Monday 13 November 2023

Why? Why are all eyes on Rafah and none on Sudan? 
The scale of humanitarian risk in the Sudan is far larger. The war has been going on longer. More people are involved. Can anyone update us on the situations in Afghanistan and Yemen, which are other countries with serious problems?
Yes, I should have mentioned Afghanistan and Yemen too, I thought I'd keep it brief. There are various situations of immense suffering in our world, but just one gets virtually all the attention, and here Oxfam is saying that that's how it should be.
the $10000 question to ask here... but from experience it's fashionable to support Palestine conflict but not African conflict. Arab people have in the majority a deeply ingrained racist mindset against black Africans, particularly in Sudan/Ethiopia. I'll mention Operation Moses, that happened in 1984. A covert op where the Ethiopian Jewish community of Sudan was evacuated by the IDF, US and Sudanese security forces. The 'Falasha' (a derogatory term) had been suffering persecution in refugee camps, many of those were taken in as refugees by Israel.. If anyone thinks that the Arab militias involved in the Sudan/Ethiopia conflict aren't connected to the current conflict in Gaza they're very much mistaken. There's a far far bigger picture emerging. You can draw your own conclusions.
Yes, "fashionable". I'd been thinking about the phrase "herd mentality". That is absolutely not to dispute that horrific things are going on in Gaza (though I am slightly unclear about the precise reality) and that we should be painfully concerned and calling for peace and Aid - but if those people marching every week and going on about Palestine on social media non-stop are truly concerned by human suffering, why have they been comparatively silent about the famine in East Africa, or the conflict in Sudan or in Congo, or about the brutality faced by some in the cocoa/diamond/mineral trade, etc etc? Just as you've said, I think that the fervour for Palestine is partially "fashionable", not just humanitarian (I've also read that some of the hatred amongst Marxists for Israel might be connected to the USSR's propaganda against it in their efforts to stop Jewish Russians moving there as well as to form alliances with Muslim states amidst the Cold War - and there's obviously antisemitism from some). And indeed, I suspect that some (by no means all) people of similar heritage/religion to Palestinians care more about those like themselves (and pass on their fervour to their white friends) - and I think that subconscious bias against those with the most melanin contributes to general apathy towards Africa. I was aware that hatred by some Arabs within Sudan of Black folk is a major factor in the conflict, I'd not made the connection with the Palestine situation, thankyou so much for informing me RE 1984 (there's so much I need to learn)
'Nicola Coughlan is ... fat.' 
What is wrong with you?
You must have had a very guidance deprived childhood if you weren't taught not to criticise individuals' weight.
If what you're writing is so obvious, why write it?
Some of us have had our lives wrecked by the inescapable compulsive feeling that one ought to have a waist as narrow as one's head (and seen others die)
Why to make a point, you have to put out personal insults is beyond me. It shows you have nothing of worth to say. Educate yourself.
Excuse me? The writer (who's unlikely to read my comment) is attacking the literal person of an actress (who likely will see this) and essentially larger people in general.
I don't see why pointing out that she's missed out on the basic lesson taught to children that one shouldn't denigrate people for being overweight is particularly offensive.
I think you’ll find most sensible people equate obesity with smoking now,and on that basis,fat shaming should be acceptable.
It is now the leading cause of preventable death in most developed countries together with alcohol abuse.
We don’t promote drinking either amongst the young.
I'm well aware that it's seriously unhealthy. That doesn't change the fact that saying overweight people are unattractive - and wouldn't be looked at romantically - is offensive and hurtful. I've been thin my whole life, but worrying that I ought to be thinner (irrational as this is) is inescapable. People shouldn't add to the mental anguish that can be felt regarding one's appearance (talking about health is a separate conversation - and no one suggested "promoting").
(in Unbelievable Facebook Group)    
why would an infinitely good, loving and kind God create such a fearsome, horrifying, aggressive and deadly arachnid with an immensely painful bite that is followed by a slow and shockingly agonising death
Someone could have an epiphany whilst going through this pain, turn to God and thus enter eternal life of ultimate joy.
It's also very possible that there are other positive consequences, such as that scientists make new discoveries whilst investigating it. Botox is derived from a poison, and is used not only for cosmetic procedures but also in some medical treatments.
Why is that controversial?
Lumping Muslims together is wholly irrational - they're all individuals and they have entirely differing views. Abdul Ezedi believed that a woman was his property and he had the right to try to kill her; Ahmed Alid thought that a war elsewhere in the world was a reason to kill random British people; Khairi Saadallah thought it right to stab folk for being gay; etc etc. Meanwhile many Muslims do amazingly positive things in our communities and a few (such as Sadiq Khan) are even more liberal than most of the white British population.
Only partially.
People hear about crimes carried out by immigrants and then erroneously presume that all immigrants are therefore dangerous. Also, as human beings, we often instinctively have a primitive in built fear of what's unfamiliar, we should each be working on ourselves to overcome that instinct.
our Tax Payer money is going to Israel not the #NHS. Don’t you think a link here with what’s happening in Palestine ?
Source?’t you think this money is yours and other people across this country ? Or do you think it’s better to give it to Israel rather than the NHS
What? It's money that Israel is *spending* to buy from UK arms manufacturers. I'm absolutely not saying that they should be able to do so, but it's money coming *into* the UK economy, not taxpayer money that could be spent on the NHS.
Ultimately no, I don't think that all of the money in our economy is *morally* ours, quite a bit has ended up in our economy because of colonialism and *ongoing* wealth extraction And I'm desperately concerned about the world's poorest people, as well as those suffering from modern slavery and conflict - I don't understand why Palestine gets *all* the attention, because whilst I don't doubt that people there are suffering horrifically and deserve our concern, there are others in our world who are also suffering horrifically yet who are ignored.
Palestine gets this all the attention because the UK has crated an apartheid state called Israel in 1917 when they made the Balfour declaration then in 1947-1948, the UK gave Israel the weapons to fully occupy Palestine. In simple words, Palestine is a simple domestic issue that’s not been addressed for more than 100 years.
Grace, it seems have a good conscience and you disagree with the Colonial history of Britain and the wealth extraction from poor countries. The links I sent above speak of two issues (military aid to Israel which is UK tax payer money) and also unethical arms export to Israel. I’m not sure if you agree that’s it’s totally fine for UK to give and sell weapons to Israel to kill innocent civilians? Is that okay ? ICC has now issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders for war crimes!
As I indicated, no our arms companies shouldn't be making these sales, but my point was that these are sales not spending (if anything, they mean *more* money for the NHS, since the arms companies will have to pay tax - but this doesn't make it OK at all). I can see that the first link refers to lending of existing planes *in October*, but it's not clear that that means spending or how much, and it was for *stability* after the Hamas attack (in contrast to weapons).
Our government should be seeking to encourage Israel's leadership to find a peaceful solution, but I doubt our politicians will be listened to. And our government should be providing more Aid - but not only to Palestine, also to Sudan, Congo and other places in crisis.
Kudos to her (not for her "work", obviously) - here in the UK, there's strong public support for assisted dying amongst the general public, but her^ appearance in a BBC1 documentary had plenty of people tweeting that she was making them reconsider their support. She's shown a mainstream audience the *evil* of what they'd thought should be introduced here.
why kudos. There’s no praise or honour for killing people. Euthanasia has taken an upward turn because of the convid scam and death jabs. The some MPs and lords etc have been trying to push it through but now the general election has been announced, they won’t get a chance atm thanks god.
"why kudos. There’s no praise or honour for killing people", did you actually read my comment? I said "not for her "work", obviously".
For frick's sake, Covid was not a scam, that's grossly offensive to the many people who are bereaved, or still suffering because of Long Covid. The jabs weren't "death jabs", stop believing tin foil hat tripe - particularly given that Covid and rejecting vaccines most impacted ill and vulnerable folk, the same people at risk because of assisted dying.
you said kudos for her but for what? Please explain what you mean? if you don’t know that it was a scam by now then god help you. Ever done any research on it or do you just believe what the media and government tell you? Try doing that and questioning them because this is a massive thing here where thousands have died unnecessarily and even more have been injured and their health is very poor. It’s definitely why the authorities in different countries have been trying to introduce euthanasia. You have 0 critical thinking skills. Good luck as you’ll need it 
I don't know why it needs explaining - and you're accusing *me* of lacking critical thinking skills?
It's really amusing that you think you're doing anything other than clarifying that you're stuck in a conspiracy theory bubble with those desperate attempts to insult me. I'm not going to spend any more time arguing, right now I have scientific journal articles to read for my coursework.
First plus-size Miss England sparks furious debate after appearance on LorraineIMO we should just *stop talking so much* about body size, and end pageants (I say this as someone who's had an eating disorder more than half my life and cannot stop worrying about not being thin enough)  
America doesn't know what "evangelical" means.
FTR, one of the most popular Christian figures of recent years referred to LOTR constantly in his sermons, and the American Christian podcasters I listen to are fans. The lead singer of the metal band I listen to is a conservative Christian. Etc etc
(in Christian Women Facebook Group)   
Listening on the LBC radio this morning. The lady said to Nick fararri “Abortion is healthcare “ What is the world coming too when abortion is just healthcare and young ladies are being told it is !! Just awful
Had you not heard this before? It's their mantra, they say it constantly.
I'm angry today after reading a column in The Times (from yesterday) bemoaning an educational resource (called Baby Olivia, I'd heard about myself since I follow LiveAction on Twitter but I bet almost all Times readers haven't) in some American (why does Deborah Ross feel the need to write an article about something happening in a few US states?) schools showing development in the womb. She'd rather kids weren't shown this, because, she says as she addresses the baby who's depicted, "it's none of our business" if the mother chose to kill the baby she's addressing. It's supposedly not the business of a baby if their mother wants to kill them. Because it's the mother's body in which the baby is located, so the baby's body - and life - can apparently be destroyed. And the writer commiserates with the baby that, if she is born, she'd grow up to have restricted "reproductive rights". Our culture is deranged.
it is very sad and more abortions last year than ever .
Yes, I saw that news. It's being said that it's because of financial constraints, and I'm sure that's a factor, but it's also the case that use of contraception is declining, for several reasons. So, although they can't afford a baby, more women are not bothering with contraception, abortion is so normalised. 
I'm still wondering how he's got the money to increase military spending 0.2% of GDP (from 2.3 to 2.5) when several years ago he cut Overseas Aid spending by 0.2% of GDP (from 0.7 to 0.5) and said that it was essential as there's no money, but that he'd restore it when he could. 
No, it isn't. Why exact;y is he holding onto that money when there's so much good he could do with it for God's mission?
"If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?" 1 John 3:17
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." Matthew 6:19
I hope that's sarcasm, our weather becoming warmer is not lovely at all, it's in part connected to fatally serious issues. Elsewhere in our world some of the poorest people are struggling even more to attain food and water because of warming. 
(in Christian Women Facebook Group)    
Here's something super cheesy -
Whoever we put a cross in a box for on the 4th of July will have some ideas and plans that are seriously wrong, and will let us down. But we know of another cross, and thus have ultimate hope superceding the events around us.
How cringey am I?
Edit -to clarify, it's not the reality RE Jesus as compared to politics that I'm saying is cheesy, just how I've written about it. One thing on my mind was seeing so many Left wingers comment that they won't vote Labour, and Right wingers that they won't vote Tory, because they're so angry that the main parties won't do all of the things they want - I feel like responding to those comments "you'll never have perfect leaders!", but we do have The perfect leader. And it's ultimately sin (inc greed) that's at the root of the problems in our country (and beyond), it's people turning to Jesus that can improve things, more than political policies (important as they are)
Well we have to pray for the leader God wants us to have .
It’s important to pray
What we do know is that we only have the leader God allows and deserve .
Indeed, and God's purposes are more complicated than that we just have good leaders - He may use situations that arise somehow because of a bad leader to bring some people somewhere nearer to Himself. Obviously, in the Bible, sometimes God has particular purposes for those in power who aren't otherwise doing what's right
Oxfam has a huge range on its website, and I find it exciting knowing that the money spent can make a real difference (esp since money spent helping the world's poorest people can buy far more than it can here)
One can also buy from charities via eBay (inc by using the filter on the left hand side of the page)
(in Christian Women Facebook Group)    
I think that we need to keep pointing people to HIM and making the distinction between Him and some behaviour by certain people who are considered to be Christians but who aren't actually following Him. I'm not ashamed of Jesus, but some people who are thought of have done shameful things, and our society often lumps both together as "Christianity", so we need to keep urging people towards Jesus Himself. 
I really appreciate what she's been doing to support reality and women - but the thing to do now to support women and girls is to hope that Sunak, who condemned so many of them to losing out on education (and thus condemning many to child marriage and rape) is ousted 
For those who believe in god, they are doing gods work , god is supposedly all powerful , but he allowed this to happen .. and now families are in pain the rest of their lives?
Doesn’t add up
God has plans and reasons for things that are more complicated than what's immediately obvious to us. It could be, for instance, that seeing their murder might cause someone to contemplate on why they'd chosen to take the risk of going somewhere so dangerous in the first place, and realise that they took that risk because the Good News of Jesus is true - so that person might turn to Him and therefore have eternal life. They might go on to help (practically), and to share The Good News with others. We never know fully how God has can work through awful situations.
"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives" Genesis 50:20
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" Romans 8:28
(in Unbelievable Facebook Group)   
According to Christians, there is one God made up of 3 persons. One of these 3 persons is called The Father. Another of the 3 persons is called The Son.We understand exactly what it means to be a father or to be a son. The father (and mother) brings the son into existence. But Christianity teaches that the Trinity has always existed - there was never a time when there was the Father but not the Son.
So why do Christians use the terms: Father and Son, when these words do nothing to describe the relationship between the two? 
Our language doesn't include words to precisely describe what is beyond this world, God thus uses terms we do have to communicate to us.
Or, the specific details of the meaning of a concept in one context don't necessarily have to apply in a different context.
FTR, "father" doesn't always mean that the person has brought the other into existence. Vicars can be referred to as "father"; the oldest MP is "the father of the house"; an adoptive dad is their child's father though they didn't bring the child into existence; "Father Christmas" isn't said to have brought into existence the children he supposedly gives gifts to; my Sims' fathers didn't bring them into existence (I did, using software someone else created), etc etc
(in Unbelievable Facebook Group)    
I am sure you have all heard from various people that women should dress modestly to prevent unwanted attention from the opposite sex, do you however believe that men should also dress modestly?
For example, would it be immoral for a lean man to mow the lawn at the front of his house with his shirt off?
On average (though everyone's different), we don't struggle as much with this issue. Women should ideally be wise and sensitive, but ultimately men are responsible if they perv (and vice versa)
Note too that ^he's mowing his lawn, being on one's own property doing a task is not the same as going to public places dressed to seek attention.
(Complaint RE Harrison Butker and Christianity and religion by regretful transitioner who campaigns to protect children from gender ideology) 
I'm still not sure what you mean by that(?) But apologies if I seem argumentative, I'm not intending to.
"Religion" is a far broader word than "Christianity", and means differing things (some consider the thing you valiantly oppose RE gender to be a religion, some state that football is their religion, some say that they follow a TV show "religiously"...). In Christianity, some of us make a distinction between *things people feel they have to do* and *belief*,
Human beings are each individuals with different and changing views and actions, so we can't define something by what's said/done by all of the people supposedly linked to it. It's not the case that all of the views and actions of all of the people considered "Christian" are truly Christianity (following Christ). Many people label themselves "Christian" because everyone wants an identity, but plenty of these people aren't emulating Christ, many aren't actually trying to.
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with religious people - so we shouldn't conflate Him with all "religious" people (and He often befriended people who most of society shunned). They weren't truly seeking to follow God, they just liked feeling superior to others. Now there are some people who like feeling superior to others through traditional "religion" - but also some who feel superior to others by waving certain flags, stating pronouns and supporting transing kids. Some people feel superior to others by following tradition as espoused by Butker; some feel superior by judging him and Rowling.
I'm so sorry for rambling on, or if I seem like I'm trying to tell you what to think - but I'd urge you not to lump together all of what our society (often wrongly) calls "Christianity" with Christ Himself. Urge, not because I want you to control what you think, but because I really believe that Jesus offers eternal life and that He loves you more than you can imagine.
Apologies again, for sounding weird (and thankyou for your ongoing efforts to protect people). 
No, that's okay, Grace, I've watched you, you are a kind person. Ask questions and disagreeing is not hateful it's needed. Let me take the time to explain. Here's what I'm saying. For 20 years, religious people have been shamed for their beliefs. Whenever a Christian individual expressed their disagreement or lack of understanding towards homosexuality, they were labeled as bigots and deemed undeserving. In my opinion, it's okay to disagree with homosexuality, but I am against being hateful and attempting to revoke rights, employment, habitats, and influencing others to do the same. However, for over 20 years, religious people have been oppressed and the genuinely hateful, real bigots, horrific individuals have been brooding, and they see their time approaching. Why? Because religious people have been suppressed and that's unjust. If we in the rainbow community don't consolidate and act quickly, assume leadership roles to foster genuine love and compassion for all, and apologize and address the issue of transitioning children... Truly hateful religious individuals are on their way. This kind of hatred depicted in this mini series, The Handmaid's Tale, we are in the perfect storm for this to occur. It's not as distant as people believe.  
I so agree that (not only in this issue but others also) if people don’t think and strategise, zeal can foster further opposition. Hating those with small-c-conservative views doesn’t cause them to become accepting, it only aggravates.
I think that JK Rowling has become such a keen campaigner partly because when she made a minor comment about the word “woman” several years ago, certain people reacted so aggressively. They hate her but it’s their hostility that’s made her impatient and fired her up.
Here in the fairly secular UK, the government recently announced restrictions on sex education, in response to campaign groups pushing material into school that included encouraging kids to choose their gender - so some people who thought that they were being progressive have inadvertently brought about retaliation that will restrict not only controversial  ideology RE gender but more besides.
(I’m not criticising JKR, nor the removal of gender ideology in schools, only making a general point about antagonism and unintended ramifications - and this extends beyond “religious” debates)
Again, plenty of the people who are supposedly “religious” actually aren’t trying to follow God. Some people are hateful, and much of society as a whole presumes that *everyone* who has traditional views RE relationships/sexuality is motivated solely by hate. In actuality, some people (including some gay people) believe that God - who loves humanity - has given guidance RE relationships and consequently they don’t support sexual activity that’s contrary to it (in the same way that a child might not support their sibling doing something their parent has warned them not to do) - but that’s distinct from animosity towards the *people* doing those things.
If a person truly follows Jesus, they should be primarily aspiring for others to know Him, rather than worrying about others’ behaviour. Those following Jesus won’t hate those who don’t follow God’s guidance RE relationships, because Jesus tells us to love others (this doesn’t mean agreeing/supporting everything that others do, which is what our culture often presumes - it means truly caring about them as people), and also because we’re very conscious that we ourselves have, in other ways, broken God’s guidance. Anyone who thinks they’re Christian should be full of gratitude reflecting on how Jesus made it possible for us to be forgiven, not hating other people. Those in power in The Handmaid’s Tale (as much as they appropriate snippets of the Bible, out of context) clearly aren’t trying to follow Jesus - they’re exactly like the people who Jesus continually argued with.
I think that tribalism is escalating across society, I’m so sorry that this is inducing fear. I hope you know that there are very, very many people who hugely appreciate you.

(in Christian Women Facebook Group)   
Ladies, is it just me or has the love of self become more prominent than ever before, Self love , Me myself and I , is all we see in todays society , its like no one else really matters ,God is just an after thought if it interferes with self ,even to those who see themselves as religious...  
"Ever"? I don't know, human history has had many societies, it could well have been that there were others that were equally selfish. Our country has, for a while, been partially influenced by Christianity, but now we're losing that. And now we're surrounded by advertising - corporations profit from convincing us to prioritise (and thus spend more money on) ourselves, "Because you're worth it", and this messaging is continually shaping people's thoughts.
I hate this. It implies that everyone needs to be having sex, that we (virgins) need to change. Has it not occurred to these arrogant programme makers that we don't *want* to have sex? Here in the UK, they've been really struggling to recruit for this show, I hope they continue to fail. Our culture's attitude to sex is so, so messed up.
The irony of this government that's so pro-individualism and selfishness trying to force kids to give up swathes of time for the community
Apparently, the super rich should be allowed to accumulate bigger and bigger shares of the wealth (see: scrapping caps on bankers' bonuses, opposition to inheritance tax etc), because it'd be wrong for the state to intervene in people's freedoms...but GenZ should lose free time
A few generations ago (when National Service existed), young people were presented with role model who taught us to put others first, and even that there is hope in the face of death through His sacrifice for us on the cross. Young people now aren't raised with that message - and they are growing up surrounded by uncertainty, advertising that urges us to put ourselves first, and leaders who contribute less tax as a % of their income than most of the population.
Religion is a horrendously nebulous word.
Plenty of people mistakenly imagine that science has disproven God
Jesus spent much time arguing with religious authorities, and opposed much that is labelled "religion" today. Yet our culture lumps together wholly disparate, even antithetical concepts, practices and institutions as "religion" and people reject (or neglect to look at arguments for concluding He exists) because they resent some of those fallaciously grouped things.
common sense disproves religious idiocy.
It is what it’s always been, pathetic control mechanism for the weak. It’s there to keep the fearful in check and give the lost meaning.
Thanks for proving my point.
you have no point. Just a child’s hope.
Again, you're proving my point, maybe you didn't read it.
no you cant prove your point hence the problem! Which is exactly how it’s designed! So as I said you don’t have a point. Just a hope!
As I said, you appear not to have read (or understood?) what I wrote.
it’s not complicated and your reply is typical of religious idiocy. Time the world moved on!
How is pointing out that you've not read my comment "religious idiocy"?
I’ve read and understood the comment I just clearly don’t agree with it. The religious idiocy is the old tactic of just constantly repeating the same thing over and over and calling it a rebuttal.
I didn't call it a rebuttal. It's you who's chosen to start an argument whereby you're repeating yourself and haven't given a rebuttal.
you’ve posted a comment on a public forum so you’ve started the conversation. After I replied you just repeated yourself without explanation or point so that was very much your rebuttal. And like I say a common tactic among religious followers.
No, posting a comment doesn't mean I want a conversation, it just means I wanted to make a point (which people can think what they like about), not spend time arguing about it. And again, it's not up to me to provide a rebuttal, you've just decided that you want to argue but haven't actually addressed anything that I wrote in the first place. 
on a public group that’s exactly what you’re doing. You don’t have a point it’s an opinion at best that’s torn to pieces by history. You haven’t made a point except to say you don’t like the generalisation of the world religion and then a bit of half arsed scripture. You’ve nothing to address except pointing out the fact this nonsense is a joke built on control of the weak. You certainly are. Take care.
Again, I'm not sure why you're not managing to comprehend what I've written. I suspect you're too busy resenting to actually read and think about it.
I can you just refuse to acknowledge it. Not uncommon! But you could explain how you come to this nonsensical conclusion. Or can you? Resentment doesn’t really cover it considering the atrocities that have and are still being committed by such entities!
Gosh, again you're demonstrating my original point. Explain? Why should I spend time explaining, particularly when you're not even reading what I'm writing anyway? I really need to do other things.
hilarious again, as you demonstrate you don’t have one. If you have a point I apparently can’t understand . You might want to make that point clear. Clearly it’ll take a better person.
I did make it clear, which aspects exactly were so difficult for you to understand?
what have you made clear? Nothing. You said you don’t like how the world religion gets used and posted a site with nonsense about why science doesn’t disprove god. Then gave your opinion on some scriptural nonsense. So what am I apparently missing?
I asked you what you're struggling with.
What's controversial about the statement that the word "religion" is used to refer to wholly varying things?
What about the article from Time magazine is "nonsense"?
No, it's not "my opinion", it's within the text. You can call it nonsense, and call me weak etc, your attempts at insults really don't bother me, they just imply that you're eager to look tough but lack actual points.
it’s more nonsensical than controversial. As it’s clearly used to refer to religions in a general sense. The fact you can’t prove god exists or doesn’t does not prove anything. It’s a weak argument that’s been hollowed out by now. I call it what it is and they are generalisations that I wouldn’t really call insults just the facts on the ground! No need to look tough and history makes all the points I need!
So I say that the word is used to refer to wholly different things, and you reply that it's used "in a general sense" (and, incidentally, don't actually offer a clear definition of it yourself). That is exactly proving my point.
"The fact you can’t prove god exists or doesn’t does not prove anything" what? I didn't say anything about proving god exists or doesn't. Again, your points aren't logically related to what I've written.
"just the facts on the ground" no, they're descriptors, from your opinion, and I'm not sure what you think they achieve (other than to give me the impression that you're desperate to upset me, I'm afraid you won't succeed).
"history makes all the points I need" so again, proving my point - you fallaciously think that some events in history can somehow be wholly conflated with entirely different, even antithetical, events and concepts. Precisely what I said in the first place.
it’s your opinion religions are wholly different. Realistically there’s no big difference between most still followed. It’s simple I used to the work religion to denote all religions. No matter where they are from or how many members they have. This isn’t the first time I’ve said that either. They are to the link that you posted. No you just refuse to acknowledge anything but your own point. And it’s not working! They point out that for thousands of years this nonsense has been used to control people just as history shows also! Your feelings don’t come into the equation! It’s not some conflated events. It’s world history you refuse to accept.  not what you said in the slightest might have had a hint to it but that would take some real AI to work out!
"Realistically there’s no big difference between most still followed" says who?* Apparently you're not familiar with them, they have fundamental differences. But I wasn't even referring just to different "religions", I was referring to the irrationality of conflating, for instance, Jesus with all of the actions of all of the people who have in some way claimed to be Christian or associated with Church. It's pretty obvious that some people, to attain authority or an income, would claim to be religious or be part of an institution - but that doesn't change anything about Jesus Himself (nor the fact that some people have instead genuinely followed His teachings and done good in the world). As I wrote, He argued against people who claimed to be religious but who weren't actually following, and yet now many in our society illogically lump such people together with Him.
"They are to the link that you posted" you appear to have missed what I wrote preceding the hyperlink, that was the point.
LOL what history have I "failed to accept"?*
Yes, it was what I said - I said that the word is used in a nebulous way and that people conflate things, and you've just demonstrated doing so with phrases like "in a general sense" and by insinuating that horrific things done in history should be grouped together with Jesus who taught the opposite.
only to one that has faith in one of them. Jesus is a fairy tale which hasn’t been mentioned by me. That’s blatant especially nowadays. The atrocities committed in the name of this fairy take vastly outweigh any benefits! That’s proven by history. As have plenty of people who don’t claim there is a higher power. You are still clambering to fairytales and trying to claim them as fact. It’s embarrassing. Don’t see how you can claim that. Millennium’s of history showing these religions of which Christianity is a big new comer for the control mechanisms that they are and have always been. They were done by that faith in the name of that faith. They can’t just wash off the blood! None of them can! Yeah you’ve said that before! Take care.
I don't know why you've not been able to understand what I've just written, or why you're rejecting history
back to this old chestnut. It’s understood, it’s laughable you try to use it as fact. Ancient texts don’t prove anything. Hercules & Zeus seem more believable than Jesus! Yet all just control mechanisms of previous existences.
That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of historical texts (and the corroboration between different sources and artefacts). Do you imagine all history to be myth like Zeus? Did Ceaser not exist?
Historians don't take seriously the idea that Jesus didn't exist
no that’s your interpretation. No but it’s clear to see that like religions it is based on myth which is proved by the history such as you suggest like the Romans and Ceasers. The rough truth as written by the victor of the time. They also don’t take seriously that he was the son of god and rose from the dead!
You should check what you've written, I'm afraid it's really not clear what you're saying. Again, historians don't dispute that Jesus existed, and the texts included in the New Testament are not written in the genre of myth (furthermore, their historicity is far better than other historical accounts, as the article explained - and the fact that His following spread as it has done further contradicts the notion He was fictional). And again, as we've both said, some power hungry people inevitably appropriate "religion" and institutions, that doesn't change anything about Him, someone who argued against those using "religion" for their own purposes.
And I really don't know why you're still arguing (I comment because if God exists, that really matters, but you're arguing in the cause of nothing). We should both stop wasting time.
Please, please reconsider "Only by trusting in Christ and repenting of your many sins can you escape the terrible wrath of God.", that wording is *only* going to confuse and deter people. People who don't yet realise their sin are absolutely not going to turn to God when they statements like this, they'll just hate Christianity and not bother to find out about Jesus.
what does the scripture say? "fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom" - true conversion starts with conviction. no-one wants a saviour until they realise they need a saviour. look at the sermon on the mount - it is filled with convicting statements and doesn't actually offer relief. Look at Peter at Pentecost - he preached condemnation until the crowd was beating their breast and saying "what must we do?"
if you don't like the word "only" then do you believe there are other ways to salvation? You say "only" will confuse people but in fact i think even hinting that there are other ways will confuse them since the bible unequivocally teaches "through Christ alone".
If you are a Christian, Grace I think you need to speak to your pastor about this as I think you are missing an important doctrine of faith.
But this slogan is not going to bring about the fear of the Lord (and note that this doesn't simply mean being scared, it's about awe), or feel convicted, why do you think it would? All it will do is make people more resentful. They don't think that they're guilty of "many sins", they don't believe in God, the slogan will just add to stubbornness. We need to use thoughtful words to help them to realise sin, and God's existence, not just raise heckles. Jesus and Paul didn't just go around scolding people, they discerned how to confront effectively given the different audiences they spoke to - and we are told (in many verses) to use our words wisely.
No, of course I don't doubt that Jesus is the only way.
I disagree.Only by trusting in Christ (this is core to the gospel - the scripture says repent and believe - this is the believe)
and repenting of your many sins (this is the repent in repent and believe)
can you escape the terrible wrath of God. (we are not saved from sin but from judgement).
go and read how Jesus spoke to the rich young ruler.
See how the master shares the gospel.
go and read the sermon on the mount again - Jesus is adding weight to the ten commandments and then actually says: you must be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.
I am not going to use some modern marketing campaign to try and win souls. what you are suggesting will most likely win false converts. We don't trick people into the kingdom. We convict them and then show them the cross. No-one wants to admit they are sinful but they are and that is the first needed step. and you are wrong about fear being awe - no, do a word study - it is fear. people don't come to Jesus because they think God is awesome - they come because they know that he is perfect and thrice holy and just to send them to hell - they desire a saviour only then.
the gospel you are trying to sell me doesn't offend people. well the scripture says that the true gospel does offend. Some will hate it and hate those who preach it - why? what does the scripture say? because they love their sin.
and look at what peter and paul and Jesus said to people - they challenged them - the woman at the well, the rich young ruler, the crowd at Pentecost. they pointed directly at their many sins .
I'm well aware that we must repent and believe, that people don't want to admit their sin, and of the all the texts you mention. I absolutely didn't suggest "tricking" or "marketing".
You seem not to have actually understood my point.
Sorry Grace but I am absolutely convinced that the gospel message offends people because of its exclusivity (only through Christ)
and its conviction (we all are guilty of many sins).
This is biblical.Any form of soft pedalling the gospel is not - you won't find it in scripture.
you wrote "People who don't yet realise their sin are absolutely not going to turn to God when they statements like this"
how will people ever realise their sin unless they are held up to the law of God and realise they are in trouble.
what does the bible say? Galatians 3:24:Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
"how will people ever realise"? By us *thinking* about the way we word it. We know that hearts are stubborn, and so as the Bible commands, we should discern wisely the ways to communicate the reality of sin without instead just prompting people to stop listening. People won't come to The Truth from reading "Only by trusting in Christ and repenting of your many sins can you escape the terrible wrath of God.", because in our culture they don't understand/accept several of the words. A doctor trying to explain a diagnosis to a patient won't just begin with terms that aren't familiar to them or which will make them run out of the room, the doctor will use words more carefully to convey the very real problem.
look - i have been a christian a long time and i have shared the gospel a lot. I am a bible scholar and I am not going to change a thing. you are wrong. the gospel does start with conviction and many people will reject that - the broad road as the Lord put it. You are not ging to change my mind.
I have too. So you're telling me that you've seen people turn to God following hearing/reading "Only by trusting in Christ and repenting of your many sins can you escape the terrible wrath of God."? Were that so, I'd have have said that in the beginning.
Absolutely (though I didn't think I needed it myself, I had no symptoms when Covid hit our household at the beginning of the pandemic). God is more powerful than conspiracies, and He calls us to love our neighbour, so frankly I was irked by some Christians putting conspiracy theories before the cause of reducing the spread of a disease that killed and disabled people.
we can love our neighbour’s and not violate our own convictions and if you loved your neighbour’s you wouldn’t pressure them to do that either or make them think they’re wrong for not getting vaccinated, that’s not loving.
(I'm not pressuring anyone, I commented in a discussion about the topic). Yikes. No, The love that God calls us to is absolutely not to just agree with and support everyone's choices. Our culture increasingly thinks that being loving means nodding along with whatever others have decided, but it isn't at all. Being loving means actually caring about others (not least by getting vaccinated to reduce the spread of disease - avoiding vaccines is not a "conviction" that God commanded). Jesus and Paul frequently reprimanded others.
Doctor Who is white. Period.
Doctor Who isn't even human, and he changes his face all the time, why shouldn't he sometimes have more melanin?
Tell that to the 700 million people who live on less than $2.15 per day.
I wish people realised that it's far more exciting to save lives with one's money than to spend it on entertainment or vanity projects.
That people call themselves Christian is irrelevant if they aren't actually following Christ, self-ID is not reality. Jesus did not prescribe "women's roles" (in fact He helped break down barriers they faced in His society)
As a woman, I don't care about people judging me for not being a wife or mother.
(after seeing a clip)
The uproar over this speech is deranged. Gratitude for a wife's work around the house and with kids is not preventing women doing other things (FTR, I will never be a wife nor mother, I'm not offended by him so why are others?)
In our world there are girls who can't access school, who have to spend hours carrying water, or who are forced into child marriage - those who think they're on the side of social justice should be worrying about those girls and recognising their own privilege, not moaning because a bloke appreciates his wife.
he's was on stage talking about the old testament ffs
Why shouldn't he(?), it's a Catholic college. You hating the Bible doesn't mean that those graduates do.
Timothy 2:11? Exodus 21:7-11?
Your point being? Timothy's not in the OT BTW
what is Exodus 21:7-11? Its something you believe to be good? It's something a man who appreciates his wife and cares about women would believe? Do you support it?
It's guidance for people in a specific context, at a time in history when women were vulnerable and deemed property, with God demanding that men ensure they are provided for.
And again, your personal hatred (and evident lack of understanding) of the OT is a non sequitur, he's talking to people at a Catholic college
wait, so you're saying the text he's referring to is outdated So you don't agree with the text he's pushing in his speech?
I'm saying it's not intelligent to just ignore context
Irony? That implies that he or I are just ignoring context, we aren't. Things from the past simultaneously need to have their contexts considered, and have things to tell us now. And did he even mention this verse anyway? (I listened to the speech, I don't remember it coming up)
oh, that's OK then. He only referred to some of the text so he doesn't believe in the rest of the book he's referring to... makes sense. Cherry picking is a very popular thing in his religion after all
He didn't cherry pick. It's bizarrely illogical that people who hate Christianity so often cherry pick random verses from the Bible, ignoring the relevant history and throwing them around as non-sequiturs when they're not part of the discussion. It'd be like taking random sentences from some part of Shakespeare, or a scientific publication, or a legal text, saying that that sentence seems problematic to you and therefore the whole text should be disregarded.

