Wednesday, 28 December 2022

'For all the cringeworthy lip service to diversity and feminism, how has a film as white and male as All Quiet still triumphed to this extent?' 
Oh for frick's sake. You honestly think that it's remotely helpful or logical to attack the winning film on the basis that it features primarily white males? You are actively hindering progress. Your irrationality is not only daft and arguably offensive, you are fuelling those on the far Right who argue that white men are now the victims in our society.
And the award winner rightly spoke of the risks of far Right ideology that links the film to situations today.
Do you think that people who aren't white males want to be given awards just to tick boxes?
If this "news" paper actually cared about people of colour, you'd spend some time raising awareness of, for instance, people in parts of East Africa facing war and famine, or people in parts of Asia exploited to produce items we buy. But you don't, you just pump out very most banal opinion pieces in our press and don't give a toss about people who are most oppressed.
"For the good of society, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely,” Daily Wire's Michael Knowles said in a chilling genocidal rant at CPAC.
I don't like him or endorse his words, but calling for *transgenderism* to be "eradicated" is not remotely the same as calling for trans *people* to be eradicated, for goodness sake Jezebel.
(also "genocidal" refers to murder on the basis of *heritage*, hence "gen", you don't need to misuse words to convey that murder is evil)
Opposing the belief that a person born/chromosomally male can be a woman or vice versa, or opposing this view being taught/used as a basis for determining access to single sex spaces, does not mean wanting to kill people with that belief. What's not OK is the lack of empathy for those with with this belief.
first off, “genocide,” while originating from words that define an ethnic group, has evolved to include political, religious, and other minority groups, so trans people can absolutely be subjected to genocide. Second, I would ask you how one might propose to “eradicate transgenderism” without eradicating those who are currently trans? While I’m sure this guy would respond to such questions with “oh, you woke liberals are misinterpreting my words,” the intent here is clear, the (not-very-well) coded language is pretty explicit. And yes, it’s entirely okay to not have empathy for such beliefs. So you’re pretty much incorrect on all points.
Who decided that genocide means that? The dictionary definition says that it relates to an ethnic or national group.
I think that if you honestly believe he's suggesting killing people, you're believing things that are too much of a stretch, unless you have evidence. If I saw people on the Left arguing that Trumpism should be eradicated (and I think it should) I wouldn't for a moment think that they meant killing Trump supporters. I believe that "eradicating transgenderism" refers to ending teaching that one can change from one's birth sex in schools or implying it in media, and likely ending "gender affirming" treatments, allowing people to be legally recognised as the opposite of their birth sex, or allowing people into the single sex spaces of the sex/gender opposite of that into which they were born. I'm not saying that I agree with those positions, but that's what is going to be meant by eradicating, unless you have any evidence of him advocating killing.
And yikes, I was referring to empathy for trans folk - empathy that Knowles should have even whilst he disagrees with them.
there are numerous definitions, scroll down to see various interpretations of the term:
I think the difference in what you’re describing, “trumpism” vs “transgenderism,” is that the former is a belief and the latter is people.
Why should the opinions of several individuals trump the dictionary regarding the definition of a word?
No, transgenderism is not "people", it is the belief by some people that they are, or should be considered to be/treated as/referred to as the sex/gender opposite from that into which they were born/which their chromosomes determine. They are human beings of immeasurable value (to God if one believes in God), equal to other human beings, not determined solely by their feelings/beliefs/identification.
I guess we’ll have to disagree on that; his intent seems quite clear to me and he should be called out for it. Hitler, et al, probably said things like “eradicate Judaism” early on and when pressed was like, “what I mean is we should uphold Christian values.” And I’m sure the rising careers of many genocidal leaders have similar examples. Let’s not pretend there isn’t deep malice behind these kinds of declarations.
That's the slippery slope fallacy, and Reductio ad Hitlerum. We can't know that a person or movement will become more and more extreme. Many voices on the Right do this - they make their followers worry about "socialised medicine" by linking universal healthcare to "Communism" which their listeners think means Stalinlist gulags (we've had a National Health Service here in Britain since 1948, but our country is not socialist by any definition). They assert that supporting non-hetero relationships will lead to accepting of pedophilia and bestiality.
But I understand your concern, and obviously evil movements do happen - I really believe that we need to be very vigilant and *consctantly* carefully, accurately examine precisely what's being said and done. One will only be able to win others to one's own side by pointing out dangerous things that have actually happened/been stated, not through presumptions. 
eradicate means to remove entirely. It implies violence. I can’t believe you are defending him. No one is teaching anything other than tolerance. You need to examine why you have a problem letting others make their own choices. You can’t teach someone to be gay or turn anyone transgender by talking about it.
I'm not "defending him", his attitude in general is wrong and lacking empathy, I'm criticising the lying by Jezebel.
Plenty of people say (online, here in the UK at least) that "religion" or "Christianity" should be eradicated/elimated/got rid of - I've never presumed that that means they want me dead. If they also said (in equivalence to what Knowles saiad in this speech) that the eradication of Christianity would be good for me (a Christian) I'd be particularly certain that, whilst they'd be patronsing and wrong, they weren't wishing *me* ill myself.
"Eradicate" only implies violence when referring to people themselves, he plaingly says that he wants to eradicate an "ideology". Trans folk are human beings, they are not only their gender identity (which is what you've just implied, though you may not realise it).
One can absolutely disagree with him, and *should* keep an eye out, carefully, for other things that he says - but wanting schools, media, laws RE single sex spaces etc to cease to actively support the view that a person can be a woman after being born/being chromosomally male or vice versa is not calling for violence against people. Accuracy matters - and frankly it's offensive to the victims of actual genocide, such as those who were slaughtered in the Rwanda conflict or the Holocaust, to assert that removing affirmative content from public life is "genocide".
Interesting that you refer to people "making their own decisions" and then to "teaching".
Anyhoo, I've already spent too long arguing about this. Bye
You believe so much believe in the bible, are you sure they didn't write it to confused us!!why do we have different translation from the bible?I i don't think no one can manipulate what God has given to us, take instance like the sun, the Moon The earth, all these things have been in existence no body can manipulate it these are realities, not the writing by these people you call Luke, John, Mathew all and all did you know you can also add your name, as well people will believe it after maybe four generation
Why do you think that it would have been written to confuse us?
What do you mean by different translations? It's necessary for it to be translated into English (and other languages) - though we also learn somewhat about the original (Greek /Hebrew).
I'm not denying the sun or the moon, nor does the Bible "manipulate" them (I'm not sure what you mean by this?). I agree with you, God has given us these (and it's good to try to understand them, and other aspects of creation, better through science).
please am really confused!! I want you to lecture me.No one has seen God but the same bible say that the lord God was coming down from heaven to have fellowship with man you would also agree with me that it was the same lord God who formed Man from the dust according to the bible,it was also the lord God who introduced different languages, we were speaking the same language according to the bible.when you read genesis 1 you discover that God created man and woman but they were not a leaving souls until the lord God came to form man from the dust according to your bible...I want you to explain to me the difference between God and the lord God or it both names mean the same.
You've asked some very interesting questions, I'm not talented enough to explain the answers very well.
(And we only have human brains, we can't fully comprehend God)
When the Bible says "No one has seen God", the writer is talking to an audience about what they had always believed - then God came, that's Jesus.
Yes God created Man (and woman), though this may not have been *literally* from the dust. The Bible is a compilation of different texts (for example, parts of the New Testament are written as precise records of events, by people who had seen them or spoken to witnesses, and some parts are letters written between Christians). The account of creation is unlike other parts of the Bible in that it has the pattern of ancient poetry from its culture/time. So it may be that the creation details are not *literal* - but they help us to understand that God created everything.
Different languages don't translate precisely - there are not *exact* translations for all words in all languages (for instance, the word mañana in Spanish doesn't have an exact English version, so we have to use the English words with the closest meaning we can when translating). One example isthat, in the Bible's original texts, there were multiple words that, when translated to English, all just become the 1 word "love" - so as Christians though we read the English translation, we also try to talk about and understand when the original writing used words with more complicated/specific meanings. In the Bible, different words from the original end up being "lord" in English (in fact,here in the UK, "lord" still has different meanings) - sometimes that word is talking about a person in authority, sometimes about God. This article explains better than I can - - and the website also has many other helpful answers to questions.
I want to thank you for spending time answering my questions. i really appreciate i want to let you know that I am really interested in learning with you because you have proven what no man has seen God, that means Jesus Christ is not God, as many christian believe. Jesus came informed of human being many people Saw him and even touch him. second area you have thought me? the bible was translate to English some and most of the word were not even found in English but they use other words nearest in meaning to them i can boldly say not every word you read from the bible is actually the words of God some of them are translated according to Man knowledge just imagine translating the word sin, going to heaven, going to Hall, just believe. you could go on and on
It is very good to talk with you, I'm just sorry that I don't have more free time.
Why do you think that I wrote that Jesus is not God? I wrote that He is - though our restricted human brains are not able to fully comprehend this (that God is 3 in 1). Our brains cannot totally make sense of the infinite creator who invented us.
What I wrote, in regard to the verse that "no one has seen God", is that at this point the writer (who is writing a letter to some early followers of Jesus) is talking about the way that things had always been up until this point. They had long religious traditions, and things that they said to each other and believed throughout the generations of history before. But *then* Jesus came.
It's somewhat like how, during the Covid pandemic, many people said that our government had never stopped people visiting their friends or going to different places. At that time, those things had never happened before - but then, suddenly, those things were happening.
Sorry that I'm not explaining very well!
The most important thing is that Jesus rose from the dead, and therefore demonstrated that He was telling the truth when He said that He could defeat death and make possible forgiveness and eternal life for us (though we don't deserve it). Again, this is impossible for us to fully get our headsaround (me especially, I feel that instinctively disbelieve spiritual/supernatural things), but I came to believe that it is the truth, an actual historical event, after I'd read in detail about it from scholars. Then I decided to follow Jesus, and have found that I feel inner peace like I never did before - though there are also many people who have been in very bad circumstances (like taking part in very bad behaviour) when they choose to follow Jesus, and they've found that their lives have *then* changed completely for the better and Jesus helps them to totally change their behaviour.
What do you believe, by the way, if don't mind me asking (obviously you don't have to tell me!
I want to thank you for time answering to my question i really appreciate. I was born in a Christian home my mom and dad believe in Christianity they were told about the story of Jesus Christ they got interested in following Jesus till now. my great grandparents were not Christian but they believe in God.I am mostly concerned in what you believe but for me I also believe in Jesus Christ because my parents thought me that name anytime we are in trouble we should call the name.did you know any time I want to pray i make my prayers through Jesus Christ because I don't know any i only believe the name that's why the name always saved me, am only concern about the said he is God, even Jesus never assume him self to be God we human do I can also see you as God if you saved me from trouble but it is good for human to take the believe Jesus Christ is God and no Man have seen God right i want to prove you wrong Jesus is a messenger he came to deliver a message he is not God God can't not die for a man Jesus came informed of human being people carry him people saw him did you get my point maybe there's something the bible is not adding up you know that I believe in supreme being i believe in heart the center of your life that's where life begins you will not see God just as you can't see your heart God is the central of your heart.God created everything good and bad you have within you to think good and bad now where is God he's in your heart you can't see it but he is there
I'm very interested by what you've written, thankyou for sharing. And I'm so thrilled that you have found prayer in Jesus' name helpful.
May I ask why you think that He never said that He was *only* a messenger?
I think that, if prayer in His name helps (though obviously, what we pray for does not always happen,or happens at a later time in the future, because - God may have a reason that we don't know) it shows that He has power.
Christianity began because people had heard His teachings and seen that He was resurrected after He was killled. Though a few centuries later, Christianity became linked to political power, originally followers were in disagreement with the structures of power in their communities. So following Him and spreading the news about Him was dangerous and not worth doing if He was just a messenger - but they knew that He had defeated death and offered eternal life(heaven), so they knew that even if they were executed (many were) they had no need to fear.
I can't get my head around it, but having read in detail from historians about the resurrection, I reached the conclusion that it must actually have happened - of course I know it probably sounds odd!
John 10:28-30 "[Jesus said]'I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.' "
John 20:27-28 "Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Matthew 4:7 "Jesus said to him, 'Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ' "
Rishi Sunak’s new small boats legislation
Those who want urgently to stop migration should have realised by now that the Tories are utterly incapable. In fact, the might not even want to "stop the boats", despite repeating the slogan ad nauseum (instead of offering helpful solutions), because they can use the migrant situation to distract the public whilst they continue to damage public services and to personally profit from their position in government.
We were, supposedly, somewhat a "Christian country" (though in reality being a Christian is a personal decision) - Christ repeatedly told us to love others, specifically including (though it was extremely counter cultural at the time) those from elsewhere.
you must be a religious Christian not a born again as described in the bible.. as love others doesn't mean let mobs flood invade your borders.
That's honestly hilarious. Please do explain why my comment shows that I'm not born again. And love others does mean caring about people from elsewhere, many whom (not all I'm well aware) are in need. You judging and disdaining people with no willingness to consider their different situations is entirely contrary to what Jesus commanded.
Dear Ms Dalton, I am gently questioning your peculiar view gentle as I can.. linking the open borders propaganda to faith in Jesus is terribly lacking of a deeper understanding of the gospel.. start with Matthew mark Luke and John.. the open border propaganda has an agenda and is funded internationally by a German nazi named George soros.. you are swallowing the decoy narrative in linking this to the gospel..maybe you can show me a particular Bible verse..Jesus is my king and i was baptized in a bathtub in East London and I attended a small fellowship at Calvary chapel westminster.... controlled immigration is fine but a nation is a community and the gospel does not call for a community opening its borders to unsustainable floods of immigrants..and i say floods because the numbers being talked about is certainly a flood..unless you think the numbers are meaningless and can prove how these numbers will all be ministered too and change their current belief system and can expect a sharpest change in some of the core values that shaped your nation over the last 300 years..

I don't want to argue, so I apolise if I come across argumentative, but I really am perplxed that you're so certain your view is Christ-like, *and* that I must not be born again on the basis of my comment.
You've not explained any theological basis for presuming that I'm not born again - and with all due respect (truly) simply naming gospels rather than actually citing teachings/passages/verses seems to suggest a lack of familiarity with scripture (I could well be wrong, so apolgies, but I can't think of another explanation). I have, obviously, read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John many times - if you want to make an argument you should quote portions from them that support your argument - and conspiracy theories about George Soros (who's Jewish, so I don't know why you think he's a Nazi) are not scripture. Frankly worrying about conspiracies seems to me to disregard what we know - that God will not be overruled by human forces, He is in control, and the real battle is not with the

Mark 12:28 “Which commandment is the most important of all?”
Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.” (I could cite more pasages if necessary?)

I didn't say anything about "open borders", that you accuse me simply of listening to "propaganda" implies that you're not weighing up the whole issue. And why, exactly, do you think that concern for refugees must basedon "propaganda"? Propaganda means material serving the aims and power of someone - so I'd ask who you think the "propaganda" you're imagining is supposedly serving, but I guess you mean Soros or others you have conspiracy theories about. But it's actually entirely possible to feel some empathy for other human beings without reading any "propagnda" - especially when Jesus has called us to love others. He even told us to love our enemies, so how could you think that He doesn't want us to have any empathy for people from elsewhere? When He taught the parable of the Good Samaritan, He was talking to people who feared and hated Samaritans just as some people fear and hate migrants. He lived amongst people who actually had been subjugated by another people group (the Romans) - we AREN'T being invaded/subjugated at all - but He was telling listeners to love their enemies (and not to work for their nation to be free of the outsiders).

I am very aware that some of those coming should not be. I know that some are coming because they think they can get rich here, and some are involved in crime. But it is irrational to lump them all together and to refuse to believe the reality that there are many coming because they are desperate for safety. As Christians, we should have awareness that some people may need help, and therefore support cases being looked at, rather than presuming that they're all "bad".

"The numbers being talked about"? Are you simpy believing the *propaganda* of Right wing politicians using fear to distract the public? Braverman has no evidence for daft "numbers".

I'm really struck that you refer to a "change in core values" - our society has already given up belief in God and core values are disappearing quickly. It's atheism that's most changing our society. And British people aren't convertying to Islam. In fact many Muslims share with us (Christians) values that the rest of our society now shuns. There are also migrants who are Christian, such that the Churches that are growing in the UK are those comprised of people from elsewhere (whilst Churches of white Brits decline) - including some who are fleeing persecution in their home countries because of being Christian.

Anyhoo, I'm genuinely thrilled if you've been born again, and that Jesus is your king.

