something I think/moan about constantly - so called "social justice warriors", who'd claim to support fairer wealth distribution and help for the poor (which is what "Left" is really about) actually almost all ignore the world's poorest people and instead bang on about trans issues (or abortion). It drives me nuts.
I spoke to Rachel Johnson (sister of our former PM, Boris Johnson) on the radio on Sunday, she was suggesting that Trump will lose in part because (she presumes) everyone wants Roe reinstated - I pointed out that pro-lifers are increasingly frustrated by Trump, but also that, as someone economically Left wing, I hate that, in following the Democratic Party here on FB, I see them put endless energy into discussing abortion and I've never seen them take the time to share anything about concern for humanity's most disadvantaged.
 

OK, I know you're trying to be funny, but the point you';re attempting to make with this ^ really implies that you're seriously clueless about our country. The problem right now is very much not Muslims with knives. There are white Brits destroying buildings and attacking police - if they had guns, police officers would be dying - is that what you'd like?
And FTR, almost all knife crime here happens between gangs, not people with Palestinian scarves. Knife crime is a problem - but guns are far worse, particularly since they enable far more people to be hurt quickly, thus the US has a far higher murder rate (per 100,000 people)
And obviously, people don't dress or talk like that^
 
 
NB, we only have tea because some British people went to other parts of the world, and brought it back from a part of the Globe far closer to where these volunteers' ancestry is.
Plenty of the activity by those British people who *went to a country that was not theirs was destructive, but made Britain richer, and it's because of that imbalance that many people have ended up wanting to come here.
Today our tea and coffee are provided by workers in far poorer countries than ours, who are paid a pittance and sometimes endure horrific 
Far too nuanced for the right wing idiots unfortunately, they only think in black and white.conditions or abuse. All British people who drink tea should keep those non-Brits in mind.
I have the "British Things" song, from Horrible Histories, in my head. I remember the Right wing rags having a hissy fit about it a few years ago, because obviously a kids' educational show is too upsetting for some of the population
 
 
For frick's sake. Why does anyone need to know? What if the other people living on that street now have to put up with protesters?
The obsessive extent of coverage you're giving this pervert is getting ridiculous. If you actually cared about children, you'd report on some of those in our world who are most in need
 
There's nothing right about bragging about one's home. There are equally deserving human beings in our world living in slums and refugee camps.
 
 
I despair. They think that people coming into the country are less civilised, but they're demonstrating that this isn't true.
It's sometimes said, as an argument against Muslim folk entering, that "Britain is a Christian country", but these "protests" show that it isn't, the "protesters" attitude and behaviour is precisely the antithesis of what Christ taught. I wonder what "British values" they think they're defending.
they haven’t blown any kids to bits in Manchester at a pop concert or beheaded a soldier and stabbed another to an inch of his life+ hunters more atrocities and they are less civilised??
Almost every person they're complaining about also hasn't done those things.
Who beheaded a soldier?
The Manchester area bomber is dead, so there's no reason to protest over him.
there’s something wrong with you with a comment like that.
I'm really not remotely fussed if you think "there's something wrong" with me, but I'm interested that you have no rebuttal.
And of course there's something wrong with me, I'm a human being. All human beings sin, and Jesus offers us salvation *if* we turn to Him. He also helps us to turn away from sin and gradually become better than we were, but I'm still very flawed - however, my flaws have nothing to do with that comment.
 
What would Christ say about 3 young girls lay in a mortuary now is that British values can you see why people are angry Grace and I count myself as a Christian it's about wanting to stop it happening again
You can "count yourself" as a Christian all you like, people call themselves all sorts of things and that doesn't make them accurate (Trump called himself a genius, that doesn't mean he is) - you really need to read what Jesus actually taught, and also use your brain. Protesting does nothing to solve a tragic murder. 
 
Maybe if the media would stop creating division by using the term “far right” when mostly these are just normal people who have had enough. Being British does not make a person far right
Indeed, most of us Brits aren't far Right, we don't endorse these "protesters"
 
they are defending the future of the kids in this country. Im gobsmacked how many people like you just don’t get it  instead try to stick a label on people who have literally just had enough its simple nothing else to it not racism not thugs not far right just simply the end of accepting whats been happening. People with a brain don’t buy these labels.
people with a brain don't blame all non white people for the crime of one non white person, and people with a brain don't behave like this^
oh but its ok for Keir Starmer and minions like you to label every protestor as a racist? Ok think your argument is floored
I didn't (label every protestor as a racist), but yes it would be "ok" if I did, do you not believe in free speech? And these people are showing that they are. You're insinuating, that it's wrong to write something on Facebook but OK to riot? Funny.
PS, it's spelt flawed, not floored
 
these people entering our country are yet to show there true colours. It’s ticking time bomb! , just like that 17 year old child killer, it doesn’t happen straight away, it can take years!… but it can it will tho!
"these people"? 
yes the people entering our country! Are you seriously trying to turn my comment into racism?
You're complaining about "people entering the country" - as though they're the same as each other (you know, like we white Brits evidently all think the same as each other ) - and also worried about being accused of racism (which I didn't even do)? Funny 
 
If Britain is a Christian country then why is it that there are hundreds of empty churches without congregations? It's sheer hypocrisy to make such a claim. Why don't these violent, rioting, yobs go to church instead of smashing into shops and businesses and looting them?
Indeed. Ultimately, being an actual Christian means being committed to following Christ, but the word is very frequently misused as a sociocultural label to people who actually aren't. Church attendance is not the definition of being a Christian, but generally people (unless unwell, neurodivergent etc) would want to find a good Church and attend if possible, you're right that this isn't actually a Christian country and that these people should try attending Church instead. That (attending Church) probably sounds daft to most people, especially since many people have only seen boring Church services (in fact they're very, very varied), but I think that part of the reason our country's becoming more unstable is that *some* people (obviously not everyone) are lacking community and direction.
Growing up, I didn't believe in God (until later, when I explored the reasoning for concluding that He exists, and that Jesus rose), but it was helpful to be in a friendly community and to have direction - that one should aim towards selflessness and loving our enemies.
Historically, our country is Christian in the sense that Jesus' teachings influenced many values that we now take forgranted (ie values that most people came to hold even if not Christian). People didn't believe in caring for the vulnerable, that humans were equal, that men shouldn't be able to treat women as objects etc, when Ancient Roman religion was dominant. Historian Tom Holland has discussed this extensively. But now we're regressing to primitive ideals of greed and self-centerdness, partly because capitalism has become a more dominant religion.
 
if anything happened to the people you love . It would be these people that would be behind you . Don’t put down those who are genuine
They aren't helping anyone who's lost loved ones. And by taking up police time, they're putting people at risk, as well as destroying communities and adding to the pain of those affected by the events in Southport.
If anything happens to my family, the person who'll be most "behind me" is probably a family friend who happens to have a Muslim (Yemeni) parent, she's probably the most amazing person I know. Others who'd be "behind me" would be people from my Church, which is full of people with diverse backgrounds.
you speak of all those protestors as destroying communities. As always it is a minority . Maybe you are too young to remember when government put chosen groups of rioters amongst good honest protestors so they lost the backing of other good people watching ( miners strike and many others , it is a known tactic ) . It’s a known manipulation the same as calling them all extreme right wing when many are women , girls grandparents that are far far away from right wing extremists . I don’t say they are all innocent but they are not all bad . If the government listened it would never have come to what it is now .
And just to add .. I am sure your Muslim friends are amazing and kind people the same as my Muslim friends but over immigration is the issue here not every person that settled here .
RE "just to add", I didn't actually mention a Muslim friend (I have Asperger's, I have almost no friends - though I did have a Muslim friend in school) It's as though you've presumed that my half Yemeni friend is Muslim (she's not, she's a Christian, and evangelist - as well as a vital public sector key worker), and perhaps you didn't, but this is part of the issue, people lump people together and/or presume that their skin colour tells us about their mind.
So you think the rioters are government plants? Really? What would be their motive? They want to show that they can run the country smoothly, there's no incentive for this. And I've seen plenty of people online condoning the violence and making racist remarks.
 
In the last census 51% of respondents said they had no religion. We are Christian in name only. The religious beliefs of immigrants is not recorded so how can these thugs know what religion they are against?
It's far more than 51%, but there are still quite a few people who use the label "Christian" on the basis of wanting to feel like part of a group, whilst not actually following Jesus. And there'd be far less actual Christians were there no immigration.

Jesus Christ was from Abraham same grandfather of Muslims Arabs. And Jesus himself if he comes to Uk will be an immigrant also when he returns to the earth from Palestine. And in the language of Jesus Aramaic calling God is Allaha same as Muslims Allah. So let’s educate ourselves to become loving. We all are humans 
Absolutely. There are some things that we, as Christians, believe about Jesus that are distinct and very important - but we also have much in common. And Jesus made it very, very clear that we should be loving towards people from other groups, that's the point of the parable of The Good Samaritan amongst other teachings. There are also many times in the Bible when people from other groups do the right thing whilst some of the main characters are in the wrong, God makes it very clear that He doesn't support everything done by the group who see themselves as His people, and we have a lot to learn from others.
 
Don't tar them all with the same brushA small minority are getting involved in the violence, as with any protest they are there for the agro
The system is broke
Oh and by 2050, (according to the think tanks) Christianity will be the second faith.Ponder that thought
"tar them all with the same brush"? I just dommented on *behaviour* that we can *see*. Tarring people with the same brush is what those complaining "these people" - referring to migrants and people who aren't white - are doing.
Sure the system is broken, but these "protests" are the opposite of helping - and the comments are against non-white people in general, not "the system".
Christianity is declining because people - white Brits - ignore God, not because of Islam. And there are plenty of migrants who are Christian, migration is *slowing* the decline of Christianity in Britain.
Are you suggesting I should worry if there are more Muslims than Christians? My concern as a Christian is for people to turn to Jesus, not that our numbers are at the top of a league table.
 
Britishness. You've obviously never been accosted in the street as my wife has, or stabbed as my mate has by illegal asylum chancers. Get lost.
I have been mugged, by some fellow English people. I'm not sure what your point is, it's as though you're implying that people from our country don't commit crime.
I won't get lost, this is my country (and that of my heritage too FTR, but those with migrant heritage who were born here are also British)


It's not a response to the Southport killings, it's opportunistic thuggery.
maybe this wouldn't happen if western governments would listen to the public not wanting their towns & cities to resemble 3rd world shitholes.
"3rd world" what now? Third world countries are impoverished and disorganised because some people from *our* part of the world, with *our* ethnicity, messed them up (and continue to do so)
yeah sure. They would have all been Wakanda if the white man never stepped foot there
You mean you've only watched fiction and not read any history? I'd never have guessed.
I've read plenty of history. Make no mistake... If they had developed ahead of us then they would be the ones buying slaves from European slavers. Europeans owe them nothing.
Interesting, you've just rather demonstrated that you've *not* read much history, since you refer immediately to slavery as though unaware of colonialism and ongoing wealth extraction. Anyhoo, I'm done with this thread, bye.


"Religion" is a horrendously nebulous word. Most people are unaware of the scientific and philosophical case for believing in God, or the historical case for believing in Jesus' resurrection, so they understandably presume that it's nonsense and resent the unChristlike behaviour of people who've feigned religiosity. Jesus spent much time arguing with those who pretended to be religious whilst not actually seeking to follow God.
Care to explain why 99.9% of all gods ever invented are utter bullsh*t, but yours is true?
Why wouldn't it be the case that many things are incorrect but one thing is correct? In most situations (not least in maths and science), there's one truth, and other things aren't correct.
But more specifically, there is a Creator, and many different people groups have imagined different ideas about what a creator could be like, many imposing ideals relating to their observation of the world - their ideas don't in any way contradict the existence of an actual God.
 
provide the scientific evidence for believing in god… I’ll wait another few millennia. In the meantime, the Big Bang theory explains the origin of the universe and evolution explains the origin of life. Might want to read up on that.
Oh yikes, you think Christianity is opposed to the Big Bang theory (which originated with a monk) and evolution? Why?
This is my point, most people don't know about the whole field of academic theism
and yet you haven’t provided a shred of evidence for god. And yes I’m aware of the origin of the Big Bang theory and that some religions accept that evolution happened. I’m a molecular biologist and have a certain understanding of the origins of the various bits of evidence. However, suggesting that someone’s religious belief is a reason to think that religion is accepting scientific evidence is not really understanding how religions has attempted to suppress evidence that they don’t like.
Sorry, what? The some individuals within certain institutions opposed science doesn't change anything about the existence of God.
 
yes Big Bang was post;acted by a monk, but there is the rather awkward fact that it proves that the Christian bible is complete nonsense. No 7 day creation, no Adam and Eve, no need for a deity whatsoever.
You should read about historical understandings of the creation account. Unlike most of the other texts that make up the Bible, it's context specific poetry, not literal. The word used for "day" does not refer to 24 hour periods.
here we go. The church burned people at the stake for contradicting the literal truth of the bible, there are millions of young-earthers in America who want it taught as scientific fact, but, when it’s convenient it’s poetry or metaphor.
In fact, why not bring in another priest, Occam? Which is the simplest explanation; that things which are sacred truths suddenly become metaphors, or that it’s a load of made up nonsense stitched together from older and more sophisticated creation myths, which is demonstrably self-contradictory and largely unpleasant, albeit, perfectly in keeping with the fairly primitive and very aggressive tribe in a small corner of the globe?
"Burned people at the stake" - why would the actions of some evil individuals within certain churches disprove God? Jesus spent plenty of time arguing against people in religious institutions who were only interested in domineering and who weren't actually following God.
"millions of young-earthers" - and? The idea (of a young earth) is, ironically, pretty young, and that some Christians (mostly in a different part of the world from me, and from most Christians) believe it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with me "when it's convenient" or with the reality of God's existence.
I don't see how your proposed Occam's Razor actually shows the hypothesis you're intending to denigrate as being significantly less complex than then other (which ironically you happen to have described with many more words) - or why you're so concerned by interpretations (why wouldn't text from thousands of years ago be complex to understand? That doesn't disprove God) of the opening of Genesis? Do you think that the reason we believe that God created is that Genesis says so?
the idea of a young earth us pretty young? Are you just making stuff up as you go along?
Young earth was official doctrine from the start and pre-dates Christianity it wasn’t til Hutton, that it was seriously questioned.
Your arguments, quote frankly, are an incoherent collection of non sequiturs . I presume you have some kind of qualification in theology, you really aren’t an advert for it.
Still, I’ve never seen a word count used as a counter to Occam’s razor, but, in case you’re even stupider than you appear ‘it’s made up , just like every other religion’ , is a simpler explanation than the causa sui creator who made an entire universe full of wonders but is obsessed with the genitalia of a species of ape in a small corner of a small planet in an obscure galaxy.
"Young earth was official doctrine"? Sources please.
No, I don't have a qualification in theology, my degree is in Biomedical Sciences.
I didn't say that word count counters Occam's razor, I wrote that the comment is ironic. Again, what I wrote was that "I don't see how your proposed Occam's Razor actually shows the hypothesis you're intending to denigrate as being significantly less complex than then other ". To say ‘it’s made up , just like every other religion’ still isn't markedly "less complex" than the notion that a truth has been relayed using metaphor. Again, comparing Christianity to other religions (in addition to disregarding its distinctions in terms of history) doesn't in any way disprove God's existence.
ffs, there were numerous attempts to calculate the exact age of the earth using the bible as late as the 1800s. The Catholic Church, Calvin and Luther all believed in it as do up to 40% of the population of the US even now.
Again, the bible doesn’t remotely talk about metaphors, it is presented as fact, and was largely treated as such until it became obvious that it was all pish (well not to 40% of the US population, but what can you expect?).
But, here’s the thing, if the Adam and Eve myth isn’t true, then there is no original sin, and therefore no need for Jesus to die for our sins. Without that myth, the whole basis for Christianity is undermined.
Occam’s razor removes the need for God as an explanation for the universe, hence LaPlace. Sorry, you presented yourself as vaguely educated, I should have known better.
Again, sources? (RE it being "doctrine" that the Earth is young). Certain individuals trying to calculate an age for the Earth doesn't mean it was "doctrine", or that the actual age of the Earth disproves a Creator.
Why do you think that "the bible doesn’t remotely talk about metaphors, it is presented as fact"?
No, there are varying ideas amongst theologians RE Adam&Eve and original sin - but it's pretty evident that humanity has sin (and I'm conscious of my own sin) without needing to believe it was transmitted from a single pair.
The basis for Christianity is Christ, and His resurrection, which is another huge topic.
No, Occam's razor does not remove the need for a Creator, the notion that the universe was created rather than having somehow brought itself into existence is not a matter of *complexity*. But I'm not sure why you'd dogmatically presume that Occam's razor must always be correct and the end to all discussion anyway, that in itself is not logical.
 
