Loved the Islanders Date Outfits? Buy at ISAWITFIRST.COM
Nah. There are enough clothes ATM. We can search ebay and Oxfam online (or in store) and other charity shops if we don't have enough in our wardrobes.
Many clothes are made by people working tortuous hours, being paid so little they can barely feed themselves, and our planet is being destroyed. "The value of unused clothing in wardrobes has been estimated at around £30 billion. It is also estimated £140 million worth of clothing goes into landfill each year." Fast fashion isn't worth it.
Charity shops have enough good clothes (I'm aware you have to search through naff things) - and we can help people who are seriously suffering when we shop.
personal choice. I love Up cycled things but most do not. Just like veganism and vegetarianism, believe in it, do it but don’t try to push it on to others.....they will follow their paths/choices.
How am I "pushing"? I'm commenting, as we all do. We both know that o have no power whatsoever to change your actions. But bear in mind that countless impoverished people ARE forced to suffer because of sweatshops and the impact of environmental destruction.
And upcycling, since you mention it, isn't at all necessary. Charity shops have enough barely worn or brand new items - have you not looked? We don't even have to go out - Oxfam sells through it's website, and they and many other charities also sell through eBay (as do many individuals having a clear out, obvs). I find it thrilling to know, when I buy an item of clothing, that an impoverished family will receive dozens of meals; or an income producing farm animal; or school supplies, etc, because I bought from Oxfam.
I hate how so many people now associate Christianity with the very opposite of what Christ did and taught, because of predators like the individual in this^ case (though as other news has shown, there's sex abuse in all sectors) 😠
I desperately hope that the victims find comfort, as much as one could; and that changes are made to prevent this in future.
But it's nonsensical that so many people in our culture today reject Christ entirely because of the failings of others.
"We will work across the whole of government to deliver Brexit and make sure UK aid is tackling global challenges that affect us all."
"tackling global challenges that affect us all"? No, the purpose of Foreign Aid is to help the world's very most impoverished people, not us, at all. Simply being in the UK, we're living far, far more comfortably than the majority of humanity. Centuries of theft and corruption have made our nation wealthy at expense of others (it's still going on - https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries ) Aid is NOT for our benefit. And I'm not a Remainer, but why on Earth are you mentioning Brexit?
Even if women thought that they wanted it (or their partners thought that they did) porn will still be the primary reason that it's become so normalised, which was the question posed. How many women, prior to the mainstreaming of porn, asked to be choked, do you suppose? Porn has imposed on people's minds various sexual practices that they wouldn't have wanted to engage in, and because porn interferes with the brain - making higher levels of stimulation necessary for arousal, normal sex seems boring to more and more people, such that they're increasingly likely to try dangerous things.
Have you any idea of the poverty and conflict these people are fleeing? Has it not occurred to you that life would have to be unbearable for a person to leave everything and risk their life in a dinghy? This is what it is to be "spoiled" - even if your wealth is entirely average in comparison to other Brits, you have such a cushy life that you disregard the suffering of people elsewhere and display blatant cruelty.
Yikes - with all due respect. A chicken's egg, that you buy in a supermarket, has not been fertilised. It's comparable to, oddly enough, a human egg, which is unfertilised and gets flushed down the toilet with menstruation, and no one protests. A foetus, human or chicken, has a complete genome (unlike an egg) and that genome means that it is on course to grow into a fully sized adult so long as it isn't starved or slaughtered. By the end of the first trimester, the human foetus has all of its organs, and has brain waves and touch sensation. How do you define "child" which you're so certain that it isn't? Medical textbooks have long referred to the unborn as children on some occassions, and foetus is simply latin foor offspring. Whatever you want to call it, it's an innocent human being.
Should our priority for ministers not be that they truly desire to make things better for human beings, rather than their stance on the EU?
Apologies for the whataboutism, I'm certainly not suggesting that the issue of racial disparity in infant mortality rates in the US shouldn't be addressed, it just seems odd that, as someone who cares about those in poverty, you seem never to highlight the world's very most disadvantaged, who - $for$ -we have the power to make the biggest difference to.
go straight to h3LL with your whataboutism
LOL, why? Do you think that we should all just forget about the world's poorest people, who are in agonising poverty at our expense?
Do you even believe in hell?
Babies Else where in the world are not a concern when you can't even help the babies in your own country. If this cannot gain traction in one country, how would you save them all around the world. we can exactly fix policies in countries that aren't ours so....