Why never?
Because I'm personally too grossed out by the concept of sex, there's no way I'll ever have it. I also have Asperger's (and an eating disorder, that also means I'm likely infertile, I don't menstruate), so I'm useless at understanding other people, stuck in compulsive behaviour and unable to cope normally with change etc - I'd be a nightmare for any potential spouse or children. Obviously, if I were normal, I'd probably want marriage and kids, I think both are awesome.
it’s not “supposed” misogyny. It’s blatant misogyny.
Are you trying to mansplain misogyny to me?
if you don’t think that telling women that they might be more fulfilled by being homemakers is misogynistic, then yes
It's not, nor is it what he said. It's more misogynistic that you're trying to dismiss me and the issues I raised
how is what I’m saying misogynistic? I hope someone severely injures Butker to teach him a lesson that we don’t tolerate bullshit
Wow. I don't know who "we" is, but men who disregard women and think those they disagree with should be injured aren't those making the world a better place.
(in Christian Women Facebook Group)   
I struggle with it which church is the "true" church , there's so many types and versions of Christianity and they all claim to be the one true type. Methodist, catholic, church of England ,Jehovah, latter day saints... It's so confusing?
I think you mean Jehovah's Witnesses rather than Jehovah (which itself is name for God) - both they and Latter Day Saints are different from Christianity.
But there are things that Christians can legitimately have differing views on, since *some* things within God's word can be interpreted in *slightly* differing ways, or given differing emphasis. It's inevitable that, over 2,000 years, the billions of people interested in Jesus might have some differing perspectives - but that doesn't change the *reality* of Him. Each of us needs to seek *Him* and to try to understand *Him* better and better - as opposed to picking a denomination and simply adopting whatever our vicar/minister says.
You'll find that there's disagreement within denominations as well as between them - but wherever you choose to attend, keep exploring God's word and seeking His guidance first and foremost.
In answer to the original question, I'd say that there's not necessarily one "true Church" in terms of denomination - The Church is all the people truly following Jesus, and there are some of these in many denominations, as well as some people in each denomination who actually aren't genuinely committed to Jesus. Rather than trying to work out what is the "true Church", try to get closer to Jesus, who said that He is "The Way, THE TRUTH, and The Life".
There are people in our world who are literally starving to death. We're so, so fortunate to be able to easily buy things we like from supermarkets - but the proliferation of cookery programmes and restaurants/takeaways seems to have led some people to think that one needs meals to be far more elaborate than they do. One can prepare good meals without much teaching. When I was at school considerable time was wasted in Food Tech lessons having us design, plan and eventually make sandwiches - that time would have been better spent on additional maths lessons
Yes, so just don't buy it 
We're monumentally privileged to be able to buy whatever we want to eat from supermarkets. Elsewhere many people have hardly any food choices - or are starving. With the £4.50, you could buy yourself a whole tub of ice cream and have enough change to donate to a charity like Mary's Meals UK or Feed The Hungry UK to provide multiple meals for a starving child.
That must be annoying. I remember feeling jealous of classmates who had more than me - but now I'm really grateful I wasn't spoiled, and I'm massively conscious that we (Brits) have so much more than many other people in our world.
It is abusive to reinforce a child's dislike of their own body. The vast majority of children who think they're trans end up happy with their birth sex by the end of puberty if their new identity is not bolstered by those around them. They should be treated with genuine compassion, and told that it's OK to be unique and break gender stereotypes, not set on a path of lifelong medical intervention.
It's obvious that children can have ideas that are mistaken, and can want things which are contrary to their own best interests, Adults need to protect them, not just nod along. 

Can Faith help people be healed from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD)?
It's an imbalance of neurological biochemistry. Like any illness, God may heal, but it might instead be part of His - sometimes mysterious) long term plan
It looks more like tribalism than humanitarian concern. Have they ever made any noise about the other suffering in our world, such as hunger killing around 20,000 people each day, or modern slavery linked to Western corporations?
In theory yes, but it would probably just make the tin foil hat wearers more fervent. This is such a tragedy for those babies who've died, as it is for children el
sewhere in our world who lack basic vaccinations due to Global inequality.

The commentator didn't do anything wrong, they just explained that her performance was going to be dark (in case children were watching) which it was. Clearly she just wanted to claim victim status and/or attempt to get Israel out of the competition.

Actor Brian Cox recently claimed that religion is holding humanity back and the Bible is ‘the worst book ever'.
His comments were amazingly ignorant, I honestly would have expected someone who's had as many years on this Earth as him to have had some more sensible thoughts (irrespective of what they believe) if they're going to publicly spout off. He mocked, for instance, Eve having been created from Adam's rib - has it not occurred to him in all his decades that that's not literal? Or that he could at least Google the seeming oddity and discover some explanation before having a public rant?
I'm so used to members of the public saying that assisted dying is necessary because of horrific PAIN, but here the expert advocates (supporting assisted dying) are outright saying that that's not what it's about
A small minority of people have Differences of Sexual Development (aka intersex conditions), but everyone else is either male or female. This is a simple biological reality, and not something he should feel oppressed by. He should feel able to be unique and to break stereotypes, not that his biology is an error. However he feels, he should be treated with real empathy and kindness - but reinforcing the idea that liking dresses, singing high notes or feeling uncomfortable with body means that his being male is wrong is not kind.
I wish our country cared more about the fact that there are girls in our world facing FGM and child marriage than about whether some privileged women can attend a posh club.
You can care about both things. Both have impacts on the world- the Garrick is a lot of men with power that socialise and impact on things like the the criminal justice system - if they have biased views that can impact the way the crimes that affect women are investigated and prosecuted gor example.
I didn't say that people can't care about both things, but only one is getting attention (and it's happens to be the one that has a smaller and less certain impact - I'm not disputing that it's a travesty *if* your hypothesis is correct, but it's certain that large numbers of females are affected by what I've mentioned)
this is what we call "whataboutism". You can care about both and also you cannot say others should prioritise your concerns
Not really. Whataboutism is trying to counter someone else's argument by bringing up something else. I'm not opposing the admission of women to the Garrick club, I'm saying that it's wrong that Garrick club membership is evidently afforded far more concern that FGM and child marriage. I'm raising something because it's ignored, sometimes "what about?" is necessary.
"you cannot say others should prioritise your concerns"? LOL, says who? I just did, and will do again. Seriously, why on Earth shouldn't I? I can't *make* people care more about girls being mutilated and raped (than about a posh club), but why should I not have and voice the *opinion* that our society should care more?
No one needs to see anyone's backside on anyone's face, for frick's sake. It's important that queer people are not mistreated - but sexual displays (also between straight folk, FTR) are wholly unnecessary (even counterproductive). And sport can really help people, stop deterring them.
Didn't some Muslims form an initiative called *the Muslim vote*? Seriously, it's been in the news.
But I personally feel strongly that it's important to recognise that Muslims are endlessly varied.
much like every other faith.
I totally get what you mean - though I actually think that some people who call themselves Christians aren't, and there's less divergence if they're discounted (that might also be true of other faiths, but it wouldn't be my place to say).
Most faiths, at their core, are completely compatible with each other. Yet here we are. No middle man is necessary for your relationship with God, whether you be Christian, Muslim or Jew. Anyone telling you differently, is trying to manipulate you.
That depends on what's meant by compatible - some of the most fundamental theological tenets are very much distinct. So far as I've seen, those Muslims who discuss these things generally much resent the belief that Jesus is anything more than a prophet and would say that Christianity is incompatible with their view (and the lives and teachings of He and Muhammed are very, very different). And significantly, Christianity teaches that salvation is through what Jesus has done for us (if a person genuinely chooses to follow Him, they develop a desire to do good, but it's *not* doing good that earns salvation), whereas other faiths effectively teach that a person's salvation is through what they themselves do.
But often - depending on the individuals concerned - different faith communities can indeed live compatibly, and many members share similar aims to serve society (interesting to me though was that, at Christmas, Charles' message was only about service, whereas Sadiq Khan had the insight to also mention that it was a time when Christians celebrate the birth of our saviour). And I really value the points of agreement (I'm reminded, for instance, of conversations I've had with Muslims about how, we agree, much within science implies that a Designer - God -exists)
I very much concur that "middle men" (priests etc) are not in themselves necessary for a relationship with God, and some try to manipulate others by claiming that they are. Jesus spent plenty of time arguing with such people.
I don't really want to write a book on FB. Imagine if America attempted to make every Christian in the world, complicit in its actions or Iran every Muslim. How much credence would you give that, regardless of your own personal faith or lack of it? Israel attempts to make every Jew in the world complicit and anyone that disagrees is supposedly a self hating Jew or the wrong kind of Jew or an anti-Semite. This is seriously messed up and none of it is Gods fault. Personally I don't buy into salvation in the afterlife. The teachings of all the religions have peaceful coexistence at their core and that's what I mean by compatible.
Oh indeed, it's absurd when huge groups - of a "religion" or otherwise - are blamed for the actions of politicians or when politicians claim to be acting for those huge groups. It's an obvious political excuse for all manner of selfish evil. One should understand a "faith" by its actual tenets, not by the actions of people seeking to exploit it. And there are aspects of Islam I have issues with - but I don't presume any individual Muslim to hold to those things with which I take issue.
I very much get that the ideas of salvation and life beyond this one seem daft. Personally I was convinced after reading extensively about the history of the resurrection accounts that Jesus did actually rise (validating His claims RE defeating death), but I know those of us who believe must seem barmy.
I think that all people (Muslim, Christian, other, atheist etc) are individuals with their own views and most people can *coexist peacefully* - but tribalism pops up in various forms across humanity, and it's incredibly frustrating seeing some people spout tripe like "this is a Christian country" as a supposed excuse for their disdain for all Muslims, plainly they're not actually trying to follow Christ themselves.
I really don't know what to think RE the allegations (not dismissing them at all, indeed they must be taken very seriously) - but we CAN be certain of what he said on stage/air and in his book, and he needs to make a serious public apology for those comments. Not only did he say horrifically misogynistic and perverted things, his public platform will mean that he added to the culture of some men thinking it OK to be like that.
Many things he's said recently suggest that he might very well be truly turning to God - it'd be awesome if he did so enough to apologise for the past. Obviously his salvation is wholly down to whether he's genuinely repenting to God and accepting Jesus, but I think that if he does he'll eventually realise what he ought to do publicly.
I'm not a fan of Galloway (and wouldn't have used the words he did), but he was right that one can really respect and care about gay *people* whilst not being super-pro gay *relationships*. Human beings and their actions are not one and the same thing - if people presume that not supporting another person's actions means hatred of the people themselves, it says a lot about those making that presumption.
And it's grim that our media puts sex before the humanity of people elsewhere.
Actually several things. He appreciates aspects of Christian culture, and opposes the gender movement. He even sees some merit in Th Design Argument.
But we should pray that he turns to God, which is what ultimately matters (incomparably more than gender or culture, important as they are)
You do realize that a virgin pregnancy and birth is a scientific impossibility?
God created the laws of nature that science observes, He is not bound by them.
Boxing is a genuinely effective way to reduce teen crime, and mental health issues - it's a shame that Olly's performance will undermine this. It's also a gift for Putin and Islamist extremists, who will point at it and tell their followers that they're nobly fighting something they see as wrong.
grasping straws there I see. I doubt with Russia not being in Eurovision that they will even be showing it there, let alone Putin specially requesting it to make comment and same with most Islamic countries; however, dance is art, same as singing and performing.
"grasping straws"? I guess you don't follow what's going on in the world all that much. There's plenty to read on it. The reality is that Putin, and his media take things just like Olly's performance from our media and parade it in front of Russian citizens to make the claim that - in *their* view - the West is twisted, and the Kremlin is supposedly noble for opposing it.

It's fun looking at the daft outfits. But I wish our media would also give some attention to the people working in sweatshops to provide our clothes, or living in ragged cast-offs dumped from countries like ours into the poorest parts of the world. 
Do you have data on that? (young people believing on demand treats are a human right)? One can buy many meals for one of the world's starving people for the cost of a coffee, so I really don't understand why cafes have become so popular - and they look to be mainly frequented by people beyond their 20s.
Now the world is looking at the protesters, rather than at the suffering in Gaza. But I'm sure they feel very virtuous.
well some of them did ask for humanitarian aid needed their sandwich and a drink
es, that was hilarious. But honestly I'm so annoyed with this lot for ignoring people in our world in need of humanitarian Aid aside from Palestinians. I keep wondering why, if they care so much about starvation in Gaza (as one should) they don't care about people in certain parts of Africa who are starving (I think the answer is that they're motivated more by herd mentality than by humanitarianism)
God calls us to repent to Him, forgiveness is offered through Jesus not determined by a priest
original sin . A woman made from a bloke ripping his rib out ate an apple when told not to by a talking snake
Were you not aware that the creation account is poetry specific to the time in which it was written, not literal/historical reporting like other texts of the Bible?
it’s still nonsense
How can you know, when you don't know about it?
FTR, "the West" is hundreds of millions of individuals with different views. But I'm not sure why you think we're opposed to India, it's the leadership of Russia, Iran and China, as well as Islamic extremists, that we're opposed to. Western politicians need to be friends with Modi.

Why do you presume that being in support of racial equality means someone should be opposed to biology and supportive of the killing of tiny humans? Obviously you think that your positions on gender and abortion are the only ones a person who cares about human beings could have and that others are just motivated by hate -that's very ignorant.
Perhaps you should read the article. She is an anti-vaxxer nut case
I may do when I have time, I was reacting to MJ here clearly presenting being proLife and gender critical as being at odds with caring about racial justice. IMO that's patronising and offensive to a lot of Black folk (not least those who are conscious of the racist roots of abortion providers).
I concur with you that people shouldn't be antivax - a shame that MJ thinks that to be less significant than what it's chosen to mention here.
The God of Christianity implores us to love others, including those from elsewhere, and enemies - so anyone who's genuinely putting God first will in turn love other people. This is in contrast to putting oneself first, as has been the case in much of human history (survival of the fittest)
And no, it's not "put the cult first" - I presume that you're referring mistakenly to churches etc - putting God first means one should continually be seeking the Creator of the universe, and as such rejecting those churches and pastors who are fraudulent.
no he does not. LMAO He killed innocent children because the Pharaoh defied him. Then he would have came into your house and slaughtered your children unless you smeared blood over your door.
Try reading the WHOLE book, not just the parts the preachers talk about in church.
Yikes, why (whilst demonstrating that you've not studied it) do you imagine that I've not read the whole Bible? Though of course I'm very familiar with atheists making comments like this. It's particularly interesting that you presume I rely wholly on what a preacher says given what I just wrote.
I'm not sure why you think it'd have been better for those Egyptian children to live longer on Earth and likely miss out on eternal life (than to painlessly pass away, likely to eternal life) AND for the Hebrews to remain suffering in slavery. And the OT is full of contextual complexities - it's Jesus who demonstrates God's character most clearly, and we are to follow His example and instruction (not re-enact the events of the OT)..
His ego? Why would the creator of the universe need to puff up His ego? It's best for *us* to have no other gods before Him etc, because drawing close to Him gives us ultimate joy.
Eden Golan at rehearsal 
To those complaining - She is not responsible for the actions of her government (nor are Israeli Eurovision fans). Anyone who thinks she is, please tell me how one goes about genuinely controlling one's government's actions, I'd really love to be able to make mine do the right things.
NB - "What about Russia" is whataboutism, and I've not said that it's right that Russia's excluded - but there are several key differences between the 2 situations. The action in Gaza, whilst prosecuted unacceptably indiscriminately, is a response to murderous terrorism that Hamas vowed to repeat - whereas Putin has invaded Ukraine out of power lust. Putin is seeking to influence the world - he's orchestrating cyberwar around the world, and sinking his claws into Africa. Those he's getting on side have restricted media access, so he actually can use things like Eurovision to his advantage, Netanyahu can't. Also, Ukrainians are part of Eurovision. 
actually, they could be seen as collectively accountable, since there are constant free and fair elections to elect a government.
An election only allows one to choose the least bad of 2 options, and plenty of people don't get their choice. It absolutely does not allow us to determine the actions of our governments. Again, please tell me exactly how I can control what mine does.
(in Christian Women Facebook Group)  
The Starbucks logo is all about demonic Marine mermaid Fallen Angel nephilim gods/goddesses!!! People don’t have a clue!!
If one donates the cost of a cafΓ© beverage instead - from Starbucks or likewise - one can fund multiple meals for some of the world's poorest people
sadly it never gets there , the poorest countries are the ones with war lords who live in extreme wealth while their people die .
God had given enough food that the whole could live but it’s not distributed
We prefer to send rockets to the moon
Who exactly told you that? I really don't want to argue, but it's simply not the case at all that the existence of conflict in some areas (there aren't warlords everywhere - and charities plan their work accordingly) means that no Aid reaches where it should. Do you really think that all the footage and reports from Aid organisations on their work are a huge conspiracy? I've spoken to (Christian) Aid workers and recipients, and journalists and politicians visit projects.
it is true though, a friend of my family goes out with the shoe box appeal to Romania every Christmas and you would never believe what his team of volunteers have to go through just to get them to the children, my husband has been donating to water aid for 20 plus years in Africa and it is struggling to get water to villages just as much as they always have because the big water companies are greedy, the more that is donated the more profits they want ..
Exactly - charities work hard to navigate difficulties in distribution. The last comment seems to presume that difficulties mean no Aid gets through, but that's just not true. Of course some things can go wrong sometimes, as is very, very much true with things in our own country as it happens, but it makes no sense to imagine Aid generally doesn't get through.
Ultimately conflicts (many of which are historically linked to colonialism, that *we* are beneficiaries of) are exacerbated by poverty - where there are warlords, they're more able to recruit boys if those boys have no other options - if they have access to food and education they're more able to start fixing their own communities.
And the reality of corporate greed doesn't mean that we should leave people to suffer (particularly since God calls us to help the poor - and Jesus, in the parable of The Good Samaritan, emphasises that e must help those who *aren't* of our own nation).
Indeed people have been giving to Aid/development charities for decades - and the %s of people in our world without clean water or food have gone down significantly. But the % of national wealth spent on helping bother nations is absolutely tiny, so there's no reason we should expect their problems to be fully resolved - furthermore, far more wealth actually goes in the OPPOSITE direction, from developing nations to developed nations
Most importantly, if we give to Christian charities helping the very poorest, they can discover The Good News, which is paramount. And people elsewhere in our world otherwise have less access (to information about Jesus) than people here, as well as being far more receptive. It's utterly thrilling to see how people who receive help amidst horrific poverty, people who as kids received shoeboxes (personally I do about 250 each year) and former sponsor children talk about how they learned of God's love.

Honestly this story is bugging me. There's been more upset over a tree than the millions of people suffering unimaginably in Sudan. I'm not denying that cutting down the tree was a stupid thing to do - and obviously, more broadly, trees are essential for life - but the extent of attention given to one tree suggests to me that our culture often puts sentimentality before what actually matters. People are angry because they *themselves* got enjoyment from the sight of the tree, there's less anger borne of selfless concern about injustices affecting many other human beings.
why must it always have to be said: people can care about more than one thing at a time. For a lot of people in the north-east it has a personal connection or meaning to them, why can’t people enjoy (or not, as it is now) something? Do you live your life without enjoyment, constantly working to draw attention to Sudan?
"people can care about more than one thing at a time" - only to some extent, there's a finite amount of media and mental bandwidth. And they're generally *not* upset about people in the poorest parts of the world (the crisis in Sudan being one of the biggest single crises at present, I don't list them all). Aside from Gaza, the world's very poorest people are continually overlooked, and yes trying to draw attention to them is one of my life's priorities (why do you object to that?)
I don’t object, I merely suggest that unless you are doing that for all of your waking hours, then you are a hypocrite. Let people enjoy things, or mourn them, even if you don’t understand it. Life is hard enough as it is, without trying to force people to bear the burden of all the ills in the world.
I didn't stop anyone enjoying or mourning anything, I wrote a comment on Facebook
you’re berating people for enjoying something you don’t, very casually mentions they're better than you vibes.
"berating"? I just made an independent/untargeted comment on a public post, the OP asked our thoughts. I wasn't arguing with anyone. Berating would be if I replied to other people's comments criticising them. I don't know why you think I consider myself better than anyone (I hate myself to the point of self harm FTR), do you presume that about everyone who expresses concerns? (rhetorical, I don't want to continue this thread)
fs if this post was about Sudan then you'd see everyone's reaction and empathy, but as it's about a tree that's what the comments are about , your virtue signalling isn't needed and if the only human suffering you are bothered about is the people of Sudan you might want to take a look around there are millions of people suffering all over the world in every country on this earth give them all a mention next time
I don't only care about Sudan, I'm concerned about the most severe human suffering irrespective of location (and whilst you say "if this post was about Sudan then you'd see everyone's reaction and empathy", and that might be the case here on this brilliant page, across the population as a whole many people only care about human beings with whom they share a country). I mentioned it because it's one of the biggest crises in the world ATM, and it's struck me how the tree has had more attention than this huge catastrophic situation. The OP asked our thoughts, that was my thought.
No, but I have seen plenty of antisemitism amongst pro-Palestine comments and protests. It doesn't help suffering Gazans.
And I don't understand why, if the very energetic campaigners were solely driven by concern about human suffering, they don't make noise about Global poverty, exploitation by our international corporations and the suffering resulting from other conflicts.
Russell Brand was baptised
It could be a spectacle, it's hard for us to know as outsiders. Sincere Baptism means choosing to repent and commit to Jesus. He offers forgiveness and salvation though they're undeserved - but repentance is crucial. Jesus showed compassion for those who were hated by society for their sin, He *also* told them to turn from sin.
I don't know whether Russell Brand is guilty of assault, but IMO he should at least apologise for the perverted, abusive things he said about women.
Sounds like another DEI wokidokie bullshite appointment. Now why don't we start again with a nice guy like an Angus or Duncan.
Sounds like? How? Are you just presuming that because he's not white?
Well does he have a long Scottish lineage ??
Why does it matter? One's ancestors are not relevant to one's ability to run a country. I don't like Humza Yousaf, but he IS Scottish, having been born and raised in Scotland, that's what matters. Where some *other people* lived (his ancestors) is irrelevant, it's his own life that determines his ability to understand his country. And obviously, the reason his predecessors moved to Britain is ultimately that people from Britain went to where they lived first.
It's fricking ironic seeing criticism RE "lineage" in the comments section of an American publication, everyone in America whose not of First Nations heritage alone has lineage from elsewhere. Do you think that Biden and Trump should both be disqualified from running America because of their European lineage?
The whole Muslim experiment in Europe is failing, see: Sweden, Denmark, France, England ect. They just don’t have the capacity to assimilate and respect the values, culture.
Oh for frick's sake, you don't even live here (in Europe), do you? Why the frick do you think you know? Why lump Muslims together when they're plainly so endlessly varied? Humza Yousaf isn't responsible for the crimes you're alluding to. I have serious concerns about Islam and some Muslims - but plenty of Muslims are great people who *do* integrate. Most Muslims are Muslims because they've been born into it, so you can't tell anything about a person's values from the fact that they're Muslim - some have horrendous views, but some are better people than much of the wider UK/European population.
I think we both know what your issue is.
interesting that I must be in the same boat as the Danish MP and my Welsh, French, Spanish and German friends. When you immigrate into a new country you are invited to integrate not shove your values, beliefs and baggage down anyone’s throat. Btw the Danish MP just said: assimilate, follow the laws, values and customs or go back to your country. I’m with her.
Humza Yousaf's family assimilated so much that he became leader of a liberal party, for frick's sake.
In a world where there are people literally starving to death, the last thing anyone needs is yet more content about luxurious lifestyles (on her forthcoming "Lifestyle blog") or celebrity merchandise
well Meghan earned her keep. Do you say this about Kate and William) who get their keep from the taxpayers of UK, or just the black ones?
Indeed, the Royal family's wealth should be given to help the poorest people in formerly colonised countries. But Kate and William just perk up local charity volunteers, they aren't writing articles bragging about their wealth, encouraging Westerners to feel like we're hard done by in comparison (when we should instead be aware of our privilege).
And no, Meghan did not earn her money, most of it is the result of Harry's inheritance or the deals she's been given by Netflix and Spotify *because* of being connected to the *monarchy*
Meghan is mixed race, white passing. I really want there to be more attention given to those Black people in our world who are seriously suffering for reasons connected to things done by people and institutions from our part of the world, rather than there being so much attention focussed on rich celebrities.
have you seen her mother? She may be passing for white, as you say but she is black. If you’ve got 1/8 black blood, you’re black(white people did that).
Also, I have a daughter who is darn near white. Anyway, Harry was bequeathed his inheritance by his mother. But, how do you know what she is giving to others? Perhaps she gives when no one is looking. I approve of this (as no one is wanting to have a camera in there face when someone is giving something to them).
She can help others who need it, but not everyone. She needs protection but not everyone is going to give it(it cost MONEY). Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t need protection? Presidents need protection, Prime Ministers need protection, and so on. Even when they do, people still shoot, kill them. Leave them alone.
Yes I've seen her mother. "White people did that"? Indeed it was the idea of some white people IN AMERICA that a person should be considered Black if they have any Black heritage, but those people were racist idiots and we aren't in America. The fact is that people with darker pigmentation than Meghan are far more likely to experience racism, that shouldn't be overlooked by lumping people together.
If she "gave when no one is looking", it'd be on the Archewell website. And there wouldn't be so much spent on an unnecessarily huge home, or endless designer clothes.
"Leave them alone"? I'm not doing anything to them. I'm just using a post by this stupid, stupid newspaper to remind anyone who sees my comment that there are people in our world who are starving to death, because I'm sick of our media (including rich celebrity bloggers) ignoring them (and I'm certain that part of the reason - for the ignoring - is that most of the victims of famine are Black)
well you’re not from here. I stand by what I say. Just because Archwell’s website doesn’t have all of the information on what she gives, doesn’t mean she doesn’t. I am against no one being rich. If they have put in the work, let them get paid. She put in the work on Suits, let her get paid. I have no problem with her earning her keep. And this newspaper and all others are stupid. You really have to be discerning to figure that out. They are going to do that anyway to get clicks and make money.
"you’re not from here"? Sorry, what do you mean? This (The Express) is British, and I'm British - though where a person is from is irrelevant in that it doesn't change whether what they're saying is correct/logical.
No, Archewell's website brags about the couple having links to charities, it absolutely would brag about donations if they made them.
You're free to support wealth inequality and hoarding by the rich if you want to, but you don't need to tell me, I didn't ask. "Earning" is inaccurate, most rich people have inherited wealth (like Harry and Meghan do) or have been stupidly lucky (as anyone who gets a role in a TV show is, let alone someone handed tens of $millions by Spotify and Netflix). Many of the super rich ultimately have some of their wealth because of exploitation of seriously hardworking people in the Global South. Particularly problematic though, is when the super rich mislead some of us - people privileged to be born into a wealthy country - into feeling as though we're poor by flaunting their wealth on Lifestyle blogs. Instead we should be looking at the world's poorest people, recognising our privilege, and considering how we can help them.
no doubt. The thing is, Harry married a divorcee who was raised by a cameraman and his wife. She was on a game show before she became a hit on Suits.
No matter what you say, whether she passed as white or whatever, she was what she was before she married Harry. Now if you called her wealthy before she married, yeah, she married wealthier.
again, most of their money is because of Harry's inheritance, or the deals they've been given in recent years because they're so famous due to their Royal link. And shoving wealth in the public's face with a Lifestyle blog contributes to people forgetting our privilege in comparison to human beings elsewhere.
Can we end this by agreeing, that The Express is stupid, that people shouldn't give them clicks, and that the Right wing media's obsession with moaning about Meghan is deranged?
It is, indeed, outrageous that this happened - but what did he mean exactly by "take a stand"? I'm not accusing, I'm genuinely wondering. Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies.
Jesus didn't say be a door mat he asked us to pray and to forgive but when laws are wrong in the sight of God we should stand up for our beliefs without hesitation if we let the establishment get away with this what will be next will they begin to shut Churches and forbid Christians to meet it's the thin edge of the wedge in my opinion maybe it's time for King Charles to show some leadership after all he is the head and protector of the faith that's the oath he took in front of the nation at his coronation.
It is about Australia, in that this guy said Christians should "take a stand" following the stabbing there. Indeed there's opposition to Christianity (and to Jewish folk) - though it's nothing compared to what Christians around the world face, and we should be very conscious of that. I am indeed concerned about the arrests of street preachers (and, again, don't support what happened to this^ guy) - our focus needs to be on sharing The Gospel, as opposed to tribalism. It feels like most people here are more concerned about a "Christian" vs The State/Islam than about the fact most people around us are on course to miss out on eternal life. And Jesus said that we'd be hated (we need to be careful that the hatred isn't because of unChristlike behaviour, 1 Peter 2:20-21)
It's reflective of many of those in power broadly having far too little concern and compassion for Africa, where Western institutions have caused chaos and continue to contribute to it
Could we also worry about the fact that top sports stars are paid so many $millions whilst there are people in our world literally starving to death? It feels as though only certain varieties of inequality matter to the media (though I'm not arguing with the OP)
George (not white FTR) had a cross on his shield because Jesus died on a cross for our sin, it's ironic that some people have made it a symbol of pride and tribalism