 
and yet you haven’t provided a shred of evidence for god. And yes I’m aware of the origin of the Big Bang theory and that some religions accept that evolution happened. I’m a molecular biologist and have a certain understanding of the origins of the various bits of evidence. However, suggesting that someone’s religious belief is a reason to think that religion is accepting scientific evidence is not really understanding how religions has attempted to suppress evidence that they don’t like.
Sorry, what? The some individuals within certain institutions opposed science doesn't change anything about the existence of God.
still zero evidence. Pathetic.
How am I supposed to summarise this topic in a Facebook comment? Why don't you look into it yourself?
Just one peer reviewed study - or are you chicken?
peer reviewed study? How do you suppose that scientific instruments could directly measure the existence of God? I'm not sure you've thought about the nature of scientific literature(?)
And why haven't you answered my previous questions?
I answered your “question” with a request for one single peer reviewed scientific paper backing up your claims. You clearly don’t understand burden of proof.
Wow, an undergrad biomedical science degree. And yet you don’t seem to understand what scientific evidence is… pathetic much? I have a doctorate degree in molecular biology. I do know what constitutes scientific evidence.
Again, I don't know how you think a scientific paper would directly analyse God given that scientific instruments detect created matter and energy, of which He is not comprised.
No, asking for a peer reviewed paper is not an answer to "how am I supposed to summarise this topic in a Facebook comment? Why don't you look into it yourself?"
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I'm despairing at the thuggery and racism we're seeing right now. Commentator Tim Montgomerie has been saying (on TV on Friday) that whilst he doesn't condone the rioting, many people are legitimately upset that our "Christian" country is changing. But the "protests" belie that this is a "Christian" country (though I'm not sure[?] a country can be Christian, being Christian is a personal decision). Throwing bricks at police is not something people genuinely trying to follow Jesus would do - but even without the violence, the whole motivation of these people is wrong (and daft).
Many England flags are on display - which is ironic - we have our flag because St George had a cross on his shield, and that was because of Jesus, who taught the very opposite of what these Nationalist thugs believe.
I’m disgusted seeing many comments by people who seem to think that we white Brits are inherently more civilised - thus they’re angry about migration and diversity, and they’re actively demonstrating that they aren’t civilised at all. In fact we’re rather immensely *privileged* that much about our country, and “British values” have historically been shaped by Jesus’ teachings (in contrast to the very different world-views of preceding Western civilisation, in which many believed theft, brutality etc were fine) - now some people are claiming to defend this good culture whilst actually disregarding the source of the goodness (Jesus). Meanwhile whilst a few people are migrating into Britain with ideologies that conflict with ours, there are also some who know God, and our country would be *less Christian* without migration or diversity.
We need to pray for peace, and against racism - but also that people in our Nation would find Jesus.
There's evidently an issue with *some* Muslims, but there are also many Muslims who are genuinely an asset to our communities. IMO, Islam itself has some serious issues, not only because it's incorrect about Jesus but also because of Muhammed's behaviour - but plenty of Muslims would never emulate his violence or perversion, and many are more determined to be good citizens than plenty of my fellow white Brits.
Apparently the murderer in Stockport was from a Christian Rwandan family - so it's wholly irrational that people have been protesting outside Mosques, but it's also irrational that some other people have been describing the killer as Christian, his actions show that he is not a follower of Christ. (personally I'm also annoyed that media outlets have been talking about him being Autistic - I'm Autistic and obviously Autism has nothing to do with violence, but I guess if this media reporting in any way helps a few racist people realise that his ethnicity wasn't the issue then that's a good thing).
Whilst the Stockport killer is obviously an evil individual, people like Tim Montgomerie should keep in mind that our country would be far *less* Christian if it weren't for the people of African heritage we're blessed to have here (so sorry if that sounds patronising!)
so much you say is great. However, in some situations, autism can lead to violence - ask teachers in autism schools, or parents who have to call the police regularly. It's not every experience of autism, but it could be part of it for this lad. In addition, if he has been treated super badly because he is autistic, that could lead to an emotional blowout.
Yes, sorry I should have phrased that better. I guess I feel that, since Autism is so varied and complicated, and much of the public know so little about it, it'd be better for the media not to mention it. Though again, I'm very bothered by the brain-dead idiots who blame the killer's behaviour on his ethnicity, so maybe if hearing he's autistic mitigates that thinking then it's better than mentioning it(?)
I guess, more broadly, I hate how there's so much public obsession with and media coverage of individuals who do evil things. I'm not claiming that murderers deserve privacy - but knowing about this killer, or what's going on with Huw Edwards etc, won't make life any better for the victims. It feels like a manifestation of the human instinct to make ourselves feel better about our own sin by ignoring it whilst we titillate ourselves over villains. Obviously, sometimes some coverage helps to find a suspect who's not yet been caught, and some coverage of certain crimes raises awareness of particular problems that could facilitate positive change - but so often the news and public discourse seems to be people salivating over horror, or whether a criminal's traits can be appropriated for a logically fallacious political argument. 
 
Whilst I agree that Jesus would not advocate throwing bricks, setting fire to buildings and looting and that we should wholeheartedly be living and praying for peace, there is another agenda going on here to decimate the English people. There are many videos which explain this and there are people who say that there is a silent army made up of immigrants living here (they are all fighting age males coming into the country). Then there are posts explaining about the implementation of sharia law. Let us be focused on the word of Jesus but also not be naive about the hidden agenda going on in this world.
No. The internet if rife with racism in support of these "protests", and as Christians we don't need to buy into conspiracy theories.  
No conspiracy theories, that's just what the world wants you to believe. 
It is, by definition, a conspiracy theory. It's a theory that someone is conspiring.
What exactly, from a Christian perspective, do you think I should be worried about as an English person? Right now I'm worried about the stupidity of some of my fellow white English people.
There are white English people who are getting involved just to cause trouble. The conspiracy theory is about what is behind all of these events and who organises them. It's deep and dark and part of the spiritual warfare, another subject entirely. From a Christian perspective, we just need to place our trust in Jesus because Bible Prophecy will dictate events. I pray you will keep safe along with the rest of our brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.
There is spiritual warfare indeed, but it's against sin, not migrants. Most people here in the UK reject God, *that's* the problem, not Islam (as much as, like I said, I'm well aware that Islam has huge problems). Many Muslims, though obviously - crucially - in desperate need of Jesus - are closer to God than many fellow white Brits.
Thank-you for your prayers, will pray for you too
 
 
This joke makes no sense - and is frankly offensive to Black women. Their ethnicity is not remotely equivalent to male genetics, and that's what this^ implies.
thank you for telling black women what offends them.
I actually didn't. I said that this offensive, I didn't say whether or not they feel offence.
It's not unusual for people to comment on things that might be disrespectful to folk other than themselves. If someone used the N word, would you avoid saying that it's offensive because you aren't the target?
yes because black peoples told me it was. What black person told you the meme above was offensive? Oh you didn’t ask you just used your white privilege to assume for your own self interest.
That's hilarious. What is my "self interest"? How is writing a Facebook comment an example of "white privilege"? How could I have asked someone about the specific meme I've only just seen? I'm not sure why you're objecting to me (rather than mindlessly endorsing it because it's fashionable to laugh at JKR) recognising that the meme is likening being Black to having male genetics.
And if you want to play identity politics, why are you as a man policing what women can say about womanhood?
you’re doing it now and you don’t even know it. Self enlightenment would be your best answer.
Doing what?
Exactly. Ask your black friends what you're doing. They'll tell you.
So you can't answer, and you think I should talk to Black friends about comments a random white man on Facebook made about women? I think they have better things to do with their time than discuss your efforts to have a futile argument.

actually Black women have been speaking out about this precisely because African women get misgendered more often.
And the Algerian woman doesn’t have “male genetics”
"Speaking out" about what exactly?
The Algerian boxer has XY chromosomes, and DSD (FTR, I'm not condoning the nastiness directed at Khelif)
She may have it . That’s what the discredited Russian federation have said but there has been no evidence to back it up
Many Black women have spoken out that these comments to Khelif are the same as ones about other African women who are misgendered as they don’t look “traditionally feminine “
Black women face this more than yt women
It's been reported by many sources. (Again, I wish people would stop being unpleasant to Khelif, I can't imagine how psychologically painful this must all be)
The black individuals I've spoken to and read comments from are *less* liberal on this topic (though I don't doubt that there will be endless variation in views). I'm aware of the concern to which you refer, but it doesn't make sense of the meme.
Neither I nor JKR are saying anything about looking "traditionally feminine". Because sex is determined by genetics, appearance (and speed etc) are irrelevant, a woman would still be just as much a woman if she seems less "traditionally feminine" (though I don't see how Black women are less "feminine" at all, arguably the opposite is true), because it's her genetic makeup that makes her a woman.
I think that a concern has been that Caster Semenya may have been treated with exacerbated unpleasantness on account of (subconscious) racial bias.
Particularly this week, having seen more anti-Black racism online than usual, I wish people wouldn't try to use Black identity to score points in the gender wars.
it’s been reported by sources repeating the potentially false information 
And Rowling is one of the people being nasty . Stop defending the bigot
Calling it false information without evidence isn't particularly convincing. But Khelif is ultimately not even mentioned in the meme, the meme is making a joke out of Black women.
I didn't "defend" her, but telling people not to isn't an argument.
 
 
Yup, normally Right wingers theoretically support taking personal responsibility for their actions, these thugs don't (and rather than blaming the murderer for their actions as an individual, they irrationally employ identity politics and blame a demographic). demanding people not have free speech? Why shouldn't Starmer say "far Right" if he wants to?
 
 
As a Christian, I'm never thinking about "heavenly reward" when I donate (or that I'd otherwise be punished). I desperately WANT the world's poorest people to be helped - I've always wanted this, but feel it more intensely since becoming a Christian.
 
 
These rioters are proving that this is not a Christian country. They should stop throwing things like chimps and read Jesus's teachings.
 
 
There's nothing to be divided about. Everyone agrees that the murders are an indescribable tragedy carried out by an evil individual - the people exploiting the tragedy because they want to feel like "defenders", moaning about people who aren't like themselves whilst getting kicks from smashing up our country, are irrational twits.
 
 
Some white people: "Violence is because of non-white people coming into Britain!"
...."Let's go and be violent!"
Numbskulls.
 
 
The problem in both our nations is people disregarding Jesus. In the US there are more people still claiming to be Christian (for social reasons) or insinuating that they are, but many demonstrating that they aren't (Trump being the epitome of this fallacy)
 
 
Why does anyone need to know?
I'm sick of tabloids obsessing over individual stories of horrific individuals, as though you want to titillate people with the emotions of watching a soap opera. Real people have been killed and injured, and soaking in hatred against this evil murderer doesn't make the lives of the affected families any better.
Meanwhile brain dead racists look at this^ and imagine that his pigmentation is somehow the issue, as though people of colour aren't individuals with independent minds, or that there haven't also been white murderers throughout history.
because people want to see what a murderer looks like
Why?
and why not maybe your one of those people who feels sorry for him and thinks he's misunderstood come back if it happens to one of your family
So you can't answer the question as to why? (I already explained why not)
I never said I feel sorry for him, you're just putting words in my mouth because you don't have an answer.
you never answered the question why should he not be named and have his picture shown ,you kill innocent people you lose all your rights,people's pictures have been put on social media saying this is the person responsible for these atrocities, just name them show them stops lots of false information ,or maybe you think he should be pitied, sorry put him down he is no better than an animal that goes bad
I didn't actually say that he shouldn't be named and shown, and I certainly didn't say that he has "rights", but I did give some reasons why this reporting is not helpful.
AGAIN, I never said he should be pitied, seriously why the frick do you keep making up what you imagine other people think? It's such a basic fallacy. I already said that he's an evil murderer, maybe you should read what people write rather than fighting a strawman?
 
His race is the issue 6 killed in a fortnight and one soldier knifed last week, all migrants.Billions in police, nhs money for not processing immigration the right way.no job or security clearance no entry
He's not an immigrant. And it's hilariously irrational and ignorant to think that his ethnicity is the reason for his behaviour. By *your* logic, you are linked to Huw Edward's behaviour (and Jimmy Saville's, and that of the countless white murders we could list...)
Where did I say immigrant? Migrant, we are talking about people who shouldn't have been in the country, put your glasses on 6 people murdered who killers shouldn't have been in the uk unless they had a job and security check 18 % are poc yet everytime there is a terrorist attack its a poc that does it.
The words migrant and immigrant don't refer to whether or not a person has legal status and he was born here, so of course he's not someone who "shouldn't have been here".
18% according to who? And even if that were true, so what?
Yet don't know there son is mental case? they obviously need further educated then as does the cross bow killers parents who two sons are murders
That doesn't support your assertion at all. And there are plenty of parents who can't control their children.
The cross bow killers aren't Black, I guess you're bringing them up because you think that we white people are uniquely less violent than all other ethnicities, which is completely nonsensical (and racist, obviously)
 
 
(Complaint to BBC)
During news programming on Saturday morning, the speech that Trump had given  on Friday night was described as having been at a "Christian" conference. But the speech did not at all fit the definition of *Christian*, clearly no effort was being made to adhere to Christ's teachings whatsoever. That a person, institution or group asserts something about themselves/itself does not confer upon it the status of that descriptor (Trump identifying himself as a genius did not mean that he is), it should not be reiterated without qualification by factual media.
Consider ISIS - the BBC unwaveringly referred to the group as "so called Islamic state" - so why not afford the same consideration to controversial political entities *claiming* to be Christian? For the sake of accuracy and objectivity, Hamas is always said to be "designated as a terrorist group by the UK government" rather than simply "terrorist", so why not similarly clarify that the conference *claimed* to be Christian, to avoid presenting contested opinion as fact? Or, more appropriate still, simply refer to the event as a conference (perhaps name the organisation - Turning Point - *this* is objective information).  
The culture in the US is very different from ours, and Christianity is constantly misappropriated by politicians - for British (or international) viewers unfamiliar with this complex context, designating this event as "Christian" is misleading.
Thankyou so much for reading
 
 
Expressing offence as so many have gives the impression that Christians are insecure and pugilistic. I get that it's exasperating to see and might feel like an assault - but there's no need for us to adopt victim status when in reality Jesus is the victor. No drag queens change The Truth.
What's really upsetting is that so many people are missing out on knowing Jesus
 
 
Fricking muppets. How can they (wrongly) blame non-white people for animalistic behaviour and then behave like this? Utter idiots.
well lighting candles isn’t doing much good is it!!
And what "good" does this^ do? It leaves even less time for police to to address other threats, and taxpayers' money will be spent on the clean up. It also adds to the stress faced by the community and detracts attention from the tragedy of the girls' deaths.
 
what is animalistic is walking into a dance studio and butchering little girls to death. This response is mild compared to what should have been.
That's a non sequitur, the post is about the riots. They^ aren't in any way addressing the problem of the horrific murders, they're just being irrational thugs, wasting police time and tax payers' money, and stealing attention from the bereaved.
and so the same logic applies to the trouble at the pro Palestinian marches then? And the rioters in Leeds over the airport and incident? On the contrary, they are most definitely addressing the cause of the murders. And it's about time too.
Do you not understand the concept of protest?
But I was indeed furious about the protesting outside Manchester police station, and I have been moaning about the pro-Palestine marches since they started. That's sheer whataboutism, the OP isn't about those.
And no, they aren't addressing the cause of the murders, for frick's sake, do you think that these sodding yobs are somehow magically transmitting punishment to the 17 year old by throwing bricks at police?
of course I understand. But when a Muslim asks n a balaclava brandishing a machete turns up at a vigil for children but here'd by an immigrant, people's emotions are bound to boil over. Thing is the police seem to tolerate it from every minority under the sun then come down like a ton of bricks on the British, who've had enough of this tier policing and being treated as second class citizens in their own country. Of course they're not transmitting punishment to the 17 year old migrant, they're casting punishment on the establishment (of which the police act as a part of with their biased policing), for allowing this to happen to our kids with their globalist agenda.
What evidence is there that they were rioting because of a Muslim in a balaclava?
Again, the rioting would not be in any way justified (by a Muslim in a balaclava), only that individual would be responsible, it's brain-dead to trash a neighbourhood and attack police. "Emotions boil over"? They're ANIMALS. You're just trying to excuse entirely illogical, violent idiocy, and it's illogical, violent idiocy that leads to tragedies like the evil murder of those girls.
The killer wasn't an immigrant, he was born in Wales.
"Seem" according to what evidence? Again, destroying a community and hurting innocent officers makes no sense either way. "Casting punishment on the establishment"? They aren't doing that at all, they're punishing the people of Southport and officers who are simply doing their jobs.
NB, the questions are rhetorical, I don't want to waste any more time on this thread and I'm not interested in any more of your attempts to justify violence.
 
very repetitive posting. The Grace Dalton propaganda machine is out in full force today.
"propaganda" for what?
come off it Grace, you virtue signal with the best of them.
Sorry, what? You said "propaganda", what for? How is it "virtue signalling" to express my frustration?
You're out here all the time promoting one love, but it ain't one love is it. You need to get your head out of the fairytale and smell the coffee before you sleepwalk into a society that won't like you very much.
That's not propaganda, nor virtue signalling - nor is it anything like what I wrote/implied.
What I was saying was that people should stop being racist, irrational thugs.
hey, you vilify your own people as much as you like. It won't be me whose rights are curtailed in years to come. I won't be made to wear a burka either. C'est la vie
"Own people"? They're not "mine", people having the same pigmentation as other people is irrelevant. Clearly you don't agree with some people who share your heritage, so why do you think I should be lumped together with people who share mine? Why are you defending people who want to lump you together with people you evidently disagree with?
 