'The problem with Forbes is not that she's religious, it's the certain kind of religion that she professes which is now very out of touch.'
She's repeatedly explained that she's not going to change the situation RE marriage.
she's a religious supremacist who opposes equality under the law and religious freedom for others, she has no place in a progressive party.
According to what evidence?
According to her when she said she'd have voted against gay marriage.
That's not evidence for your assertions at all. 
Yeah it is, she said she'd have voted to oppose equality under the law and freedom of religion (as in other sects/faiths who want to legally marry gay couples).
You clearly have a bias here and if we were talking about a religious opposition to other kinds of equality, say a mixed race marriage, I doubt you would be defending that supremacist stance.
Her having a religion doesn't mean that she's a "supremacist", what you're saying is that she's not allowed a view. Others who vote for same sex marraige obviously believe that their view is better than hers, and they're allowed to do so.
It's not a matter of "equality", nor comparable to race, it's about redefining marraige (as no longer being between a man and a woman). And it's settled now, so it really makes no sense that people are obsessing over it.
Theres no need for the victim complex, she's legally entitled to her view, just not the support of progressive voters when she's in a progressive party and acting against party positions and liberal values.
Being pro-equality is better than being in favour of second class citizenship yes, obviously.
You not liking a valid comparison isn't a counter to it and people aren't going to be tolerant of supremacist political policies because you play victim over it.
I didn't express a victim complex. I explained why this isn't about equality/lack thereof and that your comparison was false, I didn't just "not like" it. Again, you throwing around the word "supremacist" is not rational. And SNP members will vote for who they want, not who you think they should vote for. "Progressivism" is not just about sex, and everyone can have their own combination of positions - some of us believe in a loving God's guidance RE relationships and also in fairer wealth distribution, helping the poor etc (it's intriguing to me that some seem to think that the others celebrating their sex lives is much more important than those things)
It is a victim complex when you make up that i said she isn't entitled to her views.
The comparison is perfectly valid when we're talking about conservative religious opposition to equality under the law.
Support for second class citizenship is a textbook surpremacist attitude.
No one was even talking about sex but its telling you hear gay marriage and reduce it down to sex lol.
Just be up front about your values, if you're anti-equality and anti-religious freedom just own it. 
You've implied that she's not entitled to her views. And I don't really consider being effectively told to shut up to make me (since you've said that *I* have a victim complex) a "victim" (though I might disagree with it) there are people elsewhere in our world being killed for being Christian.
Did you miss my point about why the comparison isn't valid?
It's not a matter of "second class citizenship". Not being married does not make one "second class".
"No one was talking about sex"? My point was about an observsation of the wider cultural conversation linking to the issue (and the questioning of Kate Forbes), not only this thread, following your remark about being "progressive".
My values are that God loves humanity, so much that Jesus died for us. He gave guidance about what to do and not do, He loves *people* equally even whilst not endorsing all *actions*. Jesus and the New Testament emphasise equality, though this was counter-cultural at the time.
Anyhoo, I shouldn't have written all that because I ought to get on with other things. In all seriousness, I hope that you have a great week. Bye.
It’s not the fact she’s promised not to change anything RE same-sex marriage. It’s the fact she has demonstrated that she informs key political decisions using her religious views, and puts them above the nexus of the party she purports to represent; and the constituents that elected her on that manifesto - not her religious orientation.
Each person has values informing their decisions. Many politicians are plainly motivated, at least at times, more by greed or power lust than by care for constituents. Forbes happens to believe in a man who told us to love or neighbours and to care for the vulnerable.
She also believes in a biblical institution that endorses murder, child sexual abuse, genocide and slavery - but we never talk about this. If she wants to inform her decisions through her religion, then she’s in the wrong job. She should become a religious minister. Then her conscience will be settled. The same goes for every other politician whose political decisions are informed by their religious preferences.
"the same"??? What "institution" exactly? She follows Jesus, she's not approving of the actions of all other people who have *claimed* (many falsely so - certainly falsely so if they've acted in such extremely unChristlike ways) to be Christian. All manner of institutions and groups have had evil people within them, humanity is an endlessly complicated mixture of good and bad - people are not to blame for or supportive of the actions of others simply on the basis of a tenuous/oversimplified supposed link. What matters are a person's own actions, values and plans.
And now you’re oversimplifying the very thing you are accusing myself of oversimplifying. If she follows ‘Jesus’ she’ll know that Jesus never referred to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. So in that respect, she had not been informed by the teachings of Jesus - but the religious institution that has constructed itself around said teaching, conveniently adding and taking things away to support their narrative and element of control.
Sorry, how have I oversimplified?
Again, it seems that you've lumped all people who've called themselves Christians together. Different Church groups throughout history have differed significantly, and many have failed to genuinely follow Jesus, just as He said would be the case.
We don't know that Jesus "never referred" to it, we don't have records of everything that He said, but His audience already knew God's guidance on relationships, so He had no reason to comment. Elsewhere in the NT, to a wider audience, restrictions RE sex are upheld whilst other OT laws (which were ceremonial instead) are nullified.
But the issue of sexuality is minor as compared to Jesus, who died for *anyone* who chooses to turn to Him, yet it's always what gets discussed in our media when someone's Christian. Jesus is offering something greater. Those of us who have an orthodox view on sexuality aren't expecting others to agree with us, and we're not thinking about changing what other people do on this issue, we wish that other people know *Him* because (we believe they'd benefit), and we want to do good in the world as Jesus commanded. I'm so sorry that many people, whilst claiming to follow Jesus, have instead been unkind.
Religions don't belong in politics. Religions are divisive as all Religions state that they are superior to other Religions and only the word of their own God is "the word." Religions should be a private matter, practiced in private and should not be allowed to have influence in the political decision making process. Religions bring hate and war.
Plainly you have your own religion.
I do, it's not "mainstream" religion and I posess enough decency and respect for others to keep it private and to myself. 
Kate Forbes was *asked* repeatedly, so this wasn't really a matter of keeping things to oneself.
Are you keeping it to yourself? Your profile picture and comments suggest that you're sharing your beliefs (including the belief that "mainstream" religion should be kept away), and you are entitled to do so.
Plenty of people claiming to be Christian have "shared" their beliefs in ways that suggest that they aren't really following Jesus - but if one genuinely believes in The Good News of Him, it makes sense that one would feel it should be shared.
My profile picture, to me, is just a point of interest and is not intended as representation of what I believe, what I believe only ever comes up in conversation with those in my innermost circle, I'm sorry that you misunderstand. I'm not going into detail as I do not want to be accused of preaching, influencing or coercion, but what I will say is that in what I believe there are no deities/gods or commandments. 
I certainly wouldn't accuse you of anything for simply explaining your views in the context of a discussion. But you'd have the right to "preach" if you wanted. Either way, coercion means forcing someone to do something, and discussing one's beliefs doesn't mean that another person is forced to agree with them.
I'm not sure how exactly you delineate between displaying something as a "point of interest" and answering questions in an interview, but I'm not going to argue.
Crucially, even if one does not believe in a diety (and yes, I presumed that you - as someone displaying a pentagram - don't), each person has values informing their decisions. Many politicians are plainly motivated, at least at times, more by greed or power lust than by care for constituents. Forbes happens to believe in a man who told us to love or neighbours and to care for the vulnerable.
No, see Luke 13:4 (The Tower of Siloam)
You believe so much believe in the bible, are you sure they didn't write it to confused us!!why do we have different translation from the bible?I i don't think no one can manipulate what God has given to us, take instance like the sun, the Moon The earth, all these things have been in existence no body can manipulate it these are realities, not the writing by these people you call Luke, John, Mathew all and all did you know you can also add your name, as well people will believe it after maybe four generation
Why do you think that it would have been written to confuse us?
What do you mean by different translations? It's necessary for it to be translated into English (and other languages) - though we also learn somewhat about the original (Greek /Hebrew).
I'm not denying the sun or the moon, nor does the Bible "manipulate" them (I'm not sure what you mean by this?). I agree with you, God has given us these (and it's good to try to understand them, and other aspects of creation, better through science).
please am really confused!! I want you to lecture me.No one has seen God but the same bible say that the lord God was coming down from heaven to have fellowship with man you would also agree with me that it was the same lord God who formed Man from the dust according to the bible,it was also the lord God who introduced different languages, we were speaking the same language according to the bible.when you read genesis 1 you discover that God created man and woman but they were not a leaving souls until the lord God came to form man from the dust according to your bible...I want you to explain to me the difference between God and the lord God or it both names mean the same.
You've asked some very interesting questions, I'm not talented enough to explain the answers very well.
(And we only have human brains, we can't fully comprehend God)
When the Bible says "No one has seen God", the writer is talking to an audience about what they had always believed - then God came, that's Jesus.
Yes God created Man (and woman), though this may not have been *literally* from the dust. The Bible is a compilation of different texts (for example, parts of the New Testament are written as precise records of events, by people who had seen them or spoken to witnesses, and some parts are letters written between Christians). The account of creation is unlike other parts of the Bible in that it has the pattern of ancient poetry from its culture/time. So it may be that the creation details are not *literal* - but they help us to understand that God created everything.
Different languages don't translate precisely - there are not *exact* translations for all words in all languages (for instance, the word mañana in Spanish doesn't have an exact English version, so we have to use the English words with the closest meaning we can when translating). One example isthat, in the Bible's original texts, there were multiple words that, when translated to English, all just become the 1 word "love" - so as Christians though we read the English translation, we also try to talk about and understand when the original writing used words with more complicated/specific meanings. In the Bible, different words from the original end up being "lord" in English (in fact,here in the UK, "lord" still has different meanings) - sometimes that word is talking about a person in authority, sometimes about God. This article explains better than I can - - and the website also has many other helpful answers to questions.
Yet if this was his child, it’d be completely free. Pets are family just as much as human beings, these numbers are just plucked out of thin air, always been that way and it’s disgusting.
No, pets are not equal to children. They must be cared for, but they are not the same as humans and they are enjoyed by their owners, not the responsibility of others to pay for. Furthermore, human beings contribute to society and pay taxes to enable the NHS, dogs don't.
so why is your cover photo of a dog an kitten? Some humans on this earth aren’t worth oxygen but every animal is probably worthy of a place here. You think our taxes go to the NHS and not the fat cats pockets in charge of this country? 🥴 bye Felicia 👋🏼
I used to draw cute animals because we like to look at cute animals, it's not evidence that they're as important as humans. I also like to look at cake, that doesn't mean that it's as important as humans or animals. Many men stare at random women they find attractive, that doesn't mean that they value those women as much as the people they actually know.
I wonder why you think that some humans aren't worth oxygen but every animal is(?) Plenty of animals cause pain to other animals - of course, that's their nature and they aren't really aware, but that's the point - animals do not have anything like the consciousness, reasoning or values that humans do, thus whilst they should be respected and cared for they aren't equal to human beings.
you do realise we have working dogs ? You know …..those that act as service dogs for the blind, impaired, police dogs, military working dogs, medical dogs etc etc.
How about all the lazy dole wallers we pay for ? that contribute nothing to society ,and only bleed and drain it dry ?
And kudos to those dogs, they're amazing, but almost all dogs do not contribute to public services. Again, they're awesome and should be cared for, but the owners who are getting enjoyment from their company are responsible, not taxpayers.
ok the same can be said for people banging out kids…….why should I pay for them ?  those Kids are human beings, not just enjoyment for adults like pets are for owners. If their parents are irresponsible, it's not their fault. They deserve, like each of us, to have enough of what they need to grow up, and then they can contribute to society themselves.
We need to remove the fake news and right wing bigotry from this debate. In order for both sides to be heard. Since this debate started, I’ve not heard one single justifiable reason why this should be opposed.
You use the word "heard" twice, but it seems that you haven't been listening
I have Grace. I have gone out my way many times to find what a real concern is of the GRA to woman. So far when I have had feedback. All I get is abuse from some woman that aren’t happy about it. I suggest you read this thread and see how Julie is behaving.
How is Julie being abusive? Where have you gone out of your way previously?
over the past several months and indeed years since this has been going on. I have asked woman to give me a actual concern there is about trans people having equal rights.
I’ll even ask you the question?
That doesn't answer the questions (where's the "abuse" from Julie, for instance?) - I'm honestly wondering where you've been if you've really not encountered people explaining concerns. This debate is constantly raging on Twitter, for instance, and with all issues I believe we need to look at both sides and follow pages we disagree with so that we can have better understanding of those with other views.
That you've referred to this being about "trans people having equal rights" says a lot in itself. This isn't about "trans people having equal rights", it's about the other people, and structures, in society being compelled to adhere to people's feelings over biology. It is, of course, vital that trans folk have equal rights (access to services, jobs, safety etc - and respect as human beings) - but rights are not based on what the individual feels/believes about themselves. If I assert something about myself, that I have this on official documentation, and have other people affirm and accommodate my belief, is not a right.
Please try to comprehend that many women feel a part of their indentity is being undermined - all the more so given that this conversation often ends up coming back to stereotypes that we should be trying to break (see for example, India Willoughby mocking women with short hair)
The particular concerns that strike me with regard to the proposed reforms are that, in spite of supporters' claims, women will be at risk from *men* (I mean men, I'm not referring to trans folk) who *will* be able to take advantage; and that young people who are unhapppy amidst the confusion of growing up will be affirmed in all the more in their disdain for their own bodies. Studies have found that the vast majority of young people who feel that they're trans are in fact happy with their birth sex later on if their new gender is not reinforced. It is not progressive or caring to tell a young person that they are indeed in the wrong body, and to interfere with their hormones. If the adults in my life had endorsed how I felt about my body when I was a teenager, I'd be dead right now.
Importantly, I really don't want trans folk to be hurt or disadvantaged. I don't feel that affirming their dislike of their biology is the most caring thing to do, though I'm not going to argue with them personally. But either way, reducing the involvement of medical professionals in their journey, as the reforms would do, is certainly not caring - and I've heard multiple trans folk argue against the GRR bill because they feel that it actually means less support for them.
This is nuts. That a people group have ancestors who used all of an area in the past for something specific doesn't mean that they're entitled to all of that land for the rest of time, the planet belongs to humanity and needs saving from climate change.
CBS why don't you talk about the China virus????
You lied to everyone and said it was a conspiracy!!!!
Do you mean that you believe it's a conspiracy, because you are a conspiracy *theorist*, and you're annoyed with news outlets for calling your conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory? And you think that, now there's more official support for the possiity that the virus originated in a lab, your theory that it was a conspiracy has been proven?
Even if it did originate in a lab, it's not a conspiracy unless it was *deliberately* created and released to undermine society/for profit, and those who claim that it was ceated deliberately are conspiracy theorists by definition, even if the theory turns out to be correct.
Pope Francis will conduct mass on the outskirts of the capital, Kinshasa
I want to let you know that the Pope does not have respect black people all they want is to get rid of their rule over them 😅😅 take control of everything
Why exactly do you think that?
Christianity is not the Africa Way of worshipping their own God.Every human being on the planet earth today have his own way to communicate with his creator.Did you believe Christianity is Africa religion? Christianity is just two thousand years ago we have been in existence for billions of year
No, human beings have not existed for billions of years. Of course Christianity began 2000 years ago when
Jesus came, but people only discovering something at a certain time does not that it's incorrect. He always existed. Christianity had followers in Africa *before* it became established in Europe. But ultimately there is no "way" that anyone is compelled to believe or worship because of where they were born or live. Each person must decide themselves what they believe (and live peacefully with people who have different beliefs). The many people in Africa who believe in Jesus have the right to believe (and people with other beliefs have the right to those beliefs, though not to hurt others)
It is evil that, in the past, some people went to Africa and hurt /exploited people. They were not truly Christian, even when they claimed to be, because they were not following the teachings of Jesus. Today I want desperately, more than I have words for, for the exploitation of Africa by banks and corporations from my part of the world to end (it's not the Pope who's the problem), I wish I knew how to change things.
Well spoken it was alright dearly reading your text I know Africa country must come back where it was before the white man came specifically Nigeria, thank you for your time 
I personally find that a relationship with Jesus gives me peace and hope, and I think that this is part of the reason that many people in Africa are Christian. It is amazing, observing from the West, how some people in Africa have resilience that people here in the UK don't have - and when I visited Mozambique I met many Christians who, though materially disadvantaged, were very joyful and also generous (whereas in my secular culture in Britain people just complain about not having enough).
I wish that those who hold power here in the West would follow Jesus' commands to love people from elsewhere, then they would end the exploitation of Africa.
The music industry has long had a lot of sexual imagery, but honestly I think that the video discussed brings gross-ness to a new level. And *not* because of Sam Smith's size or gender claims - if you go on about those you enable defenders to claim you're only complaining because you're fatphobic and "queer phobic".
Also note that the issue in Sodom and Gomorrah was not necessarily gay sex (though I believe that God does prohibit this), it was rape.
For the record, Sam Smith has had a number of very successful songs aside from Stay With Me - he's got a good voice - it seems a shame he's now relying on shock value rather than music.
I find it striking how the lyrics of the song are "I'm not here to make friends.... I need a lover" - of course that word has long been oddly used in our culture, but it's still somehow particularly stark in that nothing whatsoever about the video has anything to do with love (in contrast to, for instance, Symphony by Clean Bandit, another gay music video that sticks out in my mind, which *is* actually about love). And as he told the interviewer, it's sex that he wants. Our language needs the different words that the original Bible texts had for referring to different things which in English get lumped together as "love".
Sam Smith is nominated for a Grammy for "Unholy", a which is specifically celebrating a father committing adultery (and the frankly risible materialism of the person he's cheating with). Of course those who don't believe in God's guidance RE relationships and sex won't see any reason to restrict sex to straight marriage, and it really won't help to call them "immoral" for that - but it's there's a change in our culture when more people are asserting that the selfishness of material greed and infidelity are good.
There's a distinction between orientation and sex. The Bible (in the New Testament, not just the Old) says that God (who loves and understands humanity better than we can) prohibits sex outside of straight marriage, it says nothing about orientation. Our culture is so obsessed with sex that it's forgotten that one can live happily without it (as I know personally).
But The Gospel is incomparably more important than this debate. All of us have failed to follow God's guidance in one way or another, and all of us are offered salvation through Jesus. Christians must have genuine compassion for LGBT folk, even if we disagree with certain actions.
Just because you're obsessed with breaking up the UK doesn't mean it's inaccurate for the Union flag to be on Scottish produce. People here in the comments talking about avoiding products on the basis of the flag on their packaging is hilarious.
when our flag is deliberately left out and the Union Jack is in place and we are bombarded with them everywhere [Union Jack's] it is just another stamp of authority over Scotland from our 'oppressors' and the phasing out of 'Scottishness' and serves to try and diminish Scotland's sense of worth and sense of self-worth and to promote only Unionism..... which we all should know by now, or at least be wakening up to the fact that is is NOT a Union!!
It's not "deliberately left out", there's no need for it to be on the packaging in the first place. I'm not keen on Union flag, but it's useful on packaging to instantly tell buyers that the item is from Britain (ie without a high carbon footprint from shipping), which the items above are. Those shoppers interested can also read where in Britain precisely items are from. The religion of divisive nationalism is not relevant to people buying their groceries.
May be an image of 3 people and text that says "Sigurd the Mighty @MightySigurd I am so tired of living like it's the the 1600s. Can afford eggs at the market? Are my friends gonna die in the plague? Puritans coming for my sinful lifestyle. want some modern problems. Modern Problems"
I actually look at history and feel grateful and seriously happy about things that we have now. For most of human history we didn't have gadgets; endless entertainment and things to read; mostly secure/weather proof /potentially snug housing; endless choices of food and drink; opportunities to enjoy some of the wonders of the world that are beyond our immediate environment; the potential of curing *some* illnesses etc etc
There are many people in our world who still don't have many of these things.
There *does* need to be something done to reduce unnecessary appointments. But not this (probably better public education/information about which services one needs and when).
What I've not heard being discussed is that what Jsvid's^ suggesting would impact society as a whole, not only the individual (not that the impact on the individual isn't enough of a reason to oppose it of course). People won't only suffer personally when they don't see healthcare professionals, some will pass on infections to others, or become more ill and less able to help their families and society (ultimately hurting the economy)
There are people literally starving to death in our world, and politicians are spending their time on whether obsessive fans get to stand hundreds of yards from a specific singer?
No, more people are in work than previously - but more and more salaries aren't enough to live on because of fractured households and rising housing and energy costs.
In my experience, and that of the other person I've heard from about this, the current supposed support for getting people with various disabilities into work is utterly useless (though I know that there are some great people working in this area). The government trying to brag about getting people to work is risible.