To a lesser extent, this is true for all of us as Westerners. We've been born into relative wealth (as compared to humanity as a whole). We should think about how we can help the very poorest, not just see ourselves as victims because we don't have yachts.
Adam Peaty, one of Britain's most successful Olympians, is using church to become a ‘good person’ 
Churches vary endlessly - many do indeed help one to become better, but some are very flawed. More important, is Jesus Himself, and seeking to follow Him is what can be most transformative.
However, His message is not ultimately about being "good" - "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). We can't, *by ourselves*, be good enough to enter the presence of God who is perfectly Holy - but because of Jesus' death in our place we have the offer of forgiveness and salvation. Jesus hung out with those who weren't considered "good people" - though when they chose to follow Him they changed their behaviour - He offers what we cannot *earn*.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
I've not seen you make anywhere near as much noise about Sunak cutting other Aid. Why exactly do Africans matter so much less to you?
(FTR, I am of course not suggesting that all Africans need Aid, it's an endlessly varied continent - but there are regions of extreme need within it)
I was admitted to an eating disorder unit (against my will) a few days after I turned 16 (with anorexia). For many of us eating disorders are permanent. There are numerous times I've thought that I should be dead, because I'm a burden. I'm absolutely furious that some other people with eating disorders might have the "option" (it would be a compulsion) put upon them. It's EVIL.
OK, but maybe the party in power should apologise for letting things (esp young people being put on pathways to transition) get so out of hand? And anyone who cares about how this is affecting women and girls should also care about the women and girls in our world suffering (particularly due to underage marraige) because of Sunak cutting Aid programmes.
For centuries, Jews have been accused of preparing their Passover food with Christian blood.
Anyone who thinks that they're Christian but is antisemitic is seriously mistaken.
And more broadly, Jesus defied ethnic divisions.
It's our own sin we should be worrying about, not conspiracy theories.
It's not "protection" to reinforce a child's dislike of their own biology, suppress their growth and turn them into a lifelong cash-cow for pharmaceutical corporations.
I highly doubt you’ve done your research on this topic before spewing hate …oh wait…you just judge before being educated about truth and reality …so Republican of you.
Oh that's very funny - you *just judge* without knowing me, including presuming that I'm a Republican when I'm a Labour voting Brit.
"Highly doubt" based on what exactly? You're the one making assumptions. I've been following this issue (and the medical discussion) closely, particularly several trans campaigners who are passionately against what's been going on recently RE young people. But honestly, one wouldn't even need to know much to know that it's wrong - and counter to *truth and reality* since you mention them - to "affirm" a child's discomfort with their body.
"Hate"? I didn't write anything hateful. But hey, since you mention it, I do hate that children are being hurt - for profit - as they are by this movement. FTR, suppressing my own puberty left me with diagnosed osteoporosis.
A huge number of people can instinctively recognize the moral worth of a pig but cannot recognize any worth at all in an unborn child.
The other day I saw the NYT post a piece about whether it'd be OK to save one's drowning cat rather than a stranger - most of the comments said that they would. Our culture is increasingly putting animals (or selfish people's personal enjoyment of animals) before human beings
Why would the creator of the universe require teenagers to prostrate themselves at specific times of the day?
There were bomb threats against the school, and the student who brought the case threatened to attack the school and threatened another student who heard. So what kind of "god" are these teenagers being taught to pray to?
As a lover of Jesus Christ you should show respect to all faiths practices.
I’m an atheist but I still answer the door to the JW that harass me regularly and listen to their twaddle.
Says who? Why do you think you know Jesus better than me? He told us to love other *people*, not to support all *beliefs* or *practices*. You've just commented yourself that ritualistic prayer should be banned at the school so why are arguing with me?
I don’t give a toss about Jesus.. And even if this were a Christian child they would be stopped from openly praying at the school.
It’s not about Islam, it’s all faiths. It’s a secular school. Disrespecting how others practice their faith is not loving them, your putting yourself above them.
All for a glorified salesman.
It's interesting that you say you "don't give a toss about Jesus. I didn't ask if you do, I replied to *your* comment about Him - so you saying "I don't give a toss about Jesus" is plainly just an attempt to disrespect what I believe (which you have every right to do, and I'm not fussed in the slightest), whilst you're telling me off for supposedly disrespecting someone else's beliefs.
Students of any faith are free to sit and pray silently. Neither I nor the school are placing ourselves above anyone else. The school only banned ritualistic practices, because of the violent threats (including a rock being thrown through the window of a teacher's home) when Muslim parents saw that kids had been carrying out the ritual on the ground, using blazers as prayer mats, at break time.
Why do you think that Jesus is a "salesman"?
You asked me why I think I know Jesus better than you.I told you I don’t give a toss about him.
Your questioning why ‘the creator’ would want teenagers to prostrate at specific times of day, so I’m telling you, your disrespecting their practices for questioning it. I’m happy the case was in favour of the school, no student there regardless to their faith should be practising religious ritualistic acts.
As I said just as a Christian shouldn’t be openly praying in the school.
These kids are a minority in a much larger group of Muslims that attend the school.
As kids do they’re clearly pushing back whether their parents have told them to do it or not.
I wish all schools were secular, Finland is a great example. We’ve got a long way to go.
I asked because you told me that I ought to do something given that I love Jesus. Or did you mean that since I love Jesus I ought to also love Muhammed? That makes no sense.
"I’m telling you, your disrespecting their practices for questioning it." what? It's not "disrespect" to question something, yikes. You want a culture where we can't question things? But if it were disrespectful, so what? You've just disrespected what I believe ("I don't give a toss") and I'm not complaining nor disputing your right to. We're all entitled to disrespect some ideas, including Nazism and flat-Earthism. It's distinct from disrespecting human beings themselves.
"a Christian shouldn’t be openly praying in the school." what does that mean? Any (whatever their belief - in fact some non-believers pray when extremely stressed) student can sit silently and pray in their head. Should teachers interrogate and restrict the thoughts of children?
You're free to have the opinion that all schools were secular, but it's what parents want that matters. Faith schools are very popular, including with nonbelieving parents, and research has found that kids at them get better results. I don't know what you think ending faith schools would achieve(?)
Still waiting on evidence of any god to be honest...
Have you looked?
I'd asked if you'd looked. Personally, I came to suspect that there might be a Designer whilst looking at biochemistry, and when I looked further into both biology and physics I found that it's impossible the universe and biological world (particularly given the interdependence of processes within it) could have come about by chance. Academics who believe in God have written long discussed this, I wondered if you'd tried looking at any of their explanations to see for yourself what you think of them (This clip, from a Philosophy Dr, gives a brief summary, but there are lectures and books by Drs of Science etc on the topic
"Evangelical" doesn't mean what US media suggests it does.
Evangelical comes from "Evangel", meaning good news - that good news being that Christ offers eternal life (heaven) to anyone who chooses to truly accept Him (and demonstrated the authenticity of His power over death by rising), Ie. Evangelical means wanting desperately to share the message that we believe matters more than anything else (given the eternality of what's offered, and that we experience joy in this lifetime in knowing Christ that we want others to experience).
I grew up with Evangelical parents (politically Left of centre FTR), though I didn't believe until I looked into the science/history relating to Christianity. Because the emphasis is Jesus, rather than the institution of the Church and its formalities, Evangelicalism is more modern/casual (mostly modern music, less elaborate buildings, no robes etc) - and in my experience far more racially diverse than most more traditional Churches.
So, so often, people call themselves Christians and/or Evangelicals, whilst their actions demonstrate that they're in fact not actually interested in following Jesus. It's been seriously frustrating to observe how the word has been co-opted.
This is an explanation of the history, from an American Evangelical who podcasts about the crisis that is Trumpism etc
The body of the unborn (which is not comparable to an egg or seed - and they're only an embryo up to 8 weeks) is not her body, nor yours.
until viability a baby is basically a parasite From a new mom who’s happily cuddling her baby in this moment
No, they're a human - and in almost all cases, they're there because of the parents'action, they're powerless and haven't chosen to be there as a parasite has.
almost all case? No ma’am that’s being very generous. Hell I’d even accept a lot or even most almost all is way to generous. Especially when spousal sexual abuse is very common. Any way, an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host. Definitely sounds like a fetus to me especially before viability
Yes almost every case. Guttmacher data records rape as the reason for abortion in only 1% of cases.
And again, they're a human, who's had no choice - not a bug, that's sought after its own interests and could be elsewhere. That they'reattached to the mother's circulatory system - again, through the parents' choice, not theirs - for a matter of months is not justification for taking their life.
it's her body . wtf
LOL, no they really aren't. They're a different human, with their own genome and organs.
They are absolutely comparable to an egg or a seed...
No, an egg or seed is an unfertilised gamete, and has just half a genome. A foetus has a whole genome and is growing into a baby, and by 12 weeks they have all their organs and neural activity.
But just like a fertilized egg or seed the foetus is not the fully realized chick or any point something can go wrong in the process which stops or changes the outcome...the fact is that any medical decision made by another woman has nothing whatsoever to do with you or your opinion about how and when the embryo becomes a separate body.
That something is similar to something else in one respect does not mean that they're similar in the respects that matter for the dilemma. I could say "But just like" a chicken, you are a biological entity, that wouldn't mean that because it's common to kill and eat chickens it would be OK for someone to kill you.
"Christ is King" being thrown around on Twitter ATM is part of a weird political conflict, not Christianity. As a Christian, it's really grim to observe.
some sort of "absolute monarchy" is what Jesus prefigures so all "absolute monarchial rule" is just being like the Christ? That kind of thing?
So far as I've seen, it began trending on Twitter when Candace Owens left the Daily Wire. She'd been in conflict with Ben Shapiro over the Israel/Gaza war - and her frosty statement upon leaving declared "Christ is King", since which scores of very very Right wingers have been tossing it around. So it's *not about* looking at Jesus and recognising Him as King/Lord, it's about tribalism and sticking two fingers up to one's rivals, particularly Jewish folk. People started arguing about whether the statement was antisemitic, with some saying that the accusation it is is ridiculous and reiterating in capital letters repeatedly in response - but of course, if one is writing "Christ is King" just to mean "F you people who care about Israel", it pretty much is (and Christian writers I follow have posted about this). It epitomises using The Lord's name in vain.
ah well. So mouthpieces tumble as they do. Same story, different day. And all the lining up to juggle for them.
It's not something we have here in the UK. I've been observing how, in the US, "Christianity" has been grossly misappropriated for political purposes - we don't have that here, but the way that US culture/media feeds into ours means that increasingly a totally fake "Christianity" is popping up in our media, it's exasperating.
"Child-free" is such a stupid phrase. It sounds like fat-free, debt-free etc, as though kids are a bad thing that we should be pleased or proud to be without. And for frick's sake, no we don't need to be "celebrated". What is it with some people's insecurity/ego?
kids are a bad thing if someone doesn’t want them. Like someone said childless makes kt sound like someone is inferior for not having them!
No, being unwanted doesn't make a child a "bad thing", each child is a human being as precious as everyone else, even if their parents are selfish and useless.
"Childless" is not required instead, (though frankly why would I care if someone "implies I'm inferior"?). I'm "without kids", "not a parent", etc, but I don't see why labels are necessary at all.
"trying to drag Iran into this conflict"? Seriously?
Israel attacked Iran and bombed it. They killed Iranian diplomats and militarists. It’s a clear violent attack on a sovereign nation. If that’s not an attempt to draw Iran into a conflict I do t know what is. Iran has a right to defend itself. Israel appreciates any peoples or states right to defend themselves doesn’t it?
The Iranian leadership - and leadership of a county should be distinguished from the populace - funds Hamas. They are significantly responsible for the conflict, not being "dragged into" it.
And a country "defending itself" following unprovoked slaughter of civilians, by those who expressly want to eliminate the nation, could be carried out in a wholly unacceptable way (as is the case for the Israeli government's actions), but fighting over the deaths of diplomats and militarists is not equivalent.
Religion is a horrendously nebulous word. Jesus spent much time arguing with religious authorities, and opposed much that is labelled "religion" today. Yet our culture lumps together wholly disparate, even antithetical concepts, practices and institutions as "religion" and people reject (or neglect to look at arguments for concluding He exists) because they resent some of those fallaciously grouped things.
I've never seen anyone tell people to "take scripture literally" - does he mean *seriously*? It's a mixture of texts, a few chunks (like the creation account) use allegory and poetry - they're not literal.
Yes, we absolutely are commanded to help the poor (and if we're actually following God, we come to *want* to do so) - it's crucial, though, that *The Good News* is not practical/monetary aid, it's that Jesus offers eternal life.
It's not "protection" to reinforce a child's dislike of their own biology, suppress their growth and turn them into a lifelong cash-cow for pharmaceutical corporations.
I highly doubt you’ve done your research on this topic before spewing hate …oh wait…you just judge before being educated about truth and reality …so Republican of you.
Oh that's very funny - you *just judge* without knowing me, including presuming that I'm a Republican when I'm a Labour voting Brit.
"Highly doubt" based on what exactly? You're the one making assumptions. I've been following this issue (and the medical discussion) closely, particularly several trans campaigners who are passionately against what's been going on recently RE young people. But honestly, one wouldn't even need to know much to know that it's wrong - and counter to *truth and reality* since you mention them - to "affirm" a child's discomfort with their body.
"Hate"? I didn't write anything hateful. But hey, since you mention it, I do hate that children are being hurt - for profit - as they are by this movement. FTR, suppressing my own puberty left me with diagnosed osteoporosis.
The other day I saw the NYT post a piece about whether it'd be OK to save one's drowning cat rather than a stranger - most of the comments said that they would. Our culture is increasingly putting animals (or selfish people's personal enjoyment of animals) before human beings
Most of our society is unaware for the arguments for God's existence, and/or resentful because of misrepresentations and selfish behaviour by people who are deemed "religious" yet aren't actually truly seeking to follow and emulate Jesus.
Archbishop of Canterbury - I wish a blessed Eid al-Fitr to all Muslims celebrating today.
At the start of Ramadan, I had the joy of attending an iftar at Canterbury Mosque. I was met with such hospitality and kindness – things that we so often encounter in Muslim communities across the UK. Our society is greatly enriched by their presence and contribution, and I give thanks for the continuing Christian and Muslim partnerships working together for the good of all.
#EidMubarak Christian Muslim Forum
Why? It's vital that we have genuine neighbourly love for Muslims - but why are you voicing support for the worship of another god? God tells us to worship Him only.
it’s called respecting another’s faith. There’s nothing to be gained by being heavy handed but by being open, the Archbishop is inviting openness in return. This leads to discussion and understanding. So much if our Christian history has been tarnished by a closed and uncompromising attitude that closes doors.
No, just being "open and respectful" is not promoting Christianity. Christianity is about Christ.
And no one suggested going to Mosques to argue, that's a complete red herring.
He could be friendly to Muslims without saying "Happy Eid". He could even write "I hope that Muslims have a good day, and enjoy seeing their families". But "Happy Eid" endorses something opposed to Jesus. Why would one do that if one loves people and thus wishes they came to Jesus?
how does it endorse something opposed to Jesus? I think you’re taking what I said slightly simplistically. What do you think Christ would do? I really don’t imagine Him not being open and respectful because after all how do we start engaging with people of other faiths if we have the attitude ‘our faith is the only one, the right one’. I know how I’d react if someone came up to me with that approach. I say again - we have to start somewhere.
Our faith IS the only, right one. Jesus said that He is The Way, The Truth and The Life, and no one comes to The Father but through Him. That doesn't mean that we need to go up to Muslims and say this - but we also don't need to say "Happy Eid". Of course we should be respectful and engage, but that doesn't require saying "Happy Eid". You wouldn't engage a person who's doing something dangerous by telling them to have fun doing that dangerous thing.
It’s called faith for a reason Grace. None of us know. We believe and that’s as much as we can say.
That it's faith doesn't mean that we think Islam is equal. And "faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" - we have "faith" in that we haven't seen God in person, but we nonetheless have certainty. Muslims are obviously entitled to also decide what they believe, by no means are we going force them (and we RESPECT them as human beings whilst disagreeing) - that doesn't mean that we should consider all ideas equal in our own minds. And if we love Muslims, we should WANT them to know Jesus, who offers them eternal life, not talk positively about something God has said should be avoided.
I'm just observing from the UK, but it always seemed to me that Trump is simply pro-Trump. He just adopts whatever position he thinks might win him power, he has no principles.

Jesus told us there'd be false prophets. And it's entirely obvious that some power hungry (and or evil, perverted beyond words) people will lure the vulnerable by appropriating "religion". Jesus spent plenty of time arguing with some were in positions of "religious" authority but who weren't truly seeking to follow God at all (as evidenced by their actions)
It's odd that so many observers ignore Jesus on the basis of the entirely un-Christlike actions of some other people. Note that some of the people who've actually been affected by this evil, such as Matt Redman, still choose to follow Jesus - because they know that He is real, and that He rose

Transgender Catholics expressed disappointment with a new Vatican document rejecting the fundamental concept of changing one’s biological sex
"rejecting the fundamental concept of changing one’s biological sex."? Since when was that even up for debate? Biological sex is in the DNA of each of our cells, of course it can't be changed. One doesn't need to lie to be kind to people.
Biological sex and gender identity are two totally different constructs, though.
I'd argue that they're ultimately linked - "gender" is based on traditional ideas and expressions of biological sex - but yes, I know what you mean, which is why the OP seems particularly odd. The trans person I know says often what their biological sex is, but that they only feel comfortable presenting as the opposite (and they're annoyed by the new trend for denying biology)
I think we can be honest about biology and also have respect and empathy for those who hate theirs.
I think biological sex is pretty irrelevant, unless you're the person's partner or doctor, really.
If it's irrelevant, then why does anyone want to argue for it changing?
gene therapy exists. Science is increasingly malleable. One day we’ll break this boundary for good. If nazis propagate every time we try, that’s what we deal with
You've very much misunderstood what gene therapy is.
Have you studied college level Anatomy and Physiology? Classical disorders of sex chromosome are Klinefelter syndrome, XX male, XYY male, Turner syndrome, XXX female, and XY female.
Yes, of course I have. They're rarities that people are born with, they don't mean that a person can *change* their biological sex on the basis of their feelings. Most trans folk are XY or XX, so the conditions you mention aren't relevant to this issue.
We can be kind to trans folk as individuals (and not argue with them personally about themselves) without claiming that biological sex changes. The trans person I know is very annoyed that some are trying to do the latter.

We always compare ourselves to other rich countries - whilst we absolutely should be criticising government mismanagement of healthcare, we should keep in mind that we have far more healthcare than much of humanity. Many countries have a healthcare spend per person below £1000, even below £100.
Why do some people think that the universe is a conscious entity, deciding on people's "luck", anyway? It's a disparate array of matter and energy, not a mind.
Aspects of the physics of the universe imply that there must be a Designer - why attribute agency to creation itself?
I've not seen any of the people who blame Sadiq Khan for crime explain exactly *what* he's done incorrectly to bring it about, or what he could be doing that would reduce it.
He welcomes immigrants who don't have Christian values. He brought in ULEZ, something that the majority are against
Immigration policy is not in Khan's remit. But which Christian values? Welcoming foreigners IS a Christian value, as it happens. Honestly, nothing upsets me more than people rejecting Jesus - but most of my fellow white Brits are doing that themselves, it's not an issue of immigration. In fact it's Churches with mostly non-white British congregations that are thriving whilst the National Church dies.
(NB, since above you've referred to "ulez..something that the majority are against" - polling of Londoners found that a majority of Londoners support it. Note that dirty air is a key contributing factor in dementia, which is one of the biggest causes of suffering in our country)
(in Christian Women Facebook Group)  
Is my baptism valid? I had a water baptism in 2011 some years after I had been properly born again of the spirit. The baptism was done in full immersion and using the name of the Father the son and the Holy spirit .... a friend on my Facebook posted a post by an apostolic pastor in Kenya saying a baptism has to be performed in the name of Jesus only.
So does this mean my baptism wasn't valid?
... he basically says salvation is like a cheque and a cheque must have the name on of the person's bank account it is . So like with baptism it has to be the name of Jesus ? I know it's a powerful name, but all three are One.  
Of course it's valid, why listen to what a random person online claims if they don't have good scriptural arguments?
It's sad seeing you stressed; and it (the claim made to you) almost reminds me of the early Christians we hear about in Paul's letters who were trying to impose their rules on other people, rules that weren't actually correct and that were a distraction from what really matters, which is salvation through Jesus. The words spoken in a Baptism aren't a code or magic spell (as this bloke implies - and I don't know why he would think that being Baptised in the name of the other 2 person's of the Godhead, *as well as* Jesus, would be wrong) - nor a cheque (analogies can be helpful - but we shouldn't rely on them in the absence of scriptural support to impose rules).
FTR, all the Baptisms I've seen have been in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit (at one Church, they dunked people 3 times in quick succession)

Why does the Guardian share things like this to its whole audience, but share articles about situations of extreme mass suffering only from its Global Development page? You seem to think that matters such as the war in Sudan warrant a far smaller audience than the matter of jewellery (or celebrity interviews, or Agony Aunt advice RE sex, etc) does.
There are still plenty of people in our world suffering from the impact left by colonialism or from effective PRESENT day colonialism through our banks and corporations. We hear constantly about history and about what's going on in terms of racial relations here in the West - and those are incredibly important, but why are the poorest/most exploited people in the Global South ignored?
I'd guess that it'd take off. The conflict that's long existed has plainly not been about actual Catholicism vs Protestantism (as is the case RE historical conflicts) in that, were people truly passionate about following Jesus's teachings (whichever of these 2 interpretations they believed) they wouldn't act with such violence - and everything I've heard about the conflict suggests that combatants aren't devout. Rather, like so much else, it's about tribalism, and feeling a sense of achievement infighting for one's community against a supposed enemy. As people become even more detached from "religion" (a hopelessly nebulous word), they'll turn to other tribes/causes. In the past (across Britain as well as Ireland), many people would have heard the teaching that we should "love our neighbours" - and many have chosen to ignore it, but I suspect that even more will disdain their neighbours if they don't hear otherwise at all.
Of course, the far Right is also thriving with the help of increasing instability, inequality, online nonsense etc.
I usually quite like him, but further degrading people's perception of reality is not OK. Everyone needs to get better at discerning what's true and what's false, stunts like this will just make more people listen to conspiracy theories instead of actual news.
I'd guess that the story about a statue of H from Steps is one of the fake ones.
he's showing people that they need to check their news sources.So many think tiktok is a reliable news source
But it's not TikTok he's highlighting the fallibility of. Is he not just undermining the MSM (who, obviously, should be ashamed having fallen for these) yet further so that even more people will choose to listen to TikTok instead? All our news should be treated with some scepticism and we should cross check etc - but it seems he's attacking sources that are less unreliable than the other things people now listen to.
Christian social worker has job withdrawn because LGBT patients ‘might kill themselves’
If a person did kill themselves because of an NHS worker not actively supporting their sexual relationships, that person would have has other issues. Suicide is a complex tragedy, and shouldn't be trivialised, least of all for political purposes.
Christianity teaches both that God has instructed restrictions on sexual practice, and that everyone should be treated with decency and empathy. All of us have sinned, even if not sexually, but are offered salvation through Jesus.
There is some anti-white discrimination in our culture/society, but casting a Black Juliet is not it and the people moaning about this casting (I've seen some of them on Twitter are idiots, and/or racist.
Even more significant is people rejecting Jesus.(oddly, often because of the actions of people who *aren't* following His teachings)
And most are unaware that there are reasons for believing or have been misled by mythicist conspiracy theories
Honestly, most people don't mind him. It's his effing fan clubs that are what suuuuucks.
Oh I'm well aware that people think that. But it's not logical to ignore Jesus on the basis of the behaviour of *other people* - particularly if those people *aren't actually* following Him (whatever they may label themselves as) anyway.
Jesus spent plenty of time arguing with those who were considered religious but weren't actually seeking to follow God's guidance (such as to love others), He shouldn't be lumped together (which is what's happening when people choose to ignore Him because of dislike of what you call a "fan club") with *supposedly* religious folk now (though you should know that there are plenty who actually are emulating Him and doing good in the world)
People know the difference between what Jesus taught and what his fan clubs do. It's not that complicated. And sure, there are people who are real Christ-followers. But in my experience, a whole lot of them aren't found within the walls of those exclusive religious clubs.
Right. So, as I said, it doesn't make sense that people ignore Him on the basis of people they know aren't following Him.
Those who obsessively decry we who aren't supportive of the redefinition of "woman" as hateful transphobes ought to be aware that (whilst there are some people who are indeed hateful, and this is unChristian) many of us are instead truly concerned by the undermining of objective reality (as well as about the medical harms, and safety)
Study shows delivery apps such as Deliveroo and Just Eat still popular after pandemic boom in orders
I don't understand why they're so common (esp given the health implications and that there's supposedly a cost of living crisis). A takeaway costs enough to buy both a meal for oneself and for dozens of starving people in our world, so much more exciting.

The word is completely misused on your side of the pond.
But what matters is what people think about Jesus - I find it perplexing that many people ignore Him because they hate people who are labelled "Evangelical/Christian", rather than examining Christ Himself.