 
French police investigating abuse targeting Olympic opening ceremony DJ over ‘Last Supper’ scene
As a Christian, I don't know why some people who claim to be Christian think it so important to take offence. We should instead be heartbroken about people rejecting Jesus (which is the reality whatever was going on with the opening ceremony), often having not explored the case for believing.
And if anyone is genuinely be abusive whilst claiming to be Christian, than THAT is an offence to God.
People like you are why I became an atheist.
So you think that some *other* people change what's true or false about God? Why?
What exactly about my comment bothers you so much?
Everything about your comment. The fact you state they were "rejecting Jesus" the fact that you claim with absolute certainty your beliefs are "true", your only evidence is a book. And yet, you claim that a ceremony based on a painting from an event that predates Christianity should make Christians "heartbroken". Get over yourself. Your religion isn't the only one that matters. Really none of them do, but that's beside the point.
People who aren't following Jesus are rejecting Jesus, why does that offend you?
I didn't say anything about "certainty" that what I believe is "true". But yes I am certain, why is that a problem? Most people are certain of some things, if you don't believe that what you think is true then you'll believe something else instead. Why would people believing something mean that you conclude it to be untrue? If some people believe String Theory, that wouldn't be reason for me not to believe it, I should base my view of what's *true* (RE String Theory) on looking at the physics for myself, things going on in other people's minds don't change whether or not String Theory is reality.
I didn't say anything about what the painting is based on (though there is evidence it's partially based on the Last Supper), I simply noted that some people are taking offence, and that they shouldn't.
Why wouldn't one be heartbroken if they believed that something indescribably awesome is offered to people and many are missing out on it? Do you not care about other people? (that's rhetorical of course, I presume that you do)
I didn't say anything about my "religion" being "the only one that matters", you seem to be angry with things you're imagining.
You know that you can not follow something, and yet not reject it. I don't follow Buddhism, yet I find some of the philosophy of Buddhism to be applicable. I don't "reject" Buddha. Jesus, whether he existed or not also had some good points. I may not follow the religion, but that does not mean I "reject" the teachings. It just means I don't buy into all the supernatural crap. If anyone is rejecting Jesus, it's modern Christians, many of whom feel his teachings are "woke" and "weak" and instead focus on the more hateful and persecuting aspects of the Bible. And it's you that seems to be imagining things if you feel that the ceremony was "rejecting Jesus".
Indeed, I'm well aware that many people respect some of Jesus' teachings. But He makes a specific offer, people can either accept or reject that, and it's the decision of each person.
(I'm not sure why you say "whether He existed or not", historians don't doubt that He did, the idea He might not have existed is just a daft internet conspiracy theory https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died). But again, I don't know why this bothers you (ie, you're complaining about my having this view); nor why what's going on in my head (or what you think about me based on a Facebook comment, or rather the comments of others you've encountered in the past) would be a contributing factor in you becoming an atheist.
"Modern Christians"? How many do you know? People are all different. There are plenty of Christians helping their communities etc. But I'm painfully aware that we're all still very, very flawed - and that *particularly in the US* (things aren't the same here) there are many people who *claim* to be Christian yet evidently are not actually trying to follow Jesus at all. It just suits them to be part of a tribal identity group. Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with those people in His day who feigned religion to suit themselves whilst they *weren't* actually following God. I'm not sure what those people have to do with you being an atheist (they don't change whether God exists, whether Jesus rose, etc), or with my comment.
I think a lot of it is probably cultural difference. I am American, so I see first hand how Christianity and Christian Nationalism is destroying my country and harming people I care about. We are less than 3 months away from an election that may determine if this country becomes The Handmaid's Tale. It tends to sour one's opinion on Christianity, especially since American Christians are more a political entity than a religious one, and they will do great harm to myself and many others given the opportunity.
On the night that the Olympics Opening Ceremony, Trump gave his speech to Turning Point's "believers' conference" - it was the latter that made me really angry and upset. Things aren't the same here in the UK (though I'm not pretending there aren't some faux Christians, and we're all very flawed), but I have some idea through trying to follow what's going on in the US. What you're seeing is a largely American phenomenon, with a complicated history - but as I wrote, Jesus was arguing with people appropriating "religion" for power purposes and self-righteousness 2,000 years ago, it's partly a general problem with humanity. Obviously, it's not up to me at all, and I apologise that this will sound patronising, but I'd urge you not to let the behaviour of these people in any way influence whether or not you ever look into finding out more about Jesus, they don't change anything about Him (and He actively opposed such hypocrisy). Again, apologies for sounding patronising (it's only because I personally believe that Jesus loves people that I'm saddened by people missing out, I'm not disputing that it's a wholly personal decision and I know I sound nuts).
I was a Christian for 30 years. And, philosophically, I think there is a lot of merit in Jesus's teachings. But, I no longer look at it from a religious standpoint.Trump's speech was very concerning for many reasons.
Because of fake Christians? (to clarify, I'm so sorry you're having to put up with this in your country). Yes Trump is scary.
No, because IMO, they all are fake. It was the implications that he's basically going to set up an autocracy and do away with elections. Ever hear of Project 2025, it's scary stuff.
What led you to go from being a Christian to thinking that God is fake?
Way too long to get into it. It wasn't an overnight decision.
I wouldn't have thought that it was (an overnight decision).
Personally, I grew up in a Christian family and then began to think it was all fake. Studying further, I later came to conclude that the arguments (put forward by various academics) stack up for concluding God's existence and Jesus' resurrection to be true - but I totally get that it otherwise appears nonsensical, so again, I apologise for coming across as patronising. And my hugest sympathies about the MAGA mess.
 
 
That joke Vancee made, had nothing to do with a hatred of women and everything to do with women who choose to abort babies (not unable to have them naturally, but make the choice to abort instead) are the single "cat ladies" who scream the loudest about "women's rights." In other words, he said they're not concerned with women's rights, they're only concerned with having abortion on demand and are bitter angry old cat ladies.
He didn't mention abortion in that comment. I'm a woman with no kids, and tough he was mocking people like me I'm not personally bothered -but I'm really worried that comments like his add 2 the pain felt by women who long to be mothers and can't, or who've lost pregnancies or children.
[other individual] (That’s me. I’m almost aged out of the chance to have kids, and I don’t want to be politically deemed less for it. I’d still love to have a family, and it hurts to be lessened and shamed for not having one.
I'm so sorry if anything makes you feel hurt. Vance thinking folk w/o kids are less qualified to work in politics, but it's he who's unqualified, because his comments show that he's either too ignorant or too uncaring to consider those who would like kids and can't have them(folk for whom his comments could be hurtful), or those who've lost children.
Not having kids can means having more time to read about and understand what's going on in the world, the relatives of mine w/o children are more politically engaged. And if a person only cares about the world because of the future of their own genes, that's less admirable than wanting the best for humanity to whom one's not immediately related.
JD Vance claims to be Catholic - a Church run by folk w/o kids. And if he actually read the Bible, he'd see that God calls us to help our neighbours and to share His message - not just to reproduce. Some important Biblical figures, obviously including Jesus but also Paul (who wrote much of the New Testament) and others didn't have children.
 
 
(in Unbelievable Facebook Group)
No issue, differing usage of a word doesn't negate a reality. We use the word God to refer to the real God, but god is still used in our language to refer to other concepts of a deity. There is a Creator, many different people groups have sought Him, some people have imposed wholly mistaken ideas upon Him but He reveals Himself through Christ.
 
 
(in Theology for the Thinking Believer Facebook Group) 
Friends what does the Bible say about suicide, or assisted suicide?
Can a person be forgiven and received into heaven
URGH, some of the comments here! The Bible *doesn't* say that suicide is a sin. The commandment is not to *murder*. When suicides occur in the Bible, there's no comment that they're immoral/sinning. Obviously, a person shouldn't commit suicide, because they are precious and God has a purpose for their life no matter how much of a disaster it (their life ATM) may seem. But it's not sin, it's tragedy.
Assisted Dying being legalised is a serious problem, vulnerable folk will feel/be pressured to die.
The inconsistency in your answer here is that you can't say a person "shouldn't" do something and then at the same time claim it would not be wrong to do so. To say you shouldn't or should do something, are moral conclusions.
Absolutely not. Not everything that's inadvisable is *sin*
Again, if you use the term *shouldn't*, like in it shouldn't be done, then you are appealing to some sort of objective moral standard for why it ought not be done. Doing something contrary to that objective moral standard is sin.
Suicide is a sin precisely because it denies and undermines the purpose that God has for a person's life (as you rightly observe), just as any other sin is a denial of somethings purpose.
""Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial." (1 Cor 10:23) - Paul is saying that whilst some things are permissible, they shouldn't be done.
And suicide is borne of (mental) illness, not sinfulness. Again, the Bible doesn't say that it's sin, you shouldn't make sins like the Pharisees. Lots of things that people do could hinder potential purposes for life, yet God has given us free will.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
CAN WE GET AN AMEN. CAN WE DEFEND OUR FAITH.
The Last Supper is a SACRED event in our Faith. Anyone or anything that MOCKS it - I will NOT entertain or SUPPORT
No. The Tates are violent, money lusting pimps, antithetical to Jesus, and this^ culture warring is not Christian. Yes the skit mocking the Last Supper was OUTRAGEOUS, but a war-like reaction helps nothing. It's God who has reason to be angry, not us - and He doesn't need us to have Tate-like attitudes, He is infinitely bigger than they or the Olympic organisers are.
What we need to do is to try to point people towards Jesus Himself, and the Tate-like attitude does the opposite. We should be painfully upset about the skit - because it shows that people are rejecting God.
Being angry and not watching sporting events (I hate professional sport anyway) is *not* real "power". It won't achieve anything for God.
 
 
So much about Trump's attitude demonstrates that he's not trying to follow God. He's simply referencing God and "religion" to score votes.
FTR, this has gone on throughout history. Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with "religious" folk around Him, because their religiosity was a charade and they weren't actually trying to follow God (which He pointed out was evident in part due to their lack of compassion for the disadvantaged). He also warned about false prophets and fake followers.
trump isn't saying he is a prophet. He is just like any Christian saying they believe in jesus/God. Who are you to judge his soul and heart? Judge your self before you go and judge others.
I didn't say that he's claiming to be a prophet, but certain supporters he surrounds himself with are false prophets
How exactly are you defining "judging"? I'm not wishing ill on him, I'm commenting, the Bible doesn't say that we shouldn't comment - in the New Testament, Jesus repeatedly calls out the faux religious, as do Paul and the apostles. Also see Corinthians 2:15.
 
you are inferring that he is not acting/ talking like a Christian. Be careful with that attitude. True Christians are imperfect. We say, do, act imperfectly all of the time. Imperfect and exactly why we need Jesus. We will never be perfect until we die a physical death. Until then we will still goof up. We can only keep trying.
He isn't (acting/ talking like a Christian). I'm well aware that I'm grossly imperfect, and that we'll all be imperfect this side of heaven, that doesn't mean that any behaviour at all can be thought to be that of someone who's following Christ. Hitler claimed that his movement was Christian, would you say that we shouldn't "judge" him and he could just have been an imperfect Christian?
Plenty of scripture indicates that genuinely choosing to follow Jesus, whilst not making our behaviour perfect, does change us. For instance, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11) - and Jesus told us that we will know people by their fruits, He's instructing us to assess what people do and not just what they claim to be.
And why do you think I need to "be careful" anyway? I'm not harming Trump or anyone else. What IS catastrophically harmful is Trump contributing to some people mistakenly thinking Christianity is hateful, arrogant, anti-science, nationalist, etc. Plenty of people are avoiding exploring Jesus because they're so grossed out by what they see of Trump and his fans (claiming to be Christian).
 
shine the torch inwards and take some time to reflect on your own attitude.
You are so sanctimonious and self righteous that you can't even know when you are indeed a worse human being by playing God!
Who are you now?
How do you determine who's trying to follow God?
Yes he warned about false prophets and fake followers especially the self righteous ones!
Remember the parable of the 2 men that came into the temple to pray!
What? I'm not "playing God". Nor am I self righteous, I never said anything about myself.
Jesus repeatedly calls out the faux religious, as do Paul and the apostles. Also see Corinthians 2:15.
Neither I nor Trump are analogous to the parable characters you refer to, I'm not bragging about myself and Trump is not broken heartedly crying out to God in repentance.
that's exactly what I am saying. You lack insight into your own state of the soul.
You don't have to say anything about yourself in order for your attitude to demonstrate who you are! That is your judgment about Trump.
You have judged the man in all your comments and condemned him yet you are quick to absolve yourself of all blames. Tell me what that is if not feeling self righteous and playing God?
I asked you a question regarding what you said about Trump which refused to answer.
How do you know who is trying to follow God and how did you determine that Trump is not amongst them. Are you God?
In your last comment you wrote:
"I am not bragging about myself"!
But that is exactly what you are doing when you position yourself in judgment against others.
How did you determine that
"Trump is not broken heartedly crying out to God in repentance!"
Are you God?
FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN SALVATION AND LEAVE TRUMP ALONE.
You know nothing about him let alone the state of his soul and his relationship with his God.
He has probably done more for Christians and Christianity than all the past presidents combined. He may have done more for people and God than you can ever wish to accomplish.
Go and take care of yourself. You are not a better person or Christian than anyone else.
Again, you don't know me at all, I never claimed to be a "better Christian" and I'm constantly angry with myself (and NO, me criticising someone absolutely does not mean I'm "bragging about myself", that's illogical). You're accusing me for simply making a comment about a public figure who we're all very familiar with, whilst you're judgementally arguing with me and you don't know me at all.
"Are you God?" for frick's sake! I didn't claim to be, and my comments have no impact whatsoever on Trump.
AGAIN, Jesus, Paul and the apostles continually call people out, and Trump is a public figure who's PUTTING PEOPLE OFF CHRISTIANITY, and who's (not just written a Facebook comment but who has) shown us plenty about himself so that we can assess him as the verse I cited suggests. "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." (Matthew 7:18 ) - Jesus absolutely indicates that we can know about people when He's warning us to "Beware false prophets"
"FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN SALVATION AND LEAVE TRUMP ALONE." - do you think that my comment endangers Trump's salvation?
I'm well aware that I need to battle sin i my own heart (I don't need to "fight for my salvation", Jesus has made salvation possible), but as Christians we should be concerned about the many people who don't yet know salvation, and I'm concerned about those who are ignoring it in part because of Trumpism.
 
I'm pretty sure he is a man of God. Did you see how close that bullet was to going through his head, if he didn't turn his head to look at a chart at that EXACT SECOND? That tells me that God is with him.
LOL, absolutely not! That it’s not part of God's plan for Trump to be assassinated now - which would lead to massive civil unrest - doesn't mean that he's a "man of God". God doesn't just wipe out everyone who does wrong, His plans are far more complex.
FTR, there were many plots to assassinate Hitler, do you think the fact that he survived them shows he was a "man of God"?
 