It is completely irrational and totalitarian to force someone to create something against their will
he's not being forced. He's welcome to close his business. He's not welcome to discriminate against patrons.
He's not discriminating against a patron. He's refusing to make a specific design. 
and only because that design is representative of a gender transition. This is not a semantics game. It’s not.
And? People shouldn't be forced to create things that they don't believe in. Should a Muslim or atheist baker be made to create a cake stating "Jesus is Lord"? Or a vegan Baker be made to create a cake stating "meat is great"?
A customised cake is an entirely non essential item, the customer is not being disadvantaged, they're actively trying to cause the baker difficulty because they hate his beliefs.
she didn't order a banana, she ordered a cake from a cake shop. It's a reasonable expectation of service.
If he doesn't want to make cakes for MONEY, then he's free to not do that. What he's not free to do is pick and choose who he is going to make cakes for based on discriminatory factors that are legally defined, in the US Code, and backed up by the 14th amendment.
All he has to do is stop making money off of cakes. Then he can do WHATEVER he wants. But he's not going to do that, is he? Because making cakes isn't REALLY about his faith...
Again, he ISN'T picking and choosing who he makes cakes for.
And you didn't answer the questions.
YES HE IS! He's openly admitting to that part! He refused service once he found out who and what it was for, not based on the design itself!
And to answer your "questions," yeah, they should, as long as they are operating as a for profit business. If you want to make money off of something, the law protects people from being discriminated based on a number of personally uncontrollable factors: no one's money is more valuable that someone else's.
Again, they are all welcome to commit that prejudice if they don't want money for cakes. Have you ever heard the line "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," or what about "Thou cannot serve God and mammon." The point is this man isn't making cakes for the love of God, he's doing it FOR MONEY. That's the difference!
If he refused on the basis of what the cake is for, that IS about the cake, not the person.
I don't know why you think that those verse prove your point, this isn't about him loving money, it's his craft and his livelihood. It's really not progressive to demand that someone lose their livelihood on the basis of their convictions/beliefs. It's not a matter of prejudice, some people believe that God loves humanity and has not put people in incorrect bodies.
I absolutely believe that we must treat teabs folk with genuine respect, but caring about people doesn't mean having to state agreement.
he IS a bigot. His living God told him to love his neighbor as himself but instead he decided to use his for profit BUSINESS to discriminate against several of them for not believing what he believes. It's the definition of bigotry. It's self righteous judgement, not love.
Now, if you feel the need to have the last word here, go ahead. You clearly have your mind closed and your legal opinion here is based solely on your own prejudice, not on the code.
"he decided to use his business to discriminate"? Good grief no, the customer clearly sought him out to so that they could take him to court. As much as you want to call him a bigot, that's not been proven unless he's *actively* mistreated the customer - the active party here is the customer who is acting against the baker because they don't tolerate his beliefs.
And loving one's neighbour does not mean declaring something that one does not believe is God's loving design for them.
It's about the design, not the person, unless you can prove that they wouldn't have been allowed to buy any other cakes, such as birthday cakes, since you mention them.
We have a PM who's OK with a party chairman who was dodging taxes while being in charge of everyone else's taxes, as well as a home secretary - in charge of the nation's security - who breached security protocol. What kind of leader does that make Sunak?

The government should be encouraging and helping families to move elderly relatives in with them (I know that this won't be possible in all situations).
I get that each situation is different and none of my business, but it doesn't seem to make sense that quite so many elderly folk are living alone experiencing loneliness and being at risk of falling etc, when they could be passing on their wisdom to younger generations. There could also be savings for all involved on total living costs (bills).
Mark Driscoll  "I've said it before and l'Il say it again: If you are not a Christian, you are going to hell. It's not unloving to say that. It's unloving to not say that.OK, but I think we really need to always add some clarity to that - "Christian", unfortunately, is a word that has long been misused in our culture.
We need to tell people that Jesus offers them salvation, whoever they are, and all of us need Him (whereas some non Christians feel that Christians see themselves/ourselves as above other people).
Since many people think "Christian" means part of a club, we should instead explain that it's turning to Jesus that matters (and it's He, not being in what people outside presume is a weird club, who saves us from hell). Remember what you used to say all the time? It's all about Jesus.
You should start by finding out what "woke" actually means, and stop tossing it around when your vocabulary is lacking. (for the record, I strongly disagree with Sturgeon)
 woke -a state of awareness only achieved by those dumb enough to look for injustice in everything .except their own behavior.
 Making up your own definitions is not an argument.
 definition are all made up ...its when they fit perfectly that it sits .
Not really. Words have agreed upon definitions, relating to linguistic patterns, and that's how people can understand each other and discuss their views. To choose a new meaning for a word and think it's clever because you don't have adequate vocabulary to explain your actual complaint is juvenile.
Why should a place of worship have an alter to sexuality?
to show how welcoming the church is to LGBTQ+ people, maybe?
Flags celebrating sexuality are not necessary for welcoming people. God does not want us to worship anything else. Church MUST be about worshipping God alone, not the false idol of sex that our sociey is enthralled to. LGBT people who come into the Church should be treated with respect like anyone else who comes into the Church. And the emphasis for all of us as Christians is that we are defined by our relationship with Christ, not by identity politics. The world encourages us to feel pride in our sexuality, nationality etc (in part to sell products or to hold control) - but we know as Christians that those things are unimportant compared to our new identity.
A flag isn’t worshiping sex. Thankfully not all Christians think like you. I certainly wouldn’t worship a god that does nothing about his representatives raping kids
The flag specifically designed to celebrate sexuality. And our culture *does* idolise sex (partly because it sells), as have many cultures in human history. God calls us to love Him more than flesh. He is so much better - and sexual relationships aren't necessary for enjoying life (as I know personally - and do gay/same sex attracted Christians who choose to be celibate)
I'm not sure why you think God "does nothing" about the evil you refer to, how do you know? And why associate this evil with priests in particular? Tragically, it's a problem that exists across society.

Why do the media keep bothering Labour about this and not the Tories? I've not heard Sunak asked to define what a woman is.
so you want just news on one party ? Why are you trying to hide what the opposition is up too ?
Why are you not worried he has no idea what you are ?
"Just about one party"? That's my point, the Right leaning press keeps hassling Labour about this, but not challenging the Government to clearly define what a woman is. And Sunak's government is now planning to make it illegal to encourage people to embrace their biological/birth sex.
Yes I really wish Starmer would be clearer on the matter, but it's not that "he has no idea who I am", particularly given his recent references to biology. Sunak cut Overseas Aid, which has meant that programmes to help some of the world's poorest girls access education were terminated, putting them at risk of being forced to be married off in their teens. A party that chooses to leave girls to be forced into marriage is not a party on the side of women and girls.
Her statement last year was so full of misunderstandings. And this debate is ultimately unimportant compared to The Gospel.
it is hugely importantl to many many people - even if not to you...The interpretations & misinterpretations within & about "the gospel" continue to cause huge problems & heartache for many...
I didn't say that it's not important at all, I said that it's unimportant in *comparison* to the Gospel. Why would one think that sexual relationships are as important as the offer of eternal life? Some of us enjoy life without ever having sex at all.
v unworldly & unworthy. Gay people's relationships aren't always about sex either; that is nothing but a distortion & misinterpretation of the core of concerns here. Equality in marriage is what this is about. So many different & some hugely erroneous interpretations of "the gospel" and what fairness and equality means for disadvantaged and marginalised minority groups. Spouting euphemisms and personal views does not equate to either a full.or fair understanding of the issues here.
I didn't say that gay relationships are only about sex, of course they aren't, but that's the crux of the issue. It's that which the Bible prohibits, and which people have thus been arguing about - people could have celibate relationships without the need for this debate.
It isn't simply about "equality in marriage", all people can get married, it's about redefining marriage and how we view God's guidance.
"Personal views"? If you disagree with me, it doesn't mean that what I've written is merely my "personal view" and yours is correct. We could debate the relevant scripture, but I'm not sure this argument is helpful.
AGAIN, eternal life is more important, I'm not sure why that should be controversial(?)
well, well, well! I can't see ANY evidence of you showing much understanding of or empathy for gay people. Your dogmatic "interpretation" of "the gospel" is open to significant challenge. However you clearly have a fixed and predetermined view which is not open to discourse so
You didn't suggest any points of discourse, you simply threw a few pejoratives at me and declared what I referred to was only my "personal view", as though I have no scriptural basis for my conclusions. You call my interpretation dogmatic, but we've not discussed the bases of our interpretations and you've not offered any counter arguments (I suspect I know what they might be, I have been following both sides of this debate a fair bit).
Empathy does not mean supporting all of another person's actions. It means loving the *person* themselves. And as I've said, I want people to know that Jesus (who is greater than any relationship we have with another human) more than I want to argue about this, I'm not sure why you think that's objectionable.
because there are many and varied interpretations of "the gospel" and yours is but one. Sandi Toksvig and many practising and well read/researched Christians both believe and see otherwise - my personal choice is to go with them; yours is a more limited (& many would say) outdated perspective. Best just to leave it at that as there is no common ground here...
Sandi Toksvig demonstrated that she's entirely unaware of the discussion within the Christian community - in particular, she claimed that "the main takeaway" from the Lambeth conference, despite various problems in the world, was that gay sex is a sin - but there *was* much discussion at the conference about other things going on in the world. Our culture chooses to presume that sexuality is of the utmost importance and ignores the many other things Christians discuss.
as I very clearly said we have no common area of agreement & no basis for further discussion. Sandi Toksvig may well not have got everything right; however there are many other practising and well researched Christians who very clearly disagree with your perspective and that of the traditionalists within the Anglican communion; so we will just terminate this now and agree to disagree... 
No common area of agreement? So Jesus is of no significance?
I wouldn't say the debate about people's lives is"ultimately unimportant"!.
What happened to us loving each other and treating each other as we would be treat. Ultimately every religion preaches love, it is the people who profess to be religious but who judge others with prejudice and ignorance that is the problem sadly.
It's not about lives, it's about sexual relationships. The Gospel is about eternal life, which is more important than sex. I'm not saying that this issue is in itself unimportant, I'm saying that it's unimportant *in comparison* to what Jesus offers each person. I want gay people to know that He loves and died for them more than to discuss their relationships.
Indeed we should love others, and gay people *must* be shown real respect and empathy. That doesn't mean defying the guidance of our God - who loves humanity and knows us better than we do - in Churches. It wouldn't be loving for a sibling to tell their sibling that their Dad's guidance is wrong. But again, what Jesus has done is more important than this debate.
NB, The Gospel is incomparably more important than the issues regarding sexuality that the media seem to consider the only reason for ever discussing anything relating to the Church or Christianity. The CofE shouldn't contradict God's guidance RE relationships - but we've ALL, in one way or another, failed to follow His guidance, and we are all offered salvation through Jesus.
Jesus showed compassion to people as well as telling them to turn away from certain behaviours - Churches must emulate this.
in my opinion the church of England is not really a church because it is driven by the state and not biblical principles. That’s why it’s called the Church of England it is a state/religious organization.
I think that's true to an extent, but it's also difficult that there are so many people in it with very differing opinions - that should of course be manageable, but it's not because, it appears, some seem not really to be committed primarily to Jesus. I think that the sexuality debate is so impossible for the Church because some people believe that sex is fundamental to enjoying life - but it isn't, God is greater. The campaigners I see (follow closely on social media) arguing about this (sexuality and the Church) seem disinterested in the Gospel.
It's also the case that some people have, unacceptably, been treated in an unkind, unChristlike way on the basis of sexuality issues. The Church needs to show that *people themselves* are precious and loved by God even if their sexual relationships aren't.
I think there’s a very specific way of showing them that love. We are supposed to speak the truth in love. But people who are receiving or are being given a word they disagree with, will never see that it is being offered in love. We do not get to change what God has said. We do not get to bless what God has not blessed. Certainly, all sinners are welcomed into the church. But if they are an unrepentant cent center, if they have not yet accepted Christ the Savior, and given up their sin, then they can attend the church, but they cannot be blessed, they cannot take communion, they cannot be in a position of leadership. That’s per the Bible.
And so yes, God does love them and he wants them to come to repentance and we can welcome them to the church. We can welcome them into our friendship. But you don’t have to except the behavior that God calls us in. We do that as parents with our children all the time. Our children behave. In ways that the Bible calls send. They lie. They manipulators. They backtalk and show disrespect. We still love them. But we correct that behavior . This is no different.
I agree. I'm just conscious that some people have been treated genuinely unkindly, not in a way that Jesus treated those caught in sin, and it's important that Christians do have real empathy for others, which some very judgemental attitudes imply is lacking. I think that some forget that they themselves have also needed forgiveness for sin, that knowledge should give us a real humility in how we interact with those who aren't yet believers.
Those who don't yet believe have no reason to take God's guidance RE sex seriously (thus there's no point whatsoever in criticising - just as a child won't listen to the instruction of an adult with whom they have no relationship/respect). Instead they've been led by society to feel that their sexuality is their core identity, we need to try to imagine how that feels. We need to focus on telling about Jesus, it's He who matters. When they love God, they'll take His guidance seriously - but again, it's their coming to Him that ultimately matters anyway.
What about all the children the churches have molested?
Tragically, there are perverts throughout society and a few end up in each sector, including sports clubs, the police, Westminster, Hollywood, etc...
That doesn't make abuse any less awful of course, but it's not logical to deem it a particularly Church specific issue.
If the gospel, the church and christianity are unconcerned with the way people treat one another, His guidance isn’t worth following.
When did I or the OP suggest that how we treat others doesn't matter?
Dismissing the stance of organized religion that refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, is a reflection of how you believe others deserve to be treated. 
That doesn't actually answer the question. And it's not a matter of "organised religion", it's about God's guidance - God who loves humanity and knows better than we do what's best for us. You and others have every right to disbelieve that, but the Church is supposed to follow God and should not be made to actively perform services to the contrary. Ultimately you're presuming that not holding services some people want is mistreatment, but it isn't. And you're trying to express interest in what some people want, but demanding that the feelings of other people are *actively* over ruled, that they be forced to do something against their will. The Church believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, that is not mistreatment, and LGBT people must absolutely be treated with respect as much as everyone else. Those who believe differently from the Church can still get married outside of it.
Crucially, it's mistaken to presume that romance/sex are actually essential for an enjoyed/fulfilled life - speaking from experience. God gives more joy.
 May be an image of text that says "Update: The government will add content that show people crossing the Channel in small boats "positive light" to a list of illegal content in the Online Harms bill. in a They say it will help stop 'TikTok' traffickers and those aiding immigration offences. SP"
We - Brits - should have compassion for migrants, but it's absolutely right that the content traffickers are using to render journeys in a positive light and lure people here is stopped, why all the angry reactions?
It's not an attack, at all
objectively and demonstrably an attack on trans people. Fact.
Demonstrate then.
tell me you know nothing about the subject without telling me you know nothing about the subject!
Perhaps your grasp of basic human rights is a little rusty but restricting people based on their demographic is wholly against basic human rights. Demonising an entire community, bullying the most vulnerable demographic in modern society, how is this anything but against basic human rights?
It's not that access is denied, it's that access to some things is sex based. People aren't being singled out or prevented from accessing things they should access, they're just not having access determined by their feelings rather than biology. And seriously, what services exactly?
Again, it's not an attack, nor bullying, nor demonising.
And whilst trans folk may not be a threat, I never said that they are, what you're asking for will allow some predatory non trans men to have more opportunities to abuse women. Why do you not care about that?
the side of the issue is about basic access to services taken for granted by the vast majority being restricted for no reason other than fear and hate for something misunderstood.
This is hyperbole in itself, the entire trans community is being singled out for what? What’s the % of their population that present a problem? What’s the % of other populations/communities/demographics presenting the same problems?
Inaccurate? Check the above information out if you want “accuracy” in what you’re saying in the future.
I haven't demonised bullied or restricted rights, and nor has the government (who I typically disagree with) by blocking this bill. And again, it's not an "attack".
Using such inaccurate hyperbole really doesn't help people to see your side of this issue, it gives the impression that you're not being rational.
There are some people in our world who don't have clean tap water to drink (and have to walk miles carrying what little, unclean water they can get - some children have to miss school to carry it, and some are made seriously ill by the water). The amount he's spending each year could provide ongoing clean water for a village.
Yuh, this has been a relatively big story here. It's very unusual for me to be grateful for something our government does. Positive too is that the leader of our Labour party, very likely to become PM in the next election, has (despite being generally unclear on the gender issue, clearly trying, but failing, to please everyone) not supported the bill.
I reckon that the Scottish National Party is trying to use it to stoke the fight between itself and the UK government, so it can argue further to Scottish voters that they ought to be independent. The Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, argued that the UK government are using trans folk as a political football - but it's she who's doing that. And so far as I've read, most Scots oppose the bill, she's not acting in their interests.