You can save babies elsewhere in the world, by supporting NGOs that do amazing things with our donations and Foreign Aid - far, far, far more than the same $amounts can do here. And if we enable children to grow up fully nourished and with an education, they'll become adults who CAN fix policies.
Politicians can campaign for action on multinational corporations that exploit people in poverty, and for more Foreign Aid.
If they care about poor people being helped, they could also use their position of visibility to remind us, whilst our media leads us to forget about human beings elsewhere, that we have the power to save and transform lives - for example, $6 can feed a starving child for a month, a child who's just as human and precious as a child who lives where we do. Such reminders would be useful in a society where it's normal to spend that amount on a trip to Starbucks and to feel dissatisfied with our own lives because we see the lifestyles of celebrities oin Instagram etc.
I'm not disputing cases where abortion is genuinely vital to save the mother - but here those cases account for only several % of abortions - what's the situation regarding reasons for abortion in Argentina?
No it wouldn't, it would make me normal; only having an abortion myself would - on this issue at least - make me a hypocrite. But indeed, if I'm ever capable of raising a child, I'll most definitely adopt rather than having my own. However, the reason that there are children currently in need of adoption is not that their mothers should have been able/encouraged to abort them, as you imply, but because of family breakdown, and many adoptive couples specifically want to raise an adopted child from infancy.
My body, my choise, as simple as that.
No, it's another human's body, and life.
It would be just part of your/the mother's body, for 9 months. And indeed you/the mother had a choice - sex (only 1% of abortions follow rape).
My body, my choice. Not your business at all. For sure your are not a Mother, being mum it's not just about 9 months. Life is not about statistics, how dare you judje People you don't Know ?
When did I say that I'm judging, or use judgemental language?
As I just said, it's another human's body, not simply "your body, your choice" - why have you just repeated mantra and ignored my point?
It was people genuinely seeking to do Christ's work who convinced our government to outlaw the slave trade, and many of the organisations that have lobbied for Fair Trade, more UKAid etc, and provided aid, medical support, etc, are working in Jesus' name (though, obviously, my nation as a whole has done far, far, far too little to stop our corporations exploiting Africa, and to help those in need, it makes me furious). Here in the UK, and Europe generally, most people ignore Jesus, so they'll miss out on the eternal life (heaven) that He offers, whilst many people in Africa turn to God and will have ETERNITY in perfect joy that will make this lifetime seem like a second.
(NB, apologies if I seem patronising - and I cannot stress enough how enraged I am by my continent's actions in Africa)
What would alien life mean for Catholicism? The Vatican’s chief astronomer explains. vox.com
Yikes - "Public pools are open to everyone"? How much do they cost? " Building a pool in your yard is open to everyone"? Frick, seriously? You honestly think that everyone is wealthy enough to own their own home, with a garden, and pay for a pool to built and maintained?
(And beaches are only an option for those who live near them - and are also not necessarily suitable for learning to swim)
White man can't jump is funny but black man can't swim isn't?
Absolutely. We white people are less likely to jump well (though some are awesome) because we're, on average, athletically inferior. Whereas those who can't swim are unable to do so because they've not learned, because relative poverty has prevented them from having ther opportunity. And if a person can't jump well, it doesn't matter - if a person drowns, it sodding does, more than there are words for.
It's just one page that offers a concise summary, you can check the data elsewhere.
I have nothing to prove, you're the one smearing fakery.
Smearing fakery? What do you think that my motive for that would be? And of course you have nothing to prove, but why then bother commenting on what I wrote?
It's really not as awful as those who haven't seen it presume. And if you do find it shocking, you're - with all due respect - out of touch with our society today. It's tragic that people have the attitudes to sex that they do, but it's tragic because people aren't following God, and we already knew that that's the case. It's our job to love them and seek ways to communicate the Gospel to our society
- we can't do that if we turn up our noses and become ignorant of modern life. Also note, the sex content on Love Island is in fact very, very tame. Almost every teenager in the UK will have seen more explicit things in 15 rated films. Following difficulties faced by previous contestants who, apparently (I wasn't watching then) had sex on screen in earlier series of Love Island, the producers decided to ban sex on the show. There are, sometimes, movements of duvet covers, and references to sex, but no actual sex on screen. There's a lot of companionship as friendships develop, and amusing conversation.
Is it keeping its workers safe, following incidents such as that at Rana Plaza?
Does it have any consideration for its workers' wellbeing, or do they have no air conditioning and no breaks?