 
THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT
And it *does* tell us to be wise, not to oppose science.
it does. And this Curriculum shows just how much the Bible has to say about it.
No, it doesn't, and your deceit is an affront to God. Do you not care you're deterring people from taking the Bible seriously? 
it absolutely does. We're not the ones living in deception. What model of our earth do you think the ancient Hebrews - God's chosen people - believed? It wasn't on a spinning ball, that's for sure.
If it "absolutely did" I'd know, I've read it plenty of times - and you would have quoted relevant verses at me, but you haven't, because it doesn't.
FTR, "What model of our earth do you think the ancient Hebrews - God's chosen people - believed?" is a total non-sequitur. They were often wrong, the Old Testament full of incidents in which God is frustrated with them being wrong. More to the point they lived thousands of years ago, they didn't have a full understanding of science, and God didn't need to tell them everything about His creation, He needed them to follow Him enough that Jesus could live amongst them and bring salvation. BUT I don't even know why you *presume* they believed in a flat Earth anyway
 
 
Piers Morgan slams ‘appalling drag queen mockery of the Last Supper’ in Olympics opening ceremony
I'm mostly upset that people hate Jesus so much.
Yes, this was ridiculously disrespectful, and that sucks. But ultimately God is not going to feel offended like we do, He's too big to be personally wounded by some human beings in a stupid performance. What's really devestating is the rejection of Him that it indicates.
And most people don't even realise what they're rejecting, they've not looked at the historical case for believing in the reality of Jesus and baselessly presume mythology.
God doesn't care, Jesus doesn't care because they don't and never have existed. Because if there was a god and he loved all his children equally then why would he allow actual real life children to die at the hands of people fighting in his name?
What kind of sick bastard would he have to be to allow babies to suffer with cancer or heart conditions?
Why would so much of the bible contradict itself repeatedly?
Presuming mythology isn't baseless when there is literally zero evidence to prove otherwise
There are essay's worth of things to say about that, I'm not sure(?) that trying to summarise it for you is a great use of time - have you looked at the many things written about it for yourself or are you actually not interested?
I'm very sceptical that "god" would allow these things to happen and yet nobody can ever give me an answer as to why he does.
I was forced to go to church as a child occasionally and even at 6 years old I found it questionable
Yes,I was taken to Church as a child and felt seriously sceptical about God too (predominantly the idea of believing in what I can't see - but later, studying biochemistry, including that of the mechanism of vision, I realised that it could be rational to conclude there's a Designer).
I'm sorry no one's given you any answers. Again, have you tried looking? There's plenty written about this, by people with both better writing ability and experience of suffering than me.
FTR, I'm atypically concerned by suffering in our world, yesterday someone told me I need "a hobby" because I go on about it so much. Jesus continues to help those in need by inspiring people to help others, WE are part of the answer to the problem of suffering. When Western civilisation was dominated by ancient Roman values, people thought that following selfish human instincts was right - then Jesus' teaching that we should care for the needy spread* and became what we consider normal today (historian Tom Holland has explained this substantially). Many charities and social justice movements (including the abolition of the slave trade) have been driven by individuals motivated by Jesus' teaching.
Ultimately, Jesus came to offer Eternal life (Heaven), which will make this lifetime momentary by comparison.
A toddler might well think that their father doesn't love them when he takes them to have needles stuck into their arm - but that father knows that having infant vaccinations, which the toddler doesn't have any concept of, are important for the toddler long term. We are even more lacking in knowledge compared to God, than a toddler is in comparison to their father. That we don't know why something tragic happens doesn't mean that He doesn’t love people.
Here in the Western world, very few people now accept Jesus' offer, more people in less wealthy countries do - so whilst more people in wealthier parts of the world have happier life now, more people in countries where there is more suffering will ultimately have an eternity of joy. There are also Westerners who've suffered far more than either of us, yet have experienced God amidst that suffering and found deeper joy (motivational speaker Nick Vujicic springs to mind). Had I not been unwell, I wouldn't have had the time stuck at home n which I explored academics discussion about the existence of God and the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, and prior to doing so - though healthier - I didn't feel fulfilled.
There's far more that could be said, but I've probably exhausted your patience already 
*word about Jesus spread *because* people had seen that He'd risen. If He were only a teacher, His followers wouldn't have had the motivation to spread His word in the face of deadly persecution.
 
it was nothing to do with the last supper - it was an interpretation of the Greek God Dionysus from artwork in the louvre … not everything is about Christianity - the Olympics outdated it!
The Feast of Dionysus painting isn't arranged like this, and he isn't blue. Also the woman in the centre of the skit shared an image celebrating the likeness of it to the Last Supper on her Instagram page.
I didn't say that "everything is about Christianity"
 
You’re wrong…”Do not be deceived; God is not to be mocked, whatever a man sows that he will also reap.” Galatians 6:7-10.
I'm well aware of that verse. Since "God is not mocked" (KJV) or "God cannot be mocked" (NIV), why do some people feel the need to worry quite so much about this skit? As the verse tells us, God is greater. And those who hate Him will "reap" what they "sow", so there's no need for us to put our energy into worrying about it.
When Jesus was crucified, He willingly endured the most horrendous mockery - and He has the victory. Bigger in our minds should be gratitude for what He has done for us and sadness that, evidently, many people are missing out on Him.
 
bot. Identical messages every couple of hours.
No, I just don't rewrite the point I'm desperate to make out again, why would I when it's more time efficient to reuse what I've already written? What would be the point of a bot discussing this? If I were a bot, how would we have had a conversation earlier?
(rhetorical questions, I really need to do other things)
ever heard of AI?
Yes, but that doesn't answer the other questions and it presumes AI can have coherent conversations on Facebook. Anyhoo, believe a conspiracy theory if you like, it doesn't make a difference to me either way if you think I'm a bot (except that it's amusing).
I don't only comment on Facebook posts randomly for fun, I comment because I'm desperate to make a point to multiple people (thus I reuse what I've written)
of course it can. Why are you desperate?
Because I believe that Jesus offers people the very greatest thing there is (eternal life/Heaven) - I'm well aware that sounds nuts and I only came to believe it after reading a lot about the history of the events of the resurrection. I'm desperate for people not to miss out, so I want to bring Him up whenever possible in the hope that someone might think about Him again (in the midst of our hectic culture in which people typically forget about Him.
I'm also longing for people not to be put off by certain people who identify as Christian (some of them wrongly) - in this instance, I'm concerned that people seeing the outrage over the opening ceremony might get the impression that Christianity is just about culture/tribalism/victim mentality.
history... OK.
You need help, kid.
I'm presuming that you think I'm deluded for referencing history having not looked at it? I'm well aware that it sounds absurd if one hasn't - and if one has a strict naturalist faith
 
 
We too often forget that there are plenty of people in our world earning as little as £3 per day (despite long hours, and often awful working conditions). Some are working to provide things that we buy.
 
 
Last night, as a Christian, I was dismayed by the mocking of Jesus in the Olympic Opening ceremony (not so much the act itself, but what it indicates about people hating God). Trump's speech to "Christians" made me just as, if not more, dismayed.
get off your soapbox. I am so sick of you people who claim to be Christian sitting there preaching your crap. If you were a good Christian, you’d keep your damn mouth shut and do the work of God. Not sit there and preach.
Sorry, what? On what basis have you concluded that you know what being "a good Christian" is? What exactly is wrong with writing a Facebook comment? What do you think "doing the work of God" is(?), and why does my comment make you think I don't do it? Who are "you people"?
so sick of people putting labels on themselves I’m a good Christian. I follow the Lord the Lord this the Lord that the fact that you’re a sheep and can’t think for yourself and need to be driven by a book that was written by a man thousands of years ago and people are still following and can’t think for yourself catch a clue it’s not working all of our wars. All of our political issues are all rolled up in guess what religiontake a step to the back of the line. Catch a clue see what’s going on in the world.
Why not answer what I asked?
"Putting labels on themselves"? I didn't. You've just moaned about a bunch of things I didn't say.
You're complaining I don't "think for myself", but you haven't thought about what I actually believe, you're simply giving a speech about some things you feel strongly about, as though you were standing on a soapbox.
I'm not sure exactly what about my *actual comment* you're "so sick of"
 
Christian’s have not only been mocking non believers for centuries, but have gone to war against other religions. A little mocking of Christianity is not a big deal. Try some humility, like Jesus advised.
Sorry, what did I write that implied I don't support humility? I am VERY well aware that Jesus called for us to be humble, that's a primary reason I know that Trump is not trying whatsoever to follow Him.
Note that anyone can call themselves anything - the people you refer to were not necessarily actually following Jesus, even if they called themselves Christian (Trump called himself a genius, but claiming to be something doesn't mean that one is).
Again, what I'm upset about is that people reject Jesus, I'm not personally offended.
 
 
People (like Vance) who mistakenly think that only those with kids do amazing things for the world should try reading the Bible
the Bible should never be brought into politics. If you remember correctly your ancestors stole this land so they could have freedom from religious prosecution. The Bible does not reflect politicians, history, science or math.
If for organized prayer groups, let’s leave it there.
No, my ancestors didn't do that, I'm British (and live in Britain). I didn't suggest at all that anyone should force their beliefs onto anyone else, I'm pointing out that - given JD Vance and many like him *claim* to be Christian - a genuine understanding of the Bible would give a better personal understanding of the reality of childless people (in Vance's mind, again I'm not suggesting the Bible should dictate policy).
 
The part of this that makes zero sense to me is including IVF in a ban. That's quite literally punishing somebody for wanting to have children, something he just said should be a defining quality to be a leader, here. (His take was absurd, to top it off. I'm a teacher, and I'll tell you one thing, there are a LOT of parents who should have never been parents. The neglect, abuse, and poor treatment of children is mind blowing, especially in the US.)
They consider embryos to be human beings, so they don't accept the destruction of embryos that results from IVF (as opposed to being motivated by a desire to punish). IMO they're wrong to attack IVF, and they should really focus instead on explaining why it's not great to kill fetuses (who, unlike embryos, have organs and brain activity) - as well, obviously, as on social justice for children already born.
You're SO right that it's tragic some people desperate to care for a child can't have one, whilst some uncaring people randomly get pregnant. I think that there should be more support for adoption, such as the government paying the fees.
Kudos for being a teacher :)
Anybody who considers an embryo to be a human being can never cite me scientific reasoning/explanation as to why, half of the time, they couldn't tell me what 'gestation', 'prenatal', or the difference between X/Y chromosomes, what causes Kleinfelter's, etc. Their logic is always based in religion, and they usually can't even cite a single scripture that refers to embryos as humans, because there isn't one. The deepest irony of all of this, is that there IS a passage of God instructing an unfaithful wife to be served a 'bitter' potion that will force a miscarriage if she was unfaithful. That sounds like....an abortion.
It depends on how one defines a human. The embryo does have its own unique human genome, if undisturbed it is on course to be a complete adult. But personally I think of a *human being* as having organs and some brain activity. The Bible is not a science textbook, there's no reason it should give biological definitions - but because it prohibits murder, people deem abortion to be opposed to God's word as it's the killing of a human. Myself, I'm concerned by tiny humans (fetuses, as opposed to embryos) being dismembered irrespective of whether the Bible bans it.
Yes, I'm well familiar with the verse you refer to, though I've not studied historical understandings of the context. It does indeed look like it may be advocating an abortifacient, but I can't be certain either way given the complexity of the setting - for instance, many of the commands in that book of the Bible refer to practices of neighbouring tribes at the time, so they look nonsensical to us in the 21st century West.
Ultimately, the culmination of the Bible is Jesus, and His offer of eternal life is more important than any of the contentious theological or political topics people argue about. I really wish certain people could focus on Him, and what He taught, rather than putting all their energy into other debates (but it's evident that - whilst differences of opinion are inevitable - not all of those who identify as "Christian" actually are truly trying to follow Christ).
 
Vance has perhaps read the bible and completely misunderstood it.I’m no Christian but the MAGA fundamentalists are sick and deranged.
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with "religious" folk around Him, because their religiosity was a charade and they weren't actually trying to follow God (which He pointed out was evident in part due to their lack of compassion for the disadvantaged). He also warned about false prophets and fake followers.

 
(in Unbelievable Facebook Group)
How far can one deviate from mainstream Christian theology and still be Christian?
I'm not sure how that could be answered (though I think it's a great question) - how does one measure how far? Being a Christian means being truly committed to Jesus, to want to follow *Him* (as opposed to following other Christians) more and more closely. This will lead a person to seek to understand His teachings, and if a person deviates too much from the "mainstream" it may demonstrate that they aren't actually desiring Him (but are rather choosing which views they want to hold). But the "mainstream" isn't always necessarily closest to what the Bible says - personally I (and plenty of others who've studied the texts) think that the idea of *eternal* conscious torment (in Hell) is not supported by scripture, in spite of it being a fairly "mainstream" theological position.
Just imagine what "mainstream" Christianity is today, and what "mainstream" Christianity was 500 years ago.
That's a fascinating topic, and I certainly don't know enough about it. Obviously they had a very, very different *culture*, but exactly how their *theology* would have differed I ought to research. 500 years ago, The Reformation was happening because the mainstream had accumulated so much corruption. Today there's again corruption, in some of the mainstream, as not all who identify as Christian are genuinely seeking to follow Jesus (and even amongst those who do, there's still human fallibility). What matters most is Jesus, not institutions
 
Our hope is in God alone, not in *any* political power (on either side of the political spectrum). Public figures can help us to be reminded of vital things - God humbling a leader could remind us that we ourselves need to have humility.

 
Protests are one thing - but vandalising public property, fighting with police and starting fires don't help Palestinians at all, it's just cultish attention seeking.
it’s the police being violent. You should side with the heroes standing against genocide
"heroes"? You've just proven my point.
yes they’re heroes because they’re the ones protesting genocide. They should be respected as heroes for doing so. What are you doing to end the genocide?
They aren't ending anything. As your comment highlights, it's about people *feeling* proud.
(And FTR, it's *not* just the police being violent)
Personally I'm doing what I can RE Global poverty, Gaza is not the only place where people are suffering and clearly it already has plenty of people concerned about it.
 
 
I went to a Christian festival in my teens and saw stalls about charities working in the very poorest countries. Since then I've been baffled that Global poverty is so ignored by our politicians and media, particularly given how connected it is to injustices that we benefit from and the potential to make a difference.
girl, get a hobby or sum
What about my comment exactly implies I need "a hobby"?
the fact on every single post without fail be it about the election or Gaza you say well we should probably give some money to some foreign nations
"every single post"? Why do you think you've read every single thing I've written? And why should I spend time writing comments about less significant things?
FTR, I didn't actually write "give money" here. And it asked why we became interested in politics. How would it help anyone if I cared less about the world's most disadvantaged people and allocated more brain space to taking up stamp collecting? And if I did, what would be the point of writing about it on Facebook?
In fact I write often about a different topic - but I don't need to undertake or write about "hobbies"
 
 
(in Christians United For The UK Facebook Group)
My wife and I just traveled through several European Countries including Wales & England…
The spiritual climate was very telling especially reflected in people’s behaviour & actions…
I believe that Repentance & Prayer is the way we can change atmospheres over our cities, communities & nations…
What do others think we should do about all the anger, hatred & chaos we can see and hear around us, especially in the British Isles?
What matters most is that people know Jesus, as opposed to how our country can become nicer. But you're totally right and I think about this a lot - everything is getting worse because for centuries we'd had a moral framework derived from the teaching of Jesus (though obviously, there have always been plenty of people who haven't been trying to follow Him, some calling themselves Christians nonetheless), and now that's been largely abandoned.
Christianity has been declining for the last century - and again, it's that people know Jesus that matters incomparably more than behaviour, but people hearing about Jesus's teachings in school etc was still positively impacting the adults they grew into and in turn our society. I was one of the last year groups to sing hymns in school (and my generation reminisce over them, even whilst mostly not being Christian adults), now people are being surrounded by very different messaging.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Last week on LBC radio, presenter Iain Dale (agnostic) had as his question for the Friday 8pm hour "What has God done for you?". It followed Trump asserting that he had survived the assassination attempt because, Trump claimed, "God was on his side" (FTR, Trump should really try actually reading the Bible, that's not what this post is about), but Iain Dale broadened the conversation. I was SO THRILLED - how often does a secular national media platform give us the opportunity to talk about what God has done for us?!?! I tried to explain why I believe etc (so much I was desperate to say, so little time), and listened to the other callers - amidst the hour's conversation, Iain Dale said that - whilst he's not a believer - he finds the topic of God very interesting and would love to do far more such phone-ins, he thinks that the media neglects the significant % of the population who believe in a god. I've spoken to Iain Dale many times (and he seems not to resent me, despite knowing that I have a small-c-conservative view on sexuality [he's gay]), and will keep praying that he finds God.
I really want to recommend phone in radio (in addition to LBC, sometimes there are opportunities on BBC local radio or 5 Live, Jeremy Vine on Channel 5 TV, etc) - there are opportunities to talk about God (personally I also look for opportunities to raise the issue of Global poverty, we're called to speak up for the oppressed) to a significant audience (though typically one has to think creatively about how to bring Him into the conversation, obviously the topics mostly relate to news, so one has to consider how we can link God to the question the radio presenter's asking about). On Fridays at 9pm, Iain Dale lets people call in about anything, rather than setting a specific topic, so this could be a good time.
Of course, one only manages to get on air some of the time when one calls in (when you phone, you speak to production staff, who put you on hold or call you back and put you through to the presenter if they're interested in your point), but I manage roughly twice a week, so it's not too hard. Most people in our country have forgotten about God or have erroneous ideas about Him (such as wrongly thinking He's been disproven by science), so I find it exciting when we can speak up
That's so cool! I love the idea of a show about God on secular platforms. The BBC used to do Pause For Thought and Devout Sceptics. I wonder if they still do. I also used to love The Big Question.
They do still have some shows like that on Raadio 4, but I've not explored it.
The Big Questions seems to have ended, there's not been a series for several years. It was always a mixture of some things I was thrilled to see but also some anti-Christian views (and the presenter, Nicky Campbell, is definitely opposed to Christianity, he had a nasty argument with me on Twitter). One great snippet was David Bennett giving his testimony, I've been following him ever since.
These days Sunday mornings often have Sunday Morning Live (on BBC1), which has a few good snippets but is only partially about belief.
Of course, there's still Songs Of Praise - sometimes this has pointless content (like a choir singing Bridge Over Troubled Water, or overemphasis on a singer or building), and personally most of the old hymns aren't my preference - but quite often now it has snippets of great things being said (and some modern worship, though of course musical style is not actually what matters!).
I suspect though, that almost exclusively Christians watch SoP - I'm excited about opportunities to bring God into the conversation on phone in radio in case someone who's been ignoring Hi is prompted to think about Him again. And I think secular media is starting to become ever so slightly more open to conversations about God than it was (the New Atheism of the 00s has faded)
 
 
Climate change is exacerbating crises like these - the least wealthy people, who've contributed least to Global warming, suffer most. And they're usually ignored (so kudos for at least covering this particular tragedy NYT)
 
 
IMO the tabloids et al are exploiting this because they want to attack the BBC (since they're in competition as media outlets). That Zara was kicked is reprehensible and those defending that should be ashamed, but the extent of click-baiting about Strictly as a whole is getting ridiculous (and I worry that harmful messages are being sent to abuse victims).
 