IMO we also need to talk about the super rich being paid less. In addition to the issue of inflation, there's not enough money for everyone to have a pay rise - unless action is taken to reduce the salaries of those who rake in massive amounts.
Personally I'm just thrilled to have work.
May be an image of 1 person and text that says "Sajid Javid calls for patients to pay for GP and A&E visits Radical reforms needed to tackle waiting times, says former health secretary PA Media Fri 20 Jan 2023 23.42 GMT" 
There *does* need to be something done to reduce unnecessary appointments. But not this (probably better public education/information about which services one needs and when).
What I've not heard being discussed is that what he's^ suggesting would impact society as a whole, not only the individual (not that the impact on the individual isn't enough of a reason to oppose it of course). People won't only suffer personally when they don't see healthcare professionals, some will pass on infections to others, or become more ill and less able to help their families and society (ultimately hurting the economy)
He also said (in 2 BBC interviews of recent months) that he lied to the Church about celibacy, and (in the one with Sally Phillips over Christmas) that he "had to" in order "to do what we wanted". I'm afarid I find that pretty shocking from a minister. Christianity is not about getting what we want. And celibacy is not a hardship.
Apologies for the whataboutism, but Guardian would you please also write more about the people in our world who are forced to work ridiculously long hours in sweatshops, factories, mines and plantations to provide things that we buy?
The country just can't cope with the amount of people we have. We take em all in, but it's the people who pay... Suffer
The NHS is struggling more because there are more elderly and obese people, not migrants (who are generally young and fit, and migration figures include many health/care workers)
No our population has increased 30% over the last 60 years not of which is mainly not down to British reproducing and paying into the system accordingly - had there been no migration or lots less then our infrastructure etc & NHS be so overwhelming
That's not logical
Of course it logical - had there been millions less migrants then our population be smaller - less people equal less road congestion - less people needing hospitals - less people needing houses - the list is endless - how is that not logic - the demand for homes is expensive - scarce or of poor quality because of it - you once was able to work 40 hours in a normal job to be able to afford a home - not any longer 
As I said, migration numbers include many health /care workers. And migrants are generally healthier than the British population as a whole, our NHS is struggling because there are more elderly people and more people with health issues related to obesity. Housing is another issue - but it's in crisis because of profiteering landlords and because British people are now far less likely to live in families than in the past, not because of migrants who live far more efficiently and who include builders.
NYT, I haven't seen anything from you about the victims of this conflict and abuse themselves (?)
I'm certainly not objecting to this coverage of this brave woman, but it seems that the world's poorest or most victimised people are largely ignored by mainstream media.
Every single country in Africa is siding with Russia and China with this new NATO/NAZI hegemonic push playing out in the Ukraine proxy war. It's puzzling that the NYT even mentions Africa after being on the side of the terrorists in the horn of Africa who were recently defeated.
Putin is invading Ukraine and killing civilians. He's evil, just as those from our part of the world who invaded Africa were/are evil. That some people in Africa are taking his side is disturbing.
Obviously. But I also wonder, why is it that on the Left there's so, so much more concern for Palestine than other parts of our world where people are suffering immensely? I'm absolutely not saying that we shouldn't be hugely concerned for the people of Palestine, but why do we not similarly cry out for sweatshop workers, famine victims and those who have to walk hours for dirty water?
UK Government blocks Scottish gender recognition reforms | ITV News  
Interesting particular, calling people Nazis for not agreeing with their demands based on trans ideology is grossly disrespectful to those who actually died at the hands of the Nazis. Not having your birth certificate say what you want it to is not the same as being put into a gas chamber.
What's wrong with being a woman? Asking as a woman.
Absolutely nothing. Just doesn't match up with how everyone feels.
Being a woman is not a feeling.
Being biologically female is not a feeling but that's not what this is about. Gender and womanhood are social constructs -- nothing objective or biology based about dresses, long hair, and the color pink being for women.
Additonally, studies have shown that the brains of trans people are more similar to the brains of their declared gender than their assigned gender. So while outward appearances are saying one thing, internal anatomy points at something different. You can worry about what's between someone's legs if you need to, but I think what's between their ears is more relevant.
No, womanhood is not only a social construct, nor is gender. If they were, why the need for people like yourself to argue about them? That you imply womanhood is "dresses, long hair, and the color pink" is frankly flipping offensive.
To imply that those who believe in biology only care about "what's between people's legs" is completely disingenuous, our chromosomes are in all our cells (other than RBCs) and affect our hormones, in turn impacting other aspects of our physiology and lives. But what's between people's legs can matter and put us, women, at risk.
You've not actually linked to any studies - but there's no such thing as a specifically male or female brain (other than the chromosomes in the cells of those brains), anyway. I'm on the autistic spectrum, we're sometimes described as having "male brains", but I am most definitely not male. Furthermore, brains are, to some extent, maleable and influenced by our environment and experiences - hence the observation you refer to.
I should add, I really, really don't want NB or trans *people* to be bullied or mistreated, it's imperative that they're shown compassion, I'm just getting fed up with this *ideology*.
People argue about social constructs all the time, and I'm not the one who associated long hair, dresses, and pink with women -- society did that long before I was born. Ever heard of Barbie?
Interesting that you mention autism -- anecdotal evidence and an increasing number of wider studies are noting a huge overlap between autistic people and trans/non-binary people. I'm interested to see where that goes. I've included a few studies, but it's really not hard to find them yoursel [links]
You absolutely implied that womanhood is "dresses, long hair, and the color pink". That some other people also put stock in those stereotypes isn't the point, you still brought them up yourself and equated them with womanhood. And though stereotypes have always existed, it doesn't actually mean that people believe that's how a woman is defined. Barbie's manufacturers didn't claim that she is the definition of womanhood.
Plainly, stereotypes relate to things that have historically been more common amongst biological women - but that doesn't mean that that's what womanhood is, and we should challenge stereotypes rather than hark back to them. If a person wishes to defy stereotypes, they are still a woman. And so my original question - what's wrong with being a woman? If Bella Ramsey doesn't want to adhere to stereotypes, it doesn't change the fact that, with all due respect to her, she is a woman - and she should feel free to wear what she likes (including, as it happens, floral print here^ and pink in the other photo of her that's been circulating with this story) without feeling that it means she isn't a woman. And she is so much more besides - male and female are just one part of our individual identities. I note she says "I'm very much just a person" - she shouldn't have been led to feel that being a person is in conflict with being a woman
"Interested to see where that goes"? It sounds like you think of us as clinical specimens, or pawns in your argument.
There's going to be immense neurological variation amongst men and amongst women, everyone is unique and influenced by many factors. And again, the brain adjusts - to some extent - to its environment. People who live adhering to stereotypically female roles and considering themselves women may indeed show evidence of this by some measures in some brain scans, but there is in fact no such thing as an intrinsically female or male brain other than the genetics of the brain cells. The title you've shared in fact implies that point - "brain sex *shifted* towards gender identity" - but looking at that study, contrary to your assertion, the brains of transwomen are *not* closer to those of women than they are to those of men. The SA study plainly states that trans folk have unique brains, not the brains of their selected identity (I'm getting uncomfortable at this point in that I'm concerned I may be being disrespectful, which I do not want to be)
And Harry himself is a beneficiary of that injustice. If he cared, he wouldn't have spent $15milion on a mansion for himself, and be raking in many millions more for himself personally right now, he'd live like a normal person and give his excess fortune - which he wouldn't have were he not Royal - to helping people in the poorest parts of the world or to fighting modern slavery.
The current Royal family is not to blame for the evils of their ancestors - but if he thinks that they are, then by that logic he is too. And both they and he, though not responsible for the evil, have a responsibility to give wealth they own because of it to help those in need *today*. Doing so would be far more straightforward for him than for the RF given the complexities of the monarchy and who owns the properties.
Nationalism is not Left wing.
and is modern labour left wing or is the party that gives free cradle to grave … education .. prescriptions…health care …legal representation…
Sorry, what's the difference exactly? The NHS exists throughout the UK, indeed there should also be free prescriptions in the whole of Britain, but it's easier for the Scottish government to afford such things given that they get far more money per citizen. Whether it's Left wing for lower paid workers to fund the university education of those who will earn more than them, I'm not sure.
London and even Northern Ireland get more money per head.
Not according to this
though it would make sense if it were more in London, since living costs are far higher here.
Why is it news for her to call something an outrage?
I reckon she's pushing this law for the purposes of being able to complain when Westminster blocks it.
Has she considered the opinions of the Scottish people?
Grace lives in London so has no say in Scottish politics, some are so opinionated on what doesn't concern them.
Why shouldn't people have opinions? Do you never comment on things outside of Scotland? And in fact this could affect people here in England, and arguably already does in the way it undermines women.
How does it undermine women Grace. On your last point GRR was a Cross party vote to pass it not SNP. The reason people in Scotland vote for SNP and have done for 15 years now are their policies now ask yourself why that is.
People vote for the least bad party, and only have several options. It is plainly not logical to claim that all of the people who voted for the SNP definitely agree with all of their policies, especially given how Sturgeon stressed that they were the best party to vote for to oppose BoJo. Do you really think that SNP voters aren't *independent* individuals with their own sets of views on different issues? Besides, the SNP still won less than half of the votes at the last election. The only way to assess Scottish views on this issue is to poll them on this issue - and such polling has, apparently, found that the majority of Scots oppose the bill.
It undermines women because it implies that our identity is simply a feeling. 
That depends on what you define as a mental health problem. Our culture now overuses the phrase. There are some very real mental health problems that can't be fixed easily or at all, as much as we should indeed exercise and spend time with family.
Calvin Robinson: "The CofE are overseeing a managed decline" (Slavery Apology Spend)
Christianity is about Christ - not tradition or buildings. First and foremost, He makes salva possible and we should share The Gospel with the world - but He also repeatedly said that loving others is vital.
What exactly have the C of E said they'll spend this money on? The people who need to apologise, and the people owed an apology, are long deceased. But there should be, for instance, removals of commemorations to enslavers. The money should be spent on fighting present day slavery and the severe poverty in some formerly colonised countries.
I'm sure the CoE greatly profited from the industrial revolution as well.
Maybe they should pay compensation to the workers of this country who suffered so much in the mills and factories.  
LOL what? The workers of the industrial revolution are no longer alive. And do you have evidence for your presumption anyway?
Neither are the slaves. You'll find the appaling conditions of the mill and factory workers are well documented.
I've already acknowledged that enslaved people of the slave trade are no longer alive, have you actually read my comment?
The CoE would have made a fortune on the back of the british wotking class after all their suffering contributed equally to any profit made.
This money should be spent on fighting poverty here.
Again, why are you certain that the Church made money from the industrial revolution? As I said already, the people who were enslaved are no longer alive - the money is still in existence, and much should go towards helping those in extreme poverty NOW because of the ripple effects of colonialism (in developing countries) and to fighting present day slavery.
Besides, the industrial revolution was not as brutal as the slave trade - people were ripped from their families and cultures and had their freedom entirely gone, as well as being branded, raped, literally worked to death and tortured if they tried to escape. And the need in the UK is not at all as severe as the poverty that exists in some other parts of the world. Churches DO already do loads to help the disadvantaged here, many food banks, soup kitchens and more are run by/through Churches.
The slave trade and colonialism moved vast wealth from what are now consequently poor countries to countries like ours. Given *current* suffering, that needs some tackling - and three is horrific modern slavery that *we* benefit from, that must be ended.