It's Asperger's Syndrome, not "Asperger", and it's what I was diagnosed with when I was 13. I'm frankly pretty sick of people telling me that part of my identity is wrong, and I'm not going to stop using it just because some people don't like it. As the diagram might imply, and as should be obvious, those of us on the spectrum vary hugely, it doesn't help anyone to insist that we're always only lumped together as though we're exactly the same.
IMO you need to set up a system to help folk match up with lodgers (with DBS checks, helplines etc). Senior citizens with space could acquire some income, and the loneliness crisis (which contributes to health issues, risk of scams etc), housing crisis and carbon emissions could be mitigated.
BBC Strictly's James and Ola Jordan hit back after daughter's bedroom sparks concern
I wish our media would occasionally talk about the fact that some children in our world live in slums or refugee camps instead of click-bait gossip like this^.
I spoke to a woman who had to share a mattress on the floor with 4 siblings, with goats walking in and chewing things - she was overjoyed when, because of child sponsorship (WE can make a difference), they were given new mattresses. That's more worthy of discussion than whatever is being debated RE the Jordans.
If people don't belong to the Catholic Church (I don't either), why get so angry about the Pope having an opinion? He's not affecting you, he's right to have concern about things that are hurting people.
Africa is currently suffering one of the most extreme heat events in three centuries of world climatology
Have you noticed this being reported anywhere? If so, how is it being reported?
AFRICA IS CONTINUALLY IGNORED Sorry for shouting, this is one of my very biggest concerns, I bang on about it all the time. I really do not understand - I suspect that subconscious racial bias is a factor.
The continent is, of course, endlessly varied, but there are still plenty of people there in *extreme* poverty and or facing crises (including in relation to climate, conflict, and modern slavery) - and we *could* be helping some of them, yet it seems most of country/media doesn't care at all.
I honestly don't see how fashion "honours our creator". He tells us that our beauty shouldn't be from outward adornments, and that we shouldn't worry about what we wear. We don't have to wear things we don't like - but our culture's normalisation of buying new clothes far more often than is actually necessary, for the sake of retail therapy or trends, is a massive problem. I get that she crafted some of what she wore, which is great - but those who were "inspired" to buy from her collection haven't been inspired towards a particularly positive choice
I don’t get why Christians shouldn’t wear fashionable clothes nor even enjoy the experience of buying something nice for themselves. I’m a middle aged man and wear contemporary clothes appropriate to my age that suit me. I’m not planning crimplene trousers with a sown in crease, a polo shirt and hush puppies. Neither do I see why Christian women should dress frumpily. Any creativity, whether it’s music, fine art, popular fashion or even haute couture reflects God’s creativity. Why would buying fashion, regardless of whether it’s expensive high end or popular, be any different from buying a painting, for example. People buy paintings for their aesthetic. They make us feel good by adding beauty to our environment. People buy clothes they like for the same reason.
I never said that we need to be frumpy. I specifically said that we don't need to wear things we don't like. But our culture's norms RE fashion are absurd, because of people buying new things for the sake of "fashion" (that is, trying to emulate trends, or being "inspired" by fashion icons, *as opposed* to just wearing things one likes) and the enjoyment of buying (I didn't say that we shouldn't "enjoy the experience" - but we absolutely shouldn't be shopping because of that enjoyment).
The average Brit spends £43.88 per month on clothes/shoes - that is way, way more than necessary. One could sponsor a child with that and still have enough left over for one's clothes. And each year 300,000 tonnes of old clothes end up in UK household rubbish bins - that's not only indicative of our replacing things far too frequently, but also is environmentally ruinous. And much of our clothing is produced via horrendous exploitation of other human beings.
Art can also be a totally daft waste of money, but it's not the same as clothing - there aren't hundreds of thousands of tonnes of art being sent to landfill each year, the average person has only several pieces and keeps them for many years, clothing needs to be more like that.
It's ridiculous (to not use the word Easter) - but most people choose to ignore Jesus anyway (without the name change to "gesture eggs").
The word Easter comes from the name of a pagan goddess - but we celebrate at this time of year because until recent decades, people reflected on Jesus death (in our place, taking the punishment for our sin) and resurrection (defeating death). Now, irrespective of which words are printed on boxes, most people presume those events to be myth and don't care - never investigating for themselves the historical case for concluding that the "story" is actually true.
Jesus took upon Himself the penalty that our sin deserves. Most people aren't aware of the reasoning for concluding that the resurrection actually happened (affirming Jesus' statements that through Him there is eternal life/heaven), and so presume it's a myth.
It is proven medically impossible that a human being can not come back to life after 3 days of being dead
God created biology, He is not restrained by it.
FTR, my most recent job has been with an organisation for Christian (medical, GMC registered) doctors, there are plenty of them.
Iceland sparks backlash as it replaces Christian symbol on hot cross buns with tick
The cross on hot cross buns represents the cross on which Jesus died, to take the punishment that our sin deserves. Why exactly does Iceland oppose that?
Having said that, most of the population ignores Jesus either way, that's what's actually a tragedy.
actually the cross on the bun is NOT a Christian symbol
.....Hot cross buns have been synonymous with Easter celebrations since they appeared in 12th century England. Interestingly, hot cross buns pre-date Christianity, with their origins in paganism. Ancient Egyptians used small round breads topped with crosses to celebrate the gods.
I'm well aware that one website claims that, that's not definitive history. That others have used cross imagery does not disprove that crosses on buns became common in Britain at Easter as a representation of the Cross on which Jesus died. People celebrated in the winter when the country was pagan, that doesn't change the fact that people came to celebrate Jesus' birth in winter; pagans also had festivities in Spring, that doesn't change the fact that people came to remember Jesus death and resurrection at this time of year.
For centuries, people have been putting crosses on buns because of Christian tradition, not pagan.
The question is, why do so many people now ignore the actual cross - ie, Jesus' crucifixion - and why do Iceland feel inclined to erase crosses?
Honestly this just looks like an insult to people actually suffering enslavement. We're privileged Westerners, unconsciously likening being cautious about what one says to the barbaric reality endued by victims of slavery (including in the cocoa, cobalt and coffee trades) demonstrates that you really ought to think more about our wider world.
(What tyranny are people not speaking out about anyway? We have more political freedom than many)
Jesus took upon Himself the punishment that we deserve, and *if* one chooses to turn to Him there is forgiveness and eternal life. If Lee Anderson were a Christian, he'd be concerned by the fact that the vast majority of our country ignores/rejects Jesus (presuming this to be myth without exploring and weighing up the reasoning for believing for themselves), not fairy lights.
YES. We need to talk more about the world's most disadvantaged people - and we have the opportunity to help.
Though they are not "longing for the hope of new life", in that they're just as able to have that hope as those of us in wealthy countries - in fact they're generally more likely to be in line for it than people here, where the offer of salvation (heaven) is mostly ignored or rejected.
IMO part of the escalation (in addition to tech and family breakdown) may be due to changing societal worldviews. Previously people learnt at school about Jesus' teachings, that being humble, respectful and non-violent were standards to personally aim at (though obviously, many didn't, human beings always have been and always will be seriously flawed). Now young people are growing up in a culture that idealises self interest.
As well as police reprimanding someone for stating biological fact being Orwellian, it's also a despicable misuse of their fatally limited resources. Most burglaries and rapes go unresolved - yet some police time is being wasted on this absurdity. 
(in Christian Women Facebook Group)   
What are the signs you see in the world today that make you think we are near the end times ? Signs you’ve heard about through the bib
Jesus said that we won't know, so I don't give when the end will be too much thought - whenever it is, people desperately need to know about Him NOW. But it seems very plausible that it might be in our lifetimes. One thing that makes me wonder is the advance of tech (though I'm absolutely not against tech generally, but certain things are worrying) - how far can it go? Is it not somewhat like the tower of Babel - eventually God will intervene(?)
Global warming could bring about the end - ie, coincide with Jesus's return, or anither crisis (nuclear war, antibiotic resistance alongside a new pandemic)
The Bible also talks about the end not coming until everyone's heard the Message - this is getting closer now that mission and tech are enabling people in poorer countries and remote locations to hear (and, thrillingly, many people are turning to Jesus elsewhere in our world, even whilst Christianity declines here)
The huge deception that's taking place in so many areas of life. Where wrong is right and right is wrong.
YES. I've thought about this - increasingly various things that our society long deemed wrong because of our Christian heritage are being praised - obviously various sexual things, but also, in some instances, greed, pride etc.
Culture belongs to humanity.
A white person has no more ownership of something invented by a *different* white person than any other human being has. (this applies in the opposite direction too IMO - and I'm well aware that in fact country music wasn't wholly invented by white people anyway)
In a world where there are people literally starving to death, the last thing anyone needs is yet more content about luxurious lifestyles
you can lend your hand to tackle the problem of the world instead of dwelling on Meghan's life, it's her website and her products are for sale not a forcing matter,you go to the supermarket by choice to buy what you want and those who ll be supporting Meghan's website ll be on there by choice. What happened to minding your own business? 
I didn't claim that anyone's forcing me to buy anything, and I'm desperately trying to do what I can to tackle problems - though what I can do is very little, particularly as compared to what Meghan could potentially do. But celebrities actively flaunting their wealth is a problem for our world, not just a matter of whether or not I'm personally forced to do anything.
it's her website not yours, she's not forcing you to her website, you're free to lend your hand at the world problems, Meghan's business is not the reason for the world problems
I never claimed that she's forcing me to do anything, and we can all express opinions - and people accumulating excessive wealth; spending far, far more on indulging themselves than necessary; and actively flaunting it so that other people feel dissatisfied with am just telling you to mind your own business, if you want to talk about wealth and disadvantages then you should start with the royal family that has amassed wealth through slavery and colonisation, the exempt from laws that bind to us their subjects, here in the UK cost of living is high and we plebs are suffering, not being upset about a private citizen launching a website, people going on the website are doing do by choice not by force. With all the hate campaign towards her family she and her children ll need security for life so if she doesn't earn money are you going to pay for their securitywhat they have and forget those in need, absolutely is one of the world's problems. 
"mind your own business"? Why? Because you say so? And again, everyone has the right to opinions - particularly about celebrities who choose to seek attention. If you believed in "minding one's own business" you wouldn't keep arguing with my comments, they're not your "business".
The Royal family? The Royal family are not the subject of this^ post, this post is about Meghan. And whilst you call her a "private citizen", she has most of her wealth *because of the monarchy* and because of choosing *not* to be private. Again, I didn't say that we're being "forced" to look at the website, but it *is* a problem, as I explained - which part of my explanation of why it's a problem wasn't clear?
"we plebs are suffering" - and there it is. We in the UK are far wealthier than many people in our world, but plenty of people forget this because we keep seeing the super rich *actively* flaunting their wealth. In parts of the world that were previously *colonised* (and it wasn't just the Royal family who accumulated wealth from that evil, our nation did and we are beneficiaries), there are people in incomparably greater need, and they're essentially ignored, whilst instead attention is expended on observing the ultra-wealthy.
There's a target level for people of different levels of wealth you can't compare the rich with the poor. It is what it is and rich people work hard so why not reward themselves.
Oh my goodness, no the super rich are not rich because they "work hard", Meghan being an optimum example of this. She's got many £millions from being married to a prince and also from consequently getting deals with Spotify and Netflix, she's done far fewer hours of work than the average person.
Donald Trump is now selling the “God Bless the USA Bible."
Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with people who feigned religiosity whilst demonstrating by their actions and attitudes that they weren't actually seeking to follow God. Trump plainly is not seeking to follow Jesus, he's appropriating Christianity for political purposes, and frankly adding "God bless the USA" to a Bible is blasphemy 
Most people aren't aware of the reasons to conclude that God's existence and Jesus' resurrection are actually *true*, so they presume they're myth and ignore Him. That they ignore Him is the real tragedy, "the role of religion" is comparatively unimportant.
"Coherent and decent"? I'm not saying otherwise, but how does one determine this? Who sets the definitions and scales of coherence and decency?
We learned it in kindergarten.
So far as I've seen, the messages taught to young kids now are somewhat different from what they were a generation or more ago. And who measures the extent to which the nation is adhering to what they were taught?
Each of us will measure things for ourselves
That's my point - it's sheer opinion/speculation, not at all objective, and as such an essentially meaningless statement. I guess I'm thinking out loud because I've just seen polling data that's convinced me that my nation *isn't* coherent and decent.
As usual, people here making it about ethnicity. For frick's sake. Do you guys think the same as all other white people? Evidently not, since I and others have fundamentally different thought processes to you - so why think that the actions of these murderers are anything to do with any other people of colour?
Maybe it's not great to exploit a death for your race arguments(?)
It's nothing to do with skin colour. It's the third world culture beneath it.
Based on what evidence? And why do you even think that they're from the 3rd world? The 3rd world is a mess because some *white people* invaded and left it in a state.
Black violent crime is out of control and well documented. They look like third world hostile aliens to me and they proved it.
"look like"? How? And why do you think that a person's behaviour is connected to how they look?
"Documented" where? Perhaps you're confusing the fact that more live in poorer urban areas, where gangs recruit teens, with race. What evidence is that they're more violent? Why do you think that their brains are different?
Again, the 3rd world is a mess because some people from *our country*, with *our ethnicity* colonised, enslaved and did utterly barbaric things. Human beings of any ethnicity can be violent.
OMG what an apologist you are ! The evidence is the massive rise in knife crime in the ghettos they create. What barbaric things are you referring to? Incidentally many whites have been enslaved through the centuries.
So you can't answer any of the questions or back up your assertions? OK, bye
(PS you could read about the barbaric things I'm referring to for yourself. One that sticks out in my mind is a coloniser who forced Africans to collect rubber for him, and chopped off their hands if they didn't collect enough)
I live in a riot torn North London ghetto with stabbings and shootings nearly every day by blacks. I bet you can't provide evidence of the particular coloniser who chopped off hands. still haven't provided any evidence. But again, bye.
The Belgian Congo was not part of the British Empire lol🀣 The evidence is all around me.
I didn't say that it was part of the British empire - but the article is about the ANGLO-Belgian India Rubber Company - I was making the point that white people can be disgustingly violent, and that was the 1st example that sprung to my mind. Saying "The evidence is all around me." is not evidence. Evidence would be research articles showing that Black people are inherently more violent.
Metropolitan Police figures show that they are.
Police figures can't show that, there are other factors, as I've mentioned - but you haven't provided police figures anyway
some races don’t value life as we fortunately do. Your Grandfathers (i assume) as myself fought against people like these In the forces you would not believe how much hate is against our people and still we stand by them out of diplomacy. You won’t agree with me I’m sure and appreciate that but be on a front against men of non British origin and you would potentially understand my post.
"Some races"? Why do you think different races have different brains? Why do you think that those you've encountered who are violent are the responsibility of other individuals who happen to share a skin tone?
many years ago I’d have taken your view and went into the forces to try and convince the world we are all equal, but then having been face to face in various situations we as white people are considered as an elite race and therefore not trusted and disliked by those we were fighting to protect. Please understand this is/ was my boots on the ground view and I totally take yours on board with all respect
Again, the actions of those you encountered aren't the responsibility of others sharing their skin colour. But we do have the benefit of living in a country with cultural values shaped partially by Jesus' teaching and example rather than by a certain other religious figure.Thankyou for your service.
What does it say about our culture that so many people are equating animals with humans?
I don't think they are equating animals with humans. Humans often have such a strong bond with their pets it is comforting to know they have a place in God's kingdom too.
I'm not presuming that everyone asking this question consciously equates humans and animals, but I feel it's a reflection of a broader societal trend in which I know that many people do. And we really should be more concerned about human beings who don't yet know God than about dogs.
Incomparably more of a problem than prices on eggs going up is the underpayment, mistreatment and even enslavement of those who pick cocoa - how can we force corporations to address these?
People complain about migrants being *young* men, and then blame them for the NHS struggling. In reality the NHS has been mismanaged (with plenty of it's funding ending up in the coffers of contracted corporations), and has more to do because of our ageing population and because of Western lifestyle factors.
We're STILL immensely privileged to have far more healthcare than most of humanity.
Christmas was about remembering the birth of Christ - who came to offer us salvation. Most people have already rejected Him, the phrase Happy Christmas (which we haven't actually been banned from saying) is unimportant in itself.
if he did exist, he wasn't born in December, the historical record proves it was closer to Easter (the census that caused the travel to Bethlehem). What we know as Christmas was a stolen pagen holiday to celebrate midwinter and spring being around the corner. 
I'm well aware that He wasn't born in December, and that Church leaders decided to mark His birthday then to dissuade pagan celebrations.
Historians don't debate "if" He existed.
yes they do, there is no historical proof he existed.
Why do you think that?
because there isn't any proof............
You mean you haven't looked into it
No, I mean I've looked into it and there's zero proof......... you obviously haven't tho......
there is zero evidence of the biblical Jesus and of course if you use a 6 year old article from a religious scholar, they're going to miraculous find evidence he existed. There was a trouble maker/preacher in historical records but there is no evidence whatsoever that the fiction character portrayed in the bible ever existed. No evidence for his supposed miracles or sermons either......
Again, you aren't citing any sources, you're just stating your opinion. And I'm not sure why you think the Guardian article (which I use as just one example since it's from a well known outlet, but well known outlets rarely cover this topic) is void because it was written several years ago.
You should read the other article I linked to, and I could go on, but this thread has taken up too much time already.
lmfao, you want me to cite sources of ZERO evidence???? How do you do that exactly???? What mental gymnastics have you put yourself to come up with that???? There is zero proof he existed, I'm not sure how you expect me to cite sources for something that doesn't exist...........
Cite the historians who've concluded that there's "zero evidence"
your clutching at straws now. Where is your proof that the biblical Jesus and the biblical events happened??? You don't have any because there is NO proof. If there is no proof then biblical Jesus did not exist..............
I'm not clutching at straws, I asked you to cite sources (historians attesting that there's no evidence). I've already linked to a few articles referencing scholars discussing Jesus' existence, and I could go on and on, but I get the impression I'd be wasting my time.
only one link appears on my feed and that's for the guardian article. I didn't say that nobody CALLED Jesus existed, I'm saying there is zero evidence for the character that appears in the bible. The bible is a fairy tale created by men with a vested interest in keeping a population in check and allowing an 'elite' to grasp and keep hold of power (think the likes of Trump, Putin, Hitler, Stalin, Boris Johnson as the authors)
Jesus taught that the poor matter, in contrast to the world's presumption that some should dominate and subjugate others. The leaders you've listed all behave how Jesus taught *not* to.
Exactly, that hypocrisy confirmed my atheism
Actions by people behaving in defiance of Jesus' teachings don't change anything about Jesus, let alone prove that there's no God (since you mention atheism). And Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with people who were considered religious authorities yet weren't actually following God.
FTR, Stalin actively tried to stop Christianity.
wrong. Christmas was originally a pagan holiday until the 4th century when Christianity did their thing steal it. change it slightly and make it their own holiday.
"Christmas was originally"? *Christ*mas was always evidently about Christ. Prior to that, I'm well aware that pagan winter celebrations took place, and that Church leaders decided to mark Jesus birthday in December to mitigate these.
Misogyny is not Christian. Jesus was counter-culturally respectful of women, and it was women who saw Him first following the resurrection.
the Bible says women shouldn't have authority over a man and that wives should be submissive. Misogyny can occur outside of Christianity, but Christianity is a conduit for it.
That's a verse from a letter to a specific Church with particular issues. Either way, it doesn't endorse misogyny.
the message of which is that women shouldn't have authority over a man. That is what is written in the bible. And wives being submissive to husbands? That's not misogyny in your view?
"That is what is written in the bible" - one can't just pluck out verses from their contexts, as mentioned. And the Bible is a compilation of texts for which settings and history are relevant. Paul, who wrote the verse you refer to, states that he's talking about a church, and in other letters he commends women in positions of authority.
Wives and husbands are told to submit to *each other*, it's mutual.
plucking out verses is exactly what the homophobic types of Christians do. Are you suggesting Christians ignore certain parts of the bible? One of, if not the, biggest Christian denomination (Catholicism) doesn't allow women to be church leaders, so it's hardly a tiny aspect of their beliefs.
There are Christians even today who think wives should be submissive. It's not an irrelevant verse that people ignore. Marriage in Christianity was based around the idea the wife shouldn't honour and obey. How can you deny Christianity thinks women should be submissive when even marriage vowels say as much?
No, reading whole passages and considering wider context and linguistics is not "ignoring certain parts of the bible".
If some Christians think wives should be submissive, it doesn't mean that Christianity is misogynistic. The followers, or purported followers, of a person do not determine what that person's teaching and example were, the person (Christ) does.
"Marriage in Christianity was based around the idea..." says who? That's not what the Bible says. And the vows you seem to be referring to are not Bible text, thy're Anglican - but they're also not misogynistic, they compel the husband to cherish his wife.
The last thing a football shirt should do is make you angry
I've never given a toss about flags, yet I'm annoyed. It might be my Asperger's - words and symbols can't just be altered for no good reason, there have to be constants in order for people to make sense of the world and to communicate (I've felt similarly about Right wingers trying to redefine woke). It seems arrogant on Nike's part - and if they want to do something "inspiring", how about ensuring all of the people who make their clothes are fairly paid and treated?
Obviously I'm acutely aware that flags and football kits don't actually matter, and I don't like football.
disagree. If it triggers you a bit due to your Aspergers I can be empathetic to that, but i really can't see any "arrogance" here, or a need (for most people) to always have well known things stay the same, and have noone make changes to them...
(2nd commentator replying to 1st) it's another show of capitalism infiltrating the capilaries of society which is what I believe Gramsci spoke about in how capitalism built up a hegemony by infiltrating our schools, leisure, religion (many christians i.e. non-conformists traditionally didn't fall for it so supported first Liberals then Socialists when they came. It's more evident in evangelism in America), institutions etc. The difference is that it's backfired on them and the right are capitalising on the anger people are feeling.
I don't agree with it because as a Christian it's a saint flag and only the church should be allowed to make changes to the flag in my opinion.
I can also see the argument Grace is making and as a person with asbergers too I agree with her points.
I think you mean *evangelicalism* in America - but the word is entirely misused there, it's incredibly frustrating. Evangel means Good News - that Jesus died for our sin and rose, so Evangelicalism means caring more about that than about Church institutions, thus we (Evangelicals in the UK) are more modern/casual (and ethnically diverse) than some other Churches, and particularly focussed on The Gospel. In the US, various political trends have led to the word referring to people who sometimes clearly aren't trying to follow Jesus at all. This is interesting -
I concur with your point RE Capitalism, and that it's worth pointing out that the English flag is ultimately based on a cross - St George's cross obviously being the result of his belief in what Jesus did on the cross. IMO, now that most of our country ignores God, people are instinctively looking for other "religions", football and national identity being examples. People are upset about what Nike's done because they're interfering with something people feel is a sacred part of their identity.
the flag never even used to be on the shirt. Its bever had a white back on the shirt apparently. Im autistic and i find this hilarious that grown men are getting their knickers in a twist when the Tories and ukip have both recoloured the union jack. Plus our Olympic teams did similar before too.
Oh I'm aware that the logo hasn't always been on the back of the shirt and that people shouldn't be freaking out. Ultimately nothing about football actually matters.
In fact, both the English flag and many of our values ultimately link back to Jesus (who died on a cross for our sin, and inspired St George to oppose evil, as well as teaching respect for others that was lacking in our civilisation before Christianity arrived) - but most British people, and this channel, already ignore Him. The flag indeed is a constant and should not be changed - but in itself it's inconsequential, what ultimately matters has already been disregarded
PS - why have you put a red frame around the English flag in this clip???
IMO there should be apologetics from an early age - my experience of Sunday school was solely Bible stories, eventually I started to wonder why I should believe any of it.
Mum insists babysitter pays £450 compensation for giving meat to vegetarian kids
That was a mis-steak. She shouldn't beef about it. At least the babysitter didn't just tell porkies about the food.
In all seriousness, we're privileged to live in a country where there's plenty of nourishment available, there are mothers in our world who would be thrilled if their child was given some meat because at present they're malnourished.
Wow this is gross. The concept of Sunday sermons is that we learn about and reflect on God - talking about politics and calling it a Sunday sermon is putting politics in the place of God. You're more antithetical to Christianity than the migrants you moan about.
How would giving the money back help? This despicable bloke doesn't deserve to have his bank account boosted because of the disgusting comments. His company must be investigated and barred from government contracts, and he himself must be barred from any events or correspondence that could be lobbying.
The money should be given to charity, in consultation with Diane Abbott. IMO, since his business is apparently in health tech, it'd be fitting for the money to help Black women who have no healthcare. In subSaharan Africa there are women lacking healthcare entirely, for whom the £amount can make many times more impact than it can here.
It's been disturbing seeing so many people make light of the comments, and I worry for how this may have made Black women observing feel.
the Green party have suggested it be used for anti racism and domestic violence charities. Labour and the libdems want him to get the money back, no doubt hoping at some future date he might finance them.........
Yikes. I knew Labour were calling for the money to be given back and thought that that's daft, it's a fascinating idea that the explanation is that they hope he'll donate to them
very revealing none of the big Westminster parties want him to loose out. The Green Party idea seems like ideal karma to me, and I never voted for them.
I don't believe in karma myself, though I think you mean justice(?) which I think goes beyond the Green Party's suggestion - in addition to the money going to help Black women* there needs to be an investigation into Hester and his company, with contracts terminated and sanctions. It's disturbing, given that health outcomes differ between ethnic groups within the UK, that he has power over a healthcare company - ideally I think he should be forced from his company and banned from running any others in future.
*(I suggested those within Africa lacking healthcare since the degree of need is so severe, and £ for £ the money can do far more, but obviously there's also work to be done addressing inequality here)
The comments made against her were indeed unacceptable. As have many comments made by politicians, political commentators, journalists and private individuals over the years. Including Abbot herself. And the Marxist left (which she represents). The difference between the comments about her and all the millions of comments made by and about others is they received special coverage - headlines in the press particularly the BBC for 3 days milking the situation for all its worth. 
*the difference* is that the comments were explicitly willing MURDER upon her, as well as expressing sentiment that he (Hester) feels negatively about Black women in general because of his dislike for her (that is the basis of racism).
The unacceptable comments that she made last year (for which I believe she should continue to be suspended from the party - though I believe she was unthinking rather than malicious), and other awful comments made by certain political figures, are not of the same severity at all.
And whilst there are many tweets from random members of the public calling for the deaths of certain politicians, Hester's comments are newsworthy because of his enormous power.
that's of course your opinion and more likely based on personal political bias. He made a comment in a private meeting 5 years ago that The Guardian dug up for political reasons. He wasn't advocating murder. But we're bound to disagree due to our political differences. Oh BTW I don't think she should have been kicked out the Labour Party. Everyone says things they regret or could have phrased differently. Personally I favour a greater degree of tolerance, calm and forgiveness when they do, not using it for political gain or (without any mercy) hounding them.
"more likely based on personal political bias"? Excuse me? I just explained *reasoning*, you've not addressed it. Accusing someone of bias without addressing what they've actually said is not a logical position. And I don't know what you're basing your presumptions about me on, I'm no fan of Abbott.
your assumption that he was advocating murder and that he was racist must of been based on your bias (you said almost as much at the end of your statement). A logical assessment of the motivation of The Guardian and that it was a private comment 5 years ago for which he had attempted to apologise would have lead to a far less judgemental attitude unless your were politically biaised.
He *did* advocate murder, have you not read what he said? I'm not presuming that he expected someone to enact it, but he *did* say that it should happen.
And the comments *were* racist, I've explained why (though it should have been obvious), which part did you not understand?
"Attempted to apologise"? No, he said he was "rude". Wishing death upon someone is not "rude".
Again, I'm not a fan of Abbott, and you don't know me, so you have no grounds for asserting that my comment is motivated by *bias*
he is reported to have attempted to contact Abbott twice to apologise but she refused to take his calls. They were private comments he originally made. You and I have discussed other matters before and although we sometimes agree, on party political matters your anti-Conservative bias is very evident. If you don't think you have one and your views here and actions think should be taken align with a Christian faith then it is another area we differ but that's up to you. We all privately say things that if put into the public domain we would be ashamed of or at least rephrase. On this occasion the people who took his private comments and put them into the public domain did so for political gain. When things like this happen I favour (where possible) forgiveness, acceptance we all are guilty and tolerance particularly when the person has regret and attempts to apologise irrespective of whether they are conservative donors or labour mps. You disagree and appear quite happy to pick up the stone to throw it.
It's unsurprising that someone wouldn't want to talk with a man who's called for them to be killed. He could easily have made a decent public apology rather than simply referring to being "rude". Frankly, were he really sorry and given he has so much money to throw around, he could have made a donation to a charity helping Black folk (such as one working in Africa).
"Anti-Conservative bias"? That I often disagree with the Conservative party doesn't mean that I'm "biased". I could just as easily say that your views are merely pro-Conservative bias - but one needs to actually address the *points made*. And for me politics is not a binary, my views are far more complicated than I think you presume.
"Pick up the stone to throw it"? How? I'm not hurting Hester nor calling for him to be hurt.
"all privately say things that if put into the public domain we would be ashamed of or at least rephrase"? Personally, not really (and note that the Bible calls us to be careful with our words/tongues). And I doubt many people would privately say what Hester said, because most people don't have such extreme thoughts.
Indeed we should favour forgiveness, but that's not what this is about at all, we aren't the offended party. It's not our place to forgive, and again, I'm not enacting any kind of retribution either - the conversation is about opposing racism and the wishing of death upon others, as well as serious concerns about the corruption in our politics.
(in Christian Women Facebook Group) 
"Reindeers, Father Christmas and every other aspect of the Christianity theme"??? Yikes. This person is claiming that reindeer are part of Christianity. THAT is concerning.
I think you misunderstand, the author of the letter is not a Christian so will not understand. He thinks theses things are Christmas along with Jesus .
He just hasn’t separated them that’s all
He’s trying to keep Christmas as Christmas
I didn't misunderstand at all. "trying to keep Christmas as Christmas"? He's *already*, like most of our country, lost the point of Christmas entirely. What we should be *sad* about is not lights, but that he and so many others have *already* "dropped Christ"
Lights don't matter. What matters is whether people choose to truly turn to Jesus with their whole hearts. That people are so disinterested in Christ that they think reindeer are part of Christianity demonstrates the devastating reality that they aren't doing so.
well he doesn’t understand the difference
Christians have not separated it either so he’s not alone . My church have a tree and Father Christmas
He understands only what the church have told him. the amount of people in those group that posted Santa posts at Christmas was overwhelming
And? I'm not saying that we as individuals should eschew reindeer etc, but the fact that this writer deems them part of Christianity, and that removing them is "dropping Christ" shows that he, like so many others, ignores Jesus. THAT is the issue.
but he’s not ? His whole letter is to support traditional Christmas and that includes baby Jesus along with other things
That’s all he’s saying
You yourself as a Christian lady can’t separate them so why should he.
Sorry, what do you mean by "You yourself as a Christian lady can’t separate them"?
"but he’s not ?" He absolutely is claiming that reindeer are part of Christianity, demonstrating by his cluelessness that he has chosen to ignore Christ.
you said "I'm not saying that we as individuals should eschew reindeer etc" You can’t separate them and say don’t do them
Saying that we don't have to eschew them doesn't mean that I can't separate them. I both eat food and use a laptop, that doesn't mean that I thinking eating and using a laptop are the same thing.
His^ words "Reindeers, Father Christmas and every other aspect of the Christianity theme", and "dropping Christ" indicate that he thinks lights and reindeer ARE parts of Christianity.
they are   
Sorry, what? You think fairy lights and reindeer are parts of Christianity???
they are part of Christmas
But AGAIN, the letter refers to them as part of *Christianity*
of course he’s not a Christian you can’t expect him to know the difference. you know the difference (but don’t impose it ) I know the difference but many Christians don’t and most of the world don’t
All Christians know the difference. Indeed much of the world doesn't and THAT DEMONSTRATES THE PROBLEM.
I think for a letter in a local paper it is a journalist approach to drawing attention, the rest of the letter makes it’s point.
Its point is to attack Labour, and to try to appropriate Christianity - with phenomenal ignorance - to do so. It's trying to use God for party politics whilst not even caring about Him, and it's a great example of using the Lord's name in vain.
I don’t see any party politics and shropshire is a blue county . Grace I think you’re getting too involved it was just a letter to the paper.
The point is the council want to drop Christ from it’s celebration this year which is sad
How can you not see party politics? He repeatedly mentions Labour. Again, ceasing to put up lights showing Father Christmas and Reindeer IS NOT *dropping Christ*, that he refers to them as Christian imagery demonstrates that he has already dropped Christ himself.
Your missing the point grace. What do you think of the council dropping Christmas ? Just out of interest
I'm not missing "the point", "the point" is based on fatal ignorance, as I've explained.
What do I think of them "dropping Christmas"? It seems like they're going to have lights without Father Christmas/reindeer, that doesn't matter in the slightest. Our country is increasingly rejecting God, but this change of lights isn't about that at all, no one is closer to Jesus because of reindeer. Most of our country has long embraced that Christmas imagery *whilst* ignoring Christ.
We have no one but ourselves to blame. When we go to other countries and rightly so, we have to abide by their religious customs and traditions. We bent over backwards to meet the needs of people who came into our country. We took the teachings of Christ out of school assemblies not to offend other faiths. Now people want to remove completely Christ out of Christmas. No wonder our country is facing bankruptcy We can’t remove God and be blessed.
Taking away reindeer lights is *nothing* to do with removing Christ, rather linking Christ with reindeer shows that He's already been removed.
Our country is not less Christian because of people coming in with other faiths (and those people mostly aren't opposed to our traditions anyway), it's less Christian because most of the native white British population ignores Christ.
And oh my goodness bankruptcy is utterly irrelevant by comparison - God does NOT give people/countries wealth simply on the basis of following Him, plenty of evil people are rich, but our country being less rich (it's still far richer than almost all other countries, actually - we forget how privileged we are) is of NO importance compared to the tragedy that most people are rejecting Jesus.
but the big picture is we were once an empire the sun never set on now we can’t even hold the United Kingdom together.This has gone hand in hand with Sunday laws , church attendance and church laws in our land
There is no dispute it’s linked. God does allow and prevent wealth of countries it’s all under his control. a good example of this was on a tv programme who do you think you are with Ralph little
His grandfathers journey brought him to my hometown of chirk in wales . His G G was a talented football that took him to the top but then the Welsh revival hit and as a Christian couldn’t play on Sunday . Ralph was so disappointed and said this is why he’s an atheist with all the rules . What Ralph missed was the provision God gave his GG was what made Ralph who is today . His GG married a wealthy family and eventually owned most of Manchester .
Ralph would have had a good education and upbringing because his GG loved and trusted God
It was a good insight
No, no, no. Our country was "an empire the sun never set on" because of EVIL, UTTERLY UNCHRISTIAN COLONISATION. People from our country invaded other countries out of GREED, and they brutally enslaved and murdered other human beings.
Of course God allows/prevents wealth - but NOT simply on the basis of righteousness. He allows some evil people to be rich and some people who follow Him to be poor, His plans are bigger than Earthly riches. A sportsperson could be successful because they're following God, but plenty AREN'T, God is not some karma Genie who just doles out rewards and punishments in this lifetime.
well I think Ralph’s blessings are from his Grandfather who followed God . His grandfather was blessed .
God does bless in many ways so why can’t it include owning half of Manchester ?
Why would it? And Ralph isn't even following God himself. God has a plan to use the current situation for His glory, but he doesn't favour Ralph on the basis of his grandfather and Ralph's wealth does not show that God favours him.
Being rich plainly does not prove that God approves of a person or nation. Most people in our country are wealthier than most of the people in our world - but are on course to miss out eternal life. In many other countries, there is far more poverty yet more people are truly rich in that they know Jesus.
This is actually incorrect, based on the Amnesty report he himself cites. Abbott gets many, many times more abusive tweets than any other MP - then the other female MPs in the top 5 for receiving abuse are white. Racism is absolutely an issue, but IMO accuracy is crucial and the abuse faced by Abbott specifically shouldn't be diverted from by grouping her together with Zarah Sultana and Apsana Begum.
He started Comic Relief to help the world's very poorest people, I'm frustrated that it's now largely not about them. There are people literally starving to death in parts of Africa, but they're essentially ignored, despite the fact that we can make a huge difference (ie, each £ can buy many meals)
this as been going since 1985 where is the money going because during the day on tv it’s constant adverts give give give to all these country’s
Why would you think that the amounts given would have *ended* the poverty? The amounts (of Aid that have been) given are tiny in terms of national economies.
In fact significant *progress* has been made - but it's stymied by the fact that our banks and corporations take far, far more than this from developing countries than is given in Aid
"Religions" meaning what exactly? (and why "Western"?) If she means things relating to the Creator of the Universe, why wouldn't He be somewhat "bewildering"? But one can read what scholars have written about Him.
Honestly the way you've made abortion your key election point is disturbing. The Left should care for the vulnerable, not promote individualism over humanity. I never see you mention helping the world's very poorest people, you seem to think "social justice" is about enabling people to do whatever they want.