 
I wish we could talk about injustices and exploitation faced by people in formerly colonised countries NOW rather than just arguing about history. Arguably the Empire didn't really end, our banks and corporations continue to take absurd amounts of wealth from the "developing world" (and hinder democracy from developing), but that reality gets ignored whilst supposed social justice warriors wring hands over statues instead.
 
This is evil.
grow up... puberty blockers can be reversed, puberty can't... stop inflicting your ridiculous religious nonsense on others
I have grown up, though restricting my puberty (not deliberately) left me with issues including osteoporosis. I don't want other people to be harmed because profit hungry drug sellers like her^ tell them they're right to feel they're "in the wrong body", that's the opposite or care and compassion. I don't know what you think "religion" has to do with it. (And no, they aren't reversed)
 
 
The issue is that everyone has seen some people who are super proud of our (British) identity and who are racist. Thus others are anxious about being associated with such people.
Ultimately the values that our (British) politicians refer to as "British values" are things like respect, concern for the needy, fairness and honesty - those aren't by any means specifically British things, and they became accepted as the ideals to aim towards (in contrast to earlier ideals, such as those of the Romans, of striving to dominate etc) because of Jesus' teachings (which had spread initially because people saw that He'd defeated death). Now our country has largely eliminated the foundational belief in which values were rooted in, and gradually the values are being lost (obviously, that's not to say that individual atheists can't personally hold these values)
 
 
Most people presume Christianity to be mythology without having looked at the reasoning that supports it being reality. People long attended Church for social reasons, but now would rather do other things, and resent the unChristlike behaviour of some who are *supposedly* Christian.
IMO there should be more awareness of the arguments from science and philosophy supporting the existence of God, and from history supporting The Resurrection.

 
Not Left or Right, but look up - YES.
Note: Some kings who He allows to have power are not godly. People idolising (as opposed to simply having a preference for) Trump ATM are both worshipping a false god but also failing to consider how Trump disregards God's word (particularly the command to be humble). I am, of course, not denying huge issues, from a Biblical perspective, with some Democrat policies - again, there are issues on the Left and on the Right, we need to look up.

 
Supply chains take advantage of poorer people - and the climate change exacerbated from the resulting carbon emissions devastate lives in impoverished countries.


Whatever happened to Musk promising to use his money to feed the world's very poorest people?
They're largely ignored by our media, but over 20,000 people in our world die from hunger each day.
(and feeding them is incredibly low cost as compared to food costs here in the West, many of us could afford to change a few lives even whilst having nothing like Musk's ridiculous wealth)
 
 
As a woman, I'm so angry that so many people care so much more about their hatred of Butker than about the women and girls in less privileged parts of our world who are really suffering.
There are women in sweatshops, girls forced into marriage, etc. Serena Williams could have used her platform to tell people to sponsor a girl (transforming a life for roughly the cost of a takeout per month) she would actually help the world.
Instead she's just affirmed misogynists' view that women want victim status.
 
 
Only if you're going to spend the excess on helping the poor and or mission. Spending on oneself as though rich, as the photo implies, is NOT OK.

 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
Well while I might not be able to solve all ya problems I can help so tell me what things have gone right today. By this I mean do you have roof over your head? Got food in? Did you see your child smile today? Do you have cup of tea or coffee?, see reason I ask is sometimes we look through a false perspective of all things going wrong or don't have. When we should look through Jesus's perspective of all things going right that way we don't fall into enemies traps of materialism and false narratives. That's where we give thanks to God for all things going right because without them that's where you'd suffer if he didn't do what he did.
THIS. We are SO privileged. Elsewhere in our world there are so many people who'd be thrilled to have the little things we forget to be happy about, including food and drink (of our choice), comfortable furniture to sit on, our choice of entertainment, etc etc. Sometimes reading the Bible helps me remember - the writers show appreciation for simple things like water, honey and coloured thread.
If we think more about small things to be grateful for, we enjoy life more - and we can make an amazing difference to others in our world if we donate to those who have less.
Of course, infinitely greater is His ultimate gift to us, of salvation I think that when life really sucks, we should look up, ie try to focus on God's glory.
 
 
That's a tiny amount, but a good thing to be doing otherwise 
As much as our NHS is struggling, people in the poorest parts of the world could still only dream of what we have - and their poverty is linked to injustices that have made our country rich


(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
A sort of vent.. as a practicing Christian woman in my late 20s who's chosen to be abstinent until marriage) I often feel isolated and like I'll never be found by a suitable husband....the western world (or at least Europe) and with the decline of Christianity, it is harder to find like-minded women and men of similar ages... seeking some advice
I'm 32, feeling old 
Personally, I'm grossed out by the idea of sex, so I've accepted that I can't have a husband, and occasionally I've felt deep sadness about being alone in the future (ATM, I don't feel alone, I live with my parents and sister and I really strongly believe that there should be more intergenerational living). Of course, I'd also need to find a bloke who was committed to Jesus, and I absolutely get your dilemma, such blokes a hard to find. But given that you don't have the first issue, it's really not impossible. And all things are possible with God.
As it happens, I've ended up (via Facebook, then phone conversations) making friends with a guy who's Christian and does want to marry me, but despite him saying he'd be fine not having sex I'm not buying that - my point being, there are some Christian blokes around and the internet can help us connect with like-minded people.
Have you tried any of the Christian dating apps?
My parents met at Bible college (still together, very happily, after 36 years) and I know that in the US it's pretty common for people to find spouses at Christian colleges - I think that if I were your situation I might look into Christian courses that include meeting other people, it might be that God uses the situation but if not, I'd still have gained because I'd have learnt more about Him.
God has a plan for you, and He might teach you things in the time of waiting. It could be that He plans for you to do great things as a single person (that you might not be able to do otherwise) - and I have a relative whose remained single (now in their 70s) because they're gay (by orientation, and a Christian who believes in God's guidance RE relationships) who is living a great life, very connected to their community (and there are other gay Christians like this who've written inspiring books etc). Anyone can feel sometimes that their life is missing something - a single person might sometimes feel sad that they don't have a spouse, but a married person can still experience moments of loneliness or feel sad they don't have more freedom. It's definitely a LIE from our culture that sex is necessary to enjoy life (and any bloke who is not prepared to wait until marriage is not worth it).
But again, I don't think you'll by any means not find a husband, it IS possible, God knows what's best for you.
My lovely sister in Christ I truly appreciate the time you took to coherently share your testimony. Thank you so much for reminding me that not all his lost.
I haven't tried any Christian dating apps, I believe we have to pay for them ? Could you recommend me one please? Which you think is reliable? I usually don't have much trust in these things but I'm willing to put myself out there. I always wanted to be found by my husband organically but yeah what can we do... Once again thank you very much. Take care
I absolutely get wanting everything to be "organic". But I think that, given how important it is to find someone you share values with, it makes sense to try a tool that helps (of course, that doesn't prevent an organic meeting happening). And it could make it easier to ensure that you have similar motivations, whereas someone met "organically" might not be looking towards marriage (and asking could be awkward). I know of multiple Christian couples who are happily married after initially finding each other online.
My mind is drifting to the Bible, and couples, like Isaac and Rebekah, didn't meet organically, they had assistance to find the right person (but still ended up very much in love) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2024&version=NIV
I'm afraid I can't give experienced recommendations, since I've not been using them personally (for the reason mentioned previously). There are some here https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=ee2ba981cbde4aa8&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIIBeen5u4E3KeVikbDw7UIWTGS2wA:1721270679641&q=Born+again+Christian+dating+sites+UK&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4lLD7yK-HAxW-REEAHW81ApkQ1QJ6BAg8EAE&biw=867&bih=666&dpr=0.8 but I can't say myself how well they work. But discussions like this might help https://www.reddit.com/.../any_success_with_christian.../
And some regular dating sites could work, for instance eHarmony apparently allows you to state that you're Christian and that it's very important in looking for matches (though again, I've not tried this myself, so apologies that I can't speak from experience).
My understanding is that some sites/apps are free and others aren't, it might be the case that the free ones aren't as good but perhaps it could be worth trying to see(?).
There are also Facebook groups for Christian singles/dating, of course some Facebook groups are utterly rubbish but others are great, so it might be worth exploring https://www.facebook.com/groups/search/groups_home/?q=christian%20singles
Again, God has a plan, it might not be what you expect, but He has ultimate knowledge and love for you.
 
 
Following Jesus is a choice, not a national standard - and it's a choice that Trump and many of his supporters evidently have not made.

 
Anyone can call themselves anything (see: Trump calling himself a genius), it’s not necessarily the case that they actually fit the definition. Many people call themselves Christian because it suits them to do so or feels like part of their tribal identity - but plenty of those people aren't actually committed to following Jesus. But kudos to David Lammy for diplomacy.


Jay Slater’s mum thanks supporters and asks for more fundraising support for ‘send-off’
If people have money to donate, they could give it to organisations saving lives (of course, I'm not disputing the tragedy of a woman losing her son - but why not help prevent this happening to other mothers?)
10,000 children die of hunger each day in our world, but to feed one of them costs less than a £ - why spend £1000s on a funeral?
Again, I really mean no disrespect to the family.
 
 
(in Unbelievable Facebook Group)
Why can't folk just drop this silliness? If God existed and wanted to 'thwart' people dying, the ex-fire chief wouldn't have died
God has better and more complicated plans than only extended life on Earth.
Maybe God prevented Trump's death in this instance because there'd have been horrendous retaliatory violence if he'd died. Maybe the event will lead some gun fans to rethink their support for firearms and this will save other lives. Maybe the ex-fire chief is now enjoying Heaven and his inspirational bravery will inspire someone else t do something heroic and/or look to God and find eternal life.
Thanks. On your 3 'Maybe's in turn:
1. That doesn't explain why He let the fire chief die. Also why didn't God step in to stop the Rodney King LA rioting by a minor intervention? Eg the video footage of King being beaten up by the cops could have been prevented with a technical glitch.
2. God let the Sandy Hook killing with apparently this end, that went well.
3. I haven't heard what the fire chief's bravery was, so let me know and I'll understand. Why is it good to get to heaven early and leave people grieving on earth?
Eternal life is, obviously, infinitely longer, and more joyful, than this life. So the very greatest good is that more people choose eternal life, not that this brief lifetime is as long or easy as possible (though we are called to help others, obviously) - and God knows, in ways that we won't with our limited knowledge of people's hearts and of potential differing scenarios, how the greatest good can happen.
The Rodney King riots led to increased awareness of racial injustice - and, again, God may know of individuals who, in the scenario in which the riots happened, were inspired to look to Him and find eternal life (this latter point also applies to the horrors of Sandy Hook). When life goes very well, many people are more inclined to ignore God (this is evident in the OT, and in our world today), and they could then miss out on endless joy
The fire chief died shielding his family from the bullets.
1. So retaliatory violence is clearly a bad thing except when it isn't. I think you're making stuff up as it suits you in the moment.
2. Support for firearms is reduced when are fire chief dies and that justifies it but when dozens of children are killed in a shooting it's a good thing as people are inspired to find eternal life. See conclusion under 1.
3. You didn't answer my question.
Thanks on the details of the heroic act.
Yes, retaliatory violence will have different outcomes in different situations. If a man grabs me and I kick him between the legs, that's not "bad". People should not riot, but the uprising following Rodney King's murder nevertheless, in answer to your original question, had some positive consequences, that violence following an assassination of Trump would not have (furthermore, the latter could well have been more lethal, given how mad and heavily armed some of Trump's strongest fans are)
Again, yes. God knows which situations will lead to differing individuals' unique hearts/minds responding in the differing ways that different humans do, we don't.
Do you disagree that eternal life, free of the frustrations of Earth (I absolutely get that you don't believe in it, but obviously we're talking theoretically), is better than this lifetime?
 
 
Honestly I'm feeling pretty pleased that they seem to be moving towards sense on gender.
there are two genders, how on earth can you move forward? Only a perverted mind has problems with that. Next, we'll be debating the existence of gravity..........
I don't know what you think I meant. It looks as though you've not been following this issue
What did I miss apart from puberty blocking ban?
Apart from? It's hugely significant (particularly that Wes Streeting had been supportive of the trans movement, but accepted the Cass Review and apologised for his previous position - how often do politicians do that?) - and today Lisa Nandy, who'd been one of the more pro-trans Labour frontbenchers, endorsed it. Starmer also recently denied that transwomen can use women's spaces. As I said, the party seems to be moving towards sense.
NB, as Christians we need to have caution in how we discuss this, I'd urge against the word "perverted" - if people think that Christians are hateful, they won't listen, and we need to share the Gospel more than we need to win culture wars.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
I was asked yesterday if my daughter wanted the bread wafer at communion... she only turns three next month and I feel she’s too young to understand even at a simple level what the bread represents. Does your church have any particular requirements for receiving communion.
IMO what really matters is learning what it means and also *why we believe it* (though obviously this has to be suited to age, so now is probably a bit early!), so that she can choose for herself to follow Jesus. Whether or not she has a wafer whilst not understanding won't have a serious impact (though it's a great question to post), because it's not taking the wafer in itself that matters, what matters is what (who) is in one's heart (and Communion helps us to think about Him).
I grew up in the Baptist Church, we have actual bread and grape juice (when I later had wafers and wine at my CofE school I was disgusted), there were no strict rules, and after the service kids consumed the leftovers in the kitchen. But as I got older I realised I didn't really believe in anything supernatural (God or the resurrection). Then I came to see that science suggests there must be a Creator, and I read the book Who Moved The Stone - I was thus convinced that Christianity is reality, and my heart was open to God. I've always felt that Sunday School etc shouldn't simply presume that children in Church will accept Christianity just because they grow up in it, they should help young people to gradually understand why we know it's true. Then, when they take Communion, it can be really meaningful to them.
 

We're moaning about some rain, whilst elsewhere there are people losing their homes to Beryl and other extreme weather, as well as some people in the very poorest parts of the world losing their harvests to increased heating or flooding.

 
(in Theology for the Thinking Believer Facebook Group) 
Should preaching in our churches be expository, topical, or a blend of both?
Both, but perhaps mainly expository. Everything around us is continually presenting controversial/political topics to argue about, and though these things are important, preaching should remind people that God is incomparably more important.
Observing from the UK, I get the impression that in the US various topics, like abortion, are discussed and argued about far, far more in Churches than they are here -those things matter in themselves, yet *in comparison* to The Gospel, which we urgently need to share and which some people trying out Church won't know, they're trivial.
I'm guessing that some of the big Churches you refer to are popular because they're regurgitating people's pre-existing political views, not challenging them to look at the humbling personal reality of God's message of repentance and grace.
 