Any church flying a rainbow flag has come out of Satan’s closet.
I agree that Churches shouldn't be flying that flag - but do you really think that statements like this are going to help?
If don't repent he surely qualifies for hell. To his fellow remaining sodomites the massage remains the same " you are all hell bound candidates". Say no to homosexual it's a sin.
But it's not the job of other people to punish such sin, let alone through the barbaric, evil sin of murder. And we have all sinned, albeit in different ways from this. Personally I believe in Jesus - and when He was confronted regarding a woman caught in sexual sin, He both stopped the religious authorities from killing her and told her to go and sin no more.
But there aren't more doctors and nurses in the country. The private sector just lures more of them out of the NHS, worsening wait times and staff stress within the NHS (and puts more money in the pockets of corporations rather than healthcare workers). And private schools fuel social division.
I can't get my head around the snobbery. She's visited people in severe poverty in developing countries, why not be immensely grateful for what she has?
My priorities are that you restore Overseas Aid, stop spending half of it in Britain and ensure better oversight of it so that none is wasted. Also that you ban imports of products involving exploitative labour.
He was asked about dentists and replied about GPs. It's concerning that our PM thinks dentistry is the same thing as general practice
He's a clown. He hasn't shown evidence of actual leadership skills, and he's demonstrated that he's seriously lacking honesty, self control and respect for the people he had power over.
For instance, "the modern British male is useless. If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless...If he is white collar, he is likely to be little better.” (Quote from BoJo)
I'm more concerned about taking important workers from less wealthy countries. You talk about seeing things through a "Right wing lens", but why do we always look through a solely British lens, and seemingly disregard the impact on people who haven't been lucky enough to be born into a relatively wealthy country? 
Because we aren't countries, we are people. People before countries.
People before countries indeed. And *people* in less wealthy countries have far less access to healthcare than we do, even with the struggles of our NHS, access is lessened further because *our government* poaches the healthcare professionals local to them.
I am NOT trying to criticise the healthcare professionals concerned of course, but our government should be funding more training of healthcare workers both here and (as an increase in overseas Aid) in less wealthy countries.
This faux concern for poor countries is a very thin disguise indeed for what it really is.
"faux"? You can't imagine someone caring about people in less wealthy countries? It seems that you're projecting.
Prince Harry reveals he is ‘not religious’ despite Royal family’s deep Christian ties
We each have to decide for ourselves what we believe and whether we want to follow Jesus. It's not heritable.
Also, "religious" is a stupid word.
What a great reminder that this "news"paper exists to serve the rich, not the general population
They all need therapy AND racial awareness courses
Why exactly?
it is quite clear that the royal family, household and “the suits” that run them all, have a problem of unconscious bias, sometimes outright racism. It is a problem that permeates the British Establishment as a whole and is a hangover of the Empire that really should be gone by now. One only need look to the comments about the colour of Archie’s skin and Lady Hussey’s recent total faux pas. Harry himself even recognised the problem in himself when he mentioned his “little Pakki friend”. He recognised the problem and did something about it. The rest of them may not be doing it intentionally, but that is why it is called UNCONSCIOUS bias. Harry has done something about it, maybe it is time the establishment recognised they have a problem and did something about it too.
Why lump individuals together? Especially when Harry, who made the claim about the skin colour comment - we don't actually know what was said - has said that they're not racist? People of colour I listened to RE the baby skin color comment said, to my surprise, that it wasn't necessarily racist, that it's normal for people to speculate about what babies will look like - I'm NOT saying that they're definitely correct, but I was struck that the issue is more complex than I first thought. But it makes no sense to blame Kate for things likely said by someone else. To lump people together like that is similar, as a thought process, to the irrationally of racism.
I don't know what happened with Hussey. I'm afraid I struggle to believe that someone who'd been in her role for so long would have asked repeatedly as claimed. Ngozi Fulani had already made extreme and irrational allegations against the Palace, and reading her words on her organisation's Facebook page, it seems plausible to me that she was seeking to misled to bring the Palace into disrepute - particularly since a well known, progressive lawyer of colour commented that he'd been at the event and when Hussey asked where he was from he replied with his city (Manchester I think) and she didn't ask further. Note too that Harry said he and Meghan love Hussey, which surely would be unlikely as a couple keen to expose racism if she were racist (and they probably know about her fairly well, especially if it's true that she was assigned to support Meghan in the Palace). IF the conversation really went as NF claimed then I agree Hussey was extremely racist and it was right that she was sacked. Again, none of this is the fault of Kate.
I don't like the monarchy/RF, and have complained massively about things William has said. But I really think people should be judged for their own actions and words, not lumped together - do you have identical opinions to all your family and household members?
IMO the RF's wealth should be given to the communities in our world suffering the most severe poverty - plenty of this poverty is ultimately linked to colonialism, and, I suspect, racism in that the West largely ignores it. But Harry and Meghan don't seem particularly concerned about those people either.
Raunchy? Why make something that's based on a kids' show "raunchy"?
The show is on HBO Max and is made for adults not children - which is pretty obvious to anyone with more than two functional brain cells.
I'm well aware of that, it doesn't answer the question.
Plenty of kids would try any show with characters they like.
It's disturbing that so many people support him
it's your right to be disturbed.
Indeed. It's *not* the right of men to behave as Andrew Tate teaches.
it absolutely is though. No laws are being broken. You're just disturbed by his opinion.
Would you say the same about Islamic extremists who lead others to carry out terrorist attacks?
I'm disturbed by the fact that Andrew Tate is influencing boys to harm girls.
What has he done that has offended you ? Did he oppose your narrative, did he challenge your thoughts.The whole concept of having a society is to have opposing views that can be debated.
So what are you defending ? More to the point, what are you trying to oppress?
No, the concept of society is first and foremost that people can live together in peace by having respect for each other (even with opposing opinions). Andrew Tate makes money by teaching people to disrespect others. He encourages oppression.
And religion and politics don't cause wars.We are not talking about a Utopia that is base in sci fiction.We are talking about the real world.Our world has always had strong opposing opinions.
We have extreme on both sides. The people in the middle have to be able to negotiate for themselves which path they take.
Been that way since the dawn of time.
What right do you have to steer anyone in any direction?
Wars are also bad and should be avoided as much as possible. That the world will never be utopia doesn't mean that we should reduce harm. Would you defend the right of an Islamic extremist to teach people to carry out terrorist attacks?
Until recently, figures with "extreme" views haven't had the potential to influence millions of impressionable people around the world.
"What right do you have to steer anyone"? Steering people is what Andrew Tate has been doing - specifically, he's steering people towards harming others. I'm just commenting.
So far as I've seen, her stance is somewhat contradictory (?) For instance, the notion of obsessing over "fatherland" is not in line with the teachings of the God she claims to follow. The Bible calls us to care for those from elsewhere, and to look forward to the kingdom of God - which will include people from all nations - to hold religious fervour for national identity.
IMO these comparisons are useless, what matters is one's actual shopping list, not a "typical basket". And not everyone can access all of the different chains, for instance there are no Aldis or Asdas in walking distance from here. Also, reduced price items at the end of the day can really help, from whichever shop one can get to in the evening, but what these offers include is totally unpredictable.
Amongst other things, I'm confused by how, apparently, he talks about seeing a therapist - but in the Oprah interview he and Meghan were angry with the Palace because Meghan supposedly hadn't had access to help with her mental health (?)
A lot of little things not adding up eg. I can’t believe that falling on a dog bowl fully clothed would result in said bowl shattering & piercing his skin through his clothes?
Apparently (acc his recent CBS interview) he didn't want to tell anyone, including Meghan, she only found out when she saw the mark - but now he's telling the world? It seems surprising that one would tell the world more than one tells one's spouse (?)
It is like the fire incident surrounding the baby in S Africa..lies all the way.
I saw on Twitter that incident, or rather the claims about it from Meghan, made a lot of people in South Africa extremely angry. I think that Harry and Meghan, as much as they pretend to be progressive, aren't necessarily giving enough thought to how their words impact others. did upset them locals out there and it was a very hot there was alot of questions about the use of a heater.
Personally, I'd originally (years ago) been really excited that there'd finally be a Royal raising awareness of need within Africa (though obviously the continent is endlessly varied and there are many there who aren't impoverished) given that Meghan had been an advocate for World Vision International. I thought that victims of famine and those still needing clean water would at last get a bit more attention. It seems such a shame that H&M are instead so much more interested in talking about themselves.
So you support healthcare being run as individual businesses? The Canary is so desperate to bash Labour it's now ceasing to be Left wing.

I think it's out of order for people to do this - but surely visiting them isn't the best use of limited police time? 
behave yourself and get back to concentrating on the horrific death of Jesus.You absolute oxygen thief
Interesting, why are you angry with me (calling me an oxygen thief)?
after reading your original comment I just had to click on your profile. You, your views and your followers are everything what is wrong with society today
Why? I personally tend to think that what's wrong with our society is selfishness, racism and injustice, I'm intrigued that you think these are less important than whatever you read on my page.
you love to feel hurt for other people.Also why are people who you know nothing about out of order?
Thankyou, that's very interesting - so you think me feeling concerned about others is a problem, and is "what's wrong with society"?
"People I know nothing about"? I was referring to streaming illegally, that's what I said was out of order.
what has it got to do with you?
Not much, though arguably it means that people who pay will end up being charged more. But we all comment on things online, we're allowed opinions. I didn't argue that they should be punished etc.
What does me "stealing oxygen" have to do with you?
I never said you were out of order stealing it did I you loon
So? I'm not sure why you think that the phrase *out of order* specifically is such a big deal. You implied that I shouldn't breathe, and you're entitled to that opinion, I just wondered why, especially since my breathing has nothing to do with you.
[Meme - "She's full blown crazy"] 
For wondering why someone has told me not to breathe?
This has been a very informative conversation, I don't often encounter people specifically stating that we shouldn't care about other people (but also that it's wrong to be selfish enough to breathe). Bye.
 May be an image of text that says "Teach your daughters that sex is for them to enjoy that sex is not something done to them, that they deserve to get pleasure and that virginity is a myth and a social construct."
No, virginity is the reality of having not had sex before. Some people view it positively, some people view it negatively, either way it's not a "construct" and it's not the business of other people.
So (watching as a Brit trying to get informed) there are people supposedly on the Left who support a corporation having excessive power and avoiding tax, and someone on the Right is acting to bring a corporation under control of the state and make it pay more tax? I don't understand America.
The issue is (as I see it), is that Disney criticized The "Don't say gay" bill, and DeSantis is punishing them for it. A major 1st Amendment violation.It has nothing to do with corporate power, or taxes. I'm sure Disney enjoys both of those, but that's not the issue.
I get that that's his motivation, but it's odd how this has worked out. IMO the Left should be more concerned about corporate power and greed, whether tax is paid and used to fund good state services, and whether workers are fairly paid and treated, than about LGBT characters (though I mean no disrespect to LGBT folk)
I mean, it's not any way to solve disputes, not only not Christian. He's frankly lying in saying that he wants his father and brother back, if he really had that desire he wouldn't be saying all the things he is to the media (which he claimed to hate). But it's good to be reminded, as Christians, that we all need to develop humility, patience and self reflection
Given that Meghan's been an advocate for World Vision International, several years ago I'd really hoped that she and Harry would use their position in the royal family to raise awareness of some of the most horrific injustices.
They could have spoken up for people living in the very most severe poverty. They seem instead to primarily be interested in themselves, asserting victim status *again* whilst some human beings in our world are literally starving to death.
guess you only follow the tabloids- they have been busy doing great things.
No, why do Harry and Meghan fans always presume that? I follow all the media outlets, and mostly only actually read articles from those of higher quality than the tabloids. I've also looked repeatedly at the Archewell website, as well comments made by H&M and their supporters.
Because the British print media have turned vilification of chosen victims into an art form.
No, people are sick of Harry and Meghan moaning whilst there are so many problems in our world. I agree that The Fail is awful, but that doesn't mean that people can't have their own opinions on H&M's statements. Whilst bemoaning deference, you seem to think this multimillionaire couple as unquestionable by the lowly, dim, public. It's patronising and fallacious. That the Taliban's quote is being printed does not at all mean that they are being respected, the media reports things that are notable even when entirely disagreeing with the ideology of those featured. But more importantly, people are not critical of Harry because of what the Taliban said, most are angry because of the risk he put other soldiers in (since it's *not* doubted that the Taliban are evil) and because the comments have been said by numerous military figures to be offensive and misleading.
Prince Harry's assertion that he killed 25 people in Afghanistan
I've wondered if it's really possible to be certain, as he claims, that they were all Taliban.
Even if they were, so there's no tragedy of civilian deaths in his pronouncement, it's really odd how he's spent the last few years complaining that his Dad or the UK taxpayer won't fund security for him, and now he's putting himself (and others) in the line of fire of jihadists.
Is he aware that, right now, there are people literally starving to death because of the Taliban? It seems strange, given that tragic reality, that one would spend quite so long as he has asserting victim status from a $15 million mansion.
know whats even odder? He spent 30 plus years making UK billion upon billions of dollars year after year. A billion is 1000 million. Of the minimum 2 billion each year Uk got they gave him only 3 mil to sustain himself. Now. Dont you find that odd?
Yes I know what a billion is, thankyou. According to what evidence did he make billions for the UK?
I thought you knew UK? Guess not. The UK themseves put out the stats once the American media discovered UK did not pay for Megs wedding but invested in it to gain $1.5 billion profit. This lead to further stats provided by the UK gov. In which it was stated UK makes a minimum of $2 Billion a year off the RF. Of that Harry averaged 3 million but had to pay all his expenses including engagements.
Oh my goodness. I live in the UK, and always have done. I can trace the Royal family fairly closely on my family tree (though I'm generally opposed to the monarchy). That you write "the UK themselves put out the stats", as though our country of almost 70 million people and many distinct media and other institutions is one entity is hilarious. And Harry didn't make any of the money you refer to. The money referred to is from, for instance, pubs where people watched the wedding - the money was generated by the *labour* of staff in pubs and breweries, not the rich kid who's been pampered most of his life.
And that you think it a problem for him to receive "only" £3 million a year to live off is completely nuts. Do you think he's a diety?
ahh you mock me to justify your following of fools in the boards. Logically considering the cost of being royal 3 million for a years expenses equal out to about 5 to 10k in the underclass. Thats economics. He didnt shop clearance items at TJ Maxx because it was fun. I see you went from denial of the UK released statement off wedding profits to grudfingly admitting yes true but advice is hack out with UK on how they worded it, how they took credit, not me. As to your Royal status relationships we dont do Monarchy in America. We made that clear in the 1700s. Your relationship to them matters only in your personal character. Not links. I will likely as others never call Charles King. We dont bow to kings here. Harry though was a little kid with a very tough life and we watched him grow up. It was Harry and his personalty that enchanted us. I recall the wedding. What I remember most is Meghans mother crying. Even then I felt she cried for what she suspected her nieve daughter was in for and if she could she would have scooped her up and flown her out of there. She remained silent though and she watches her child every day go through what most couldnt survive for 10 minutes. Only a mother would understand how the UK battered their child.
What "fools in the boards" are you on about?
"Logically considering the cost of being royal 3 million for a years expenses equal out to about 5 to 10k in the underclass. Thats economics." no it isn't economics, it makes no sense. Explain your reasoning, it seems you're just making things up for the sake of your ideology. Particularly funny is how you've just referred to us normal people as "the underclass", again you're deifying Harry, and yes you absolutely do "bow to kings", evidently.
I mentioned that I can trace my family tree to the royal family fairly closely to make the point - in response to you hilariously asserting that I "don't know UK" (you don't even know that it's *the* UK?) - that I'm far more closely linked to this story than you are, so you should really stop with the weird sneering.
I didn't "grudgingly admit" anything, I pointed out that your claim is illogical, did you not understand what I wrote?
"my advice is hack out with UK" is too funny. I didn't ask your advice, no one in Britain is asking Americans to tell us what to think about this issue (or about much else, as much as I know some Americans think that your country is the center of the universe), and you still don't understand what I wrote about it being insane for you to refer to "UK" as one entity? You can't provide an actual source?
Again, that you think it's somehow unfair for a person to have "only" £3 million a year to live on is, frankly, gross. There are people in our world who are starving to death. And you think shopping in TK Maxx (NOT TJ Maxx as you wrote, for goodness sake) is somehow a hardship? Good grief. I never shop there, it's too expensive and it's not ethical enough - and it's likely that Harry was lying about it anyway, given that they don't have the sales he referred to.
Would a relationship really suddenly end subconscious racial bias? It seems that he's doing a tonne of finger-pointing (which honestly, RE our media here in Britain, seems exaggerated) and not as much to self-examine as I thought we were all supposed to be doing (and there's significant evidence of racism from him previously)
I'm certainly not saying that that payment shouldn't happen - but surely staff will still be just as horrifically stressed and worn out? IMO there's real need for societal changes that reduce the NHS's burden, and a fairer distribution of NHS money, not just pay rises.
It's not so much a Hollywood film that's needed as for people to read the case for actually believing that the resurrection happened. I personally particularly recommend Who Moved The Stone.
I highly doubt it's going to be the "biggest film in world history" that is a very bold statement.. certainly as it's about someone who 80% of people don't care about.
80%? Of which population, and according to what data?
the population that I am part of obviously..and the data came from the church of England.
You are part of various populations as is anyone. I imagine you're referring to the population of Britain (?) but the film isn't being made specifically for Britain at all. When did the CofE publish that data? 
I'm not part of various populations at all,I'm part of one population of one country.and I have no clue when they published it,I simply read it when they did an article,if you want to know then go look,it's easy enough and you would know quicker than waiting for me to respond
You are part of the British population, the Global population, the population of whichever city or region you live in etc. As I wrote, the film is not being made for our country. Plenty of the American population, who are more the target audience than we are, are interested in Jesus, and a substantial chunk of the Global population are also. Christianity is growing rapidly in parts of the Global South, for example. And the first film was apparently a relative success in Muslim countries too (acc. Wikipedia) .
I'm not sure what to look up to find the statistic to which you refer. The CofE's page on research doesn't cover anything along the lines of national interest in Jesus (or lack thereof). I'm well aware our country is very secular and most people have never examined for themselves the reasons to believe in the historical reality of Jesus, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they all won't watch the film. The first film topped the UK box office when it came out (acc. The Guardian).
I thought reporters shouldn’t have bias, because it seems more like woman leaves controlling husband to put child first, as Drs have recommended.
Why do you think this is "putting the child first"?
The child has been mentally assessed by three therapists, his mother is Dr, their duty is to help, a father making his child follow his ideology at their own suffering is abuse, like what happens in most religious households.
"ideology"? It's ideology to believe that a biologically male child is a girl on the basis that they like girls or stereotypically girly things, and that that child should be medically interfered with. It's not "abuse" to not deny biology. The child should be affirmed that his body is not wrong, and that he is entitled to break stereotypes and play with the toys he chooses, without the need to reject his own physiological reality and be given injections for life.
A lot of Cis people need hormone therapy their whole life anyway because of hormone imbalances, and like I said the parent who’s taking the child to get professional help instead of repressing him is most certainly in the right as it may be that the child is comfortable with the body they have but they will now have help to make that decision and have all the best medical options going forward.
"a lot"? According to what data? And either way, why would that make it OK to impose this future on a child?
(NB I'm not sure that "cis" is an OK label, it's being imposed on people who mostly haven't chosen it)
Castration IS repression, and the rejection of the individual's body. A child doesn't need "options" or "help to make decisions" about natural puberty, they should be helped to feel comfortable with it.
Note that clinicians telling the mother to go down this path stand to profit significantly from the necessary ongoing injections. Also, almost all children unhappy with their gender are happy with it later on if they're not socially transitioned.
I had anorexia in my teens. I never had any adult or doctor affirming my desire to be thinner or looking for ways to help me achieve it. I ended up significantly stalling my puberty by starving myself, and it doesn't simply resolve later on, there are lasting effects.
Ps apologies that I'm being so argumentative.
Most reports on individuals attempts to transition without proper medical care, a quick Google search can help you there or even look up on official pages dedicated to helping people with gender dysphoria, the term Cis has been used since the 90s to describe Cis Gender but the term Cis has always been used in medicine and science. How many trans people do you actually know? I recommend asking them like I’ve had discussions with a lot of trans people about these things and they always say it’s about the support they receive or lack of has a massive impact on their mental well being, and for example if someone isn’t wanting to transition but wernt able to get the proper medical help it would take them a lot longer to be comfortable in their own body.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean. "Most reports on...", is that supposed to answer the question about evidence re many "cis" people being on hormone injections for life? How does it?
Indeed, cis is a prefix in science to describe various things. The imposing of it upon people who have not chosen it to remark upon our gender seems unjustified.
I'm not sure what point you're making about affirmation - how many people have you talked to about discomfort with their bodies in the past that they moved past?
As I said, most children who dislike their gender are later fine with it if they aren't told that they are indeed in the wrong body. Why would you want to get in the way of this child most likely becoming OK with his body in time?
They should all be dedicating all their time to politics/serving constituents - though hosting a radio phone-in is arguably of value in learning about the public's concerns. But those MPs employed with various corporations etc - what are they being paid for? Are they not consequently biased? They use their position to lobby for the profit of their institutions, at the public's expense. It also matters what one does with their earnings. Some people give a tonne to charity, some buy gold wallpaper.
May be an image of text that says "Why are men so self conscious about their height? There are so many more important flaws to be self conscious about. For example, the lack of emotional intelligence. @yethmine_"
So you're criticising others (all men?) for a lack of emotional intelligence, but don't care about the self-consciousness and self-hatred they could feel because of cultural pressures they're surrounded by? How very caring and progressive of you, demanding emotional intelligence whilst showing a complete lack of emotional intelligence. No empathy or thought for men struggling with societally imposed body image issues, just mocking people for feeling hurt.
Also, it's stuff like this^ that enables misogynists to lure in and then brainwash vulnerable boys. Andrew Tate would thank you (not that this excuses those who adopt those ideologies of course - but you should be working against the problem, not enabling it)
With posts like this, they are actively creating more people with a perspective like his. Silencing that dude is only proving him right. I'll be the first to say, they didn't go after him because of human trafficking, they went after him because they didn't agree with him. I'm not stating whether he is guilty or not but it is very telling that they timed it as such. This page is overly toxic toward males or anyone who doesnt see the world as they do. They appear to come from a position of concern but really they are being derogatory, condescending or otherwise perpetuating the divide in society. and yes this includes being extremely sexist and racist. right here on this page.
I've not examined Tate's case in enough detail to have a certain view on why he was arrested. What I know is that I've seen him spouting daft, dangerous rhetoric; seen people defending him while sharing sexist opinions; and the school teacher I know is very concerned about the impact he's having. But he wouldn't have as much power were it not for things like this OP. And indeed, this page, others like it, and various Tweeters etc, seem to think they're on the side of good and of social justice, yet they're continually demonstrating spite.
As a Brit (in London, all my life, with no likelihood of home ownership etc) I wish we'd stop comparing ourselves to other wealthy countries and feeling hard done by. Obviously our government absolutely sucks and the rich should be far more highly taxed etc, but most of us have a more comfortable life than many people elsewhere in the world and we should recognise how privileged we are.
This is actually a bit of a nonsense.This is based on the ‘Life in the UK’ test, for which a pass is required as part of the application by existing residents for British citizenship. Those sitting this test have often had several weeks and months to prepare for the admittedly bizarre collection of facts and figures they will be expected to know. It has very little to do with the initial stages of the asylum-seeking process.
Would you like me to refer you to the numerous ‘Life in the UK’ guides and test prep booklets? They are easily available online, and two currently nestle on my textbook shelving.
No, what is your source RE what asylum seekers are asked? How do you know that they aren't (also, in addition to questions like these being asked alongside others to citizenship applicants) asked the questions in the quiz?
(I'm pretty sure that most of us are aware of the Life In The UK tests)
I wish abortion opponents would realise he's not pro-life, he's purely an opportunist, with no actual values
Many theologians consider the account of Adam and Eve, given certain linguistic devices and traditions, to be non-literal (unlike most other Bible texts).
But it's still the case that God made us male and female (a small minority are biologically intersex, but this isn't what non-binary means), I can't see how it makes sense, theologically, to claim that God has led one to reject the sex/gender God has given. Of course, it's also vital that we nevertheless have real compassion and empathy for those who do so, and to strive to act in a Christ-like manner rather than bully.
Those who twist scripture and God’s divine will for their own purposes are deceivers.
“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies”John 8 v44,45 That’s a direct quote from the bible
And? What "twisting" have I done? What "purposes"?
This so called priest is manipulating the account for his own purposes. Choosing to determine some passages as “it’s not meant to be literal” is a device often used by those who wish to make themselves an exception 🤷‍♀️ It’s a clever deception
I'm plainly not endorsing the priest, so there's no need for you to criticise them to me.
And I'm not "choosing to determine some passages as non literal to make myself an exception" (what do you mean by that?), I simply commented that many theologians - who study the texts and history in detail - believe the account of Adam and Eve (specifically, as opposed to most of the Bible) to be non-literal. I don't know myself. Again, there are linguistic devices, and aspects of culture/context, that are relevant to understanding ancient texts. Why ignore them?
Do you think that when Jesus says, for example, that He is the door, that He means it literally?
This so-called priest knows the bible - no excuses for his twisting the truth. Should we pity him for this deliberate deception?
Should God show him mercy for his wicked lies and blasphemy? Only if he repents and asks for God’s forgiveness.
Pity? I think so, for we have all gone astray, each turned to our own way. I'm strongly opposed to what they're saying, but I'm also keen to make clear to those who *don't* yet know The Truth that actual Christianity is not, as is often presumed, exclusionary of groups of people - rather, it's certain views and behaviours that God prohibits.
 May be an image of drink
My parents (Baptist Church members, my Dad's an elder) drink alcohol. I don't because it's expensive and gross IMO. So far as I'm aware, plenty or most Church members drink alcohol, it's avoided on Church premises because of the negative connotations it may have for some visitors /new attendees. What if a person suffers alcohol addiction? Or has watched a loved suffer because of it, or lost a loved one to addiction or an alcohol related accident? What if they're from a culture where they've been taught that alcohol is evil? We shouldn't risk them not returning and not hearing the Gospel for the sake of wine.
It's like Paul's teaching about not causing another to stumble (Romans 14)
Same-sex parents are robbing their adopted children of a mother or a father, which is an evil thing
I agree with God's design for relationships and families - but I don't see how leaving a child in the care system without parents is better than them being adopted by a same sex couple
Oh for frick's sake. I cannot get my head around how freakishly obsessed so many Right wingers are with Hunter Biden, it's really weird. It seems pretty good evidence that they're lacking arguments against the actual president.
I don't get why Kumba was so insistent that I only listen to "the media", I explained repeatedly that I looked at Harry and Meghan's own website.
It'd be great if this much effort/publicity went into following up on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial...
How have you determined she's had less effort/publicity? Anyhoo, that's whataboutism. And Maxwell isn't teaching scores of impressionable people to be sexual exploiters, Tate has been
She's rightly behind bars. I hope she stays there and that all her wealth is given to organisations helping victims of sex trafficking. But Tate has *also* teaching huge numbers of young men to exploit girls. Why do so many people seem to want to minimise that? 
There's been a lot of media attention, and there will be more as the trial and investigation continue.
But which part of this are you not getting? Tate has been *teaching* many, many thousands of other people to also become sex offenders. Why not be pleased if he's locked up?
Why are they getting concerned? How about the influence that cardi B has on this kids....stop being bias for views and posting nonsense
Do tell, what influence does she have?
the fact that you wrote god and about jesus on your bio but still fails to follow their order which is john 8:2 " seek in for the truth and the truth shall set you free" are just using god as a display which is cruel ...myb you should remove them on your bio since you don't even care about their commandments and defending sexual molesters like cardi b
LOL, why didn't you just answer the question? I'm not defending her. I don't like her at all. But I've not seen evidence she's anywhere near as harmful as Andrew Tate. Not believing conspiracy theories doesn't mean I don't seek truth, it means that I also use reasoning, which is another Biblical command. It's genuinely hilarious that you think I just use God for show on the basis I've asked you to explain your concerns about Cardi B.