I think you're right. But note that Christianity means following Christ - it's not a British cultural label, and it entails concern for others, including in other parts of the world, that this channel plainly opposes. First and foremost, Jesus came to offer eternal life - each of us must choose whether to truly repent of our sin and turn to Him - not political arguments.
(in Christian Women Facebook Group) 
I'm wondering if any of you have watched The Chosen? If so, what were your thoughts on it please? I'm just wondering if it's worth watching.
I haven't seen it, but I suspect that it can be either good or bad, depending the viewer's heart responds. Like other art depicting Jesus, it could help one to think about Him - but there's a risk that one loves the image rather than Jesus Himself. On balance I'd personally rather continue re-reading and exploring actual scripture

‘Those Friends people make $100m a year! I’m getting six-cent cheques! It’s not OK!’: Billy Porter on race, recognition and the Middle East
There are millions people in our world who are literally starving to death. I am so sick of people moaning that they personally ought to have more money on the basis of the wealth of the handful of the richest individuals. It's so unintelligent and entitled.
Billy Porter is already stupidly lucky, presumably earning far more than the vast majority of Westerners for a far more enjoyable and glamorous job. We should indeed be concerned about racism in our world, but him not earning what the Friends cast make is not that. What I think Is likely racism is how little our society talks about, for instance, the nearly 8 million people currently displaced by the war in Sudan.
Everyone knows that many people see it as calling for extermination of Jewish people - people using it can claim all they like that that isn't what they mean, but given that they know how it sounds to so many people, choosing to use it is plainly deliberately aggressive.
Nah. The Bible records many accounts of people who did stupid things, that doesn't change the fact that God gave guidance (and He is infinitely loving and wise). The Bible is a complex collection of different texts, including history and poetry, not simply an instruction manual.
Why are you going to realize man - and many - over millennia wrote this book!
I'm well aware that its books were written by multiple authors in different centuries, I'm not sure what your point is.
Man made god - history confirms no god proof as does science. 
That human beings recorded what God did doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. Nor does science, in fact science suggests that there is a Creator (God)
But I'm not going to spend longer arguing (and won't revisit this thread). 
Internationally, there are women forced into marriage; to carry water for hours every day; to labour horrendous hours for a pittance producing things we buy...we should talk more about them
That obviously depends on how "feminism" is defined. Personally I think that identity politics is generally not good, and can become contrary to Christianity - our identity is in Christ, other attributes shouldn't matter all that much.
We should oppose injustice and seek to help *human beings* in need (and there are many women who are seriously disadvantaged) because they're human beings in need, not on the basis of categories.
Internationally, there are women forced into marriage; to carry water for hours every day; to labour horrendous hours for a pittance producing things we buy...we should talk more about them, less about how many Western women are CEOs etc
In addition to the original debate (and Willoughby being thoroughly unpleasant to so many people, racist and homophobic) it's truly awful to waste police time like this. Most victims of rape never see justice because the criminal justice system is so overstretched.
It's a common misconception that theism is averse to science, in fact throughout history believers in a Creator have advanced greater understanding of the universe
only because it was the ingrained, commonly held and socially acceptable belief
"only" what exactly, and on what basis?
there were few who would even consider a view which wasn’t at least deistic only when science actually started moving forward at a pace there was a realism that religious views had been retarding its growth. Science moved in its own direction regardless of whether its results and discoveries proved or disproved god it simply no longer was a factor. Today it’s become a chasm for many
That doesn't actually answer the question. You're instead presenting an additional claim, "there was a realism that religious views had been retarding its growth"
I do believe my comment addresses the question such as it is.
My only point is that science needed to be unfettered by religion in order to develop, even beyond the early days of actual execution for heresy I’m simply relating to a mindset which required breaking away from in order to achieve the goals we’ve seen ! My claim is hardly without evidence as the divide between science and fundamentalist religious views is evident while most theists have needed to amend doctrine to include scientific advancements to avoid this dichotomy and of course looking foolish in front of an increasingly better educated populace
"most theists have needed to amend doctrine"? Again another assertion, based on...?
"unfettered by religion"? I never mentioned religion.
What "fetters"? As the above story, and the beliefs of many scientists demonstrate, belief in God does not stop science. I personally came to believe in God *because* of science.
The inclusion of religion is due to this being the common form of demonstrating god belief
Fetters - restrains restricts constrains due to heresy charges
Scientists today must balance their personal faith against fact for many this has proved problematic some aspects are incompatible
Again, I didn't use the word religion - because it has so many different meanings and connotations. I was referring to belief in God specifically. Many fallacies are bourne of illogical associations being imagined between wholly distinct individuals and institutions.
So, again, belief in God is not a restraint on science (and I don't know why you think that "Scientists today must balance their personal faith against fact"), please see the linked article as it explains this better than I can.
Many scientists throughout history have been motivated in part by wishing to better understand God's creation (knowing more of details of the universe is not in conflict with God having designed it), and the Bible tells us to get wisdom. Again, it was science that led me to believe in God.
they put Galileo in jail for saying that the earth went round the sun ?
"they" people who believed in a creator .
Most of humanity believes in a creator, why blame the actions of the individuals who opposed Galileo on anyone else?
History cannot be "righted" nor "repaired".
Present day racism and inequality need addressing where they exists, and we need to fight injustice in our wider world - such as severe poverty, exploitation (inc by our corporations and banks) and modern slavery in parts of Africa.
I agree. The language of ‘atoning’ here is very odd.
Particularly given that people alive today weren't the perpetrators nor the victims - from other public discourse also, it seems as though there's a growing implicit belief in a vague ancestry based quasi-spirituality.
To me it appears insulting to those who were enslaved to suggest that spending money on other people (ie people alive now) "repairs" in any way what they endured.
And I'm continually exasperated by how little concern there is for those people suffering most severely in other parts of our world *now*. There are some Black people in our world who are literally starving, some who have to walk for hours to collect water, some who are horrifically endangered whilst labouring to provide things that we buy - but they're largely ignored.
Absolutely. God commands both that we put others before ourselves, and that we have humility. We aren't personally responsible for slavery of the past, but we should be willing to say that our nation was, and to acknowledge that we (living in our country made wealthy in part from the slave trade and colonialism) are beneficiaries. And we should be doing more to address the extreme poverty that exists today in parts of our world that were ravaged by this history, as well as tackling modern slavery.
There needs to be more coverage of the fact that the government has been trying to conceal the 13 reports by the Chief Inspector RE immigration (finally dumping them in the public domain last week when the by-election discussion would take up attention) - the Rwanda plan is ridiculous in itself (however one feels about migration), but it's even more audacious that the government keeps pushing it and trying to boast about it whilst they're failing so abysmally to manage the border
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seeking permission to build temple
The UK is full of old churches which are being deconsecrated and for which no use is found.They can buy a disused church from another denomination.
That's a good idea and I agree - but FTR Mormonism is *not* a denomination of Christianity, it's fundamentally separate
The Mormons regard themselves as Christian. I have just got the Book of Mormon of the shelf to look. (we have the books for most religions here)
I know. Lots of people consider themselves Christian in fact, esp in the US, for cultural reasons (then demonstrate that they actually aren't *trying to follow Jesus* at all.
But self identification doesn't overrule definitions. Trump considers himself a genius, it doesn't mean that he is one.
Ultimately Mormons have beliefs wholly different from (and in conflict with) those of Christianity (across denominations).
I wouldn't disagree with you. Which is why my initial comment was they are "the wrong sort of Christian" Almost every Christian sect regards all the other sect as not "proper" Christians. Though I would categorically state Trump isn't a genius no matter what anyone says.
In my experience it varies, but there is quite a lot of unity/ecumenism between denominations (other than in Ireland of course - but the tensions there are ultimately tribalism rather than about theology - clearly those who fight are not striving to emulate Christ, just using "religion" as an excuse)

This is fallacious. Rather, each person decides whether they want to be reunited with God and spend eternity in His presence, because of what Jesus has done (not "extorting" anything from us) - or not. God isn't going to force people to live with Him if they choose not to.
NB, the concept of "eternal conscious torment" is not Biblical

Racism against people of colour must be addressed where it exists, this^ will not do that. Jesus died for our sin and to make possible eternal life (heaven) for those who choose to truly turn to Him - I wish the CofE would focus on sharing this
Jesus was brown.
I know, I didn't say otherwise
He’s depicted as white in churches.
All over the world, there are depictions of Jesus matching how most local people look. Personally I' want to make art realistic, but clearly many people want to feel they can relate as much as possible. And in becoming human, Jesus chose to relate to us.
well as an atheist I don’t believe in god, and Jesus was a glorified sales man.
So your words are wasted on me.
For those of faith I hope the church manage to change their ways.
Selling what?
The idea of a Heavenly Father
He wasn't profiting, He was executed
caught on though didn’t it
Exactly. People spread the message about Him, despite deadly persecution, because they'd seen that He'd risen, defeating death.
Stories, he was persecuted because he ‘claimed’ to be the king of Jews.
No wonder there’s so many wars when there’s always religion at the core of it.
"King of the Jews" was how his executors referred to Him. The religious authorities wanted Him dead because He'd claimed to be the way to The Father and to be able to forgive sin.
I'm not sure why you've brought war up, we were talking about Jesus, who lived and taught peace. People fight for power and territory, some would argue that they're fighting on God's side to feel justified but they'd still be fighting for land etc were there no "religion". And other people's actions don't change anything about Jesus Himself.
"Racism against people of colour must be addressed where it exists,"?... Im black, any chance you could give any example of where racism exists?.... please....
I haven't personally observed it in Church, but I don't want to presume that my knowledge is exhaustive. Racism is a sin blighting humanity, and in part linked to the function of the amygdala in the brain, so there's a need to be cautious and tackle it if it arises.
Strawman. Science and God are not incompatible at all. And there are many things within science that imply a Designer (ie God), as scientists, including Einstein, have acknowledged.
nah fam there are things in science that hadn’t been explained yet. That’s why science is ever evolving and religions just sit on their hands and say it is what it is….
What? That science continues to earn more detail about the universe and biological world doesn't render it incompatible with God. Seeing more detail in a painting doesn't mean that the artist ceases to exist.
kk well you’ve got a made up “artist” scientists actually exist and correct them selves as science evolves!
You seem to have missed the analogy.
I don’t believe so but please explain.
That the artist is hypothetical is irrelevant because that's how an analogy works. *Were* you to look at a painting increasingly closely, you'd see more detail, that wouldn't mean that the artist no longer existed. In the same way, scientists seeing more detail of the world (and universe) around us doesn't serve to show that it didn't have a Creator.
well scientist looking at the world around them don’t assume a creator so therefore seeing more detail doesn’t discredit a creator that was never assumed…
No, *you* assumed that there isn't a creator and argued this on the basis that science progresses. I responded by explaining why that actually *doesn't* serve as an argument against God.
no *you* assume there is a creator and are arguing that science doesn’t progress. I explained why that *does* serve as an argument against blindly following a “sky daddy”
No, I didn't "assume" God, I concluded that there must be a designer. Some of my reasoning is mentioned in the article I linked to (from TIME) I don't know why on Earth you think I argued that "science doesn't progress".

When I was a child, I learned from early as I can remember that one should treat others as one would like to be treated and aim to put others first. I feel that horror stories like these might, in part, be because kids (like these bullies, and others we hear about in the news so often now) aren't hearing these things(?)
(I must be getting old)
Most Americans think this kind of thinking is ridiculous!
except the black ones.
Do you have data on that? Black Americans, like Black Brits or white Brits, are each individuals with their own minds. I've seen plenty of Black Americans opposed to things like this^
have you? Most see the point of this kind of exercise.
What exercise? You mean seeking relevant evidence rather than making irrational generalisations to suit one's narrative?
the point of restricting white people into this audience is to replicate the experience of black people historically.
See how upset you get over white people being excluded?
I agree that the "blackout night" is mistaken, and that most people share this view (based on what I've seen). What I was querying was your comment that insinuated that Black Americans as a group necessarily support the concept. They'll each have their own view, but based on polling of Affirmative Action, I suspect that more Black Americans wouldn't support "blackout nights" than support them.
Our country's obsession with a tree is depressing. There are serious issues of human suffering in our world which are essentially ignored, but a tree gets tonnes of attention
it's heartening that people give a shit enough about our natural world! When people really don't care about a notable tree then you should start worrying!
But it's just one tree. What they're feeling is *sentimentality* because it looks pretty in photos like that^. If people really cared about the natural world it wouldn't be typical to fly annually.
And it's human beings who ultimately matter (the natural world should be protected solely because of the impact on vulnerable human beings of its destruction). There are human beings in our world dying of starvation - some, in part because climate change has affected harvests - and they're ignored. But there's been a tonne of attention and emotion about a tree.
The biological illiteracy here is amazing. Eggs bought from a store to eat are not fertilised, they don't contain a chicken fetus other than in rare situations when a rooster has somehow gotten in with the hens. What's eaten is just fluids designed to support growth.
A human pregnancy (in a fricking mammal, for goodness sake - we don't lay eggs) involves a developing human being - who, long before *birth* has their organs and brain function (as well as a complete human genome)
really? And tell me, how many organs does a woman have? What do her genomes look like?
Asking "What do her genomes look like" - really proves my original point.
You claim to be a follower of God and Jesus, but the Bible says life begins at first breath. So make up your mind hypocrite.
No, it doesn't. Nor does science

The creation story allegorical, and either way, even if the first human wasn't alive until God breathed into him it wouldn't in any prove that unborn human is not alive, Adam is specifically the first human being given life and spirit. God's breath is plainly not the same breath as a human inhaling and exhaling air.
The Bible absolutely does regard the unborn as alive, as seen when John jumps in his mother's womb.
Lololol, you're a typical fake Christian. You pick and choose what you want to believe. And if it's something that goes against your personal beliefs, then you make up some bullshit to justify it. I hate hypocrites, I'm done with you.
How does my last comment indicate "picking and choosing"?
It was inevitable given his drift towards sanitising the far right. It merges with him being accepted by the American Christian right given the other side of the pond Trump supporters are his biggest ‘audience’ now.
Next stop is endorsing Trump. And so will Rogan and all the other nobby little bellends.
Christianity is neither Left nor Right wing. And plenty of people who call themselves Christians aren't (particularly in the US). Trump is antithetical to Jesus.
I’m referring to what moves the needle politically in the United States and increasingly the UK.
It’s all part of the same grubby little milieu. And as for Trump? He is LOVED by the Christian right, they are one of the reasons he got elected.
All this is more complicated than "the same grubby little milieu". Ultimately each individual has their own set of views on different issues (and increasingly people are influenced by their bubbles, or conspiracy theories, rather than fundamentally differing values), plenty of people aren't on a one dimensional Left-Right spectrum. And Trump barely has any views, he'll just adopt whichever position he thinks most expedient for his own career.
"the Christian right" - again, particularly in the US, plenty of people who call themselves Christians aren't. Claiming to be something does not necessarily make one so, just as Trump calling himself a genius didn't mean he is one. It's cultural to label themselves as such, but only some are committed to following Christ. No one following Christ could be a fanatical Trump supporter.
Jesus Himself spent plenty of time arguing with people who considered themselves religious but who He could show weren't actually following God, because of their lack of compassion for others.
Yes a legal one, most think immigration is a good thing, but not mass immigration or illegal.
"mass"? She's one, another and another are eventually a mass. And the vast majority are legal, many work in essential roles or pay heaps into our universities.
We should be prioritising those who are real refugees or fleeing serious poverty, and helping them into jobs where they're needed.
She doesn't need to be here, nor is she doing essential work. I'm not at all saying she should leave, but she's a hypocrite.
"mass"? She's one, another and another are eventually a mass. And the vast majority are legal, many work in essential roles or pay heaps into our universities.
We should be prioritising those who are real refugees or fleeing serious poverty, and helping them into jobs where they're needed.
She doesn't need to be here, nor is she doing essential work. I'm not at all saying she should leave, but she's a hypocrite.
Most are migrants not refugees, especially all the young men in boats, just keep on believing what the establishment keep telling you and stay deluded.
Kate Andrews is a migrant, not a refugee.
I didn't say that most are refugees, I said that we *should* prioritise refugees - but most migrants come legally and many do jobs that need doing.
Braverman's and Anderson's comments were wrong. But there's fury even at the word "Islamism" - why do some people want for there *not* to be a distinction between ideological extremists and the typical, decent Muslims who are a positive portion of our society?
thanks. As indicated in the article I think that Anderson’s comments were wrong- but Braverman’s were correct - if somewhat overstated
It's a great article (and it's a relief to see someone else share the frustration I'd been feeling about "Hope Not Hate")
The reactions to Anderson from politicians and media have really highlighted how out of touch they are with a chunk of the public. Plenty of people are anxious, screaming "racism" doesn't help reduce tensions at all (as you suggested, it'll only lead more people to turn towards the far Right). Why have journalists not instead asked Anderson to *explain and back up* his assertions RE Sadiq Khan?
Newsnight last night had a feature on online extremism, did you see it? The expert being interviewed used the word "Islamism" well, and I had always thought it was helpful for clarifying that one isn't referring to Muslims in general, but the backlash against Anderson appears to oppose this clarity.
In recent weeks, in addition to some outrageous placards at pro Palestine protests, we've heard about another attempted honour killing (by Ezedi); and disturbingly mobbish behaviour, including bomb threats, at The Michaela Academy and Barclay Primary school. We should be able to say both that these things are unacceptable, and also that they're absolutely not the fault of other Muslims.
We keep hearing about the problem of "divisive language" - but I think that so many arguments stem from people lumping other people together. Khan is more pro-LGBT than much of population as whole, as is my Muslim journalist ex-schoolmate - whatever an observer personally believes about LGBT topics, plainly Muslims differ almost endlessly from each other. Plenty of Muslims do a tonne that's incredibly positive (and they can be more predisposed to charity, avoiding drunkenness etc, than much of our native population). And I love that they're seeking God, in contrast to most of our fellow Brits.
Those people - and I see plenty - who imply that Muslims are effectively the same as one another are absurdly foolish (and though as you write, Islam is not a race, I suspect that some people may have race-related biases connected to their views of Muslims). But for others, in an attempt to be liberal, to react by themselves effectively lumping all Muslims together (in reaction to Anderson) is not helpful.
Apologies for my rambling! Thankyou for your work.
I've been wondering why Anderson's comments haven't actually been challenged -instead of only labelling them wrong or Islamophobic (those who agree with him aren't bothered by that label), why isn't he challenged to provide evidence for his claims? What's his proof RE Sadiq Khan?
(in Doctors Facebook Group)
So much moaning at the BBC and its other programmes - I'm pretty sure that in reality the problem is the American streamers.
More and more people are watching Netflix etc instead of British TV, and some are in turn cancelling their TV licences (or never having them in the case of much of Gent Z). So the BBC has a diminishing share of the money spent on viewing. It's trying to stem the tide, and because it's various drama series that get all the attention in media/on social media (Squid Game, White Lotus, Succession and so many more), the BBC decision makers must feel like long running soaps aren't popular enough anymore to justify having several.
BBC funding has also been reduced, in real terms, by the government.
Blame the death of Doctors on giant US corporations for crushing British media, not Eastenders, The Wheel or Auntie.
You have a point but the BBC still spend millions on Eastenders despite the declining viewer numbers. A few of the big shows that they now do are done in partnership with some of the big US channels e.g. Doctor Who with Disney, Good Omens with Amazon so they do try. They didn’t need to cancel Doctors.
Eastenders has far more viewers Doctors does, in addition to international viewing and archive viewing on iPlayer. It sometimes makes headlines, it gets talked about. Why would they end it?
Are there figures comparing costs for making programmes? I'm aware that the Eastenders set has been rebuilt (having been used since the mid 80s), but it doesn't have the costs Doctors does of medical consultants and casting for several one off characters for most episodes.
I don't know why people resent Eastenders so much, it does a lot to raise awareness of issues.
I have said before its more Mrs Brown and "The Wheel" Michael Mcintire is an expensive waste of time and gets a lot of people upset at his own show as well. At least the cast of Drs are professional and if the script allows very believable, as an afternoon program any age group can watch and follow. 
I hate Mrs Brown's Boys too, but it's only on occasionally and has a lot of viewers. The Wheel also has far more viewers than Doctors (5.6million) - and quiz shows are often ultimately recycled.
Doctors is not believable at all (apologies for being so argumentative, truly!), aside from some of the weird episodes, GPs and their colleagues absolutely do not have the time to listen to and resolve patients' personal problems like the characters in the programme. If my Mum (a recently retired General practice nurse) ever sees it, she comments on how hilarious, but almost offensive, it is. In reality healthcare workers are super stressed and forced to hurry from one patient to the next.
(Again, apologies for being argumentative)
Who cares what they say?
because you are from a country who has raised her citizens with other country's health, wealth, manpower and blood,,, sigh!!!
What? That doesn't change the fact that Hamas are monsters.
And it's not my fault I was born here. None of us are to blame for what some *other people* did in the past. I'm trying to raise awareness of the injustices you refer to, I donate to charities helping the world's poorest people and contact politicians urging them to tackle the injustices - what else exactly do you think I should do?
Cue comments from people who are seriously misinformed about Christianity
nice projection… along with a healthy dash of willful ignorance.
It's ironic that you'd accuse someone of "wilful ignorance" whilst not knowing what their views are
We only need to look at Trump’s support amongst evangelicals to understand that we’re not “misinformed”, it’s actually worse than we thought.
Why do you think that the behaviour of some people in 21st America is a reliable way to know about Jesus?
(PS your country totally misuses the word "evangelical")
Were it only “some” your argument might sound less silly. The vast majority of Christians I’ve met in the many countries I’ve traveled to portray less than supposedly “Christlike” ideals with many being downright righteous, entitled pricks. Why some people think that some random dude dying a couple thousand years ago, arguably because of bad choices he made, should have any impact on our lives now is beyond me. Fortunately as people become more educated, religion (of every flavor) begins to die out.
hat doesn't answer the question.
It's inevitable that some people will claim to be religious for a sense of identity or for social reasons, without actually following God. Jesus spent plenty of time arguing with such people. It doesn't make sense to judge Jesus on the basis of them.
If you think He was just a random dude, you could read more* about the case for His resurrection, and ponder why His movement spread as it did.
*I get that you probably don't want to (and it's obviously none of my business), I used to feel similarly, but it's better to be informed than to reject things on the basis of presumption.
Honey, telling an atheist to “read your bible” is cute. How do you think most atheists in Christendom become atheists—they read your Bible and applied critical thinking to arrive at the conclusion that this was so much BS. Born and raised Catholic here, so l know your bible better than you. I’m glad that your beliefs make you feel good about yourself or life or whatever, but I’ll take the truth any day over pretty lies.
Interesting that you think you know the Bible better than me, you don't know me so how would you know? And I *didn't* "tell you to read your Bible". Again you're evidently making presumptions, I wonder how many more your faith is based on.
If some people are arguably inconsistent, it doesn't change anything about abortion. If you cared about the voiceless vulnerable being hurt by the more powerful, you wouldn't support all abortions. Also, the normalisation of abortion is very much linked with capitalism.
you don't see rape victims as being vulnerable???
When did I say that?
you seem anti abortion. Are you pro-choice?
It's not a binary, I have a more complicated view.
either you think a woman should be able to have control over her body or you don't. That's binary.
And the answer of "sometimes she should have control" is exactly the same as no control
"control over her own body"? Why should she have control over someone else's body and life? Rape only accounts for around 1% of abortions, in other cases the woman has already exercised control.
It absolutely isn't binary, because the unborn develops and situations vary. I wouldn't argue in situations where the pregnancy is extremely early or there are serious risks - but if you think that non-essential late term abortion, that is the killing of premature babies, are just a matter of "choice", I don't know where your humanity went.
Speak for yourself (if you can?
Exactly. The Telegraph has always been opposed to restrictions of any kind, favouring business over lives, but this stupid article really scrapes the bottom.
Absolutely. Their desperation to keep moaning about lockdown, years on, is really tragic (and potentially harmful, in its encouragement not to listen to future health guidance). Ironically, whilst they'll typically promote personal responsibility, articles like this are blaming the state for one's personal attributes.
Muslims are individuals who vary endlessly. A common and salient point made the likes of Lee Anderson is that Islamist extremists execute LGBT folk. But Sadiq Khan is more pro LGBT than the likes of Lee Anderson. Most Muslims are Muslim by birth, and they each have their own brain. Some are particularly great members of our society. *Islamists* are indeed an issue, Sadiq Khan isn't.