 
I wish people were also urging the Goernment to reverse the Tories' cutting of Overseas Aid, which means that some children are unable to access school at all or are even *literally starving to death*. Per £, it can have many times more impact than money spent here (which means that most of us can change the life of a child, such as through sponsoring for the cost of a takeaway per month ) yet human beings living beyond our island are almost always ignored (in spite of much of the poerty in our world being connected to things that have made our country rich)
the problem with overseas aid is it ends up not getting to those that need it by corrupt government's
How much, and according to who exactly? Why the presumption that it's given to governments? It's given to organisations like UNICEF, GAVI and Save The Children.
Besides plenty of money is misspent here too, see PPE, private investors extracting profits from the care sector, etc etc. The solution, to the extent that Aid is poorly spent, is to spend it better, not cut it.
it's seen all around the world it's rarely given to charities to oversee, yes money is missspent here, but can you understand why many don't want money spent in other countries when their own are suffering too
Again, according to who? How much?
The need here is not as severe, nor as cost effective to remedy
how is the need here not as severe ? Children are dying here, ive watched tv programmes about foreign aid not going where it should so it's out there, you just need to look for it, but you are set on one thing, even charities can't guarantee it getting where it should due to not being able to get into many countries they need to, I'm not against it, I believe we should help as many people as we can, but I also see why people think it should be cut, we still support countries that are getting richer daily, they should be supporting their own too now
"How is the need here not as severe?" No, kids here aren't dying of poverty. They aren't skin and bone. At least we have benefits, food banks etc. Children here aren't drinking dirty water, unable to access school, or wholly without medical care. And again, Aid can make far more impact per £, for instance you can fund multiple meals for a quid whereas here "free school meals" cost several £. Funding something like farming tools or a water filter can completely change a family's life https://www.samaritans-purse.org.uk/.../give-a-filter-to...
Documentaries find unusual, shocking instances, what's needed is *data* to assess the scale of a problem. As I wrote, in situations where Aid is not being used to help the poorest, it needs spending better, not cutting (but note that just because countries like India are doing better than they were doesn't change the fact that some people there are in extreme poverty, and money is spent through charities that help them).
 
you are now 100% a bot
Lol why? You can't get your head around someone wanting highlight that there are people in our world in extreme need?
unless you are a millionaire I dabt see how you value other people above your own countrymen
I didn't say that I value anyone more than anyone else, I'm more concerned about the human beings who are in the greatest need. Why care about people who are in less severe need more than people who are literally starving to death? Especially when money spent helping the latter can make so, so much more difference?
 
IMO there should be tough action of exploitative housing costs. It's not difficult to afford food, if people are finding it yard to do so their greedy landlords should be prevented from profiteering. There also needs to be action against both food waste, and tax avoidance by the rich.
There's plenty of food in this country - in some of the places UNICEF works people are literally starving to death (and our donations can make many times more impact than we'd expect)
 
29% of overseas aid went to refugee asylum seeker cases in the UK. 
Indeed. It's outrageous, these things need funding separately. The world's very poorest people shouldn't be losing out on food because our government funnels Aid money into the pockets of hotel owners. I hope the new government sorts this out, and processes the claims of asylum seekers rather than leaving them stuck.

Do you prefer to help people you don't know to people living in your neighbourhood where you might have to have some real human contact? There are people living near you who need help. I notice on your profile that you want African countries debt to be cancelled, very laudable, but totally against the globalists' plan. How about helping Africa to unlock their rich resources and become self-sufficient? They are sitting on vast reserves of energy which would totally lift their citizens out of poverty, but climate alarmists are restricting africans to one hour of electricity per day and international banksters want to keep all those resources to themselves. The debt is intentional by the way, not by accident. Complain to the World Bank and IMF.
Yes, I am far more concerned about the people in the very *greatest need* (of course, that doesn't mean that I don't think people in need here should be helped too, but there's already much awareness of/discussion about this, no need for me to comment on it here). Here there are food banks, and it sucks that those would be needed - but elsewhere there are people who'd dearly love food banks, all they have is rice, if that. Over 20,000 people *die* of starvation each day in our world, millions more are suffering the agony of extreme hunger (I've been emaciated myself, with anorexia, it's not fun). Why would I care more about human beings who happen to be nearer to me? Also, as I wrote, each £ can make many times more impact for them than it can make here.
Of course I want Africa to be self sufficient, when did I say otherwise? Right now our corporations are sucking wealth out of them. Many times more wealth comes TO the developed world FROM the developing world than is given in Aid https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor.... One part of enabling self sufficiency is ensuring children grow up with access to education and nutrition, and that adults have enough food and clean water that they have energy to organise for change and democracy. Whilst people have their growth stunted by hunger, miss out on school and have to spend all their time trying to get together enough nourishment and water to survive, they can't do anything to become self sufficient.
"Why would I care more about human beings who happen to be nearer to me?" - that tells me everything about you, someone who cannot connect with real human beings, only statistics. Charity begins at home. Globalists are sucking third world countries dry and pretty soon the western nations will be made poorer too. We won't have enough food banks to feed the people of the UK. It is totally demeaning to say that we have food banks, you sound like Marie Antoinette - "let them eat cake". Bill Gates has enough money to ensure that African children have access to clean water, but he doesn't do that. He prefers to push sterilising vaccines on african girls and women instead. You need to open your eyes to all the evil going on in this world, and it starts at home.
"tells me everything about you"? No, you really don't know me, and you don't need to. You appear to be making presumptions and almost falling for the Ad Hominem fallacy. The point is the things talked about, not *me* or what you think about me (FTR, I don't care what you think about me, so I'm not sure why you feel you need to tell me).
You haven't answered the question - Why would I care more about human beings who happen to be nearer to me? Seriously, tell me(?)
Why do you think human beings in less severe need, who are already being talked about, should receive more attention than people who are dying?
"totally demeaning to say that we have food banks, you sound like Marie Antoinette - "let them eat cake"" - what? (NB, I already wrote that it sucks that those would be needed) What's "demeaning" exactly? You think it's worse to receive food from a food bank than to starve to death? Do you not get that Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake" was offensive because they didn't actually have cake?
Bill Gates *is* spending his money on helping the poorest people. There's a lot of it (his money), he's working on actively trying to ensure it's well spent (and not misused), focussing largely on eradicating disease. I don't know why you think he "pushes sterilising vaccines", but I'm well aware there's plenty of conspiracy theory nonsense around. And hey, you don't care anyway, you've just said that you think African people aren't "real human beings" - there's a word for that attitude, beginning with R....
I did not say that I "think African people aren't "real human beings" - show me the comment. I'm accusing you of ignoring people who live near you and instead you focus on people that are just statistics to YOU because you actually lack connection to people.
Gates is a malthusian. Africans need good clean water, electricity and sanitation. Gates is anti-human, he's been buying up farmland in the USA and pushing his lab meat project. He's been banned from India because his polio "\/axxes" were creating 1.5 million polio cases, and it can be proved because they can detect the strain involved. Diseases can be prevented by proper sanitation.
In Victorian times we had many diseases, but once good sanitation, soap and clean water were 'discovered' the incidence of disease went down. Instead of loads of untried \/axxes, Africans need clean water, sanitation and electricity that can stop food etc from rotting, thereby improving nutrition, electricity helping hospitals and being able to cook with electricity instead of wood fires with their smoke that kills most africans before their time, you want a lot of \/axxes instead.
I think you are blinkered and deluded. Perhaps you need to get out of your islington bubble occasionally. Have a good evening.
They aren't "just statistics", that's what YOU'RE saying. I suggested we should care about them, and you made the not "real human beings" comment, I think you just thought enough about what's actually going on with your own mind when you will for some people to be disregarded.
I'm well aware they need sanitation, I COMMENTED THAT WE OUGHT TO REVERSE AID CUTS. That people *also* need vaccinations doesn't contradict that, some of the diseases we no longer suffer from here have disappeared because of vaccinations, not just soap - diseases are not all the same as each other, they have differing biology, for frick's sake (what are your scientific qualifications, BTW?). And no, vaccines aren't "untried", and Bill Gates is spending money on research.
And what does Islington have to do with this? I've not even been there. You're just arguing with someone you've made up in your own head. But it's very funny that you're telling me I'm in a bubble whilst also suggesting we should only care about people near to ourselves, maybe you should look beyond your bubble at our wider world?
Let's unpick this - I accused you of not seeing real human beings. You said that people in this country had food banks and therefore don't apparently suffer from poverty unlike people who live thousands of miles away, whom you will never meet and never be in danger of having a human connection with. I'm accusing you of seeing people as statistics, not flesh and blood. You then accuse me of being a racist without knowing my personal history and being a conspiracy theorist.
"let's unpick this"? You evidently haven't even been reading what I've actually written (including that I already indicated that people here in need should be helped), you've just been making things up about me. Go back and read what I wrote, no need for me to "unpick" anything. "I'm accusing you of seeing people as statistics, not flesh and blood", it's YOU who said they're statistics, *I* know that they're real human beings which is why I care and don't want them to starve to death. You apparently think it's fine if people starve to death, you think only British people matter.
I'm really done with this thread.
 
 
I can't imagine what he's going through 
I really hope that he and his daughter have loads of support around them.
And it's good of him to make such an important point for everyone else to hear - we don't know how much time we or our loved ones have, IMO we should think more about The Big Questions than our busy culture normally does and remember how important family are when other things in life steal joy.
 
 
Some of the world's poorest people are suffering unimaginably because of phenomena exacerbated by climate change, we need to take it more seriously.
But I'm not sure that Doctors talking about it would help, might it not just make stubborn people more defiant? Behavioural science research is needed.
 
 
Perhaps, but God despises Trump's attitude of arrogance and selfishness (in general, not specifically in making this comment). So much of what Trump says is antithetical to what Jesus taught.
I have studied the old and new testaments professionally and less so for decades.
If you want to experience 'parts, out of context listen to a US tele-evangelist.
It is by far one of the most violent, irremediably collections of writings you could possibly compile.
Within 5 chapters of its opening god (s … plural in the earliest writings) has allowed the death of 25% of the human race! And, death and destruction is the common theme throughout.
Death and destruction indeed, because the ancient world was full of barbarism. Our culture today has been shaped by Jesus' teachings* (historian Tom Holland has explained this substantially in recent years), in ancient civilisations all manner of brutality, rape and cruelty were going on. In the account of Noah that you reference, God acts to wipe out some of that evil. The OT is a complex account of situations far removed from our present context, with facets that need in depth examination for which a Facebook thread is insufficient - but Jesus is God in flesh, and shows us the clearest representation of His nature.
"[The Lord is] not wishing that any should perish" 2 Peter 3:9
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
*IMO Jesus' teachings spread because people were awed by His resurrection and thus shared the message about Him. Had He not risen, the movement would, have faded into obscurity, particularly since His followers were being killed rather than killing (as were the immediate followers of the founder of a certain other "religion"), they persevered whilst confronted by that early persecution because they'd seen that Jesus had defeated death
God acts to get rid of some evil! All but a handful of (including sinners) survived. The god destroyed pure, innocent, faithful, unaware, sinners alike. Yet this is supposed to be a an omnipotent entity who knows what was in everyone's heart yet is a fit of blind rage wiped out almost everyone.
Your comment about olden times is, tbh, laughable. More have died in the name of Christ than any other figure (real or imagined) in history.
How do you know that some were "pure, innocent" etc?* Anyhoo, if so, they could have gone straight to Heaven, which would have vastly preferable for them. And you presume that death is the worst thing that there is, but I'd rather have drowned in the flood than endure a lifetime of rape - in the TransAtlantic Slave Trade, those who could jumped overboard because they felt that (horrifyingly) drowning was better than decades of barbarism.
What's laughable? Are you disputing that ancient civilisations were rife brutality?* Really?
If it were true that there were one figure for whom people had killed more than any other, that wouldn't in any way negate that torturous cruelty and barbarity were going on throughout the ancient world. But do you have evidence for your claim?* For one thing, far more people have been killed in the name of Communism (FTR, I'm not just trying to bash Communism for political reasons, I'm very much economically Left leaning). Most importantly, that people *claim* to be fighting for something doesn't mean that they were - it's inevitable that people who are power hungry might claim to be serving God in order to feel or appear justified, but they evidently weren't actually following Jesus. And Jesus both argued with religious folk, and warned that there'd be people who falsely claimed to be connected to Him.
*(rhetorical, I don't need an answer)
 
 
When Trump was running in 2016 I tried to find out about him by following him on Facebook (to see his own words). I was disgusted by his arrogance, I grew up being taught that one should aim to be like Jesus which entails humility. Now Biden needs to have the humility to put his country (and so many people beyond who are affected by US policies) before his own enjoyment of power, and step aside for another Democrat candidate.
You apparently grew up learning to discriminate based on someone's age. Name another president that has more accomplishments in their first term than President Biden?
It's not about his age, it's about his cognition. You've chosen to bring up age.
That wasn't the question though. President Biden has been labeled as "Sleepy" and "Dementia" Joe by the MAGA cult, since he starting running against Trump in 2020. They have tricked you into supporting ageism and Russian propaganda.
"Tricked me"? All you know about me is the comment that I wrote. I didn't call him sleepy, and I'm perfectly well aware of what Trump fans have been saying. I'm commenting based on what *I have seen* of Biden himself. You should go argue with MAGAts and stop making presumptions about people, the world isn't as black and white as you seem to think. If people Biden is the only person who can stand against Trump, Trump will win.
God acts to get rid of some evil! All but a handful of (including sinners) survived. The god destroyed pure, innocent, faithful, unaware, sinners alike. Yet this is supposed to be a an omnipotent entity who knows what was in everyone's heart yet is a fit of blind rage wiped out almost everyone.
Your comment about olden times is, tbh, laughable. More have died in the name of Christ than any other figure (real or imagined) in history.
Too much for Facebook? Absolutely. However, 50 years of study is more than sufficient.
 
 
Hilarious seeing Reform moan "it's not fair!" as though they've ever given a toss about fairness. Seriously unfair is that some human beings are born into oppressive regimes, war zones or deadly poverty, but Reform UK plainly doesn't care about that unfairness.


"Lawless London"? There have been evil individuals stabbing each other across humanity and throughout human history. In a city of 8 million people it's unfortunately inevitable that a few such muppets would be here.
 
 
What would you suggest doing in order to ameliorate the issue of air pollution causing asthma, hospitalisations, accelerated dementia and death? (as well as, obviously, a burden to tax payers, since I presume you don't like paying for other people's worsened health)


YES. We're moaning about some rain, whilst elsewhere there are people losing their homes to Beryl and other extreme weather, as well as some people in the very poorest parts of the world losing their harvests to increased heating or flooding.

 
People laughing at domestic violence...
The same type who think it’s funny to sing about WWII, Not a new thing when it comes to the hardcore element of England “supporters”. For the stereotypical type you probably have in your head, nothing is off the table, they probably go home and beat their wives/girlfriends, we are always let down by these Neanderthal types.
When I was a child I was bullied by boys who were football fans, and I've never stopped resenting football. But I can't begin to imagine how terrifying this must be for women stuck in these situations. And people reacting to this post won't take it seriously because football the national religion.
(I should add, I'm well aware that most football fans are perfectly decent people, obviously)
 
 
I find it so striking how Trudeau makes out that he's lovely and caring with rainbow flags, yet is enabling so many different horrors (Inc also for some disabled people, first nations people, the environment....)
 
 
"Probably"? How much are you getting paid to encourage people to arbitrarily buy more and throw more into ever expanding landfill? The amount of waste in our world is a massive problem, particularly in some of the very poorest countries where the world's trash gets dumped.
 