Andrew Tate encourages greed and the treatment of women as sex objects. So far as I've read, he also supports sexual violence. Clearly he has unintelligent views about the differences between men and women. He isn't just a jerk himself, he's fuelling these attitudes in young men because he has millions of followers, and as such he's doing serious damage.
Mivchael Knowles seems to want to like him because he sees Tate as opposed to "modern liberal culture". But one's enemy's enemy is not necessarily one's friend -and in fact Tate isn't countercultural at all, he worships the false idols of power, money and sex like most of the West does.
Sure, if a real person was celibate it's gross to now put sexuality on them to titilate viewers. And I reckon the fact that "sex sells" contributes to serious problems. It's absurd that much of our society seems to presume that everyone wants/needs sex, we don't.

Less conservative and less educated too
The data shows that less educated people are more likely to vote Tory.
kids don’t care any more and it’s getting worse. They all know who the Kardashian’s are however very few care or know who won the last Nobel peace prize
I wondered if it might have been a mistake, but maybe not(?) In which case, since you'd been talking about education, you should know that "Kardashian’s" refers to something belonging to someone with the name Kardashian. What you meant was "Kardashians", which means multiple Kardashians.
don’t be so desperate for a fight and I feel real sorry for you.
It was a mistake as you can see in a other comment it’s different.
You really are going to have a horrible year if that’s what you got from my post😂😂
Your a prime example of what I was writing about in my first post.
People nowadays think they are educated because they know how to write. We all had that nerd in school who is a complete idiot in the real world
"desperate for a fight"? So far it's you who's been tossing insults trying to be controversial.
"What I got from your post"? Like your post has some great wisdom in it? Your comments are illogical. You seem to simply instinctively presume that people different from yourself are inferior, and it's amusing to observe.
Knowing basic grammar *IS* part of *education* which you referenced. It's a component of language, which is fundamental for understanding and conveying information accurately, and it's an indicator of the extent to which one cares about knowing what's correct and true. If you, at school, were ignoring teaching and calling kids who tried to learn nerds (and you now don't understand the education/political leaning correlation I mentioned) then with the greatest respect I doubt your education is better than others - so it's really odd that you've called other people less educated. Other things that one discovers in life are important too - but it's utterly irrational to criticise young people for not yet having accumulated as much life knowledge as those who've had more decades to do so. Young people who try hard at school will be more likely to understand the issues relevant to actually determining which political choices are best, as well as learning grammar. Knowing who the Kardashians are is irrelevant, they're simply extremely well known pop culture figures - knowing who they are doesn't indicate that a person has used up time on them. And I suspect that you know about/watch some things that are merely entertainment too, maybe football.
I'm still wondering why exactly some adult men want to dress up like this, in a fashion specifically associated with adult entertainment, and hang out with children.
We can all agree that children need to engage with books.
Children respond well to performance: humour, bright colours.
Drag artistes are natural performers. There is absolutely nothing "creepy" or nefarious.
Does watching a performance definitely improve literacy?
And again, I'm wondering why exactly some men want to dress up in this tradition - which IS linked to things entirely inappropriate for kids - to interact with children. What exactly is the motivation?
"Natural performers" sound like people who want attention - but people spending time with kids should be acting only in the interests of those children.
And if they want to dress up and be colourful, they could absolutely be a character that makes more sense to children. Personally, as a child, I never even liked pantomime dames, this^ would have made me feel scared and put me off libraries.
Currently, I feel that drag is frankly offensive, they're making a joke of women and there are misogynistic jokes infused in the scene.
"Back Britain"? What exactly does that actually mean? Maybe he should back Britain by having the country take back ownership of vital infrastructure from corporations (plenty of which are overseas) and stop allowing the super rich to avoid taxes?
This should always be the case. The NHS exists to help people with actual illness and injuries, not to sort out the consequences of hedonism.
No it exists to help anyone needing medical help honey. So glad they are not run by people with your attitude!
Says who? Why the frick should tax payers' and stressed staff clear up other people's selfishness whilst those afflicted by real illnesses have to wait longer for treatment?
It’s selfish to expect health care when needed? Lol.I bet no one invites you to parties or celebrations
Yes it's selfish to expect other people to sort out the consequences of one's hedonism. There is no need to get drunk to have a good time. Indeed people deserve healthcare and many aren't getting it, or are having to wait in pain because the NHS is over stretched.
I've seen staff binning good food at the CoOp this week, as I've seen previously. There is plenty of food in this country (unlike some others, there are people in our world who are literally starving to death and who are largely ignored) I'm wondering what needs to be done to make sure it's all getting to people.
Not necessarily. Almost all of the problems I've ever encountered people praying about in Churches/the Christian community are not money related. I've also never felt obliged to give to a Church, and have heard pastors tell people not to give if they can't afford it.
I suspect that, as usual, you're basing your judgment on the most absurd, unChristlike pastors there are, which I'd have thought you might realise isn't a good way of assessing.
Note that Jesus angrily overturned the tables of those profiteering in the temple - it wouldn't make sense to reject Him on the basis of the modern equivalents of people He opposed.
I strongly recommend Compassion to anyone who can spare £28/month (some might be able to cut out a takeaway, for example? Or team up with friends?). It's an incredible bargain - we can make a huge difference for what is, here in the UK, not a huge amount. I've had countless letters from my sponsor kids - and met adults who were sponsored through Compassion in their childhood with amazing accounts of how it transformed their lives, and more (sponsorship of a single child helps their families also)
why u ppl always have brown kids why not America White kids age 13 majority states
That's a different issue. If kids in the US are forced into marriage (how often does this happen BTW? I'm not denying it but I've not seen data on it, partly because I'm not in/from the US) the things that need doing are to change the state laws and to influence (lock up?) the men concerned - those things are not Compassion's remit. Compassion acts to address the world's most severe poverty, which child marriage can be a consequence of. They can make a real difference in reducing child marriages by providing education and Aid so that families know their daughters can have a future without being married off early.
Why object to helping brown children anyway? Globally, they're far, far more likely to face disadvantage, largely because countries in the Global South have far lower GDPs per capita. The US is comparatively rich - and it, like my country, has a welfare state system and many local charities helping Western people. Overseas Aid charities are a tiny proportion of the charity sector and are desperately needed. They also can make far more difference per $ than charities working in the West can. If I donated what I currently spend on sponsoring girls with Compassion to a charity working in my own country (Britain) it would have no where near as much impact.go search truth u find out diffrence forced or not its disgusting pedophilia is big in America.
go search truth u find out diffrence forced or not its disgusting pedophilia is big in America.  
I don't doubt that child sex abuse is a serious issue in the US, it’s an indescribably awful problem across humanity. But unfortunately there's nothing I can do about it myself, whereas I CAN help a few children in less wealthy countries.
I find it very odd that some people are so obsessed with pedophilia against white children, and don't care about other children suffering. I see it here in the UK too, certain people just go on about pedos constantly, as though the issue consumes all thoughts - but children themselves seem not to matter much, because the same people don't care about the children in our world who are starving to death.
State lawsuits defend abortion access with religious freedom
It's not necessarily a particularly "religious" issue. The main question is how many of the crucial human attributes are required for a human to have for them to be granted human rights. A fetus is very different from a zygote.
It's peculiar how some deny the obvious realities that the unborn is alive, human, and biologically distinct from their mother.
There are also questions for society to consider RE what is truly best for the woman in each situation - *some* are in this situation because they're wrongly put under pressure, and the public debate often misses this issue..
having something growing inside you doesn't mean you should lose your rights to say what happens to your body.
But they aren't just "something", they are a human being, so if bodily autonomy is important I should not necessarily be allowed to interfere with their body (which would be an incomparably more severe violation of a body than a pregnancy). Also, in almost all cases, "I" would have already made a choice and exercised autonomy, whereas the other human being has not had a choice.
the fetus is interfering with someone else's body. Should I have a right to take your kidney so I can live?
What? The unborn is simply attached in a physiological relationship that they did not choose to enter (whereas the mother almost always has made a choice) and for which the mother's body is evolved.
You do not have a right to my kidney because your need of a kidney is not related to my actions, and because you do not need *my* kidney. The unborn is not taking a body part away from the mother - and abortion is not merely denying something to the foetus, it is to actively kill them (and possibly, ironically, to give their body parts to someone else)
Having written that, I would certainly donate a kidney.
the fetus is using the woman's body. The woman doesn't always choose to get pregnant, or there may be other issues that means she doesn't want to continue her pregnancy. It should be her choice what happens to her body.
We're going around in circles. Again, it's not just about her body, and her body is incomparably less impacted by the pregnancy than the unborn is impacted by abortion.
The data I've been able to find in the past suggests that only around 1 or 2% of abortions are due to rape - in all other cases she's had a choice, whereas the unborn hasn't.
But again, this conversation is going in circles, I need to do other things now. Bye.
"The other human being" can't make a choice. It lacks a mind sufficiently developed to even know what a choice is. In fact, it has no idea that it even exists.
What you mean is you want to act as proxy to make the choice for the fetus. Everyone knows what choice you'll make and that you'll disregard the needs of the other human being -- the one with a developed mind who's capable of making that choice on her own.
By that logic, parents could do awful things to infants because the infant isn't able to make a choice about it.
And you seem to be implying that the unborn could potentially want to be aborted, it's just people who aren't fans of abortion getting in the way.
Again, the woman has already made a choice, unless she was raped - and not all women who have abortions are making that choice "on their own", some are pressured into them
Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent. A fetus is using someone’s body parts.  
Again, if bodily autonomy is a thing, no one has the right to kill and dismember the body of the unborn. The foetus is not simply "using" the mother's body, they are in a unique physiological relationship that they did not choose (the situation has arisen almost certainly because the parents made a decision. Abortion does not simply "withdraw" resources, it actively kills.
You mean to say that it's primitive and uncivilised? Quite right it is.
NB, calling something natural is not evidence of goodness. Disease is natural. Animals - naturally - do horrific things to each other, they haven't the brain capacity to determine right and wrong. We should be seeking to be able to rise above many of our base instincts

Thankyou for covering this. Observing from London, I'm feeling very, very angry (with the Scottish National Party responsible and with the movement/ideology, certainly not with all trans folk). So far as I've seen, according to polling and online discussion (and this issue is constantly being discussed on Twitter, which is mostly used by Left wingers here in Britain), this bill is not supported by most of the public. I can't help but wonder if the SNP has other motives in pushing this, such as trying to pick a fight with the Conservative UK government to bolster their claim for independence.
This is so sad, I hope she's OK. I'm not excusing whoever challenged this woman, but I do feel that moves like those of the SNP on this matter have fuelled anxiety.