I'm sick of corporations virtue signalling through, albeit very rightly, attempts to be more green, whilst human beings are living in hell.
There's a crucial distinction - whilst some protesters may well be driven by hatred, many are in fact motivated by the sincere belief that God/Allah, who knows what's best for humanity, has prohibited gay sex. That's also distinct from simply having the orientation. Abuse/bullying needs to be eliminated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that children need to be taught about homosexuality - rather, they need to be taught to be loving and respectful towards everyone that they go on to encounter in life.
absolutely but whilst some religions think it’s ok to throw gay people off buildings inclusivity has no chance.
The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - that's distinct from simply having gay orientation, and either way, the Bible makes it clear that no one should be bullied in any way. We ALL sin, and that's why Christ died for us. He made religious leaders to leave alone a woman they'd been about to stone to death for her sexual sin, and said to her "Go and sin no more" . Christians should be welcoming everyone, urging everyone to fight the sin in their lives (which God helps us with), and recognising that we're sinners too.
Please note – many people who’ve called themselves Christians aren’t actually following Christ; Jesus was consistently peaceful and compassionate.
I wish our society didn't obsess so much about peoples' sex lives - each human being is a priceless individual with traits and skills that add to the community, who they have sex with doesn't impact the community, yet our culture insists on defining people by it.
it’s funny that in your last comment here you said that you wished people would stop reducing everything to sex ... but in your first comment you brought gay sex up when, in fact, that is completely irrelevant here!? 🤔 The No Outsiders scheme (which is what this is about) doesn’t teach kids about gay sex AT ALL. It’s about tolerance and acceptance ... of LGBT people and much else besides! So you brought sex into it .........
I didn't say that No Outsiders is about sex (though kids will wonder, when they learn basic sex ed, which for me was around the age of 6). I was thinking outloud (or in type) about, as I said, society. Because our society will be shaping the protesters concerns. Do you not think that they're hostility, in part, is contributed to by the exuberance of sexuality that they observe in our nation today? I'm not saying that they're right to protest, I think that both sides are misunderstanding each other.
I still think you’re off the mark with this. The issue being discussed is the No Outsiders scheme, which promotes tolerance broadly conceived (and so a portion of it addresses LGBT issues). That can only be a good thing. Of course kids might be curious and ask questions about relationships ... that is a normal part of growing up, no? Kids see heterosexuality literally everywhere from the moment they arrive on this planet and eventually ask questions too ...?
I'm aware that the issue here is No Outsiders, and I'm not saying that I'd join the protesters, but I know that they're concerned because of the wider narrative as they observe it. Emphasis on concern, not necessarily hatred of LGBT people. Look at this way, why do kids need to see storybooks with LGBT characters? Again, I'm not necessarily personally saying that they shouldn't, but I'm asking why it's necessary. What's necessary - vital - is that we eliminate bullying of LGBT people. But bullying is eliminated through teaching kids to be compassionate, respectful and friendly - if we can impart these values, telling them about LGBT isn't necessarily essential. Right now, teenagers and adults have all grown up without this on the curriculum, and the majority are still supportive of LGBT rights and Pride. What our society needs is for each of us to have more love for our fellow humans, breaking down dividing lines
- I'd focus on using limited lesson time to do that.
Can nationalism save conservatism?
We all need to focus on Christ more, it's His principles that we should strive towards, not the various isms.
America was overrun by immigrants a few centuries ago - they sailed from Europe and massacred the native people. Obviously, I'm not blaming you for what your ancestors did, but I find it bizarre that you can have such disregard for people fleeing unbearable violence and poverty (much of which is ultimately linked to frees enacted by US governments and corporations). How, by the way, have you concluded that immigrants hate the US? And why so you care if they keep aspects of their original culture?
What do you think Jesus would say?
I didn't say that I speak for a whole generation, I'm referring to broad trends, which can be observed via statistics
I'm not at all pro EU, why are you bringing it up? When did I advocate "human led, one world government"? What statistical evidence have you seen that young people are turning to Conservatism?
we ought to learn from the Old Testament when God warned the tribes of Israel and their leaders to not allow foreigners to practice their religions in Israel and Judah nor permit them to marry into the society as they would turn the hearts of men to worship foreign gods and that’s exactly what happened. If they came as foreigners they were to obey Jewish law. We are open to all people but not to every ideology they bring. Ideologies, not ethnicities, shape a society. Conservatism is majorly on the rise which is why conservative parties across Europe, Latin America and Asia are winning elections while the left is shrinking.