 
The basic standard of manly conduct observed by all cultures across the world since the beginning of human civilization is not "dangerous" or "anti-male." It is only in approximately the last 12 seconds that we've decided that men should be as emotional and vulnerable as women.
The experiment has not resulted in happier or more well-adjusted men, nor has it created better marriages. It has had very much the opposite effect.
FTR, the role model for all of us, male or female, is Jesus. Aiming to be more like Him is more important than aspiring towards either traditional or progressives expectations.
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
' I often thank God for giving me so many blessings even though I don’t deserve it.
My husband often disagrees because he thinks I’m being negative and says I do deserve things.
I think this is something a lot of Christians struggle to realise though, is that actually, because of sin, we don’t deserve the good things.
They think that because they are ‘saved’ that they are ‘good’ people and that God wouldn’t send bad things to good people, so it must be coming from the devil. I think some of this has probably come from the prosperity gospel.
In truth, as Paul says, All have sinned and fallen short, and none of us are ‘good’. It is only through the gift of Christ that we are made/being made good, and that God even gives us anything. They are literally gracious gifts from God, and that’s why we should praise Him and thank Him.'
YES.
Our culture is constantly telling us that we deserve good things/what we want, partly because commercialism means that corporations profit by telling us to buy things for ourselves "Because You're Worth It". Politicians also benefit from flattering us, with comments that imply that whoever's listening is great and they're on their side (in the hopes that those listeners might vote for them).
We also think we're good because via the news we're surrounded by endless examples of people doing things that are worse than we'd ever do (also, we judge other people by what we think is right, and we're doing more to adhere to our own standard of right than the majority of the population is doing to adhere to our own standard of right, because other people are adhering to *their* own personal ideas about what's right)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
 Is that genuine? It's very common for people online to make things up to joke about "Queer" folk (which is understandable, but sometimes not a helpful/Christian attitude, even though we disagree with Queer behaviour). I can't see anything about it online.
But what Sam Smith's been doing in recent years has indeed been very disturbing - it's not just a matter of being Gay of course, or even of identifying as nonBinary, but he's also made his performances and videos extremely sex-obsessed, as well as using Demonic costumes (it's always difficult to know, when people use Satanic aesthetics, to what extent they are consciously embracing Satan, or whether they're unknowingly doing so, thinking him not to actually be real, motivated by a longing for attention - ironically some Satanists were angry with Sam Smith for appropriating their religion).
Did you see Unholy, his song with trans singer Kim Petras? They performed it at the Grammys last year, both the performance and music video are thoroughly grim. A less discussed aspect that struck me is how the song celebrates a husband/father cheating. Whilst some people might argue that there's nothing deliberately "sinful" about Sam Smith's queerness, and that the costumes and song title are simply for show, the fact that the lyrics actively promote the cruelty and selfishness of infidelity struck me as a great example of "call[ing] evil good".
But I think that we need to keep in mind that, whilst Sam Smith is very explicit, most of our population is also lost. We need, urgently to seek to share Jesus with people who aren't yet as fortunate as we have been to discover The Truth, and not get too distracted by this^ weirdness in itself.
 
 
Sure - but I still don't understand why pages like this one and politicians like Corbyn aren't also talking about other horrific humanitarian issues, such as the fact that 25,000 people die of hunger each day (largely due to injustices from which countries like ours have benefitted) or the grotesque exploitation in the supply chains of things we buy.
(I am, of course, not disputing that the situation in Gaza is horrific - but other suffering human beings matter too yet are ignored)
it is indeed possible to find people talking about all of these things and more, and moreover, actually addressing them on a global scale. you won't find that discussion in places like this though; you'll have to look fairly considerably to the left of where most people here find themselves, towards marxist-leninists and china
one of the best places to discuss such matters that i've found is - of all things - a dead, gay comedy forum from the early 00's that you have to pay $10 to post in
OK, but that doesn't answer my query
i mean, it sort of does: these pages are still focused on british politics that doesn't fall too far, in the grand scheme of things, from the bounds of what's considered acceptable. which is understandable; by the nature of this discussion, that's simply where a lot of people will be coming to it from, which is what gives it sufficient momentum for facebook to keep putting it in front of you
the sort of discussion you're looking for - if indeed you are looking for it, rather than just looking to dunk on your opponents for their hypocrisy - is sufficiently far beyond the pale that you'll have to go looking much further afield for it
British politics? Why? Other human beings matter, and their suffering is connected to injustices that have benefitted us. And this is a post, like so, so, so many, about Gaza, not Britain.
I'm not looking for a niche corner of the internet to read about something for the sake of *my interest*, I'm wishing that those who have a platform and who supposedly care about human suffering to raise awareness of human suffering beyond this one crisis.
 
so you are saying that a man who has spent his entire political life fighting injustice around the Globe isn't doing enough to rid the World of all its ills? Unbelievable. 
Yes, I'm talking about now. But feel free to enlighten me as to what exactly he's done about the aforementioned issues if you like.
Ummm, this is how it works in politics: You become Prime Minister, then you can try and influence the World to your own ideals. JC wasn't the PM. But in his career as an MP he did one or two little things tbf, such as vote against his own Party on the Iraq War, was arrested for his anti Apartheid stance on South Africa, Chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, recieved the Gandhi International Peace Award and also the Sean MacBride Peace Prize. Maybe you should ask Jesus why HE doesn't step in and help out with the issues you refer to? Have a good day.
Become PM? He has a massive platform, huge numbers of people follow him and he continually gets to speak to enormous crowds. Again, you've not answered my question as to what he's done regarding Global poverty or modern slavery.
Jesus? Why are you bringing Him up? Jesus calls us to help the poor and speak up against injustice.
Jesus? because you plaster him all over your FB page, facepalm. You obviously don't understand politics and for some unfathomable reason pick on the most honest man in British politics. You say you voted for him and now you denigrate him? Weird.
What? We're not on my FB page, we're in a thread about Corbyn (which is why I mentioned him, I'm not "picking on" him). And exactly how does any of this show that I "obviously don't understand politics"?
you mentioned Corbyn by name ffs. I believe you've a bee in your bonnet about JC ( not him - the real one) winning. Tu hwnt I eiriau.
I mentioned Corbyn because the OP is about Corbyn, I don't know why you think that's an "ffs" matter.
And why do you think that Jesus isn't real? Yikes. https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...… 
 
Maybe go and have a look at the manifesto he stands on, and the causes he champions before trying to cast aspersions.
Corbyn walks the walk, doesn't just talk about it. He has spoken about poverty at home and abroad many, many times in parliament. At home, he volunteers at kitchens and food banks in his area, supporting them in funding appeals and giving his own private time to be there. I guarantee you, no other politician in this country does more to help.
As far as this page goes, they do indeed highlight the failings of both government and opposition. Right now, Gaza is a hot button issue since it's an actual genocide being committed in real time, which our opposition and government is supporting. That needs to be spoken against, and situations like Gaza always feed into the issues you are also concerned about. It's all connected.
I'm not casting aspersions, I follow him here and on Twitter (and years ago I took up party membership to vote for him in leadership elections). I've looked again just now to see if/when he last spoke about modern slavery or Global hunger, and there are no results for years.
Nor can I remember when this page last posted about these issues (and no one has shown me evidence that it has). Gaza is a "hot button issue" in that pages like this one and figures like Corbyn talk about it continually (it also -rightly of course - has attention in the MSM and from other politicians, it's the other topics that need social justice warriors to speak up about them). Human beings brutally exploited for items we buy, or forced from their homes amidst the war in Sudan, or dying of starvation elsewhere are not less human (though frankly, I suspect that subconcious anti-Black bias means that some people consider them as such)
Again, you haven't looked very deep or very far. Corbyn as an individual is always talking about tackling poverty. Just because he hasn't tweeted about it, doesn't mean he's being silent. My god, the world doesn't exist in tweets. Go check Hansard, or the parliamentary library. Check out the speeches he's made over the many, many years he's been an MP. Educate yourself.
I didn't say that Twitter is everything, I wondered why pages like this one, and Corbyn on his huge public platforms, choose to talk constantly about one crisis (which already rightly has attention) yet do nothing to raise awareness of others. The implication is that Gazans matter (and of course, they do) but that Sudanese war victims, or those dying of starvation outside of Gaza, or those exploited grotesquely in cobalt mining, don't.
 
 
"I don't blame" as though people were asking for her moral opinion.
And she's making money out of it - whilst wives and children are being emotionally wrecked, likely permanently hurt.
Our culture increasingly has the idea that affairs are just a matter of choice, but they aren't, they're outrageously selfish and cruel.
on the flipside...she's right and it's woman like her that are actually allowing families to stay together, because while the missus can't be bothered to make time the hubby is getting it elsewhere and is thus able to come home without needing to beg for it and can therefore coexist in harmony until at least the kids are grown up at which point hubby marries woman half his age and ladies on here have something new to complain about 
LOL, absolutely not. The problem is the bloke thinking he needs so much sex. He made a promise when he got married, he needs to stop being immature, greedy and selfish. If his wife never wants to be physical, he should think harder about what he's doing wrong or whether she's facing too much stress etc and needs support. If he really can't contain himself, he should use his hand rather than a hooker, an affair is not excusable.
 
 
The labels “far right” etc are thrown around continually ATM, and that’s frequently unintelligent and unhelpful. I see plenty of people who are referred to as “far right” now happily replying things like “we’re just right [correct]” etc - they become less willing to listen to those with different views and more angry. Those who *are* racist become more stubborn and resolute. But of course as you say, this is not just about racism.
IMO people who care only about the interests of themselves and the British population are *wrong* - we should care about humanity, and God calls us to do so. But nationalism isn’t the same as racism, and some people (who don’t know God, who calls us to care sacrificially for our neighbours from elsewhere) are inevitably concerned about NHS waiting lists, housing shortatges etc and mistakenly presume migration to be the cause. Further, not believing that human beings have an intrinsic right to move to wherever they want to doesn’t in itself mean one has antipathy to people from elsewhere. Importantly, there are value/cultural issues. We are *privileged* to live in a country shaped by Jesus’ teachings (as much as there have always been plenty of Brits who aren’t following Jesus at all, including some who erroneously label themselves as “Christian”). As historian Tom Holland has expounded, it was Jesus’ teachings that imparted to the West values we now take for granted (such as caring for the vulnerable). Obviously, that’s absolutely not to say that there aren’t similar values in different parts of the world - also, our country has now mostly abandoned Christianity, but some people with different heritage or who’ve migrated in from other parts of the world are stemming the decline (and I am SO grateful). But I remember thinking, when a video circulated last year showing a middle Eastern asylum seeker trying to chat up a 15 year old girl (the video led to violent rioting by locals outside the local hotel housing migrants) that what he was doing was indeed beyond disgusting and unacceptable - but he might have no idea that it’s wrong, we’re fortunate to be living in a culture in which we do know that it is. So we should have some degree of empathy (just as we know, as Christians, that we are blessed to have been shown the truth about our sin, others are lost in the dark) for those with backgrounds that have taught them erroneous values - yet we should also have understanding of those British people who are terrified by the import of some people with dangerous ideas (mostly connected to facets of Islam).
Plenty of things that have happened in this country in recent years, connected to some people emulating aspect’s of Muhammed’s behaviour, are contributing to some Brits being *scared* - some are also racist, but fear is not the same thing in itself as racism. It’s incredibly unintelligent that so many of these Brits essentially lump migrants together (rather than recognising that each person has their own mind, and one Muslim or migrant doing something dangerous doesn’t mean that another is responsible or would condone the dangerous action) - but putting labels on these people doesn’t help anything, we should aim to have constructive conversations, understanding the roots of resentment and countering fallacious generalisations that lead to bigotry.
The labels “far right” are thrown around a lot because the far right are on the rise and a lot of people are Far right. Minimising this as “just right” is gaslighting.
I'm not minimising anything (and I was quoting "just right", not using that phrase personally), I'm saying that we need to understand the complex reality of what's actually happening - and that the label doesn't reduce the problem, it can actually make things worse.
If people are afraid* and people (typically with greater privilege/wealth) simply react by labelling them in an attempt to shame them, they WON'T reconsider their negative preconceptions and move towards accepting that with which they're unfamiliar, they'll become more defiant, and they'll shift further into silos where they're susceptible to genuinely racist ideology.
*Do you understand why people are afraid BTW?
And the label IS thrown around absurdly. It's sometimes used to refer to pro-Lifers - you may be pro-Choice, but it should be obvious that opposition to abortion is nothing to do with racism (in fact the pro-Choice movement was born out of racism, though I'm not blaming present day pro-Choicers for this). Last year I read a Sky News article about supposed "far Right" pressure groups in parliament, and one of the features portrayed as eerie was a belief in Intelligent Design.,
We need accurate terminology and discourse that identifies and tackles problems, not tribal lumping together of swathes of the population with disparate views.
When you say that lots of people are far Right, what do you actually mean?
far right politicians like Trump, Farage, Le Penn etc aren’t scared, they’re power hungry and manipulative and are gaining power by creating, stoking and feeding on fear.
I understand why the people who vote for them are scared, but voting for them makes no sense, it’s like Turkeys voting for Christmas because they’re scared of thanksgiving….why don’t these people vote Green if they want a protest vote that’s radically different from the establishment? Green have manifestos that will aide the scared, poor and marginalised, not harm them further.
I do know why they vote for them- because they are manipulated, the answer is education, and I really hope the new Labour government recognise this and plough money into transforming the education system
I'm still not clear what you mean by "far right"(?)
"Trump, Farage, Le Penn etc" - but we weren't talking only about politicians, you said "a lot of people are Far right", implying that a significant % of the population is. I agree that certain politicians are themselves not scared, and are manipulating fear for their own power. And labels don't mitigate that power or the fear on which they thrive.
When you say that it's like turkeys voting for Christmas, whilst you're right that electing right wing politicians worsens public services, the fear is not only about services (and housing, etc - nor are people concerned only about the establishment). It's things like the incident I mentioned, or as an example today, this https://x.com/i/status/1809600586989306058
Yes education is vital, but even if the school system can be improved it won't eliminate fear nor actual racism (in case I'd not made it clear, I don't doubt that the latter is also a serious issue), people far beyond school age need to learn, and they won't be receptive if they're stigmatised. Putting *people* (each of whom is an individual with a unique profusion of concerns and preconceptions) )into boxes isn't conducive to progress, we should primarily castigate actual policies, views or lies themselves. And as Christians, we know that we too have fallible hearts/minds - Jesus helps us to love those from elsewhere, we must hope that those who don't yet know Him will have the blessing of knowing Him (incidentally, that would also cause them to become less fearful or prejudiced)
 
 
Both claiming to BE God, and claiming that other people should agree with oneself solely because of what one believes the Real God says, won't work in convincing anyone. Personally I think God has given wise guidance for humanity, but it'd be daft to just demand non-believers agree. Of course Charlamagne calling himself god is amazing arrogance - and sometimes refusal to debate is borne of arrogance also (though in our current climate of constant arguing, sometimes it's about saving time). Our culture needs more humility and listening between different sides.
Again we the telling us what you think god is saying. You don't know and can't prove it and the reason why all ideologies are dangerous. Just say how you feel because in the end that's what it is or was in the first place. 
That's what I meant by "personally I think", I know that it's not something other people will agree with and I don't expect them to. People should try to explain the *reasoning* for their opinions (and, yes yes yes, proof if possible), and understand that others may not agree. 
....Apologies if I wasn't clear enough - I wasn't disagreeing with you.
I was thinking about how I've seen some people who claim to be Christian telling other people what to do "because God says", and I feel I want to shout at them (though I wouldn't actually shout) that people won't care what we believe God says. We can have opinions/believe things about what should or shouldn't be done, but we can't *expect* other people to take us seriously, particularly if we don't give any logical explanation. And we shouldn't think about what other people are doing so much (or be controlling) - some people who call themselves Christians focus too much on what other people are doing, more than on trying to share and emulate Jesus. Christians should always be trying to act more as He did, not to make other people act as we think they should. We should also always keep at the forefront of our minds that we ourselves have made many mistakes and can be wrong.
And Charlamagne should probably also trust that Biden and his team can make up their own minds.


I wish our country cared as much about those human beings in Africa who are afflicted as it does about animals (FTR, I am obviously not endorsing trophy hunting, nor suggesting that the continent is a monolith of need)
you must put your fingers in your ears ans close your eyes, everytime there is an advert for aid to Africa , for medical help and water aid. This country has sent trillions in private charity ,as well as the government aid budget. Remember live Aid. A man who calls himself Mr Beast has just built 100 Wells, in Africa ,and got criticism for being a white savior.
Trillions? According to what data? And Live Aid was a concert 40 years ago, for goodness sakes. Many times more wealth is coming TO our country FROM developing countries than we give in Aid. https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
you said ,this country does not care about the people of Africa ,I gave you examples. You need to stop thinking of the people of Africa, like children, and have low expectations ,of their ability to take care of their own citizens. They are all independent contries ,and have been for a long time.
Those examples are minor, Aid is a small fraction of 1% of GDP (it's supposedly 0.5%, but actually much of that is spent here in the UK, more than is given to Africa), the vast majority of people never give to those causes and there's more interest in animals. I never said that there's *no* concern, I said I wished people here were *more* concerned.
I absolutely never said that African people have low expectations or lesser abilities, yikes. They are resilient and creative - but that doesn't mean that the injustices that they're born into disappear. There's not much people can do to improve their lives if they can't access enough nourishment, if they're prohibited from complete schooling, if they don't have electricity, or they have to spend hours each day walking for water. What would you do?
That their countries are "independent" doesn't change the fact that turmoil, grossly deficient infrastructure and political instability have been left behind by colonisation - and our banks and corporations continue to exploit parts of the continent and its people, whilst sucking out far more wealth than is given in Aid.
 