"We've been the victims" - aw, diddums. This affirms the impression I've had, plenty of people - including but not limited to the SNP - are actually ultimately concerned for their own egos. Presumably this is partly about wanting attention and to make out that they're heroic - but also about the narrative of aa small country being oppressed by its neighbour, they want to conjure a (daft) parallell between Palestine and Scotland

I've been pondering for a while how America has its own religion. "The constitution" - as debated by those across the political spectrum - is their holy text, they ritually worship their flag, and "separation of Church and State" is one of their core doctrines. It doesn't work.
"Holly Willoughby's show"? Did she have the idea, and put long hours into actually producing it? No, crew and production staff, earning no where near what she does and enjoying none of the fame/glamour will have done that. She was there to look pretty. Why are the tabloids so, so obsessed with her?
(in Christian Women Facebook Group) 

Nope. This is prosperity "gospel"
that’s interesting care to elaborate with scripture about that viewpoint
It's taking verses out of context for the purpose of deceiving people into thinking that God will give us the *Earthly* things we want. He won't. He offers us deep joy, and eternal life - He absolutely does NOT promise us material wealth, nor freedom from affliction in this lifetime.
Many Christians suffer far more than we do, they aren't lacking faith.
God *uses* supposedly bad things for His Glory and our good, as many verses and amazing Christians testify.
In my opinion, declarations are a way to say no more delay to promises, dreams, and healing that Jesus has already purchased on our behalf at the cross and is our rightful inheritance in him (Ephesians 1:3). The beauty of our relationship with God is that he calls us to take action and collaborate with him in faith (James 2:14-26). We use our tongue to declare and pray and to stand bold and steadfast against the enemy, against lack, and anything that dares to roar against the proclamation as it is in heaven, so it is on earth. We are not called to roll over and let the enemy lay siege to our life, we are not called to setup camp in the desert, and we definitely are not called to surrender. We are called to endure this race, not alone, never alone, but as a family. Seasons are temporary but can be prolonged. However, we can be like Caleb and Joshua, standing firm on God’s promises, confidently leading others into a new place of blessing. We are not called to live in a place of defeat and decay, we are called to be victorious because Jesus is victorious and we are destined to reign with him over all of life’s circumstances.
"All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every SPIRITUAL blessing in the HEAVENLY REALMS because we are united with Christ." - Ephesians 1:3 is NOT saying that we will have all of the material or health related things we might want, it's saying that we have SPIRITUAL blessings through Jesus - and many things are awaiting us in heaven, we WON'T have what we want on Earth.
Jesus does NOT say that we work with God to attain wealth, health etc. *Lack* is not the result only of "the enemy", or a lack of faith (this is like the philosophies other religions, it's virtually the ideology of karma). People in the poorest parts of the world are not to blame for their misfortune because they've failed to "declare" something - many of them are far closer to God than most Westerners. And many will - because they seek God - eventually (beyond this lifetime) know far greater joy than our fellow Westerners who enjoy relative wealth but ignore God.
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: “For Your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” Romans 8:35-36
James 2:14-26 calls us to deeds - we must help those in need, the passage isn't in any way saying that we will attain material or health related aims because we pray. What God wants is that we draw closer and closer to Him, becoming more as He calls us to be, fleeing sin and telling others about Him - His will for us is not that we are liking spoilt toddlers getting everything we want now. And look at the OT - when the people of God were doing well materially they turned away from God (then they returned to Him when things were harder) - this is exactly what we observe in our world today.
The enemy's mission is to separate us from God, not to make us poor or ill. Our souls are eternal, our Earthly bodies and bank balances aren't. If anything, the enemy is more likely to distract us from the ultimate good - eternity with God - by distracting us with Earthly goods.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Mark 10:25
I do believe we need to renew our minds though( Romans 12) For some people declarations help us to focus on a better mindset. Like in Romans 4:8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Many times we can be like the Israelites in the wilderness complaining so that’s where the declarations could come in.
That's Philippians 4:8, not Romans (apologies if I seem argumentative) - indeed we should think about positive things, that doesn't mean that we are promised material blessings. In fact it's important to recognise that God has created much that is "lovely" and "pure" even when our material circumstances are poor - I will NOT have physical abundance (in relation to our society, though we are all wealthy compared to many people elsewhere), as the OP states, but the loveliness of God's creation is something I should think about more often.
I believe that declarations and confessions are biblical in the right context. When God puts something good into place, the enemy likes to create a counterfeit version so that God’s people are confused and therefore, limited.
We need to get back to biblical declarations. Some people have rightly grown offended at the Positive Confessions Movement and have, unfortunately, tossed away all declarations with it. Declarations are not wrong but what they are becoming in some circles is definitely wrong.
If declarations are statements of fact or opinion, then Biblical Declarations simply speak forth God’s truth. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s essential to our faith.
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.
PSALM 1:1-2
The Bible reminds us that it is important to meditate on the “law of the Lord.” Meditating on something involves thinking about it and speaking about it. It is important to declare God’s word.
Joshua 1:8 says, This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
We begin to believe what we speak over and over again. If we speak God’s word and believe it, we’re headed for Godly success.
Declarations partner with God’s word as we speak out his truth. Positive Confessions, on the other hand, only focuses on an individual’s personal desires. Honestly, it’s self-centered and selfish. Christianity isn’t about us getting wealthier and happier, it’s about dying to our flesh and our desires so that God’s will can be accomplished.
This doesn’t mean that God doesn’t want good things for us. He does. However, he doesn’t want our focus to be on things instead of him. He gives us good things but not at the expense of the greatest thing – to know him and to be known by him. 
"get back to biblical declarations"? Back when? Jesus never instructed "declarations" like this.
Again, the Bible plainly contradicts the idea that we will have health and wealth. The verse from Exodus in the OP is taken way out of context - God promising not to repeat the plagues that the Egyptians were afflicted with absolutely doesn't mean that there won't be illness. Amongst God's people there were plenty facing sickness when Jesus walked amongst the - neither He nor the Gospel writers suggest that this was because of a failure to "declare", and Jesus says that the man born blind was not so because of the actions of either himself or his parents - but that God could be glorified through Him. Jesus heals people and commands that they stop sinning, He doesn't tell them they should have been "declaring".
Paul is permanently ill with his thorn in the flesh - "no continual stream of divine health and wellness" - he asks God to take it away, but God doesn't, there's no way that "declaring" would fix it. Paul recognises that God has a reason.
That Joshua tells people to meditate on the law demonstrates that we should seek God's guidance (also, God's law is a good advice manual for life - particularly in that setting, food laws etc would have helped reduce infection, for example) - it doesn't mean that we now can expect "success in all areas of life".
Genesis 22:17 absolutely does not say that we'll have financial provision, it's not about finance at all! I could go on. I'm honestly really shocked by the OP.
Indeed, we should meditate on God's word as the Psalmist says (no need to mutate, manipulate and mistranslate them as the OP does). But we know that the Psalmist also suffers challenges in many areas of life, sometimes even when he calls out to God - and from these verses, and other scripture, we learn that God's ways are not our ways
I don't believe in using them to declare things into being but some of these are promises from God (not the perfect health stuff etc, sadly we don't always get healing on this earth) but some of them help to build our faith when we remind ourselves of them. 
But the statements in the OP image are not backed up by scripture. Looking up the verse references, the verses don't at all say what the OP statements do 
3 4 7 and 9 are promises to us from God . We are assured of these things as we walk with God 
Why take them out of context as the OP image does, rather than quoting the verses? I think the OP statements risk people expecting things that aren't actually what God intends. It can lead to, for instance, the utter fallacies seen in some of the other statements.
We know that God created the universe and that Jesus died for us and rose - this creates humility, awe, and longing to draw closer to Him - we don't need to "declare" things for ourselves, as though blessings are a necessary motivation to walk with God.
I guess one of my concerns is that it looks to me like someone willing themselves to walk with God by focussing on what they can attain, rather love and gratitude for God Himself.
If I kept reminding myself of what my parents give me/do for me, I think it might indicate that I don't hugely love them themselves. In reality, I don't need to keep telling myself what they give me/do for me, because I really love my parents and want to spend time with them irrespective of what they give/do. How much more can we long to draw close to the God who created the universe and who offers us undeserved salvation? ☺️
Good grief. Yoga is Hindu spiritual practice. No disrespect whatsoever to Hindus who participate - but it is absolutely not OK for supposedly Christian ministers or publications to be involved, let alone to promote it.
What a bizarre comment!
Principally because of the denial of free choice. Then there’s the implication of a fear of dilution of, or conversion from existing belief to another: would it not be OK from your perspective for a Hindu practitioner to be influenced by Christian spiritual practices, such as mantra recitation? Ultimately, the negation of any possibility for cross-influence between different faiths is what puzzles me, especially as both the teachings and the exposition of teachings in both the Upanishads and the Gospels share the same root.
Criticising is not "denying free choice". God gives us freedom to choose our actions, He also commands that some of those potential actions *should* be avoided.
It's not really a matter of "dilution or conversion". Our God is a jealous God. He tells us to avoid other spiritualities. What it would be OK for Hindus to do is up to them (how is "mantra recitation" Christian?) - but our God commands that we avoid other "gods" and paganism.
What on Earth do you mean by "the same root"??? I genuinely don't see how that makes any sense, either historically or theologically.
Why? Comic Relief has already started spending half of its takings in the UK, why split it again? It's Comic Relief season, Children in Need will have events later in the year.
Why should other countries have to put up with our criminals?
She was a kid and pretty much groomed by an older man.
I'm struggling to see how a 15 year old wouldn't know that one shouldn't support decapitation. More importantly, the journalist who's got to know her well doesn't think that she's remorseful *now*.
But most importantly of all, innocent people in Syria are still suffering, we should have concern for them and not act as though their country is a place to leave citizens our country has issues with.
(I didn't argue further with many criticisms I received here - but was struck by how, after I mentioned that concern for *impoverished populations* were most important to me - and of course, the government ha taken her citizenship because of concern for the British *population* - Lefties who supposedly care about humanity were keen to defend an *individual* who chose to support ultimate barbarism)
20,000 people in our world die every day of hunger and our society ignores them (people aren't "saying nothing" about Gaza). Why are they so much more disposable?
Worst attempt at distraction I’ve seen today.
Yep, as I've been observing, even for people who presumably think they're champions of the disadvantaged because they make a lot of noise about Gaza, the world's poorest people are so unimportant to you that you refer to deaths from starvation as "distraction"
Sorry not working. You see Gracie, UNICEF and others have been involved for years with those people. They are getting some help bless them. Meanwhile in Gaza………
Good grief. You think that the fact *some* Aid reaches *some* people (*some* is reaching Gaza FYI) means severe poverty doesn't need attention? As I've just said, 20,000 people - according to the UN, since you've just mentioned one of its offshoots - die each DAY because of hunger. Others die from dirty water and preventable diseases. How people can claim to care so much about 30k dying in 4 months but not care about 20k+ dying each day is beyond me.
Oh Gracie you’re doing it again? Who is actually SAYING they don’t care? Hmmm? I’ll wait.
I agree totally with Deedee on this issue, by all means voice your concerns about famine all over the world, but please don’t use this as a vehicle to levy uncalled for ad hominem by suggesting (without grounds) that nobody cares. On top of all that it is both venal and disgusting to play your whataboutery card setting two suffering groups of people against one another.
You clearly do have an agenda here, but we won’t be buying into it.
I really don't now which part of this you're struggling with. The OP claims that the horrors in Gaza have no one saying anything about them. In fact, politicians, media and social media have been discussing it relentlessly. Other horrors in our world DO have almost no one talking about them.
Again, that you think I must have an "agenda" indicates that Global poverty and famine are so unimportant to you that you can't fathom someone bringing them up because they actually care.
What the frick? Here in Britain there was outrage when a Black student was told to change her hairstyle - but unlike that case, his^ hair wouldn't be blocking other student's view of the whiteboard and you guys generally don't have school uniform (right?)
Of course this^ is race based discrimination, it's outrageous.
(Responding to pro-LGBT post in Christian Facebook Group) 
That we should love others absolutely does not mean endorsing all "actions". God loves us, but that doesn't mean that He endorses our sin. I use the word "actions" because I'm guessing that you're referring to people having gay sex rather than simply having gay orientation(?)
"The spiritual person judges all things" (1 Cor 2:15) - so whilst indeed we shouldn't harbour judgemental, hateful sentiments towards people, in accordance with Jesus' teaching not to judge other *people*, we *should* be discerning about *behaviour*. Jesus "came not to judge" (John 3:17), that didn't mean that He didn't make critical comments on some actions and attitudes. Note, different words in the original Biblical texts are all translated to "love" in English, the love that we are shown by God is a self sacrificial love, Agape, and we're called to emulate this - sexual "love", Eros, is not what the Bible is talking about when it says that God is love.
Would you be "accepting" of other actions that God - who loves and knows humanity infinitely better than anyone - has prohibited? Does a friend or parent show love to their friend/child by supporting all of their behaviour?
Jesus made religious leaders leave alone a woman they'd been about to stone to death for her sexual sin, and said to her "Go and sin no more".
Christians should be welcoming everyone, urging everyone to fight the sin in their lives (which God helps us with), and recognising that we're sinners too.
That Jesus loves and died for humanity is infinitely more important than sex - and we urgently need to tell our world about the infinitely greater love, not buying our culture's lie that sex is necessary for a fulfilled life.
This site, by Gay/Same sex attracted people, explains all this better than I can -
(in Doctors Facebook Group)
I was thinking, after catching up on Tuesday's episode, about comparisons with the musical I'd seen on Monday*, The Little Big Things. The main character - an aspiring rugby player - has a serious accident. Complications in the subsequent surgery mean that he can't be restored to how he was physically before. He's paralysed from the shoulders down. The people who live him struggle to cope and sometimes feel guilty.
His physio - who was also left in a wheelchair by an accident - helps him to focus on what he can do rather than what he can't, and he becomes an artist holding a paintbrush in his mouth. We also see how he has appreciation for small things, like green grass and each of the little things that his family does. Both he and his physio ultimately don't regret that their accidents happened, because of the positive things that ultimately happened in their lives which wouldn't have happened otherwise. It's a true story.
I'm privileged to be relatively able bodied, so I can't apologise enough for seeming patronising or as though I'm disregarding the suffering of those who experience monumental challenges like paralysis or amputation (and obviously the way that the character in Tuesday's episode felt was wholly natural) - I just felt compelled to write that believe so passionately that horrific things in life can lead to unforseen great things. If everything were perfect, we wouldn't be able to appreciate anything. Even if folk with disabilities aren't able to achieve things (though many do), they're so priceless as human beings, and humanity would be diminished without them.
Things in my life have been totally messed up by a different health issue, but vitally important things came about because of it.
Hugest apologies again if I seem patronising, and for rambling incoherently πŸ˜‚
*(I never normally go to any concerts, shows, films etc, but was made to by family - and it's a brilliant musical)
This is depressing. Whilst packaging is trivial in itself, this change is indicative of the foundation of our society being abandoned (I know that sounds stupidly overdramatic if you aren't informed about the history)
you’re doing is being overdramatic about nothing, because this is what all companies do eventually. The logo would likely change again if it’s still around in another 150 years
No, you just aren't aware of what I'm referring to. Which is somewhat ironic in itself. And since you don't want people being overdramatic, perhaps it's not necessary for you to argue with me like this(?)

You think that Black voices being heard means rapping about genitals? I think that's pretty offensive to Black people. There are so many amazing Black artists/writers/speakers with wise things to say.
I'm really concerned for the Palestinian people themselves, but some of the attitudes and behaviour from some of the pro-Palestinian brigade here are not helpful.
Can we also talk about how the corporation needs to end horrific exploitation of the workers in poorer countries providing tea, coffee and cocoa?
PS if one skips a Starbucks beverage, one can save enough money to provide multiple meals for one of the world's poorest people ☺️
YES. I've been thinking for ages that there needs to be more of this, given the housing situation, the loneliness crisis, the need to pass wisdom (Inc RE tech) between generations, the risks to some of the elderly of being isolated (falls, scammers), the energy cost and carbon footprint of people living separately etc. Rather than only claiming they'll build more houses, the government should be actively supporting intergenerational living by helping people find matches and providing safety checks (DBS etc), and relevant training or advice.
For frick's sake Guardian, this is embarrassing attention seeking. Orgasms are not important. When did you last share coverage of the most severe humanitarian crises outside of Gaza from your main pages?
Earth is well designed for human life, with endless specific details (and interconnected biological systems) that we benefit from. Being on Mars would be grim.
Meal Deals are ridiculous. One could have a sandwich, snack and drink using unbranded supermarket groceries and have enough left over to fund multiple meals for the world's very poorest people (outside of the UK)
In the past 4,000 years Religion has promised a Second Life. In the past 100 years Science has doubled Life Expectancy.
Religion makes empty promises. Science delivers.
This post is so illogical
Nobody would say that splitting the Atom necessitates killing millions of people in a Nuclear Holocaust. In Kant's words it is not a Categorical Imperative. But if you take the instructions in the Quran the Bible and the Torah you will be blessed with certainty about what is to be done. Killing Apostates, stoning women, an eye for an eye etc. Science is Value Neutral and Religion is Judgement Bound.
Sorry, what?* That doesn't explain the OP at all, it adds more fallacies.
"An eye for an eye" was not an instruction to enact retribution, but to restrict it to being equal rather than more severe than the original offence. Then Jesus says “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (He also saves a woman from being stoned, and obviously never suggests "killing apostates - I presume you were only referring to Islam, but don't lump different belief systems together, they're fundamentally distinct).
No one is suggesting disregarding science. Serious Strawman and false dichotomy. Why suggest it? Science just means understanding what the creator related in greater detail, plenty of scientists are theists. I came to believe in God's existence because of science.
Note, BTW, science doesn't say that one shouldn't bomb/stone other people.
so you are an atheist in respect of Allah. You think killing Apostates is wrong ? So you do understand that most religions are wrong ? Scientists read lots of books and don't consider them wrong just incomplete. The religious read one book ( in your case the Bible) and think you have the answer to Life The universe and Everything
Allah is a serious misinterpretation of the Creator, what's your point? It's wholly illogical to assert that because a person doesn't believe in all ideas about gods, they shouldn't believe in any God.
I don't know what point you think the fact that science keeps understanding more about the universe proves. A person could tell you the most important things about themselves, you could go on learning more about physics, chemistry and biology and it wouldn't render what the person told you about themselves incorrect.
Why are you throwing these disparate debunked New Atheism fallacies around a Politics group? I don't mean that in a critical/argumentative way, I'm genuinely wondering why. (These points can all be easily answered if you look, so if you want an informed view, why not do so and consider for yourself what theistic scholars say?)
You could read
wow. What utter nonsense and arrogance. Because you don't understand something you invent something. Like we used to believe that Atlas was holding the Earth on his shoulders otherwise we would fall. Can't believe anyone would get comfort or sustenance from saying God did it. Mindless.
Sorry, what? I haven't "invented something" because I "don't understand something", ironically you've ignored or *not understood* what I've written, nor the natures of science and theism, so you've *invented* "nonsense" about my thinking.
Again, your comment RE Atlas and God demonstrate that you've very much misunderstood theism, seriously why are you choosing to regurgitate NA fallacies and not to actually look at what theistic academics say? (obviously you might not agree with their conclusions, but you could have a view that's informed)
I've read the rubbish you posted and it's utterly amazing it's just theists with the God of the Gaps nonsense. You don't need a WHY just live with it.
I've read the rubbish you posted and it's utterly amazing it's just theists with the God of the Gaps nonsense. You don't need a WHY just live with it.
You can cry "rubbish" and "nonsense" all you like, you've not addressed/rebutted anything I've written - and again you're demonstrating that you don't understand by randomly throwing up the God of the Gaps allegation when it's not connected to the thread so far. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with this thread(?)
but the first link was exactly saying we agree with evolution and the big bang but we don't know why or how. Join the club nobody knows but we don't get on our hands and knees.
That's a misinterpretation of part of what one of the 2 links says, ignoring a crucial point of the article, as well as the other article and what I've written. And again, your comment on "hands and knees" suggests theists oppose science, we don't. 
He cut Overseas Aid, ending what is incredibly low cost nutrition for people who are literally starving to death
send your money to those people then, the taxpayers expect the taxes they pay be spent on the taxpayers.
I do. But much of the money in our economy is the result of taking from elsewhere, and in addition to centuries of colonialism, there's far more wealth coming to the developed world from the developing world than is given in Aid
In case you weren't aware, children living in famine zones are just as human as British children, they don't deserve to starve (and they can be fed for a fraction of the cost)
Colonialism for the most part was mutually beneficial, my conscience is clear on that and proud that Britain built so many countries, so much infrastructure and spread common law, human rights, and inspired or built every democracy in the world today, freedom of navigation, international trade etc.
Its been decades now those places are nolonger our responsibility, the people there should take some responsibility themselves.
That British colonisers has some things built doesn't change the fact that they took £trillions in wealth, that was the point of the infrastructure they initiated. That decades have passed doesn't change the fact that our country's got a tonne of their wealth, and was made rich by taking. Colonialism also left the instability that continues to blight populations. And see the article, WE TAKE FAR. FAR MORE THAN WE GIVE IN AID.
More to say but I'm not going to waste any more time here, that you're not capable understanding people elsewhere shouldn't starve to death says a lot.
Good. I've been wondering for ages why this wasn't being done. Some people who come are fleeing war, but some are coming because they've been duped into thinking that the streets are paved with gold. They should be told that it's not worth coming.
I guess Vice wants more people to drown.
This is a Christian country!' Gospel preacher speaks out as he's threatened with arrest for 'hate crime' for singing hymns
The country has been significantly shaped by Jesus's teachings, but most people now ignore Him, and aren't even aware of the reasons for believing in Him. Kudos to the preacher.
If the UK has been "shaped" by Jesus he must be one hell of a twisted bastard. 
So much irony in that comment. Go ahead and explain.
Are you seriously suggesting that all this hatred and lack of charity preached by Farage and his followers is in line with the teachings of Christ? How many have actually read this article and found out the truth, that the Police were following up on a complaint lodged by a member of the public, and found nothing wrong. So what does this "preacher" think not baring false witness really means? There are people on these pages to would like to see people executed despite being found innocent, who advocate drowing people in the sea, who call for asylum seekers to be allowed to starve to death in the streets. This is NOT a Christian country in thought and deed.
"Are you seriously suggesting that all this hatred and lack of charity preached by Farage and his followers is in line with the teachings of Christ?" no, not at all. I didn't say that in the slightest.
And the fact that so many of us know Farage is wrong (along with his fans on these pages) is in no small part due to Jesus' teachings having shaped our worldview, prior to His teaching that we should love our neighbours from elsewhere tribalism was deemed correct.
("baring false witness"? He isn't, he explains, in the interview, what happened to him)
"This is NOT a Christian country" I didn't say that it is (though I think some people use the phrase to refer to heritage, or to not being dominated by a different religion), read my comment again.
The irony of people attacking people like him for being "white saviours" is that they're presuming they know best what starving people elsewhere want. *They* are the ones who are patronising and infantilising the vulnerable to boost their own egos. What right do such people have to deny that famine victims should receive help if it's offered by some white people? How do those making the accusations think those in extreme need feel, why should they get to decide whether Aid is given and received?
Indeed Geldof and others aren't "saviours", helping the world's poorest people is simply the right thing to do - perhaps those making "white saviour" accusations are just projecting RE their own tendencies to pride, or to justify in their own minds that they're too selfish to help.
To be honest, I’m totally lost about who’s who and whats what. At nearly 59 i suppose I better get with the times. Please explain GLTBUVA or something like that
I think that, to some extent, it's overhyped - most people are just straight, some are gay (quite a few are actually slightly flexible, according to surveys), the very few who are something you aren't familiar with get a lot of media coverage because the media knows it'll sell.
It's most often LGBT, LGBTQ or LGBTQ+, but thee's a VERY big rift between some LGB folk and those who support the TQ+.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*, Queer
Trans means feeling that one is actually of the opposite sex/gender from one's biology (often "sex" is used to refer to biology, and "gender" to one's "identity" - but some trans folk claim that they have transitioned their sex), or that one is more comfortable appearing that way. Their views, and the procedures they have, vary significantly. I follow a few Trans folk on Twitter, and they spend their time arguing against much of the current trans movement, which they feel has become absurd and a problem for children. There's also Non binary, whereby a person identifies as neither wholly male nor female (and uses they/them pronouns - famous examples being Sam Smith and Emma Corrin)
Queer, so far as I'm aware, essentially means any of the other letters. Ie, some Gay people call themselves Queer as well as calling themselves Gay etc. Some people like the word, but some resent it and want only to be referred to as the single letter they are. (sidenote, my Grandmother once referred to my sister as "queer" because she's vegan and we still laugh about it)
The +, or other letters are rare, sometimes there's:
Intersex (a variety of rare genetic conditions that mean a person is *biologically* not wholly male or female - this is different from being Non binary", whereby a person *feels/identifies* as not wholly male or female)
P can be included for Polyamory *or* Pansexual, but they're different. Poly means having multiple partners, sometimes all with each other (a throuple etc) though not necessarily (in Neighbours, 2 men decided to both be boyfriends to one woman, and called it V shaped Polyamory). Pansexual, honestly, seems to essentially mean the same as Bisexual, Pan means all so they're attracted to all genders (sometimes they say that they're "attracted to the person rather than the gender"), and everyone else makes jokes about kitchenware 🍳
A can be included for Ally (someone who's straight but very keen on supporting the others) or Asexual. Asexual is confusing to me, because dictionaries define it as "without sex" (not a new word), but the new movement wants to define it as having no sexual attraction, and sometimes it gets broken down into further categories including simply having less sexual attraction than some other people.
Sometimes across the pond, 2S is included for 2 Spirit, a native American concept whereby a person thinks they have a male and female spirit.
There are some other "identities", which have flags, but I'm pretty sure they're ridiculously rare. Supposedly some people identify as Agender (neither male or female yet somehow different from Non binary), Polygender or Genderfluid; some as Pups (dressing as dogs for sexual gratification) or Bears (gay men who have lots of hair), or something else I don't think I should mention - but many LGB folk are opposed to all of this.
I was told by a Gay friend that I'm part of the Queer community myself, since I don't have sex (never have, never will) and am therefore Asexual, but I don't fit the new definition since I can feel sexual attraction (I'm just too disgusted by sex itself to ever want to act on it) - and I don't feel the need to be part of the movement/community. My personal *beliefs* are that God designed sex to be restricted to heterosexual marriage, but that is in no way a judgement on everyone else who disagrees, I know that most people would think I'm mad 🀣
Apologies if I've offended anyone.
I think I’m going to start identifying as a kettle!
I know that topic isn't everyone's cup of tea (including mine), and there's a lot of hot air - but as I wrote, it's overhyped by the media for attention, sex sells, very few people actually identify as anything you aren't familiar with.
Personally I reckon it might be best for all of us to focus more on the fact that everyone is an individual (for instance, as I wrote, the trans folk I know are in disagreement with other trans folk, so one shouldn't lump all LGBT+ people together, let alone imagine they'd behave like Joel), but that we have all have things in common as human beings
NestlΓ© decides to take away our Breakaway and end production
It's nice how discussion about favourite branded snacks unites us as a nation. But I wish there could also be discussion and media coverage RE the exploitation in product supply chains. There's more upset over certain chocolate products being discontinued or altered than over corporations grossly mistreating and underpaying cocoa labourers (some of whom are enslaved children).
I'm certainly not objecting to taking biscuits irrationally seriously, but I wish our media would report on things that really matter more often.
He's right that Starmer shouldn't have wavered previously on what a woman is - but he's only raising the issue out of desperation because he's so behind in the polls. And his lack of empathy (or his stupidity) given Esther Ghey's presence is an outrage.
Esther Ghey is amazing - and IMO combatants in the gender wars perhaps should be using the tragedy of the murder of Brianna to point score, esp given Esther's comments on Laura K's programme.
NB if Sunak cared about women and girls, he wouldn't have doomed countless females to child marriage by cutting the Overseas Aid budget.
"Supporting"? Really?
yes, really. Supporting them, maybe we should follow their example.
How (are they)?
by supporting women in need making difficult decisions, the sort of things the church should be doing instead of judging them, trying to control them and trying to guilt trip them into changing their minds.
No, I asked how. "By supporting" is not an answer to "how are they [supporting]?"
they are being supporting by offering women proper information about abortion rather than trying to force them into following a specific religious view.
According to what source? The article doesn't say anything about "proper information". And information isn't particularly significant support, I know Churches that provide nappies, parenting classes, baby clothes etc.
What it does say, as I'd read previously (in a Cosmo article) is that they provide "instructions on performing a ritual where women can worship their right to choose" - that is absolutely a "religious view". (FTR, the arguments most often made by pro-lifers *are* information, not religious - it not "religious" that the unborn is human)
it is good that some churches provide nappies, parenting classes, baby clothes etc. that isn't always what is needed, sometimes women need support as they choose to have an abortion and undergo that, they don't always get that support from the church, when they should.
It is often religious to call the unborn human. For example most abortions are carried out within the first 8-10 weeks, at this point no medical practitioner or scientist would call the foetus "a human being". That is a title given by those trying to use emotional blackmail.
You still haven't answered the question. How do they "support"?
What "support" are you claiming Churches should and don't offer?
It seems you think that "support" just means propping up what a person is saying they'd like. It isn't.
No, it's not "religious" to call the unborn human, it's just reality. You know it is. It's plainly unscientific to deny that they're human. Whether or not one uses the phrase "a human being", which I didn't, is essentially semantics, there's not a definitive meaning for "being", but they "are" human. Personally, I wouldn't argue (though I also wouldn't agree) with an abortion before 8 weeks, and I'm well aware that *most* abortions are early - but TST is absolutely not making a distinction, they and others also support the killing of what are essentially premature babies.
I've made myself as clear as I can.
Supporting a person is accepting they make their own decisions, especially around a grey area like abortion, rather than be guilt tripped into making a decision that they feel is wrong for them.
It isn't reality, now matter how many times you say it is. An eight week old foetus isn't a human being. It isn't sentient and doesn't have a brain or a heart for example.
The church should be offering more support to women who choose to have abortions, more often than not we just see them judging, gaslighting and guilt tripping them.
"I've made myself as clear as I can." - so you can't? Why did you start the argument?
No, "supporting" can mean propping up *stated* beliefs/actions, but it can also mean actually actively helping someone for their good to achieve a *positive outcome*. The statement "helping women" implies the latter more than the former, either way your issue is that you conflate the two and imagining that agreeing is the same as having a positive impact.
Agreeing with what someone *says* they want is by no means necessarily the most helpful thing to do in a situation. If I tell people at my Church I want to kill myself, they could hypothetically facilitate my doing so, but that would not be supporting me and it wouldn't be a positive outcome. And how do you think they should "accept I make my own decisions" if I tell them I want "support" to commit crime? Should they provide the means for doing so like the TST does with abortion?
Facilitating is not necessarily positive, so why exactly "should the Church be offering" it?
Throughout the Bible, there are instances whereby what a person wants is not actually the same as God's best plan. Jesus doesn't tell us to agree with everyone, He tells us to *love* them, and that's not the same thing.
Furthermore, what a woman says she wants at a particular time may not be what she truly wants or will want.
RE "human being", you've plainly not read what I've written, try again
It's not care.
It is care.
No, it isn't. It's butchery for profit.
no you are thinking about conversion therapy
LOL, how do you think that in any way counters my point or advances yours? Do explain how "conversion therapy" is butchery exactly.
well it tends to result in dead kids....
No, it doesn't. But still, you're misunderstanding the word "butchery".
doesn't butchery generally involve killing the butchered? [hyperlink]
No, butchery is the cutting of flesh.
The article you link to is about *non trans LGB* folk, so NOT RELEVANT in this thread. (It also doesn't even define "conversion therapy", along with having other serious flaws). Furthermore suicide is to kill oneself, not to be killed by someone else enacting something, and suicide results from a multitude of factors which it is plainly wrong to disregard.
We're privileged to live in a time and place (as compared to poorer countries) with some remarkable cancer treatment - but it can still obviously, horrifically devastate and end lives, so it would be awesome if the news about Charles helped remind people to check for those cancers that can be checked for
Asylum seeker converts faking it, says evangelical church leader
Obviously (though not all). Christians are very flawed ad we need God's help and forgiveness - but no one genuinely committed to following Jesus would do what Ezedi did (and people who knew him have testified that his religion wasn't Christianity).
People have been erroneously calling themselves Christians in our culture for centuries. Jesus Himself spent plenty of time arguing with those who feigned religiosity and weren't actually committed to God.
Actual Christianity is to genuinely commit to Jesus, above all else, repenting and accepting His death in our place for our sin.
It's so funny how you presumably think that you're somehow supporting women whilst you're actually erasing the word. "All non male"? So ridiculous.
I don’t know anything about the band other than what was in the video. But I grasp that there are female members and non-binary members. Therefore, all the band members are non-male.
I didn't even realise this was a reference to one of the band members, I thought that the band was simply being included with "non-binary" artists in a broader discussion.
If a woman disdains her biology so much she rejects it and identifies as "non binary", I mean no disrespect to her, that's really sad - it's not feminism. And categorising Sam Smith alongside women wouldn't be either.
I’m not curious about what’s in their underwear, but if that’s your kink, you do you. But I expect the band members aren’t TERFs.
LOL, my kink? Perhaps you're projecting. I'm so disgusted by what's in anyone's underwear that I am and always will be a virgin. That has nothing to do with biology being real. And it's not only about genitalia, our biological sex is coded in our DNA, it's in all (other than RBCs) our cells.
does identifying as non binary inherently means someone 'disdains their biology '? When did identity become a question of pure biology? That certainly doesn't sound like a feminist position to me.
Yes, it does mean that. Woman/female is a biological reality, for myself (in spite of various things that make me different from the majority of women) and half of humanity. It's not a costume nor a set of stereotypes. If a biological female identifies as "non binary", they *are* evidently disdaining their biology I must stress - I'm *not* hating such a woman, I feel sad for her, and I hate that our society is contributing to this. Women should be able to break stereotypes and follow their individual styles and skills, without it being thought that any personal attributes or feelings mean we aren't women.
I mean, sure, being a woman is your biological reality, but it isn't *just* that, right? People relate to you socially as a woman, no? And that's presumably a huge part of that identity.
It is first and foremost biology. Most other things aren't fixed, and that's important. We don't have to dress in any particular way, or do any particular things, we're still women (and individual human beings). I've been feeling anxious about not being pretty for most of my life, but I'm still a woman. I don't have periods because of an eating disorder, I'm still a woman. I could go on. I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "people relating to me socially as a woman"(?) I'm not trying to argue, but what does that actually mean?