At the time of the Old Testament, God said that His people must avoid allowing paganism in their lands because they would worship pagan dieties themselves if they did. Today our society is entirely different, we each have many different choices to make as to what we believe, and make our own choices about faith. Consumerism, sport, sex ans self love are the national religions killing Christianity, it isn't immigration that's a threat. Plenty of people are turning to paganism - but that's because of human tendencies and trends they encounter in the media, they're not copying the faiths of immigrants that they meet. Most people are atheist or follow new age spirituality, individuals aren't turning from being Christians to copy the faiths of immigrants. Here in the UK, we've had decades of immigration of people from Muslim and Hindu backgrounds, but British people aren't converting from Christianity to Islam or Hinduism, most are turning from God to atheism (numbers of those faiths, esp Islam, are on the rise - but that's because they have many more children than average Anglo Brits, there aren't committed Christians converting to Islam). We've also had immigration from countries with stronger Christianity than Britain itself has had for generations, and as a result, whilst the Church of England (which, for generations, has comprised in no small part of people who've joined simply because it was socially typical) is dying, Pentecostalism is on the rise. Seriously, immigration is having a positive impact on the numbers of people truly in love with God here. In the US, much immigration is from countries where belief in God is stronger than it is in the US itself. Have you seen evidence of true, committed believers in God turning to follow religions introduced to them by immigrants?
If, for example, we bought less wear-once fashion (or bought from Oxfam Great Britain, which sells a lot of awesome clothes) and cinema tickets ourselves, we could use the money saved to transform lives. That's far more exciting than what Megan's wearing.
When did I say that I'm comparing myself to Megan? I'm sure she'll be able to achieve more, she's one of the luckiest, most privileged people in the world. My point is that we, and our media, should spend slightly less time deifying Megan, and consider the fact that equally deserving human beings are trapped in squalour. Because of the corruption that's made our nation rich, some innocent people are born into slums, without medical care, proper nutrition or clean water, and grow up with no opportunities to escape their tortuous poverty. They are no less important, valuable, deserving human beings than we - or Megan - are. That we have the potential to help them is far more exciting than what Megan's wearing (as much as I find fashion interesting).
shup to F....k up you time waster. Get a life..
This is so funny - why tell me to shut up and f off? Why would I care that you've written that? Do you really think that you've hurt my feelings or made me less likely to comment like this in future?
And do you really think it's "time wasting" to care about the people in greatest need? Do you think that, in your mocking, you're somehow superior? Really?
That was my original point. Christianity is a label that plenty of people love to wear because they think of it as part of their heritage - but very, very few Brits today are actually committed to following Christ, which is, obviously, what Christian actually means.
Hypothetically, I could describe myself as musical because I like the label, and my family plays instruments - but since I don't play any instruments and haven't the foggiest how to read music, I'm in reality not musical, whatever I call myself. North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic, but that doesn't mean that it actually is democratic, and we can't judge the concept of democracy by North Korea. Nazi is short for the German for National Socialist, but that doesn't mean that Nazism is like socialism. So people calling themselves Christian doesn't necessarily mean that they are. The reason that matters, is that plenty of people resent and reject Christianity, and thus never explore Christ, because they hate some of the behaviour of people who call themselves Christians - but in fact, the latter aren't actually following, thus aren't representive of Christ.
The i Paper - It's Amazon Prime Day!
So? We knew without needing to be told - ultimately it's a grossly oversized corporation that's mistreating workers, destroying smaller businesses and developing the power to spy on people. And, seriously, most of its prices aren't the best.
I'm not saying that no one should use it at all - but that there's no reason to get excited about Prime Day.
Previous surveys recorded a majority of people ticking the Christian box because it was part of their heritage - now, fewer people do that, since it's become socially acceptable not to tick that box; but the proportion of people following Jesus hasn't necessarily changed.
I suspect that part of the reason for this rise is the explicit nature of parts of Pride parades, and of many pop culture portrayals - ultimately because sex sells, so profit is being made by corporations that are ultimately fuelling societal division.
Obviously, it's entirely wrong that women are paid less - but it's still gross that they're as wealthy as they are when equally valuable human beings are dying of poverty. The gross poverty that innocent human beings are trapped in is ultimately the result of greed that's made nations like ours wealthy, so rich that we pay £millions to sportspeople.