That's nothing compared to its whole budget. Making more people feel welcomed is part of tackling the recruitment deficit.
don’t need to pay someone a six figure salary to be more welcoming though…. 
Absolutely, but this isn't about salaries, it's about diversity schemes. No one should be on a six figure salary, and addressing that is the fundamental part of sorting out the current strike situation that's oddly not being talked about.
What is going on with The I? There are some people sleeping on the streets right now and you're upset about tea rooms? There are also people in our world who are literally starving to death and the amount you'll spend in a tea room could feed one of them for WEEKS, so stay at home and donate instead of moaning.
Tragically most people are unaware of the historical case for believing in the reality of Him.
please enlighten us. What is the historical case for believing that this man called Jesus Christ is or was the son of a god, or a god himself in the flesh?
I didn't believe it myself until I'd read whole books on the subject, it's not something that can be summarised here. If anyone's genuinely interested, I'd particularly recommend the book Who Moved The Stone, and the writing of academics such as those featured here
I have taken college courses and have read many books on the subject. There is no historical evidence of Jesus being supernatural. Zero. You’re either being disingenuous, dishonest, or deceived.
College courses are not exhaustive - on any topic - so your adamance, "zero", seems like an ideological statement. It also seems oddto assert that one website to which I linked is "the best" that can be done, as though not spending ages on this thread means there's nothing else to say.
Of course I know what primary and secondary sources are, I quit humanities to focus on science and maths beyond the age of 16 but I did finish history with a final grade of A*. And there's much more to say, but I don't have time today for arguing like this on social media. Bye.