That's roughly £10k of public money (the prison stay). They aren't dangerous, it's a poor use of limited resources to lock them up. Fine them and have them do community service, use the very limited space available in prisons to reduce danger to the public.
No, #AbdulEzedi did not, as various outlets are asserting, “Convert to Christianity”. One is not a Christian merely by virtue of identifying as one. As much as many people mistakenly call themselves Christians for cultural reasons, an actual Christian is a person committed to following Christ. Whilst those of us who are Christians still fail terribly to behave as we should, no one who wants to follow Jesus would do what Ezedi did.
As expected, endless comments are irrationally lumping together all asylum seekers with Ezedi. These people are aware that they and some of their fellow white Brits have wholly different views (for instance, some Brits wrongly presume *all* asylum seekers to be innocent and deserving of asylum) - so why not recognise that Afghan individuals also think differently from one another?
There are cultural factors - but each person has their own mind and only some adopt ideas that exist within their culture. Honour attacks are rooted in specific cultures, that doesn’t - by any means - mean that all of the people *born into* that culture take up believing honour attacks are justified. Morris dancing and cheese rolling are part of our culture, most of us don’t do them. Some of us don’t even drink tea or watch football. Abdul Ezedi is not the responsibility of other Afghans or asylum seekers, he is responsible for his own actions. And the government has been negligent in having allowed him, having been convicted, to roam the streets.
We are privileged in having been born into a country that is both more wealthy and stable than many others, but also one with a worldview shaped by Christianity. That a man shouldn’t consider a woman property, obvious as it might seem to us, has not been agreed upon across human history - before our culture became Christian, the ancient civilisations of the West had wholly different positions on human rights. And those of us who are Christian need to have compassion for those from elsewhere - Ezedi should be locked up, but there are many Afghans who deserve compassion (in fact there’s been far too little coverage of what some who are still there, suffering under the Taliban and amidst poverty, are enduring)
I should add, other news - today, such as the sentencing of the demonic teens who killed their classmate, and this - should remind anyone who's forgotten it that white Brits can be evil too. Sin is a feature of humanity, it's not restricted to certain ethnicities.

Part of the reason there's been so much attention and expenditure on Madeleine is that each child is so immeasurably precious - and yet whilst it's fairly certainly too late to save Maddie, there are children in our world who are dying (such as from starvation or dirty water) who we could save yet ignore.

What's happening to people in Gaza is utterly horrific, one doesn't need to claim it's motivated by racism nor appropriate Holocaust memorial day to know that.
When you have senior members of the Israeli government calling them animals, i'm quite sure that description comes from their hatred of Arabs
How many members referred to all Palestinians (as opposed to Hamas) as animals?
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman and several warmongering generals called Palestinians human animals. Also, Netanyahu invoked Amalek (do you know what that means)?
Yoav Gallant said that they're fighting against human animals, that doesn't imply that he considers all civilians to be animals, it means he's calling the enemy - Hamas - animals.
Dan Gillerman's quote is somewhat ambiguous (though I'm certainly not stating that they aren't a problem), he refers to "horrible inhuman animals who have done the worst atrocities that this century has seen", so it's not wholly clear that he isn't referring to those who carried out the attack.
Yes Netanyahu fundamentally misunderstands God's word.
You are making excuses for the inexcusable. Gallant turned the water off stopped food and fuel from entering Gaza. What is happening is collective punishment for Hamas's crimes Already there are 11,000 children dead, 7,000 lost beneath the rubbl;e, children having limbs sawn off without anesthetic. The horrors are unimaginable.
I'm not making excuses, I'm trying to understand what they meant rather than making presumptions to suit a narrative.
I know that the horrors are unimaginable, I already expressed that. What I was saying is that it's horrendous beyond words irrespective of the motivation. I'm also struck that, whilst many people are rightly very concerned about this situation, other situations of extreme suffering in our world are ignored.
My point is Israel has for decades dehumanised and oppressed Palestinians through a brutal occupation, colonisation and apartheid. Only selfish people on the political Right care less about the suffering and injustices in the world.
That's your point? That's a whole other argument. What you were trying to claim was that the barbaric, inexcusable strategy currently being employed by the GOVERNMENT of Israel is motivated by a racist will to eliminate an ethnic group (almost as though October the 7th and the ongoing will of Hamas to eliminate Israelis are of no significance). It's striking how, whilst rightly being concerned about whether a population is being lumped together with their leadership, you're lumping another population together with their leadership by condemning *ISRAEL*.
"Only selfish people on the political Right care less about the suffering and injustices in the world"? Nah. Global poverty is generally ignored (including by the people and pages that have been making so, so much noise about Gaza). Almost as many people die each day of hunger as it's claimed have died in Gaza since October, when did Corbyn, Abbott, Momentum, Novara, DDN, etc etc draw attention to this? There have been marches week after week for Palestine, there was no march when Sunak cut Aid.
But there are other Aid orgs helping Gazans, why not redirect funding to them?
And why do other people in our world in desperate need of Aid get ignored?
The point is to deliberately harm the people of Gaza. That seems to be Israel's entire tactic and the western world is going along with it.
"The point is to deliberately harm the people of Gaza"? So you think that wanting to reduce the propagation of deadly antisemitic terrorism doesn't count as a reason?
There are more than 2 million people in Gaza, including 1 million children. They are starving directly as a result of Israel and the west's actions. Hamas didn't cut off aid to Gaza, Israel and the west did. Israel is creating more terrorists every day by killing innocents. Would you not want some revenge if an occupying power bombed your family members to death without reason?
You've really just ignored my last question and endorsed the massacre of Jewish people.
And no, if I were to have another country's army attack my home and kill people, it wouldn't make me want to kill the *civilians* of that country.
The starvation absolutely is due to Hamas as well as the government of Israel, Hamas funnel off Aid and Hamas prompted the government of Israel to do the horrendous things they're doing.
Yep, they're wrong too. It looks as though you're defending her private jet usage on the basis of others, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. It's particularly odd ATM seeing supposed progressives fawn over her so obsessively. Some of the world's poorest people are already having their lives wrecked (or ended) by climate change, they should be getting more attention - yet clearly many people think that Taylor Swift is more important.
The error is that there are thousands of private plane flights everyday.. All flights do pretty much equal damage..
Why single her out..Limiting all flights could be a legitimate point..Making an example out of her because they disagree with her political views but simultaneously oppose climate change legislation is dishonest
Again, that other private jets are wrong doesn't mean that hers shouldn't be criticised. (And people who think they're progressive should stop spending so much of their energy defending her) That some of the people criticising her are ridiculous hypocrites doesn't change that.
we’re not fawning over her. We’re laughing at the alpha boys on your team getting their panties in a twist. Bunch of red panty wastes.
LOL, "my team"? Meaning what exactly? You're plainly making some very, very irrational presumptions.
"Unilaterally bomb Yemen"? Are the strikes not specifically against Houthi (terrorist) military targets? Are you not accidentally lumping innocent Yemeni people together with terrorists?

I'm sceptical about her motives - but it's so, so right for Western leaders to do more to support African people where they are (or, rather, to begin to reverse the damage done by our previous leaders and our institutions) rather than only argue about migration

What's happening to people in Gaza is utterly horrific, one doesn't need to claim it's motivated by racism nor appropriate Holocaust memorial day to know that.
When you have senior members of the Israeli government calling them animals, i'm quite sure that description comes from their hatred of Arabs.
How many members referred to all Palestinians (as opposed to Hamas) as animals?
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman and several warmongering generals called Palestinians human animals. Also, Netanyahu invoked Amalek (do you know what that means)?
Yoav Gallant said that they're fighting against human animals, that doesn't imply that he considers all civilians to be animals, it means he's calling the enemy - Hamas - animals.
Dan Gillerman's quote is somewhat ambiguous (though I'm certainly not stating that they aren't a problem), he refers to "horrible inhuman animals who have done the worst atrocities that this century has seen", so it's not wholly clear that he isn't referring to those who carried out the attack.
Yes Netanyahu fundamentally misunderstands God's word.
You are making excuses for the inexcusable. Gallant turned the water off stopped food and fuel from entering Gaza. What is happening is collective punishment for Hamas's crimes Already there are 11,000 children dead, 7,000 lost beneath the rubbl;e, children having limbs sawn off without anesthetic. The horrors are unimaginable.
I'm not making excuses, I'm trying to understand what they meant rather than making presumptions to suit a narrative.
I know that the horrors are unimaginable, I already expressed that. What I was saying is that it's horrendous beyond words irrespective of the motivation. I'm also struck that, whilst many people are rightly very concerned about this situation, other situations of extreme suffering in our world are ignored.
My point is Israel has for decades dehumanised and oppressed Palestinians through a brutal occupation, colonisation and apartheid. Only selfish people on the political Right care less about the suffering and injustices in the world.
That's your point? That's a whole other argument. What you were trying to claim was that the barbaric, inexcusable strategy currently being employed by the GOVERNMENT of Israel is motivated by a racist will to eliminate an ethnic group (almost as though October the 7th and the ongoing will of Hamas to eliminate Israelis are of no significance). It's striking how, whilst rightly being concerned about whether a population is being lumped together with their leadership, you're lumping another population together with their leadership by condemning *ISRAEL*.
"Only selfish people on the political Right care less about the suffering and injustices in the world"? Nah. Global poverty is generally ignored (including by the people and pages that have been making so, so much noise about Gaza). Almost as many people die each day of hunger as it's claimed have died in Gaza since October, when did Corbyn, Abbott, Momentum, Novara, DDN, etc etc draw attention to this? There have been marches week after week for Palestine, there was no march when Sunak cut Aid.
Right-wingers fume over depiction of Jesus that’s way too sexy
That's not a depiction of Jesus. It's just a white man who should put more clothes on.
Jesus was Middle Eastern, and the historical texts about Him say that He wasn't attractive.
And as this comment section demonstrates, plenty of people are unaware of the historical case for Him (in particular, it's a historically illiterate conspiracy theory to claim that He didn't exist)
And this is all nothing to do with "Right wingers"
and he was just a man. Possibly a healer, but there is no actual proof that he was anything more than that.
What "actual proof" is lacking exactly?
in what? That he is the son of a god....I'd say there is actually no proof at all, there is only faith. If there was actual undeniable proof everyone would be a xtian. The bible is not evidence.
Again, what exactly is lacking? What "proof" should there be exactly?
read above comment, and keep repeating until it sinks in....
That doesn't answer the question. I'm not sure what "proof" of historical events you think there can be for historical events beyond written records. And compared to other ancient history, there are many more records, written far closer to the time of the events. There's also evidence via the existence of the movement He started, which spread in spite of extreme initial persecution. There's much, much more to be said about why the history is credible - and as I wrote originally, people are generally unaware (I entirely understand presuming it to be mythology if one hasn't read up on the topic, I used to feel like that)
ok, so we both agree that he was a man who was a healer and he most probably did exist. He had a following. That is it, nothing else can be proven.The Romans were prolific record keepers and yet there is no one record of a problematic Jew called Jesus until 200 yrs after his death....seems a bit strange. So again anything written about this man didn't happen at the time of him being's all heresy...
I've no problem with your faith, but it's just that. Just because you believe he is the son of a god, doesn't make it so.
"not one record until 200 years after His death"? No, who told you that? And why would the Romans want to write about Him?
You're perfectly entitled to have a problem with what I believe, there's no need to claim that you don't. If you didn't you wouldn't be arguing. I'm sure we both have better things to do.
the Romans recorded everything, including executions, not one mentions him.
You need to do more research, and try to look at research that encompasses more than one view point.
Not once have you given any evidence of what you've claimed, you've turned the question around, deflected and completely tried to wriggle your way out of a grown up discussion.
Show me evidence of a written account of his existence at the time of his life, I will wait.
I didn't claim that you've said you have a problem, you're demonstrating it. And you're entitled to have a problem with it, so there's no need to say otherwise.
It's interesting how you're making various claims and citing no sources, having been the one to start the argument and telling me I've failed to provide evidence.
And I don't know why you think the Romans are the only source of historical accounts.
Also, you've overlooked one of my earlier points - the existence of the movement itself is compelling evidence. People took up belief in something contrary to their prior beliefs and died for it - why? Because of what they'd seen. And people still experience something - someone.
Covering this topic properly takes far more time than I have, I've already wasted time on this thread and need to get off Facebook now (and I'm certain you aren't going to change your view either way).
Have a nice evening. Bye. 
your original post stated you had seen historical texts saying that he wasn't attractive, where are these texts... also that's kind of all you really said, now, it's down to you to prove what you've've hinted that you know more than a lot of historians...please provide evidence.....other than the bible because that was written 200 yrs after the supposed death of Jesus. 
No, the Bible was not written 200 years later, again this is demonstrating my point that there's a lot of popular misinformation about this.
I *have* already linked to one summary of sources, so you could start there (however, no it's not "down to me to prove", in that making a comment on Facebook does not mean that one is required to cite sources - and my point was that people are unaware or misinformed about what is a big topic [too big to discuss here], so if I'm wrong people will look into it themselves) 
This is so idiotic. There are Christians all around the world, but you're just going to moan about some fellow Westerners, ignoring the rest of humanity whilst pretending to be progressive.
And it's illogical because those Westerners who call themselves Christian but don't try to follow God are thereby demonstrating that they *don't* believe in Him, so the comment^makes no sense.
Further, Christianity is absolutely not about God "preferring" some people. Jesus taught that God the Father is overjoyed when someone who has been rejecting God turns to Him, and "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8-9
UK has suspended funding to a UN aid agency for Palestinians after allegations some of its staff were involved in Hamas' 
Our PM (Rishi Sunak) massively cut the total humanitarian Aid budget several years ago. I've not seen those angry about this^ making so much noise about that, do only some starving humans matter?
What's happening in Gaza is horrific beyond words. Yet almost as many people (as have died in the current conflict) die *each day* from hunger in our world, why are people not also upset about that? (FTR, The latter is an issue we ourselves can do a little to tackle, it's incredibly cheap to fund meals for one of the world's poorest people) 
I desperately hope that Aid can reach the people of Gaza - is it not possible to deliver it without it going via UNWRA? 
America doesn't know what Evangelical means. The Evangel (from the Greek for "good news") is that Jesus died in our place, and rose defeating death. Anyone truly committed to following Him (Jesus) will not be a fanatical Trump supporter, Trump's behaviour and attitudes are antithetical to what Jesus taught.
I just don’t get the blood sacrifice thing. I thought God ended that with Abraham. Then turns around and sacrifices his own son. In addition to be cruel, you’d think a truly great God would have more imagination about how to “save” people.
It's sin that created the debt, which Jesus chose to pay, not cruelty on God's part.
On the cross the wrongdoing of humanity was heaped upon Jesus. God's Holiness meant that sin separated us from Him, but because of Jesus (if one chooses to genuinely repent and turn to Him) taking that contamination, it's possible for us to enter God's presence.
The limitations of the human brain make it difficult to comprehend this entirely, but what it comes down to is whether or not we choose to accept His offer. (if a person does, it will cause them to *want* to follow His teaching, and to be helped, with the Holy Spirit, to gradually become better and avoid sin - but it's not doing/being good that brings the salvation about. The actions and attitudes of some people, such as Trump, imply that they aren't truly seeking to follow Christ even if they label themselves "Christian/Evangelical")
There are lots of ways one could pay for sin. Why through human sacrifice? That to me seems cruel and without imagination. Plus if you don’t “want” e.g. chose freely to accept His office you’ll burn in hell for eternity. All this requires giving up anything that resembles logic.
I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ are profound. Worthy of dedicating one’s life too. I just can’t understand why people who call themself Christian find so many work around for not following those teaching.
Which "ways"? I reckon God knows better than we do.
Again, there's not cruelty from God, our sin is the evil that has accumulated.
No, the Bible doesn't say that people burn for eternity
If the Bible doesn’t say you’ll burn in hell a lot of preachers have being lying to a lot of people for a long time. And blood sacrifice is cruel! Not the path a loving God would chose for anyone. Especially after he told us it was wrong and to never do it again!
I meant to add earlier, RE "I just can’t understand why people who call themself Christian find so many work around for not following those teaching.", you're absolutely correct, it's ridiculous, but clearly some people who aren't actually trying to follow Jesus like feeling that "religion" is part of their identity, and/or they feel self-righteous. Jesus said that there'd be people like this and He spent a lot of time arguing with those people in His day who feigned religiosity whilst not really loving God and others.
Yes, some preachers are mistaken RE Hell. Things that burn do not continue to exist in a state of burning forever, things that burn cease to exist.
Jesus said that He willingly chose to lay down His life, He wasn't "sacrificed" by God. Eg John 10:17,18 – “…I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”
But way the need for death and the lying down of life, for sacrifice! It’s all so “pagan”.
I see what you're saying, yet paganism is not defined by sacrifice, it is to venerate nature and alternative spiritual forces instead of God.
The animal sacrifices in the OT (which don't end with Abraham) are a demonstration of the impact of sin. Jesus ended the need for animal sacrifice by willingly taking our sin upon Himself.
Human sacrifice is in human! We would all have been much better off had his followers had the courage to take him off that cross and define their oppressors! Now that would be an inspiring story.
"inhuman"? It was human wrongdoing that caused it.
Why would that be better? They wouldn't have been able to take him down, but if He hadn't died the debt of our sin wouldn't have been paid.
Because of what He chose to do, we have the option of entering perfect peace with God (though otherwise our sin would separate us from His Holy presence). And He defeated death, rising again to show that we can have eternal life through Him.
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Hebrews 10:12 "after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God"
Luke 24:46 "Then He said to them, 'Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day'"
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep."
I will never belief it takes blood and death to save us from sin. Saying I forgive you is much easier. And much more humane. But then being dead for only 3 days isn’t that much of a sacrifice.
Oh yikes, He wasn't "only dead for 3 days", He experienced one of the most horrific execution methods that's been dreamt up by humanity, but He also suffered supernaturally, beyond measure/time constraints/our imagination because the weight of human sin was placed upon Him.
Saying "I forgive you" doesn't achieve elimination of the problem. And God's nature includes justice. The wrongs of humanity had to be dealt with. Why do you think that we would know better about this than God?
You know you’re just make God sound crueler and crueler don’t you? I don’t like thinking of God as needing blood sacrifice. I like to think of Him as loving and wise. Not mean and unimaginative. Just following the conventions of the day withs gods needing sacrifice. I like the teaching of Jesus. I wish Christian would follow them, I can accept them without him “dying of me.” I like to think he lived and taught for me. That enough. I don’t need the shedding of blood. Sorry you seem too.
Again, I don't see why you think God is "cruel" (how has what I've written "made God sound crueler and crueler"?) - it's our sin that was heaped upon Jesus, and He chose to take our debt.
Not my sin. I didn’t exist. And there must be a billion ways a truly caring God could have freely chosen to forgive sin rather than the slaughter of His son. I don’t get it. Human sacrifice is inhuman. Being washed in blood is pagan. Christianity is the only religion that relies on such inhuman behavior to convert its followers . But Jesus had some profound advise for human kind. If just the people who called themselves Christian would follow it the world would be a much better place. Follow His teaching and forget this gory sacrifice stiff.
Of course, and I wasn't born either, but there's no time constraint, God (from whom sin separated us) created time and isn't restricted within it.
Gory? (this - emphasising how bad it was - seems a contrast from your previous assertion that it wasn't a particularly big deal "only dead for 3 days", which I addressed). Yes, human sin causes a mess. The awful things done by human beings (and even the smaller things we do wrong that are still awful in relation to the Holiness of God) are more than gory, and can't just be nullified given the existence of justice. They were placed on Jesus, who chose to pay the debt accrued.
You've claimed repeatedly that there "must be other ways" but not suggested what they are, so perhaps there aren't other ways. I think God knows better than our limited human brains as to what's necessary. The debt cannot just disappear, but Jesus offers to pay it, why be opposed to His offer?
We're very much going around in circles, I have no theological training (to enable me to explain this better) and either way I know that I'm not remotely capable of changing your mind (and obviously you're more than wholly entitled to your views). Let's leave this here.
God bless ☺️
I find it so odd how, in a world where there are people lacking clean water to drink, scores of our fellow Westerners feel that it's super rich Hollywood stars who need sympathy and defending. Margot Robbie is one of the luckiest people is the world, she doesn't need anyone's tears.
It's called having sympathy. Considering you're a supposed follower of Jesus one would think you understand that.
Seriously? They don't need sympathy, they aren't suffering. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that there are people in our world who actually do warrant sympathy - people we could even help - but who are constantly ignored whilst folk expend their energy worrying about which multimillionaire gets another shiny trinket.
Apples and Oranges this. Not one person has said she is worse off than someone facing real problems
I didn't say that anyone had said that. I'm observing the extent of expressed concern for different issues.
People can care about many different things at the same time. You’re implying that anyone who is upset about this issue doesn’t care about anything else. It’s apples and oranges to compare the two.
Of course people can care about multiple things (though in fact we all have a finite amount of time/headspace), but people/media outlets *are* expending substantial time/resources talking about this whilst human beings suffering amidst some of the most serious problems in our world are constantly ignored.
I find it odd how someone who cares so much about what’s going on in the world and isn’t doing anything about it. Instead complains about someone complaining about the wrong thing.
making a comment on Facebook proves that I do nothing how exactly?
cuz then you wouldn’t be a keyboard warrior in a comment thread trying to shit on people. You’re no better than the rest of us. Or please, send a link for your charity.
That makes no sense at all. Keeping up with what's going on in the world doesn't mean that a person doesn't also donate to charities and contact politicians (which of course I do). That you seem to think it does implies that you yourself don't anything other than start arguments with strangers online.

Just another person who completely missed the message of this movie
That you presume I've watched the film actually proves my point

Sibling rivalry runs deep in the human soul – but the tale of the prodigal son has something to teach us all
The tale of The Prodigal Son is not primarily about sibling rivalry. It's about a Father forgiving a child who's done nothing to deserve forgiveness, who's treated the Father with contempt and who's lived as a selfish hedonist.
The Father celebrates and gives The Prodigal undeserved gifts when The Prodigal repents and returns to The Father. It's an analogy, via Jesus, for our relationship with God.
it’s kind of more about the unconditional love a parent has for their child. A parent in the right mind will love their child no matter what they do. There are no expectations and desires put on the child and even if the rest of the world see’s that the child has acted disrespectfully the parent will still open their arms to their children. This is teaching us that God loves all his children on earth no matter what they do although I get the feeling it’s when a person doesn’t mean to do any harm, that’s different when a person knowingly inflicts pain and suffering on to others and enjoys it, that’s the work of the D.
In the prodigal son he sets out to seek his own truth in life and simply fails in trying to establish his own independence and there is no sin in failing in the eyes of people. It’s right though because attitudes change and people learn a different perspective and humans are, although only in infancy still, beginning to take baby steps towards a life void of ignorance.
The Prodigal Son has rejected The Father - and we do the same. Whether or not one "knowingly inflicts pain and suffering on to others and enjoys it", it's still the case that we turn from God and seek our own pleasure - the former is not "different" from the former, it's one example of it.
Jesus repeatedly commands that we love our neighbours - though this was counter-cultural at the time (we're so used to it now we take it for granted), so indeed to knowingly inflict pain on others is a particular evil (and we mustn't just blame it on the Devil, we have responsibility) - but even if we never do that, there's still a problem.
The Prodigal *has* sinned, he hasn't just "failed in the eyes of people", his "setting out to seek his own truth" *is sin*, he's turning his back on The Father to selfishly seek his own hedonistic pleasures. We sin when we turn our backs on God, even if we don't deliberately hurt others (in fact, we often do end up hurting others, and the distinction between seeking our own pleasures and ultimately hurting others becomes nebulous). That's what sin means. But the story teaches that, when a person *genuinely* turns back to God, truly lamenting their rebellion and now seeking to be close to The Father, He embraces them. This is, of course, possible because Jesus has taken our sins - hurting others or otherwise - upon Himself.
"Bombing Yemen"? The bombing is of a terrorist group and their military bases, not Yemen in general. Don't lump innocent Yemeni people together with the Houthis. It's interesting to me that people are very upset about terrorist military bases being attacked, but haven't been talking about the ongoing suffering of Yemeni people afflicted by conflict and famine. I don't remember so much condemnation when Sunak cut Aid - which has included reducing UK support for suffering Yemeni people by 60%
houthis are terrorsts o my white people think they are born innocent but come out and visit Asia and other continent we think you guys as terrorsts cilonislism, wars, natives g@nocides list goes on nic eolay by z!0s to tag any one as terrorsts to do their evil activities
"we think you guys as terrorsts cilonislism, wars, natives g@nocides" - I'm well aware that some people think that, but not everyone is so illogical. We - white people - are, like you, all individuals. We are not to blame for the actions of other white people, each human has their own brain. That some white people have done evil things around the world doesn't mean that we somehow chose for those things to happen just because we're also white.
Throughout history, powerful people have done evil things to other people, of their own ethnicity and from other tribes or countries, it makes no sense to blame whole groups of people, based on colour, for those evil actions. Some African dictators, for instance, have carried out extreme violence via their soldiers - the civilian citizens of their countries are, obviously, in no way responsible for the actions of the dictators (many suffered because of the dictators, obviously their being of the same colour and nationality didn't mean that they had control over their leaders' choices). Many people, in every country, *disagree* with their own leaders.
As I just wrote, innocent Yemeni civilians are not to lumped together with the terrorists they share a country with - and the Houthis *are* terrorists, they are attacking merchant ships and their own slogan is about wishing death and curses upon others. No one in Yemen who is not a Houthi is to blame nor should suffer because of their actions.
you all need a machine to get rid of brianwashing
go on then, explain how what I wrote is incorrect. (or, rather, you obviously can't, hence the rubbish attempt at an insult, and I have other things to do so won't spend any longer arguing).
You should consider, though, part of the reason that the evil things you mentioned happened was *because* of ideas like yours. The white people who did the evil you mentioned were so stupid they believed that human beings elsewhere were inferior and savage because of being of a different ethnicity. They thought that being Brown or Black meant that peoples' brains were different, that they were more animal like and less human. That was an evil and completely stupid thing for those colonisers to believe. But your comment is doing the same thing - you're claiming that being white makes a person's brain and character different. In reality human beings of all ethnicities are equal, and each person has their own mind - each is influenced by their surroundings but also makes their own choices, and each person does a mixture of good and bad things (but to endlessly *differing* extents)
If you could get access to a vaccine booster for covid would you take it or not, and why?
No, I'd rather that appointment were put to better use (I generally don't are about my health, but I've also had 3 doses and been asymptomatic when I've actually had Covid).
Most of all, I wish the dose (that I've been offered) could be offered to someone in a less wealthy country who's not yet had the opportunity to choose to have a vaccination. When I was 13, I rejected the HPV vaccine and wrote to the Department of Health asking that the £ my dose would have cost be used to fund a few doses of infant vaccines for several children in our world who are still missing out on these (not that I thought this would actually happen, obviously, I wanted to make a point)
Grim. Yet just one example of how our uninformed society thinks of Jesus as merely a character. People are unaware of the historical case for believing in His resurrection, and ignore His offer of salvation. That's the real tragedy, rather than Lil Nas X.
What? No, the question is whether or not the state should pay for meals for kids whose parents could afford to feed them (personally I think the money would be better spent on helping those from less well off households specifically)
There are children in our world who are truly starving - but £19.15 can provide school meals for a child for a year, which I think is awesome ☺
It'd be helpful if there were more clarity about the conditions(?) Indeed they absolutely should be decent, I'm just currently unclear as to how they aren't(?) Perhaps I've missed something(?)
Self harm is often the result of stress and/or self hatred, not poor living conditions. I suspect that the man who killed himself was more likely suffering from mental turmoil on account of his situation.
There are many people in our world in far worse living conditions (I'm not aware that they're self harming?), could we please talk more about helping them? I don't understand why those living in slums, lacking clean water, stuck in refugee camps etc are ignored continually.
Hugest condolences to the family of the deceased
Edit - the headline is misleading, stirring to make people think that the asylum seeker who's commenting is being petty
Treatment wasn’t helping Naomi's anorexia, so doctors allowed her to stop — no matter the consequences. But is a “palliative” approach to mental illness really ethical? 
This makes me so furious. Of course treatment isn't helping, plenty of those of us with eating disorders are unable to ever escape them - but that doesn't mean that our lives are worthless.
And I'm disgusted by the people here commenting that it's her "choice", the ignorance and inhumanity are breathtaking.
very well said. My response would have also been spot on!
Question to those to commenting that those with EDs should have the choice to die just to make everyone else's lives easier...
I don't think people have considered the reason those of us with EDs ever feel our lives aren't worth living - because we feel no escape to the puppet we have become. I don't see people saying the same about cancer treatment/ patients - there is always treatment until there really isn't. Illness for an illness, this isn't a choice we have chosen to live by. If it was, would we really want to not survive this beautiful life anymore (just because we can't be rid of the ED?)
Thankyou. I've been so horrified by these ignorant comments. You're right, with other illnesses, or disabilities, it's not suggested that people should just die because they can't be totally healed. The only difference is that eating disorders affect the mind so that we often *can't* do what we'd actually choose to. There's such ignorance in people not realising that - we don't starve or make ourselves sick, or exercise obsessively, because it's "our body, our choice", neural pathways are affected and we are compelled to do things we don't want to. If "assisted dying" is presented as an option, plenty of us could be compelled to go for it, not because we want or choose to.
Eating disorders can mean that we feel trapped, hate our bodies, and hate ourselves for not having achieved more in life - but that doesn't mean we should die.
I hope that you're OK - your life matters.
The *strategy* Netanyahu is employing is evil. But genocide implies wanting to wipe people out purely on the basis of racism - implying that October the 7th meant nothing.
legally an oppressed people can resist. Oct 7th was resistance to 75 years of slaughter. If you start from the 1948 nakba you'll see the bigger picture.
You are evil.
lol you are brainwashed with a Christian you're siding with the devil???? Really?
You think I'm brainwashed and "siding with devil" because I oppose civilians being raped, mutilated and slaughtered? The irony.
Let's talk dentistry in the u.k.
I have lost my 4 upper front teeth and others due to a combination of being given incorrect information by my orthodontist and an eating disorder. There's no option on the NHS to have them replaced (I'd have to pay a grand per toot to have them replaced privately, but have been told they'd just break anyway unless I have surgery on my jaws)
Sorry, I'm ranting. I guess my point is, the problems aren't only *getting an NHS dentist*, it's also that "NHS dentistry" has been messed with such that it both charges and doesn't cover having teeth.
What is the greatest command we are given in the bible and why? And how does it relate to The Church today?
Jesus said that the greatest command is to love God. The next is to love others
I know. I’m interested to know if Dr Ian Paul believes that’s the greatest command in the bible and I’m interested to know what he believes that should look like in the Church today.
A lot of outsiders (and indeed insiders) would look to the church and believe that love is not our priority and that it’s not something we’re doing at all. I’m interested in whether those in church leadership, especially in the CofE right now, then even see it as the greatest command
What do you mean by love?
we’ll what did Jesus mean by love? Again that’s a question Dr Paul could answer, what does love mean from a biblical perspective?
I guess I'm wondering what you mean when you assert that the CofE is failing at it. But I'm not disagreeing nor trying to start an argument (I'm guessing that you take issue with Dr Paul?)
In our culture, the word is too often conflated with lust or with celebrating other peoples' actions. The Bible of course uses different words that all end up being translated as love. Most importantly, we're called to Agape, which is quite different from what's sometimes meant when our culture uses the word "love".
Whilst we're called to love others, we're also called to love God - our culture resents the latter, and that impacts how Christians are viewed (in addition to some Christians genuinely failing to be loving)
I am just thinking about some of the vicious arguments in the Church of England around blessing gay couples, not necessarily the arguments themselves but the viciousness in which they have been carried out and the pain they have caused.
I do believe Ian Paul has been a part of that process.
I know that there have been people stepping down from Synod because they felt abused by the whole process.
And then of course there’s all the stuff about Mike Pilivachi and Soul Survivor
And church leaders accepting worldly accolades in the New Year honours.
I don’t think lust is anything to do with any of that, but I think that by any definition of love those outside of the church would look at that, especially when it ends up being discussed in Parliament, and not see Christ reflected. To me, this seems a huge crisis and failure.
I'm unsure as to how he's contributed to viciousness(?)
I think that MP SS situation is horrific, arguably demonic, but not the fault of the whole CofE
The honours system is absurd, but I'm not sure it'd make people see the Church as unloving(?)
I don't know what's being discussed in Parliament that shows the Church to be unloving(?)
But I'm sorry I seem to be arguing, and we should probably both do other things
I saw you as “conversing” rather than “arguing” learning to disagree well is important for Christians 😊
I should add (in case I gave the wrong impression), I don't dispute that there are issues of a lack of love, and sometimes of bigotry, in the Church πŸ˜”
that’s all I’m referring g to really.
There were discussions in the House of Commons and House of Lords around the church debate about same sex blessings and I’m sure this isn’t a good witness to non-believers. I wasn’t referring g to any one individual specifically but the institutional process that Dr Paul took part in (rather than him as a person) however, I do believe he’s part of the CEEC.
And yeah, maybe people don’t see church leaders accepting honours as “unloving” but I’m pretty sure they see it as “hypocritical”
I read an interesting book by the Barna Institute called unChristian. They carried out a huge poll of unchurched people about how they saw Christian, “loving” was not a word that came up. “Hypocritical” “judgemental” “bigoted” all were
I've not seen anything unloving from the CEEC, but I've not been following it specifically. I have been following Dr Paul, and not seen anything unloving (I have seen viciousness *towards* him), though I don't necessarily always agree.
I think it's both the case that there are some "hypocritical" and "bigoted" attitudes within the Church that must be repented of, *and* that much of the public will, ironically, judge and hate the Church either way.
Do the creators of the T-shirt, and other pro-Palestinian activiss, also endeavour to stand up for other people in our world suffering amidst conflict and deprivation (such as in the war in Sudan, the famine in the Horn of Africa, the horrors in Afghanistan etc)? It appears that only one crisis matters to people.
who are you to tell people who to stand up for, we used to be free to choose
I didn't tell anyone to do anything. I *asked about* the present situation.
If people actually care about human suffering, they'll care about multiple situations - that people are focussed only on one situation suggests that the driving force is not humanitarian concern alone.
it's none of your business, stay in your lane, we still have free speech here last time I looked.
If people have free speech, I'm allowed to ask a question. I wasn't delving into anyone's personal business, nor attacking anyone- I only made a comment on a public post. Your attitude affirms what I've suspected.
jewish logic to comit a genocide 🀣🀣
[I don't think I should argue with this irrational, antisemitic nutjob]
I have ASD (and found school grim, aside from some awesome teachers). I was forced (by doctors) to miss most of year 11 due to anorexia, and that's contributed to long term issues. People have individual situations, and odd days may make no difference - but generally school being stressful for those with neurodivergence doesn't necessarily mean that one should miss it.
We're privileged to have access to education that some children in our world don't. There are kids desperate to go to school, but unable due to poverty.