 
As a Brit who's generally on the Left, I'm so frustrated that the Democrats keep banging on endlessly about "abortion rights", not about helping the poor.
The US is the most powerful country in the world, but the supposedly Left wing (?) president doesn't care at all about the world's very poorest people, in spite of the fact that human beings in the poorest countries are poor in part because of things that have made (and continue to make) countries like ours rich. https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
Human beings are starving, but supposed justice warriors don't care about those people (unless they're in Gaza), they put their energy instead into shouting support for killing the unborn.
 
 
"Redistribution of wealth and power"? The most impoverished and powerless human beings in our *world* suffer most from climate change, opposing Net Zero is not a stance in support of the poorest workers.
you mean like the children mining cobalt for peoples electric cars?
Yes, if you care about those children (do you?) you'll want their continent not to be ravaged by climate change, as well as wanting the evil exploitation of children and other workers to end.
 
 
By "African nations" I think you mean those individuals with some power/platform - and I'm not objecting, but more important for the population of the continent as a whole is that the extraction of Africa's wealth is ended
 
 
For frick's sake, what kind of people laugh at this? (ie, there are laughter reactions) I have some serious issues with *Islam*, but *Muslims* are human beings who deserve empathy.
God's plan...
My personal opinion is that Muhammed led people to believe erroneous things about God. But I really, really mean no disrespect Muslims themselves in saying that, and many are trying to do good. Either way, these deaths are a tragedy.
that's your opinion but its wrong Jesus is king theres no Allah or Religion its manmade Islam is lead by a lawless man why do you think this is happening because its God Plan to Banish the Beast of Revelation
I agree that Jesus is King, I don't see why you think I'm "wrong" to say that Muhammed misled people about God.
"Allah" is the word for God in certain countries (Christians in Malaysia and Indonesia use Allah to refer to God in the Malaysian and Indonesian languages). Of course what we normally mean by it is the Islamic idea of God - and I agree that that idea is not a reality, but again, Muhammed misled people about God. Muslims are right to believe that there is a God - a creator of the universe - they've got *fundamentally* different ideas about what God is like. If someone believes that the earth is flat, that doesn't mean "there's no" (to use your words) Earth, just that their views about what it is like are much mistaken.
Again, even whilst I disagree with *Islam*, Muslims themselves are human beings, and God calls us to love other *people* (albeit not all of their beliefs or actions). 
 
 
The most important fact about your life is that it will end. If you spend your life trying, first and foremost, to avoid its end at any cost, you will have wasted it. You will have spent your precious time on earth on the most futile pursuit of all. You'll be like a child at the playground who spends the whole time whining that soon he's going to have to leave it. He's so focused on not leaving that he never enjoyed actually being there. This is the way that so many people approach life. Don't do that.
Eat healthy. Get some exercise. Enjoy a dessert every once in a while. Have a drink, say your prayers, and love your family. Do something worthwhile with your time here and accept that you will die.
Indeed this lifetime ends. But Jesus offers eternal life, so most important is that we decide whether we want to follow Him.
If we do, He gives us deep joy, and has far greater purposes for our lives on Earth, than food and exercise (as awesome and important as these are, and I wholly agree that we should eat well and exercise)
 
 
For frick's sake, what kind of people laugh at this? (ie, there are laughter reactions) I have some serious issues with *Islam*, but *Muslims* are human beings who deserve empathy.
God's plan...
My personal opinion is that Muhammed led people to believe erroneous things about God. But I really, really mean no disrespect Muslims themselves in saying that, and many are trying to do good. Either way, these deaths are a tragedy.
that's your opinion but its wrong Jesus is king theres no Allah or Religion its manmade Islam is lead by a lawless man why do you think this is happening because its God Plan to Banish the Beast of Revelation
I agree that Jesus is King, I don't see why you think I'm "wrong" to say that Muhammed misled people about God.
"Allah" is the word for God in certain countries (Christians in Malaysia and Indonesia use Allah to refer to God in the Malaysian and Indonesian languages). Of course what we normally mean by it is the Islamic idea of God - and I agree that that idea is not a reality, but again, Muhammed misled people about God. Muslims are right to believe that there is a God - a creator of the universe - they've got *fundamentally* different ideas about what God is like. If someone believes that the earth is flat, that doesn't mean "there's no" (to use your words) Earth, just that their views about what it is like are much mistaken.
Again, even whilst I disagree with *Islam*, Muslims themselves are human beings, and God calls us to love other *people* (albeit not all of their beliefs or actions).
 
 
"Right thing to do"? As determined how? Why would it be "right" to teach kids things that contravene biology, or which lead them to think that their bodies are wrong?
It's the right thing to do to teach kids to be kind and empathetic to other people, but that doesn't mean denying biology.
 
Still finding it remarkable that, in a world in which there are people literally starving to death, the party supposedly concerned about social justice only wants to brag about killing tiny humans.
so you want to force women to have babies only to watch them starve? That's sick. 
No, I didn't say that at all. Classic strawman fallacy.
"Sick" is dismembering tiny humans.
 
no more remarkable than right wing women who buy into men telling women what to do with their bodies. 
Such as? I'm not Right wing. And it's abortion that violates another person's body.
 
 
It seems odd that this (RE Jay Slater) is being overlooked by the media (though I'm not personally wishing harm upon him) "Teens who split boy's head open with a machete all swerve jail as they're slapped with community service"
It's as though all the media just wants to £sell a sad missing person storyline, like a real life soap, and aren't interested in informing the public about reality (they're also weirdly ignoring that half the public knows)
Given the very, very extensive coverage being given to this one individual, might it be that more good could be done for the world if the media spent *some* of this time on highlighting other people needing attention instead? Or does he matter more than everyone else?
 
 
 
I think the Royals should keep just one property for the lot of them and have the other properties become communes or homeless shelters. But unfortunately inequality is far deeper and more complicated than that. Many people who sleep rough have suffered more complex difficulties than housing prices alone. And many, many people are struggling with keeping a roof over their heads because of the greed of landlords and property developers - the Royal family are far more visible, those who are most responsible for injustices can escape public fury.
Also, some of the Royal's wealth, and some of our country's wealth as one of the richest in the world, has been taken from elsewhere - it shouldn't all just be shared out more equally amongst our population, it should be returned and used to help humanity's very poorest people.
 
 
Stonehenge vandalised in a "disgusting" act by Just Stop Oil
Climate change is contributing to the exacerbation of torturous, deadly heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, floods and storms. I'm worried that these stunts are making people less willing to listen.
(yes, I've studied the arguments against believing in man made climate, and those who believe these and haven't read the rebuttals to these need to stop being conned https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php )
so you are quite happy for these morons to deface historical monuments etc that have absolutely sod all to do with oil... you are as bad as they are....
Since you think that me writing a comment on Facebook is *as bad* as people *you* describe as "defacing monuments" (I'm pretty sure the orange will wash off), evidently *you* don't care about defacing monuments
 
 
Personally I think it's truly gross. But viewing figures are high (for a TV show in the current era of many options and of streaming), so the BBC is right to show it - their job is to either inform or entertain. and enough people find it entertaining.
 
 
I'm not sure that'll help(?) It's not nefarious, as some want to presume, they're good guidelines (as well as culturally significant, relevant for understanding the world even if one doesn't respect them) and no one's forced to follow them anyway.
Personally I think that arguments for God and for the resurrection stack up, and that knowing Him is the most exciting thing we can do - but it can only be a personal decision. If Christians want kids to know God, they could explain the rational reasons for believing, but children should/must/will decide for themselves what to believe.
if you want good & kind put up the Beatitudes everywhere, but it sounds totally WOKE.
Again, putting guidance on a wall doesn't in any way mean that people will follow it. But it'd be awesome for the Beatitudes to be put up.
And Right wingers should stop misusing the word Woke.
I'm not a Christian, but know the teachings of Jesus. Notice the 'Christians' totally dropped the WWJD campaign. (What would Jeasus do?)
Says who? I still continually have it in my mind. Perhaps you just notice noisy Right wingers more(?), but the people who identify as Christians (plenty are wrong to do so) are not all the same as one another.
What I find particularly striking is that so many people hate Christianity on the basis of people who, whatever they may call themselves, aren't actually adhering to Christianity.
 
 
FTR, Jesus is portrayed as different nationalities in different parts of the world. I do think it's daft that He's often looked too Caucasian in Western art (and this^meme is hilarious), but I've also seen depictions of Him looking far Eastern, African etc, artists across humanity have been trying to make Him as relatable as possible (because Him relating to us was a part of why He came)
 
 
Unlike some parts of our world, there's plenty of food here (elsewhere there are children literally starving to death, rather than obesity). But there's ridiculous waste and corporate greed.
 
 
Reform : "We are a country that's done great things for the world, let's be proud!" "Let's cut Aid so that more human beings starve to death and ignore the climate crisis so that humanity faces more food shortages and catastrophic weather events!" 
Farage mentioned "Christian forgiveness" in a recent interview, he clearly doesn't actually have a clue about Christ. 
amazing how many extreme right wingers try to use religion to justify their narrative.
*Try* to *misuse*. It's inevitable, people seeking power will use what means they can to endeavour to assert superiority, it was going on in Jesus' time (He argued continually with "religious") authorities, pointing out that they weren't genuinely seeking to follow God's commands). Farage plainly is not actually seeking to follow Jesus. What I find very odd is that so many people ignore actual Christianity because of people like Farage who they know aren't really Christian.
"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8
 
why do you think hard working men and women should fund millions of foreigners and illegals in the uk ?
Why do you think hard working men and women should fund foreign countries ?
We only earn the money that we do because we live in a rich country, with an economy boosted hugely by *taking* from elsewhere. Far more wealth goes in the *opposite* direction  
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
The Bible doesn't insist on burial, God is concerned with our souls and it seems more pagan to worry about the material body as though it has some magical power. Why think that God is not powerful enough to give us new bodies in "heaven"/the new creation/eternal life?
Personally I pretty much never think about dying, but I hope that medicine and r science can make some use of my corpse, it'd be great if some organs could be donated, or if some tissue could be used for research. Massive kudos to those who opted to become the cadavers I saw in the lab at university.
 
 
There are people literally starving to death in our world. What would warrant compliments would be if she used her ridiculous wealth to help them, buying a pizza for oneself doesn't need praise. She could alleviate SO much suffering (though even most of us can have some impact - the cost of a takeaway pizza can feed one of the world's very poorest people for weeks)
they need to address their issues or they'll always be the same ...
We do indeed need to address the issues, but keeping people alive and stopping the horrific *suffering* of starvation in the meantime doesn't negate that. And starvation exacerbates issues - for instance, children will be less likely to be able to help their communities when they grow up if their growth and education are stunted by malnutrition.
THEY DO not we ..we don't have that problem all though we have some issues .
Why? They're just as human as people here, and they're in greater need, as well as it being the case that each £ makes many times more impact helping the world's poorest people than it can here. Of course, you don't have to do anything, but personally I care.
(FTR, the problems faced by people in the poorest parts of the world are hugely connected to us, see for instance https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor... )
nothing is connected to me I'm smarter than to have people make me think im guilty of something .how much of my taxes goes to other countrys?
I didn't say that you're "guilty", but if you're so "smart" you should be aware of things. And you don't need to tell me that you don't give an F, I didn't ask.
How much goes to other countries? Almost nothing, if you're so smart surely you knew that? Aid is 0.5% of GDP, but much of that 0.5% now stays in the UK anyway, and far more wealth goes in the *opposite* direction, as the article explains.
 
She does use her ridiculous wealth to help others. Tell me, how many children were maimed in the making of your mobile phone when mining those precious minerals? Pot Kettle Black
Foodbanks are great, but my comment was about people in our *world* who are *literally starving to death*. And I didn't criticise her.
My phone is 2nd hand from Oxfam.
of course it is 
Seriously? If you weren't aware that their website sometimes has 2nd hand mobiles that's not my fault. And I don't know why you're arguing about my phone anyway.
I’m arguing about your hypocrisy. Save the starving whilst using a mobile phone mined for cobalt by starving children to peddle your superiority. I see you.
It's not hypocrisy at all. I simply commented that ordering a pizza doesn't require praise, and also that she could potentially save a lot of lives with her excess wealth. We all have phones, they're essential in 21st century Britain for everything, including earning money to donate, and because mine's 2nd hand I'm not contributing to the issues related to cobalt. And I never suggested I have "superiority". It's weird that you're trying to moan at me for being online whilst you yourself are online.

 
That means public money being spent on free meals for wealthy kids (instead of targetting free meals at those who actually need them).
Meanwhile, there are children elsewhere in our world who are literally starving to death and they're essentially ignored (I see more noise from supposed supporters of social justice in favour of free meals for the rich than in favour of feeding the world's very poorest children)
 
 
(in Christian Women's Facebook Group)
What? We've not had a Christian leading the country for years. Why would we expect to?
Almost all of the population *isn't* Christian.
Our concern is that people turn to Jesus, not that Christianity has political power. Having a Christian leader would be awesome in that it'd mean they themselves are saved, and they'd be more *likely* to have the right policies (but this wouldn't be guaranteed, since as Christians we're still flawed, and politics involves the party, advisors etc), but it wouldn't in itself mean that more people find God.
FTR, note that Jesus doesn't tell His followers to worry about their rulers, and in the OT we see how God can work through non-believing leaders.
I've not read much about Starmer's beliefs, but he does apparently observe some Jewish practices with his wife (who is Jewish, so that they can impart the heritage to their children), so I think that he's at least respectful rather than being hugely antiGod.
 
 
No one can have it "all". We don't need to. If a woman is being mistreated or unjustly overburdened, that needs addressing, but our culture's obsession with "having it all" isn't helping anyone, we'd be happier if we focussed more on how privileged we are to have what we do have.
Having kids is a privilege that some people are desperate for. Living in a country where children don't die of starvation, water contamination or tropical diseases is a privilege.
Paloma Faith has the privilege of motherhood *and* a more exciting job than the vast majority of mothers. She should contemplate how lucky she is.

 
Labour have treated Rosie Duffield terribly
They've just given an immediate whip suspension to a peer for mocking her. And as much as I wish Labour would be clearer on this issue, it's understandable that they're trying to avoid agitating certain voters as they endeavour to attain power (so that they can improve the country). By contrast, the Tories have had power, and no need to worry about those voters, yet have allowed this issue to grow. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/03/rishi-sunak-trans-equality-act-protect-womens-spaces-tory/?utm_source=pocket_shared
 
 
Do you AGREE with parents who would take their children out of a class if it conflicts with their Christian ethics? 
It probably depends on what's going to be said and how credulous the child is, but I'd have thought it'd be better to not remove them, and to talk to them at home about why one (Christian parent) disagrees. Ultimately, children will hear different opinions (and see certain things one wouldn't want them to); and ultimately, they'll eventually make up their own mind.
For instance, I had sex ed at home several years before school (age 6 vs 8 with a Christian kids book called Who Made Me? (emphasis on the love between a married couple, God ultimately creating everyone, etc). But just being at school meant hearing other students talk about all sorts of other things related to sex (that utterly horrified me), avoiding certain lessons wouldn't have prevented that - and I wasn't just going to agree with peers nor teachers anyway. Children will be surrounded by different ideas RE religion, sex/relationships, etc etc by virtue of living in the 21st century - but parents can share why they believe what they do as Christians.
I suspect that taking kids out of lessons could make some of them more eager to find out what they missed, and/or could cause tension with peers. What really matters is teaching kids why we can believe in God, and hopefully enabling them to share Jesus with the world around them - not cutting them off from the mess of our culture. And we all, from childhood, need to learn compassion for those with different views (even whilst disagreeing), I suspect cutting kids off could foment judgemental attitudes.
"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. I was not including the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world" 1 Corinthians 5:10
 
 
Why do all the politicians only talk about building *more* homes? There needs (particularly in light of the climate crisis) also to be more efficient use of existing buildings, including help for intergenerational living (esp given the loneliness crisis) and a brutal crackdown on investment properties/2nd homes
 
 
I like Oxfam, but I'm really wondering why, like so many other people, they're incomparably more concerned about victims of one conflict than of others (such as that in Sudan ATM)
if you visit any Oxfam shop today, you will see posters and donation appeals to help the people of east Africa and Sudan. It’s been the current appeal for over a month. It’s possible to raise funds and awareness for more than one issue at a time.
Good for the volunteers not taking down those posters. But I follow Oxfam here and on Twitter, and it's *almost exclusively* interested in raising awareness of Gaza (I am, of course, not disputing that the situation there is horrific), as though it thinks people with more melanin don't matter.
 
 
This is despicable. I think that there's an even wider issue, though, of many people in our society caring more about dogs than about disadvantaged or exploited human beings. There are horrifically exploited people in the Global supply chains of things we buy, but dogs are seemingly considered more important.
 
 
 
 

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