May be an image of text that says "think it's strange that the evangelical culture which invented Purity Balls at which girls would promise their virginity to their Dads until their husbands "took it" are now worried about "sexualizing" children."
It's not "evangelical culture", it's a subsection of American culture. It's really odd how, like some Right wingers, you seem to think that your country is all that exists.
And I'm not sure why you think that pledging *not* to have sex is sexualising
Promising their virginity to their father???? Really???? That is sick!!!! Sounds very sexual.
Enlighten me, what is actually said /written? I'm British and haven't been to the US, but I'm somewhat engaged in *actual* US evangelical culture, and have never heard of people "pledging their virginity TO their dads" , what is that supposed to mean?
I suppose it means they aren’t going to have sex. Promising their fathers that. I have heard of groups doing this in the US. A lot of their behavior can be bazaar. It’s not to them I’m sure. I don’t care what people do. But Women are controlled in a lot of these evangelical groups in the US. I was taught about sexuality and sex was not appropriate for children when I was growing up. I didn’t need to promise anyone anything. Just something about the practice feels off. I guess promising to keep your virginity to one man, and then giving it to another is the problem for me. I guess my question is, when you become an adult, do you ever get a say in your sexuality, not men?
I guess what I'm wondering is exactly what's said and in what number of Churches. There'll always be some bizarre people within any given group - that of course doesn't excuse anything, but it means that bizarre examples aren't necessarily very representative of the whole group, let alone of the individual who began the movement/network.
Though I've not been to the US, I do have some awareness of some US Christian culture. I follow various US figures/organisations/media (Christian and other) online, largely the US influences the rest of the world - but growing up I've also had some US Christian culture in my life because it overlaps. but I've never encountered what the OP references being discussed or encouraged.
My parents met at a very international bible college focussed on evangelism, and took me as a child to brilliantly diverse Baptist Churches. "Evangelical" literally means wanting desperately to tell people Good News, and most of my life I took the word as referring to Christianity that had a significant interest in telling the modern world about Jesus (in contrast to the formalities/traditions of other Churches in my country that are somewhat pale and stale). So it's been flipping odd in recent years discovering how mainstream America uses the word "Evangelical". Trump's values don't fit together at all with the sermons, books and contemporary Christian music I've had around me all my life - nor does it fit with the attitudes of the UK Evangelical Alliance, nor the UK's self-described Evangelical Christian media network, festivals or organisations.
(I should add, I didn't actually believe in Christianity myself until, studying biology, I began to feel that it appears that there's a designer, and I went on to read the work of academics who are Christians regarding why they believe it's actually true)
RE your question - "when you become an adult, do you ever get a say in your sexuality, not men?" The Christian culture I'm familiar with certainly encourages people to abstain until marriage (though there's plenty about forgiveness for those who haven't done so), but nothing about men being in charge. I've never felt in any way that my sexuality is to be controlled by another person. More broadly (than sexuality), my Dad generally isn't any more controlling than non Christian dads (less so than many, as far as I've seen). I learnt about sex when I was 6 via a Christian kids' book ("Who Made Me?") with smiley faced gametes, and emphasis on love and on people being special to God. My Mum is a nurse and former midwife, and very honest about such topics. But personally, I've always felt grossed out by the whole concept of sex. It's not something I'll ever engage in myself. And that's not because of my upbringing, my sisters don't share my aversion. But I'm very aware that, whilst our culture suggests (fuelled by capitalism IMO - sex sells) that sex is fundamental for a fulfilled life, it just isn't.
Here in the UK, so far as I'm aware most primary (age 4-11) schools have Diwali activities.. What exactly is the problem with Santa?
the problem is the people spewing their venom in india are hypocrite, they want good treatment offshore but not the same for other religions in india.
Santa - though historically based on St Nicholas - isn't linked to religion at all here in the West (there are even Christians who oppose Santa), I wonder if the politicians objecting to him realise that(?) More broadly, each person will have their own beliefs, even if politicians or religious leaders try to force people to be part of their religion. Children won't grow up to believe in a particular God/gods on the basis of being kept away from other cultures - especially now that the world is so much more interconnected.
This is evil and Premier should not be publicising this evil.
It's wrong, it's not evil - but either way, why shouldn't Premier report on it? It's not supporting it, it's just reporting news, as other media does.
saying that women have been erased by men is not just a mistake. It's an anti male agenda and blatantly sexist. To change the words of a Christmas carol to promote that agenda is evil.
It didn't seem to me that it was referring to men in general, I presumed that it meant some men. Though either way, I feel that in our society today it's wrong to claim that (some) women being erased by (some) men is a siginificant issue (other than some people now wanting to redefine "woman", which bothers me). BUT this is besides the point! It's a song about JESUS, to take lines about Him out of it so as to add politics is an awful thing to do.
And again, Premier is reporting on it, not promoting it.
is it wrong though? Words of songs are often changed to emphasise a point. There's a version of Feed the World out now that talks about the current British cost of living crisis. It's thought provoking, as is the added verse in God Rest Ye Merry Gentleman. It's a conversation starter. It's done its job.
Oh my, I can't tell you how furious I am about the LadBaby issue. I've been shouting at the screen about it. I'd argue that that is bordering on evil. Band Aid was written in response to a famine in which people were absolute skin and bone, with no access to food or means to help themselves. I've been severely malnourished and underweight with anorexia, it was torturous in ways that I couldn't imagine before nor explain - what the victims of famine go through must be so much worse. I am absolutely not denying that there are people in the UK in serious need - but it's just not the same situation. As much as they shouldn't be needed, at least we do have food banks and a benefits system. And there are people in some parts of Africa facing famine right now - *literally* starving to death - and LadBaby, who apparently is rolling in it, supports the Tories and hasn't shown accounts RE where the money he's raised previously has gone - is appropriating a song created for little African children who too weak to hold their heads upright, laughing and chucking tinsel whilst he gets yet more attention for himself.
The hymn is about JESUS - that this Church decided to take lines about Him out, and to make something else a focus, is truly awful. I wouldn't say it's evil because I use that word for actions motivated by hatred or selfishness, but it's just bad, or worse, to detract from Jesus.
What on Earth??? Why would he think that the Church is obliged to spend time on celebrity squabbles?
Obviously what Clarkson wrote was utterly horrendous (and the public doesn't need the Church to tell them that), but the Church's duty is to share The Gospel, and to help and speak up for the *poor* and oppressed, not Meghan.
I actually think it's quite concerning for a Christian leader to buy into our culture's obsession with individual celebrities like this (we can absolutely observe and talk about culture/celebrities, but to demand others make statements about matters like this^ seems obsessive). Our society deifies various privileged individuals, we as Christians know that God calls us to pay attention to the disadvantaged rather than the glamorous.
the Church interferes in everything else.
Everything? Have they made declarations about, BoJo or Hancock cheating on their spouses? Or Katie Price's various scandals? Or Stephen Bear being convicted for revenge porn? Or... I could go on and on. I'm pretty sure that that the Church actually *doesn't * interfere in most celeb goings on, nor should they. The media does enough of that, we as Christians should be trying to turn more of society's finite attention towards under reported situations of real suffering and need.
you dont read these pages and similar as much as I do.
Which pages? Can you answer my question?
this one. Christian Institute, Christian Concern...all interfering with things are are noone or little of their business. By the way, a 'please' wouldn't have gone amiss.
??? This page is not similar to Christian Concern, which I do follow. How exactly is this page "interfering"? When did this page, Christian Concern or The Church, comment on celebrity fueds as I asked?
For example Christian Concern often laud Kanye West, Donald Trump, JK Rowling. Such pages deride other celebrities including Tom Daley and Elton John. Christian Institute seem to like former Breakfast TV presenter Dan Walker and report stories on any scabbles their favourite Celebs get into with celebs they don't like such as Daniel Radcliffe or Emma Watson. These are only recent examples.
Recent? Honestly, I've not seen CC comment on any of those people recently, and there's nothing recent on their FB page about them. Looking at Twitter, it appears that they last commented on Trump and Kanye in previous *years* - and crucially they did so because they were platforming statements against abortion - which CC and many others believe to be a tragedy - from influential figures. Their MO is to champion particular causes, and the comments of those all be they idiotic men relate. Obviously, they shouldn't have platformed them at all, but it *does* link to their cause, it *wasn't* recent, and CC is *not* "the Church".
Personally, I'm ongoingly very frustrated with CC for not doing more to highlight The Gospel, and for seeming to be concerned only about certain issues (though they'd probably argue that there are already many organisations addressing the other issues about which Christians should be concerned).
I've not been following the CI recently, but you seem to disapprove of them liking Dan Walker(?) Why shouldn't they(?) lots of people like him (that's swhy he got so far on Strictly). If they platform him, it's because he's a well known figure who's a committed Christian, so again, he relates to their mission.
Again, this page - or Premier more generally - is *not* like Christian Concern. It sometimes platforms CC, and I myself had to type up their interview with CC's head several years ago (freelance, I don't have a job with Premier) - but it also covers all manner of other Christian organisations and differing opinions, and, crucially, topics relating to actual Christianity (The Bible, The Gospel, Jesus, God - one shouldn't reject Him on the basis of the foolishness of some within the "Christian" community). I've also typed up an interview for Premier with, as it happens, Dan Walker, and others, including some on sexuality that were part of an article platforming contrasting perspectives. I reckon it's a pretty good representation of The Church - that is, the Christian community, which is far more than you'll be aware of if you think CC is representative. "The Church" might also refer to The C of E, whose job is certainly not to comment on criticisms in The Scum of Meghan, as abhorrent as Clarkson's words were.
The Church should get involved, this is absolutely disgusting! Just because of the colour of her SKIN!!!
[Others' comments]
only black people understand racism, you will never ever experience it in your life. You have the privilege of dishing it out though🤣🤣. I am sure you did read what he said.. I am sure that you are better than that! How can a White person know what racism is? You probably have never been racially discriminated in your life! 🤣🤣🤣 You can even define racism...sigh!
Racism refers to discrimination on the basis of race, it can be experienced by anyone, why would you think otherwise? Of course people of the darkest pigmentation have been the most impacted by it, and it's important there's awareness of and discussion about this - but that doesn't mean that people of other ethnicities can't experience racism, nor that racism is the only reason a person may be disliked or disadvantaged.
Would you argue that the Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust weren't victims of racism because they weren't Black? That you've stated that "ONLY Black people understand racism" is monumentally illogical and offensive to them, and to *other people of colour* who experience racism, such as people with heritage from parts of Asia, and the victims of colonialism in the many colonised countries beyond Africa (though I personally feel passionately that the colonialism faced by Africa - and, importantly, modern day exploitation of Africa - is linked to racism and is seriously under-reported. Those within Africa - though I'm aware there's endless variation in the continent and some there are wealthy - currently facing poverty or exploitation linked to colonialism or neocolonialism are victims of racism far more than mutimillionaire Meghan is).
And white people can experience racism, though it's rarely been as severe as racism experienced by POC. I've read racist comments against white people on social media, and had some directed at me - I'm not claiming that this as serious as the more extensive and/or serious racism faced by many POC, but it's still racism.
And Meghan has done much that's contributed to people's frustration (not that Clarkson's comments are remotely OK, obviously he should be sacked and sued etc), one simply can't presume that her skin colour is the only reason for negativity - especially when she's essentially white passing.
When you hire a weak President with dementia the world is going to act up. Thanks for hiring JOEFLATION!
There's massive inflation around the world, I reckon it's been the biggest topic of the year here in the UK.
Please don't confuse the conspiracy theorists with facts
It's been so funny this year seeing so many Americans on the Right going on about "Bidenflation", whilst our news here is continually about inflation. We have a Conservative government, most people (including Right wingers) hate the government but they aren't being blamed for inflation. It seems that some Americans think that America is the only country in the world.
what causes inflation? Does spending too much cause inflation? Please educate me….
Inflation means that there's more and money, without a proportional increase in actual wealth (goods/productivity). A particular cause of this is the printing of new money - quantitative easing - that governments undertook due to the financial crash, which was the result of unregulated capitalism.
Indeed governments giving people substantial additional money during the pandemic, so far as I'm aware, has contributed to inflation - but this isn't Biden's fault particularly. Governments around the world, including our Conservative government, did this, it was necessary to keep the economy moving and keep people eating whilst many workplaces were shut down to reduce Covid spread. Had there not been these shutdowns, then even more (than have in reality) people would have died and even more (than have in reality) would have been left with long Covid, which right now is keeping some people out of work (further inhibiting the economy and requiring more welfare spending).
Another massive factor is the war that Putin has launched, which has hugely impacted the Global markets for fuel and grain, in turn sending up prices for food and anything that requires transportation. It is vitally important that Putin is prevented from progressing against Ukraine and the rest of Europe - if he's allowed to take the Ukrainian territory he wants he'll keep on going and (as well as European lives) more resources will be under his power, further impacting Global markets.
Sunak has criticised the football pundit Gary Neville for comparing the government’s treatment of nurses to the Qatari regime’s approach to migrant workers
Sunak's wrong, people can speak about politics whether he likes it or not. But personally I think it's pretty wrong of Neville to take away attention from the subject of exploited migrant workers. If one cares about justice for the oppressed, why would one switch the subject away from a group of fatally oppressed labourers? Indeed nurses should absolutely be helped, but they aren't being *as* underpaid as the labourers who built the stadiums nor dying at a comparable rate - and nurses, rightly, are having a lot of coverage atm whereas exploited workers elsewhere in our world (who create things that we benefit from) are often overlooked.
I agree with you. However, Neville is also deflecting from the Qatar labourers and human rights issues where he has chosen money over any morality. They are all filthy rich and insincere.
I feel like he's just tying to score points with the public - the Qatar labourers don't matter to him because they're not British and they won't have the opportunity to watch him in future, but he wants to suck up to nurses here so that he has more fans.
I'm so sorry that this may seem heartless, but why the £75k? It won't bring them back. Would it not make more sense for donors to give to causes that will save other children?
Again apologies if this seems like a disrespectful comment, I don't mean it to be, I'm just very aware that there are children in our world doomed to die right now (such as due to famine) but who could be saved with those funds.
The tragic deaths in Solihull can't be changed now with money.
Good grief, why do you think you should be writing about the Baptist Church?
I do "look hard", but enlighten me. When did it last cover the current famine in East Africa? Or modern slavery? Byline seems to think that multimillionaires in Montecito are in greater need of concern than the victims of the world's most severe injustices.
It IS mischaracterisation, why do you think it's "far from it" and on what basis?
Migration and the small boat crossings are not the same thing, which part of that are people not able to understand? Most migration is by people who've been invited to do certain jobs or degrees here - arguably we should stop nicking so many workers, especially healthcare workers, from less wealthy countries, but we should support asylum seekers fleeing horrendous circumstances.
IMO we need a serious change in society - the concept of people living apart is a modern Western thing, and it's not good. There are too few houses and too many people suffering loneliness - we need more intergenerational living, so that younger people can support older people (and learn from their wisdom etc) and everyone can reduce their living costs
This is sad, but note that God is not confined to buildings and we don't need to be in a specific place to pray. Jesus walked around outs preaching, and spent time on the wilderness praying.
You keep going on about non-doms. Obviously the non-dom option absolutely should be scrapped, but that's not enough to sort out the country. You need to also talk about other ideas, like restricting profiteering landlords and capping high salaries.
Data source?
the insanely long list of clergy abusing children worldwide and the big goose eggs number of kids abused by drag performers. Pretty simple.
No, that's not data, nor sourced.
burying your head is a bad look.....too bad you don't believe the kids.
What? I never said that I don't believe any kids. Do you really not understand what I wrote?
it’s well known reality. Tough for you it seems.
It's not "tough" for me, it seems that you don't know what "data" and "source" mean. I'm well aware that there have been some abusers who've managed to get jobs as clergy, but that doesn't prove the OP.
many kids have reported the abuse, if you need sources to listen, that's on you.
And yes you obviously don't care or listen to the kids. That's too bad, says more about you.
That's not data. Seriously, which part of this are you not understanding? Accounts, testimonies and anecdotes are absolutely important and I never denied them, but the OP makes a claim about STATISTICS. Why don't you get that? It would be like me saying that being a Christian is statistically more likely to make you happy, with no data, and then saying "why don't you believe these Christians who've explained how happy they are?" It's not just a matter of believing people, it's a matter of counting how many of those people are, converting that into a rate/proportion, and comparing those numbers (in this instance, against the % of children who've spent time alone with drag performers and been abused)
I as a individual with a science degree, completely understand your question.
The sad thing is we don't need sources, when you got actual testimony. And If you need sources that's on you. I don't.
The church and its clergy have harned more children than any other entity. That's a fact.
And no I'm not going to do the work for you, if you want the sources or cites, don't be lazy and ask others to do it for you.
I'm referring to sources attesting to the statistics referred to by the OP, that count the testimonies (I've never said that testimonies are invalid) and compare the numbers as I explained. The post doesn't say that some people have testimonies of abuse by clergy, it says that children are STATISTICALLY at greater risk from clergy than drag performers. I'd have thought that a page that purports to support reason and rationality might realise that it's a stupid meme.
Again, I could just tell you that I know people who have testimonies of Christianity making them happy, or of experiencing God. I do. But I need data, the source of which I should specify, about trends in people who do and don't accept God to be able to make a claim about STATISTICS.
He's got many, many £millions. Terrifying is what those people in our world struggling to access food are going through.
As the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Netflix series concludes
I'm not condoning how parts of the media treated her, but it is sad that she's thrown away her advocacy opportunity, and instead has fled to a £multimillion mansion and spent insane amounts on clothes and furnishings.
She had been a World Vision International advocate, I was really excited that there'd finally be someone in the Royal family (which I'm not a fan of) raising awarenaess of the world's very poorest people - I don't understand she can now spend quite so much time asserting victimhood, what happened to recognising one's own privilege?
She'll continue her advocacy and will be able to say more now free from the shackles of the monarchy.
And I suppose the other royals live in squalor do they?
Will she? For several years now she's had free reign to say what she likes, on social media and elsewhere, but I've not seen evidence of particular effort to raise awareness. She's used her magazine interview /podcast /Netflix show to try to attain sympathy for *herself*, whilst (with Harry of course) being monumentally privileged and spending far more on luxury than necessary (I do, obviously, also object to other super rich people spending stupid amounts on themselves).
Of course I hate that the RF have palaces, but that's whataboutism. And arguably inheriting a national property is not exactly the same as choosing to buy a mansion for oneself (though I do believe that the RF should sell most of their property and donate the funds to the poorest communities within Commonwealth countries). Harry and Meghan could have lived in an awesome house that they'd already been given.
The Archewell website seems mostly just to list charities they like, almost as though they're piggybacking off the actual work of others.
Though I'm not a fan of his, I think it's good that William has been actively platforming people around the world who are developing ways to fight environmental problems. Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan were actively drawing attention away from that by launching a series talking about themselves *again* (though they'd already done the Oprah interview etc)
maybe she's taking a bit of time out.
Piggybacking of the actual work of others applies to all the royals or none of them. Most "royal work" is actually just attending events. They don't do the graft.
There wouldn't have been a documentary if it hadn't been for the media and the other royals and the documentary release had already been delayed. Seems like you're distorting your analysis to fit your conclusions.
Again, I'm not a fan of the RF either. But the other Royals making visits are at least giving up some of their time (and enabling the charities to boast of having a royal patron, which wouldn't interest me but which is evidently something these organisations want). Whereas Harry and Meghan have *made a huge deal* about supposedly "serving" and increasing compassion, but it's not clear what effort they've actually put in. I don't understand why, since they're now free from the institution, they don't even use social media to raise awareness of issues, or use the podcast or Netflix show to do so. It's all about them. It seems insulting to those people in our world in extreme need. 
Having a royal patron does very little to raise a charity's profile or revenue. It's more about royals trying make themselves relevant.
Lets be honest, the rightwing press have done a proper hatchet job on them so if they were working all hours under the sun we'd only be talking about the curtsey still.
Continuing monarchy is insulting when there are people in extreme need. Not sure Harry & Meghan deserve special condemnation on that point that can't be levelled at the rest of them.
The Netflix docuseries has only just dropped so maybe lets see what happens over the next year or so before we call them sell outs. Don't forget the massive waste of money that is the Coronation is coming in May. Doubt the gutter press will be concerned with the needy then.
Do you have data on that? (Charities)
Sure the press might give a negative account of what they do, but there are also plenty of outlets - and their own media output - that would boast of positive things.
Again, bringing up the monarchy is essentially whataboutism, I'm not a monarchist. But the Royals aren't claiming victim status (repeatedly), they're simply carrying on a tradition that polls suggest most people want.
they can spend their money on what they want, nothing to do with you, they need to defend themselves constantly to the uk press, which constantly harass them and have painted her In a disgusting light, all these haters constantly take it in like a sponge, commenting on each story, making the hateful media money, making them harass the family even more, not 1 of the haters actually know anything, just regurgitate the rubbish the hateful media puts out there, like I said they made their money and can spend it on anything, you don't need to approve or disapprove
I wonder what exactly you mean by "haters", or why you think that not a single one knows anything. Or why Meghan and Harry can make a show all about themselves, from which they're raking in obscene profits (whilst Netflix snatches jobs away from workers) but that other people or media should shut up.
I wonder why you think it's fine for Harry and Meghan to spend *so much* on themselves when there are people dying of starvation in our world. But I have better things to do than continue this thread.
so she can put her side of the story, instead of the right wing press, good for her.
Why "good for her"? It's not helping anyone else, it's all about trying to attention for themselves, yet again. They already put across their side with Oprah, then the podcast, and the magazine interview this year... They could be using their platform to raise awareness of disadvantaged people, instead they're multi millionaires trying to play victim whilst people around the world are really suffering.
of course they could, all rich people could help the poor but they don't. Personally I'm not in their position thank god. So I've no idea how it feels to be bullied by the press and family. But I certainly wouldn't sit back and let them get away with it.
Sure, and I'm bothered by all rich people who don't give. But that's whataboutism - and most other rich people aren't doing as much to try to get attention for themselves as Harry and Meghan, let alone whilst pretending to be justice warriors.
I desperately wish that the leaders of countries like mine would pay compensation to the communities in Africa affected by climate change
David Attenborough criticised giving food to starving people, you don't have to do anything to prove that he's wrong
yes, he said that sending bags of flour is “barmy” Has it worked? No. So what’s incorrect in what he said?
On what basis are you presuming it "hasn't worked"? Do you have evidence that no lives at all were saved?
has world hunger been defeated? THAT is the point.You’ve no evidence he is wrong
You ask if I’ve evidence that no lives were saved. That is not the point he was making. Food aid doesn’t work in ending world hunger, nor will it.
So? That world hunger hasn't been ended doesn't mean that it hasn't been reduced or that some people who would otherwise have died have been saved by Aid. International Aid organisations today also work to help people support themselves and to provide family planning, but when people are starving they need food. It's disgusting that anyone would suggest that they should be left to die in agony of starvation.
Has cancer been defeated BTW? Since it hasn't been, by your logic it's "barmy" to try to treat anyone with cancer.
Will the US stop letting some of its institutions from exploiting parts of Africa? And increase their pitifully low levels of humanitarian and development Aid?
Britain helped establish the ECHR after the 2nd World War, international collaboration is intended to safeguard against future horrors
How are you defining *religion*? Most theists believe that the creator has given guidance restricting sex, but that doesn't mean hating those who don't adhere to that guidance. In particular, Jesus tells us to love others, and saved a woman from being punished for breaking laws RE sex. If people are genuinely following Him, they won't hate - especially since we know that we too have failed to adhere to God's guidance in other ways (and *all* are offered salvation through Jesus). Of course, there are plenty of people who erroneously *claim* to belong to a religion and who also happen to be hateful.
I’m defining religion as no accepting everyone. I don’t agree with the teachings of the church. Might have worked in 1500s but not now
That doesn't "define religion", all manner of organisations and situations have exclusions.
Christianity - the actual theology/following of Christ (as opposed to institutions which are sometimes flawed) - *does* accept everyone. Not endorsing sex outside of God's guidance does not mean not accepting *people.* And crucially, contrary o what our culture presumes, it's not at all necessary to have sex to enjoy life (which I can attest from personal experience). There is far greater joy offered.
Absolutely. But it's not primarily about being thrifty, it's also important for the planet that we buy 2nd hand (though some of the items are unused) and it's exciting that the money we spend can help others. Many charities now sell things on ebay or through their own websites (such as Oxfam), so we can browse plenty of items and find things we like.
It's not woke - woke means aware of injustice, and this movement isn't, it's exploitative, and based in gender stereotyping. 
There’s another meaning of Woke
I prefer this definition.
We can't win arguments by pretending words have different meanings. Let's instead clearly communicate our concerns, there's more common ground and agreement (for instance, myself and plenty of others who are Left voting are opposed to the ideology this book demonstrates) than one might realise.
no one is “pretending” that words have different meanings.
That is what “Woke” is. They are embracing everything that’s evil in the name of “Justice”. All the while ignoring the injustice that’s happening due to their actions.
They believe that their cause is “righteous” but it’s merely self-righteous.
You are. Woke has been used since the first half of the last century by the African American community to refer to awareness of injustice. If you want now to criticise the gender movement, why not do so using rational arguments rather than declaring yourself to be opposed to awareness?
And who are "they"? You seem to be erroneously lumping countless people together, which doesn't make you sense, instead of addressing the actual issue
 May be an image of 2 people and text that says "Ben Rattigan @benrattigan@to... @BenRattigan77 If the picture on the left is triggering you but you've said nothing about the one on the right, it's time to put down the Daily Mail, The Sun, stop listening to Nick Ferrari and Piers Morgan. Docs We try not to eat lot in one day"
But it's *because* of the picture on the right that the picture on the left is offensive. I'm finding it so odd seeing so many people supposedly on the Left show such enthusiasm for a couple who spend so much on themselves
I mean, they left an establishment that would have paid them to do next to fuck all for the rest of their lives… but yeah, so selfish 
They just have been paid a tonne to do f all by Netflix and Spotify. And how can living in the homes your family (albeit unfairly) already own be as selfish as buying yourself a $15 million mansion?
Which argument? I take issue with all those who buy themselves *such* lavish homes (and clothes etc), such unjust wealth distribution contributes to poverty. But I'm pretty sure that Meghan had nowhere near as much wealth, nor pay offers from Netflix, before marrying a member of the monarchy.
"Financially successful"? Yikes, is that what we're calling the super-privileged/rich now? What has happened to the Left? Is the boy in the photo, or his family to be described as "financially unsuccessful"?
If he can be CEO of multiple companies at once, CEO is clearly not necessarily a hard working position
you just don't get it.
What don't I get? Deifying Elon?
Nobody is “deifying” him. It’s just utterly ludicrous to think that a C.E.O. just snaps his fingers, and everyone and everything run like clockwork.
Plenty of people deify him. And no, of course things don't just run like clockwork when the CEO snaps their fingers, workers work hard.
Disgusting. Elsewhere in the Middle East there are families having to sedate or sell their children because they can't afford food
some European countries are so poor too 😊
Not *that* poor (following centuries of our continent taking from elsewhere), but I am well aware that poverty is not limited to one place
well i don't like when y'all speak evil about other regions forgotten that urs is not perfect either.
Yikes, I absolutely never said that my country is "perfect", I'm disgusted and infuriated by how my nation has profited from exploiting various countries in the Global South. I bang on about it quite a lot. But virtually no one here has a pool, let alone multiple pools and stables, I was reacting to the OP.
I don't give a toss myself, but I'm concerned about the women who'll now be yelled at or physically hurt by their partners.
LOL, why do you think you're knowledgable about Christianity? The Bible repeatedly instructs us to care for people from elsewhere.
Did they not educate you enough for you to know that your personal experience is of less significance than research and statistical analyses? Or that it's not only the attendees of grammar schools who matter, but society as a whole?
They're correct, but they're also rolling in it (so far as I'm aware?). Thus they're arguably part of the problem.
I take the opposite view - those that are ‘ Rolling in it ‘ - are to be commended for their views on Social inequalities- ( if they were poor they would be accused of ‘ typical spongers ‘ acting out of self interest ! )
But by having so much, they are part of the issue. How can they call for wealth to be more fairly distributed whilst hanging on to so much more than the average person?
There’s nothing wrong with people having money. It’s what they do with it that matters. Surely you can see that?
And are they not hanging on to a lot of it/spending a lot on themselves?
Here in the UK, Mermaids is being investigated by the Charity Commission and its head suddenly quit without explanation. A lot of people, across the political spectrum, are furious with the movement.
Personally, I believe that Jesus offers eternal life and greater joy in this lifetime than anything else, so I desperately want more people to choose to accept Him (I don't want them to miss out) - but it's their decision, and worrying about Starbucks cups won't help.
Sure. But Harry and Meghan are multi millionaires claiming victim status. For most people, TV /streaming is the primary source affordable entertainment.
Can you say exactly at what level of wealth do your emotions switch off and you become immune to racism, privacy violations, media hounding, paparazzi, crazy fans & every Tom Dick & Harry thinking they know your life better than you do?
I didn't say that emotions switch off. But I guess some of them do, if one can be well aware that there are people in our world who are literally starving to death and yet spend so much on one's self. 
This is like saying I shouldn’t complain about my electric bill since I live in a first world country because there are people in third world countries who don’t even have any electricity. Life’s ups and downs are relative. You don’t get to choose for people what theirs are.
We should be very conscious of our privilege in living in a wealthy country, but no, it's not like saying that. Things aren't entirely "relative", that's just a saying. In reality human beings are equal and have the same basic needs
That’s a very simplistic view. We’re very unique & complex creatures. Country privilege is relative too b’se some people in the 3rd world live better than some 1st worlders. Humans should have equal rights, yes. But that doesn’t make we’re all equal with the same basic needs.
I'm well aware that poverty is not only a matter of country, but it is significant and you brought it up Human beings DO have the same basic needs for the most part Harry and Meghan don't *need* more attention, nor such a lavish lifestyle (nor do other celebs or Royals of course)
she wasn’t comparing about being too famous or rich. She is calling out media manipulation & harassment which honestly is necessary. British tabloids are scum
I didn't say that she's complaining abt being rich, bt they're failing 2 recognise how monumentally privileged they R, +want attention *again* as victims, attn that shd B given 2 ppl who R suffering far more Yes tabloids suck (it doesn't help 2 create shows with more falsehoods)
Want attention again? Would you want the kind of negative attention that they get on the daily? The Mail wrote 65 articles abt Meghan in a 24 hour span. The Express, 69! All negative. & that’s just 2 papers. They choose to not report on important stuff & instead go after Meghan 
Yes they want attention. They cld use their privileged platform 2 raise awareness of disadvantaged ppl, esp having already talked abt themselves a lot TheMail+Express R trash, every1 knows that- H&M(who did have positive press previously) R giving them more 2 yap about w/this doc
They do! This year alone they’ve built a playground in Uvalde, Harry took US senators to Africa to raise awareness on African parks, built world central kitchens in Haiti, DR, PR & India. If you ignored the tabloids & looked into them yourself, you’d know this.
Last time I checked their site, there was no mention/evidence of them expending actual labour or money for causes, they seem to just be piggybacking off others. Did they fund the playground or kitchens? "Parks" are not people, Harry's conservation org contributed to human deaths
You are so determined to find what’s wrong with them that you cannot see any good. World Central Kitchen themselves did a whole video abt their involvement. Uvalde playground, just google it yourself. I cannot understand this type of mindset where perfect is the enemy of good.
So I guess that's a no? I'm not "determined", I'm frustrated. Partly because of the falsehoods, partly because there's such injustice in our world, and it'll continue whilst society puts the elite on pedestals as though they're infinitely more deserving than the less privileged.
I already told you those people made video about it. Those video include money amounts too. You speak of injustice but seem perfectly fine with the global vilification of a woman whose only audacity was to marry into a royal family.
I don't typically spend time seeking out and watching videos 2 prove the points of people who've decided to argue with me, who haven't bothered presenting the evidence themselves I've already previously read through their website Again, the injustices+coverage are not comparable
You chose to believe they don’t do anything substantial. I told you what they do & you can google it yourself. It’s not my job to improve upon your ignorance. That’s on you. Hate them, love them. That’s also on you.
I believe that because I have looked at their site. I also noticed how The Bench had nothing on it to indicate that any of the proceeds would be donated. And again, they choose to spend lavishly on themselves. "Your job"? It's you whose chosen to argue for ages on my thread.
Why would they donate those proceeds? Do you donate everything you make?
I never said that that they should donate *everything*. I don't have a mansion, Netflix deal +more. If I did, I absolutely would donate all the proceeds from a book, I'd also downsize +donate from the sale of the mansion. ATM I live cheaply +give what I can, do you need details?