The selfishness and elitism is sickening. They will earn far, far more in their lifetimes than most workers. They aren't financially struggling, they just demand more because they think of themselves as so very, very superior. NB, workers in general have had similar "pay erosion"
would you accept constant real terms pay cuts Grace? Would you accept being made poorer year on year, whilst having to work longer hours to make up for a lack of staff?
As I said, the average worker *has* had ongoing real terms pay cuts.
And yes, I would love to be a junior doctor. Some of us get the A level grades but don't get med school places - some of us are interested in being useful and not just in the pay packet
What a sad endictment of this failed Tory government.... Nurses must accept a decade worth of pay cuts because everyone else is now poorer!  There's only so many real terms pay cuts hard working, highly trained professionals will ever be willing to take!
The fact you didn't get a med school place is your problem only... And isnt a reason as to why Nurses and Doctors should accept being poorer whilst working dangerously long hours!!
Sorry what? This is about Doctors, not nurses - and the Doctor strikes are a fricking slap in the face to them.
Of course it's my problem only - but you're missing the point, that JDs aren't necessarily such a very different species to everyone else, they're the few who were *lucky* enough to get the opportunity. And not everyone demands high pay to help others.
Working long hours is not resolved by being paid more. The funds should be used to train more healthcare professionals so that the burden is lessened.
junior doctors aren't 'lucky'.. They've worked hard for their career.. And have been forced to accept a decade worth of pay cuts! There's obviously only so long anyone will accept constantly being made poorer!
Obviously paying junior doctors more will attract young people to the career... It's not a coincidence doctors have left the profession whilst wages have fallen in real terms!
They are lucky (as well as hard working), there are limited places available, I'm not sure which part of that you're missing. "paying junior doctors more will attract young people to the career"??? You really don't understand that the limiting factor isn't young people wanting to do medicine? There's5 no need to attract more young people, we just discussed that more people apply than are given places. In fact I hope that salaries aren't increased in part because young people *shouldn't* go into it for the money.
And they're not "being made poorer" - they were in high school at the time of the salaries they refer to. Salaries have gone up, only not as fast as inflation but that's true for other workers - workers whose taxes pay Doctor salaries, who aren't striking and who won't, in their lifetimes, earn anywhere nearly as much as Doctors. Their salary in their *First* Year is above the salary of the average worker - so they are not poor - and then it goes up and up (with great pensions)
It's not "pay restoration", as we're told, the strikers earning the rate bemoaned on their placards were in high school when pay was at the *level* they demand. The hourly pay rate they bang on about is only the *basic rate* applicable to First Years - in fact their annual salary in Year 1 is around £41k, and the average Junior Doctor makes far more.
The strikes are supported by supposedly Left wing politicians and commentators - but make an absolute mockery of Left wing principles. There's nothing Left wing about demanding more money for the rich. That they're clever is irrelevant, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (Marx). People do not need vastly more money because they're intelligent.
Again and again we're told that they must be paid more because they "save lives". But so do paramedics. And all sorts of people trained in First Aid. Doctors couldn't save lives without nurses, and other healthcare staff. Nor without workers who produce their implements and devices. They can only save lives because they've been handed down knowledge developed over centuries - and because they've been through the school system, relying on teachers and other staff. They're dependent on scientists and lab workers who develop medicines and run tests, and sometimes on blood and tissue donors (we choose to contribute, for no pay). Many rely on childcare staff to be able to go to work and save lives. Most rely on a mixture of workers linked to the transport sector, including those who create vehicles in factories and those who maintain roads, to reach hospitals and clinics to *save lives*. They need electricians, and even mineral miners in developing countries, to have electricity and the devices essential for their work - and plumbers, etc. And some other people who stop people dying are those who enable us to eat, including low paid crop pickers and factory workers. Those involved in Aid charities, including the senior citizens who volunteer in Oxfam shops, are playing a fundamental part in saving human lives. I could go on. Many people are ultimately vitally important, not only those who get the praise.
Of course, many Doctors do suffer horrendous stress - but the strike is about money, which isn't a solution for stress. The money should be used to train more Doctors. And right now the strikes are *adding* to the stress of *other Doctors*. Importantly, not all Doctors support the strikes - and ultimately it's the BMA to blame, they're driving the strikes because *they* profit from member fees so need to convince members that they're fighting for them. And as some aren't aware, the BMA opposed the NHS at its founding, concerned that wealthy doctors would be less able to keep earning so much - it's opposed to the interests of the public.
Ultimately, as a Christian I believe that we should aim to look to the needs of others rather than to seek our own good (as much as I fail at this) - many people were raised to think similarly even if not deciding to follow Jesus, the strikers are of our country's post-Christian generation 
Controversial US rapper Lil Nas X has been criticised by some Christians
"The spiritual person judges all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15)
We should certainly have empathy rather than hatred for him, and pray that he does come to God (which he certainly could, Jesus can transform anyone's heart), being conscious of our sin and need for forgiveness through Christ. I'm sure that some comments will have been judgemental in a way that unChristlike - and it might be better not to express strong opinions about this situation publicly. But in our minds we should exercise caution before trusting that he's genuine in his claim to now be Christian.
That MPs (who there are far fewer of, and who are mostly at the peak of their careers) earn too much doesn't mean that junior doctors need more money. And this tweet is stupidly disingenuous because most junior doctors will go on to have higher salaries than MPs.
If this person thinks raising MP pay by £5 costs the same or more than raising junior doctor pay by £4 (which is what they're insinuating) they need to revisit maths.
Since 2010 Doctors salaries have fallen by 35% in real terms, whist MPs salaries have risen by 38%. This is the maths that counts.
LOL, who told you that? The supposed fall in Docs' salaries (they earn more now than in 2010, when their basic salary in their 1st year was £22.5k) - which is 26% from 2008/9, not the inverse 35%, since 2010 - is based on one measure of inflation, and given inflation the average worker has seen their pay decrease by a similar proportion.
MP pay growth has only grown as much as you claim in absolute terms, NOT REAL TERMS, WHICH ARE WHAT DOCTORS' CLAIMS ARE BASED ON.
FY1 doctors now get £29.4k, so if you're going to compare them to MPs that's an increase of over 30%.
And I already wrote that MPs get too much. The bottom line is that doctors ultimately go on to earn far, far more than average workers, many several times as much (as well as having good pensions, and job security etc). It baffles me that so many supposed Left wingers are so eager to defend the rich.
I think you are in a minority of one with your post, is one of your relatives an MP by any chance
That you suggest I must be related to an MP shows that you don't have a logical argument against what I've written. And if you think I'm the only person who doesn't support strikes, you're very much in an echo chamber.
No, I don't have any relatives or friends who are MPs.
If you think the less of them there are the more they should be paid is a sensible argument then you would argue that lib democrats should be paid more than conservative MPs, you need to go back to school.
I didn't say that that MPs *should* be paid more because there are fewer of them, and I ALREADY SAID THAT THEY'RE PAID TOO MUCH. What I said is that the OP is mathematically incoherent for implying that the MP pay rise means there's enough money available to increase pay for the far larger number of junior doctors.
Since Meghan's been an advocate for World Vision USA, years ago I'd really hoped that she and Harry would use their position in the royal family to raise awareness of some of the world's very most horrific injustices. The charity is working with victims of forced labour, and of famine.
How some in the media moan about Meghan is absurd, and likely partially racist, but I do personally feel sad that she and Harry appear more interested in glamour and in themselves than in helping the very poorest (who are continually overlooked).
invictus games sentebale charity, Ukraine kitchens work with underprivileged girls. I think they do more than enough I doubt you get off your rump and help anyone. Many wealthy royals and people don't do anything for anyone else but the Sussexes do.
Ironically, you've just somewhat demonstrated part of my point - the world's poorest people are continually overlooked (unlike veterans and Ukrainians, who *rightly* receive public attention), I stated that I hoped - on the basis of Meghan's previous role - that she and Harry would raise awareness (unlike the other Royals who seem to only care about Brits, or nature). You just actively ignored extreme poverty, as mentioned, to talk about other causes.
Me? On what basis do you "bet"? You don't know me. It's a non-sequitter, what I do or don't do doesn't determine validity of the point. And I don't have anything like the power/influence/resources that they do whatsoever - I'm a nobody (lacking followers/a platform/audience) with a long term condition that's making it seriously difficult to have an income.
But yes, I do avoid spending on myself so that I can give most of what I do spend to charities working in poor countries. And each year I pack a few hundred shoeboxes each full of gifts for kids (in the developing world or who are refugees) to receive at Christmas. Obviously, I also endeavour to campaign via contacting MPs, and radio phone-ins to raise awareness.
I wish, more than anything, that I could have more impact.
ridiculous rant.
Why plead to Meghan who is not in the family anymore, instead of those who are in the family?
The article is about Meghan and Harry.
so what? Let's blame everything in them if the article is about them. What influence do they have with the family?
I'm not sure why it would make more sense to comment on people who aren't the subject of an article than about the people who are the subject of an article in the comments section of that article.
Of course I'm critical of the RF, but that's not what article is about. Because of the monarchy, Harry and Meghan have massive wealth and potential influence/listeners, even though they've now chosen to leave. Because I'm constantly desperately concerned about the world's poorest people, I'd been wishing that the Netflix or podcast deals might have been used to raise awareness of them (given Meghan having had an advocacy role with World Vision in the past) instead of self promotion and chatting with celebrities. I wonder how much of the very many $millions they were paid they've put towards enacting the "compassion" they claim to be about. Obviously I also believe that others with wealth and influence should be doing more to help the poor.
(and obviously I don't endorse the right wing tabloids endlessly whining about Harry and Meghan)
It's^ large because it fits a lot of people, reducing costs per head.
Plenty of people fund secular mega-churches (and the monumental pay packets of the performers), they're sport stadiums and concert venues.
Some Churches are not following Jesus at all - just as some of the religious leaders in Jesus' time wren't following God (and He argued with them continually) - but decent Churches can be used to explore something (as much as you don't believe it) incomparably more significant and long lasting than watching Taylor Swift or football.
It is absolutely essential that Christians give to help the poor, but having meeting places doesn't prevent this. Choosing to follow Jesus (many people who call themselves Christian haven't actually one this) causes one to become more eager to help others than they were previously.
you have missed the point. Football stadiums and Taylor swift concerts are not considered charities and are taxed. Every church claims to be a charity, but then turns around and spend MILLIONS on self-serving activities. Mega churches, private jets, millions of acres of land, golden thrones ect. all of it tax free.
What % of Churches/pastors have jets etc?
a percentage greater than zero. And so long as that percentage is greater than zero, we will point out thoes pastors that do own private jets. Private, tax free jets.
I really do not understand your objection here. If your position is the "some churches are not following Jesus at all" why would you turn around and try and mitigate their actions by pointing out they are in the minority? Why are you not just as put out as we are, all be it for different reasons?
It has always been my thought that if an organization wants to be counted as a charity they need to make their financial records public and actually do charitable things. And that includes churches. Cover overhead, set a small percentage aside for growth, and all the rest goes towards feeding the hungry, building homes supporting health care for people without insurance etc. etc. etc.
Of course any % above zero is utterly unacceptable (and God hates it), but posts like this imply that it's a significant proportion, enough to hate Churches in general. It's like a conservative posting about pedophilia amongst liberals, because of a small %, as a reason for hating all liberals and writing off liberal politics entirely.
I completely agree that Churches which are corrupt like this are despicable, indeed I am "put out" and more, my issue is the insinuation that Churches in general are like this.
And I agree that all organisations should make financial records available to read. But the post isn't about that, nor about tax (and lack thereof), it's criticising large venues and implying that Christian communities don't help the poor (this very much untrue). Of course, what people think about Christians doesn't matter in itself, but it bothers me that this is often a reason people choose to reject Christianity (and that bothers me because I believe that Christ offers people the very greatest thing, so I don't want them to miss on account of misinformation).
Fascinating how she goes straight from "Jews" to "the Jewish faith", entirely disregarding an ethnicity. But sure she's not antisemitic at all πŸ™ƒπŸ™„
I had presumed what she claims, that people in our society feeling negatively about Jewish folk is a fiction - then I observed reactions to October the 7th and realised how ignorant I'd been.
If those who talk endlessly about Palestine were genuinely motivated by humanitarianism, they'd talk about other immense suffering in our world too.
no she is not antisemitic in any way. We do speak out about ALL the immense suffering in this world.
Just saying that she's not antisemitic without addressing the reasoning I've stated that I suspect she is is not an argument.
And no, this group, and the many accounts and pages I see talking constantly about Palestine and that claim to be pro social justice absolutely DON'T speak about the immense suffering elsewhere in our world. Seriously, I don't know how you can make that claim (unless you can show evidence?). Millions of people have been displaced in the Sudanese war this year, others are suffering amidst conflict in other parts of the continent, millions are facing famine. People have rightly spoken with horror about people in Gaza losing access to water, electricity and food - but there are communities in parts of the developing world who struggle to access these all the time and apparently no one cares.
so explain what part/parts you think is antisemitic in any way?  ….try this: Christianity means Christian religion people:I.e Christians. Jewish means Jewish religion people: I.e. Jews. That is a statement of historical, social, cultural, political ‘fact’….I may also be ‘anti-Semitic’. But that is complex topic requiring other complex but coherent concepts. NB: Palestinians are referred to by historians and anthropologists as a ‘Semitic’ people!
As I wrote, it seems potentially antisemitic that she conflates being Jewish with practising the Jewish faith, she's absolutely disregarding the ethnicity. Being Jewish is not equivalent to being Christian or Muslim, in that it can mean being of the Jewish faith *or* it can mean having Jewish heritage (of course, these very much overlap). You know this - plenty of people who are Jewish are *not* following Judaism, such as Stephen Fry and David Baddiel (who I know are much hated in these circles, the controversy around them demonstrates how well known they are, so the OP cannot feign ignorance). Many Israelis are secular.
Hitler did not kill Jewish people on the basis of their religious practice, he killed on the basis of their ethnicity, it was eugenics. He argued that their genetics made them different and as such bad for society. To overlook that evil, horrifying history is concerning.
Since you mention it, the words "Christianity" and "Christian" are grossly misused - because previously much of our population was Christian, plenty of people think of it as part of their heritage and label themselves Christian when in fact they aren't committed to following Christ at all. And throughout history, plenty of people have claimed, for social reasons, to be part of a religion, whilst not actually seeking God - Jesus spent a lot of time arguing with those who were deemed religious but weren't following God's commands to love others.
And whilst "Jewish" can refer to an ethnicity (or a religious practice), "Christian" most definitely cannot refer to an ethnicity - right now Christianity, though historically common in the white Western world, is thriving in many non-Western, non-white countries.
Yes I'm aware that "Semitic" people in fact include a wider group of people than only those with Jewish heritage.
The private schools facing closure under Labour’s tax plans 
Good. Children should not be segregated. Growing up alongside those from different backgrounds is part of education. Parents can help their kids do their best via tutoring, engaging with what they've been learning in discussion at home, providing extra books/trips etc
One could use a small fraction of the money saved to sponsor children in the developing world - it's around £1 per day and transforms lives. Doing so and talking with one's own children about this would help them to better understand the world and to appreciate what they themselves have.
rather than worrying about transforming life's in the developing world how about helping the illerate on this country. We already help the developing world with our foreign aid budget. If parents choose private education that is their right, after all we are a democracy.
The Aid budget is pitiful, far more wealth comes FROM the developing world TO the developed world than is given in Aid. And I don't know why you wouldn't *want* to change a child's life when it's such amazing value.
I didn't say that parents can't use private schools, I just expressed an opinion, as people in democracies are allowed to do.
the aid budget is far from pitiful, take a tour around some northern towns and see what the money can do, or a walk around your nearest a & e department.
LOL what? Why do you think the fact that things are imperfect in the UK proves anything about Aid? It's a mere 0.5% of GDP - and much of that is in fact spent here on migrants. Again, it's far far less than the wealth coming in the opposite direction, in addition to the many £trillions taken over previous centuries through colonialism. "What the money can do"? Far, far less here than there, it costs of fraction (in the poorest countries) of what it costs here to build things, treat illness, educate children or feed people. And our healthcare system, whilst terribly stretched, is still far far more than much of humanity has access to.
yes our nhs is better than most but this country and every developed country have given tens of billions in aid and charity, or trillions to use your term, for decades ( even when my mother was a child in the 50s) and what good has it done? None. Leave your London bubble and look around some of this country.
"billions in aid and charity, or trillions to use your term"??? A trillion is a thousand billion, surely you knew that??? You appear to be disregarding very basic mathematics, and as such your points make no sense. AGAIN, the amount given in Aid is less than 0.5% of our GDP, many times less than the wealth coming FROM the developing world, and many times less again than has been taken over centuries.
"None"? You're demonstrating that you've not looked at the data.
what you in your arrogance chooses to ignore is that all developed countries give this money and have done for decades plus charitable donations and what has it achieved? Nothing. I used the word trillion as that was the term you were using. And yes I know what a trillion is thankyou.And that you think me living in London is relevant demonstrates that it's you who's in a bubble.
Wow. I honestly don't know why you can't comprehend what I've written, you're just going around in circles. If you have an actual counterargument, you should present it, but you're just restating points I've already repeatedly addressed.
"I used the word trillion as that was the term you were using. And yes I know what a trillion is thankyou." - no, your comment showed that you don't. And it's not just a "term", it's a mathematical reality.
because I'm not interested in what you've written. The same way you are not interested in anyone else's opinion unless it agrees with your own. You haven't addressed anyone's post, all you gave done is come back with more s##t. When you've grown up a little and loved a little and leave your comfortable London bubble come back and try lecturing us all. Until then go do one.
This is too funny. You argued against helping the world's poorest people on the basis that the UK has given some Overseas Aid, I explained why this argument is fallacious for multiple reasons. That's not "sh*", and you're simultaneously lying that I've "not addressed anyone's post" (I presume you mean comment, it's The Telegraph who *posted*) and admitting that you aren't reading my comments because you're "not interested". If you're not interested, you shouldn't have started the debate, in fact you plainly just don't have any comeback (which is fine, I'm not expecting any, you should just stop arguing).
That you again refer to some "London bubble" is both a lame Ad Hominem and demonstrative of ignorance (given that there's plenty of *relative* poverty - ie, as compared to the country, not the world - in London; and that people learn about what's going on elsewhere via statistics/media/radio phone ins/social media etc - where one is irrelevant). "Loved a little"? I presume you mean "lived", which is another Ad Hominem. If you did mean "loved", that demonstrates a fascinatingly twisted world-view, whilst you're insisting on not helping the very poorest people and telling me to "do one". Rather than telling strangers to "do one" for simply replying to *your* comments on what they've written, you really should do something better with your time than starting arguments in the first place.
Actively enforcing a child's discomfort with their own biology is not care (though obviously it's very profitable for the evil organisations turning vulnerable young people into lifelong patients)
I bet you believe vaccines kill more people than COVID as well. LOL
No, I don't at all. That you make that presumption demonstrates a serious lack of rationality and that you're entirely clueless about people who don't agree with you.
Both anti-vaxxers and trans ideology are anti-science.
Here are a few of the evidence based medical experts that strongly support gender identity and gender affirming care.
Please show how they are “anti-science.”
A list of politicised organisations is not a scientific argument. You are advocating denying biology, and the many studies sBiology confirms there are actually 6 different sexes. And none of the groups listed base their knowledge from politics. However, if you do believe that, you can always look up scholarly medical articles regarding transgender youth.howing the dangers of encouraging children to transition.
Biology confirms there are actually 6 different sexes. And none of the groups listed base their knowledge from politics. However, if you do believe that, you can always look up scholarly medical articles regarding transgender youth.
I'm well aware of intersex conditions, which are very rare, but that's not what this is about at all. This isn't about a child being found to have one of the rare conditions you refer to - such as XXY chromosomes - but about their actual biology being denied. Adults should support young people who feel discomfort with their bodies - particularly given the tumult of feelings during adolescence - not reinforcing their feelings that their own bodies are wrong.
The literature, since you mention it, shows that the vast majority of questioning children are OK with their biological sex post puberty if their new identities haven't been reinforced - as well as that transitioning does serious long term damage.
The #Kingspeech had some good points
Yet Christmas is about the King of Kings, who indeed taught us to care for the poor and oppressed but ultimately came to the save the world in an even more important sense than mitigating climate change. We are offered salvation through Jesus, and eternal life is even better than Earthly peace, the resolution of catastrophes such as Global warming, or endless Christmas presents.
My feeds are full of people relating the Nativity to the tragedy in the Middle East. We absolutely must indeed lament, pray and donate for those in our world who are suffering (not only Palestinians). But Jesus coming to humanity is not only about addressing the injustices and pain in this world. And it's not only politicians or soldiers who are in the wrong. We all have done wrong - but Jesus's coming, so that He could die in our place, means that a way has been made for our sin to be erased and for us to be with God beyond this lifetime.
I wish we could give more attention to the reality that there are people elsewhere in our world who are literally starving to death
and what pray tell are you doing or have done to help those people?
There's not much I can do (whereas news outlets like Metro have power to raise awareness significantly) - obviously I frequently write to politicians, donate what I can, and attempt to highlight the problem via phone-in radio as well as online - but I'm desperate to be more helpful. What do you suggest?
actually going to other countries that need help & actually help them instead of virtue-signalling online for woke brownie points
How would me travelling (spending money that could be donated, and adding to climate change) to a country where I don't know the language etc actually *help*? Do you think that a white Westerner has the power to just magic up food?
I'm not well, I'd just be a burden.
What's ultimately needed is for the ongoing extraction of wealth from the poorest countries to wealthier ones to stop, if those who care all leave the country there'll be no one putting pressure on politicians to make that happen.
It's very telling that you think the only reason someone would make a comment on FB is for virtue signalling brownie points, I guess you can't fathom actually caring about something and wanting to highlight a problem.
typical leftist. You'll complain about a problem but won't do anything to help be part of the solution of said problem...
It seems you're not able to read or comprehend what I've written.
I read everything that you said thanks
You've demonstrated that you haven't actually understood it, maybe try again. And I have things to do, bye.
you've demonstrated that you don't actually care to help solve real world problems. Typical leftist. Girl bye
No, I haven't, thankyou for proving my point that you've not comprehended my comment.
you're a woman. Unlike a knife, you HAVE no point. 
Jesus *was* killed. He took the punishment our sin deserves. He absolutely taught us to care for the poor and oppressed - but that wasn't the only reason He came. He offers hope even amidst complete despair and death.
2000 years later, so much for the poor and oppressed.
I'm not sure what you mean(?) Jesus taught us to care for the poor and oppressed, but most people don't follow Him, and even if we do we are flawed. But He also came to offer something even *better* than the resolution of the world's problems.
Evangelicals Are Now Rejecting 'Liberal' Teachings of Jesus
Nah, they're not evangelicals. The word is constantly misused in the US, it's fricking irritating. Those who are focussed on the Evangel - that Jesus offers salvation - won't reject Jesus' teachings.
Dismiss? Who's dismissing? Churches were established for people to discuss and meditate on Jesus - those of us who've decided to follow Him are desperate for others to know Him also (since what He offers is greater than anything else and we don't want people to miss out).
he doesn't offer anything, there's no empirical evidence that gods exist and your god specifically?
What empirical evidence should there be?
Empirical evidence, via scientific methods and instruments, measure/s the physical matter and energy of the universe God created.
empirical evidence that gods exist and your god specifically exists , as I previously stated.
That doesn't answer the question. *What* empirical evidence (are you expecting, could there be)? See the rest of my comment.
there's only one type of empirical evidence it's based on scientific data and peer reviewed .
That's still not answering the question. Of course there are different types of empirical evidence - we use scientific instruments and the scientific method to measure and analyse different things in different ways.
it's all collected researched using scientific method and under peer review , doesn't matter what the data is it's all empirical evidence, do you have any to show gods exist and your god specifically exists? I'm expecting data that's gained through scientific method that's been peer reviewed that proves gods exist and your god specifically exists.
That's the sort of empirical evidence that I expect!!!
Right, and that's still not answering. I wonder how often you read scientific research(?) Data measures different things - for instance, the numbers of people reported as having a particular condition in epidemiology; the numbers of test subjects who respond to a certain treatment in pharmacology; the measured distances between objects in various branches of physics etc. How do you propose measuring and empirically analysing God?
However, many things within science demonstrate that the universe and natural world could not have come about by chance, implying a Designer.
oh FFS , it doesn't matter what things you measure, as long as you use scientific method it's ALL empirical evidence.
It's easy to analyse god find empirical evidence that gods exist, if there is no empirical evidence then there are no gods , simples .
Unless you have some ,which you don't because in the entire history of mankind not one itoa of empirical evidence has been found that gods exist.
Why do you think that something not having been measured with our scientific instruments proves that it does not exist? That presumption doesn't adhere to the scientific method at all.
And note that there are plenty of scientists who are theists because science shows the details of natural systems that demonstrate design.
Again, empirical methods and scientific instruments can examine matter and energy or the universe the creator of the universe is not comprised of those, as a painter is not comprised of paint and isn't confined within a painting.
But I really need to stop arguing and do other things.
Have a great Christmas, truly. 
even Jesus himself went to the temple… he didn’t create anything, may not have existed and “his” story was written decades after his death by several authors… make you choice on “his” truth and whatever the church has chosen to make us believe for centuries. Mostly: obey, give us your money, it’s for your own good.
Historians agree that Jesus existed, as much as I know the conspiracy theory to the contrary is popular with those who think it suits their belief system.
Why do you think that a human recorded in thousands of ancient copies of texts is comparable to Santa?
Santa is also recorded in thousands of copies. I don’t deny somebody called Jesus lived and did some good deeds, I just find it funny that his life was recorded a few decades later and that would explain why some his good deeds were “embellished”. I was one of the lucky ones who was taught the good deeds of Jesus from an early age but I did not see those Christian values being demonstrated by the preachers. You’ll have to excuse my cynicism. Feel free to believe if it makes you feel good.
Sorry, which historical texts is Santa recorded in?
Thankyou for the clarification RE Jesus existing. I understand, entirely, feeling sceptical about miraculous events, that's distinct from thinking that the man Himself didn't exist at all (as a few conspiracy theorists have claimed)
Funny? It's the nature of history. Texts don't necessarily survive for millennia, but people also didn't write things down like we do now - only some people read/wrote, they instead had oral traditions. Other historical texts were written further from the events than the NT was. See, for instance, I'm so sorry that you experienced preachers being unChristlike. Jesus Himself spent much time arguing with religious leaders who were simply using their position for power and who weren't actually following God.
Thank you, Grace. My experience means that I choose to demonstrate fellow human values towards others without the constraints of the church. It’s much more liberating.
Wow. Again, I'm so sorry you've been hurt.
There are many Churches that aren't hurtful.
Though we were talking about *Jesus*(?) That some people behave in an unChristlike doesn't mean that one needs to reject Him. And "demonstrating human values" is not all that He is about - He came to die in our place, not only to give good teachings
completely, but the same thing applies to all the key men in different religions.
What does (apply to all the key men in different religions)? I presume you mean that they shouldn't be judged on the basis of the actions of people who claim to be followers whilst not actually following their teachings/example? Absolutely.
However, the founders/leaders of different movements are different from each other in significant ways (even whilst having some significant similarities). Jesus did not come to teach the way to paradise/enlightenment etc, He came to *be* the way.
Whilst other religious leaders taught routes by which the ultimate goal can be earned, Jesus taught us how to act but also that our behaviour is not what determines salvation, salvation is through what He has done in our place (and if we genuinely choose to accept His offer, it will in turn cause us to *want* to behave as He taught, but our becoming more generous/compassionate/empathetic etc is the result, not the cause, of our salvation)
Indeed - however, as a Socialist I was listening to recently pointed out, Santa can very much reinforce an entirely anti-Socialist message : kids are told that they get presents if they're good, they'll then observe that their richest peers receive the most/best presents. It implies that those who are rich have been better people.