The media spends a lot of time debating the pay gap between male and female multimillionaires, ignoring the scores of people for whom an actual football is an unaffordable luxury - GLOBAL CITIZEN is supposed to be all about the people in serious need, whether or not female footballers can afford quite as enormous mansions as their male counterparts doesn't actually matter.
Personally, I've been repulsed by the notion for as long as I've known about it, despite the smiley faced cartoons in the children's' sex-ed book I was first shown (at around 7, I think), but that revulsion has been hugely nurtured by the explicit sexuality in our culture's media.
10 ways to have more money What has been your best secondhand purchase?
Nb, there's a sale on Oxfam's online shop ATM. The best buys are those that can genuinely make a massive difference to people in extreme need.except the fact only 1% of the sale goes to people in need. Why do you think the founder is a millionaire
LOL, why do you think that only 1% goes to people in need? Seriously, where on Earth did you get that from?
I agree that charity bosses are paid too much - but it's still only a tiny% of the takings. The charities commission checks up on what % of any charity's income goes to those in need, for Oxfam it's just over 80%, which is typical. Personally I make my monetary donations to charities where a higher % goes to their work, but only Oxfam has a large network of shops (inc online) and works with those people in the very greatest need, so I shop with them.
The 20% that remains is divided between salaries, admin and advertising. Unfortunately, large salaries are necessary to lure in - from the business sector - bosses with the expertise to make the organisation grow its income.
Note The Independent's hypocrisy https://www.independent.co.uk/
*Last I read, the US spends 0.5% of its GDP on helping people from other countries.
And whilst I'm obviously heartbroken about orangutans, I find it disturbing that our society/press are evidently far, far more concerned about them than about the human beings in agonising poverty or slavery because of corporate greed. Can the farmers who provide the cocoa and sugar for Oreos, for example, afford to feed their families? They're likely too poor to have actually eaten Oreos or other confectionery. They could be children forced violently from their homes. But whilst there's rightly a lot of activism about orangutans, we almost never hear about those human beings.
Sorry for ranting.
In practice, genuine love of God and deep gratitude for Christ's offer of salvation (through willingly taking the punishment we deserve) will cause us to want to follow His commands. If indeed, He exists, then when we decide to accept Him He will help us to gradually become better at defeating temptation and living in a way that helps others.
Sorry if it sounds as though I'm on the attack.
How do you define "proof" in this context?
Have you looked at the philosophical and scientific arguments for the existence of a creator? I used to think that God was imaginary, but as I studied biology, I realised that it seemed more likely that there is a creator than that there's not (eg, see, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gsa58Rm8Sk ). Further examination of physics convinced me further (eg , one summary, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning).
There are plenty of writings and lectures by academics (published authors with PhDs) who explain the arguments for God's existence in more detail, such as John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, Allister McGrath and more.
Your conclusions are up to you, but I'd recommend not concluding that God is imaginary on the basis of presumption without investigation.
NB Communion is a symbol and act of remembrance of Jesus being brutally slaughtered because of the wrong things that we do. He made it possible for us to be forgiven, and thus to spend eternity with God(heaven) after this lifetime, proving Himself by rising from the dead. Theatre can be awesome, but it's nothing like Communion.
just melanin? What about her lips, her hair, her body shape, her organs and skull size?
It's not "just" skin color, it's much more. You should try to understand the basics behind evolution.
Biology is the root, culture is the flower.
You really have no clue.
All of those traits are similarly unimportant - and no white actress would have the same lips, hair and body shape as the cartoon. Do you have evidence that skull size differs between ethnicities, as you imply? That sounds like a racist fallacy.
Like I said, you really have no clue. It's very well known, and for a long time. https://www.researchgate.net/.../24024566_Estimation_and...…
The linked article does not state that people of different races have different skull sizes. There are some studies suggesting a difference in the density of skull bone, but the whole concept of comparing skulls between races has been generally discredited as racist pseudoscience. In particular, there are environmental factors to consider (ie, black people are more likely to be born into poverty and thus not receive the ample nutrition that we do) but crucially, skull size is known to be inconsequential, and the skull size of any human is out of proportion from A CARTOON. As are body proportions. How can you possibly argue that it's wrong to change a Disney princesses ethnicity because of ethnic variations in shape, when Disney princesses have always had absurd proportions, and when IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE STORY? (Sorry for shouting).
"what importance is it, OTHER THAN CULTURAL HISTORY" uuuuuhhhhhhhhhh Imagine being so woke you inadvertently admit that this is cultural appropriation
You seem to be presuming I'm fanatical about bemoaning cultural appropriation - I'm not. I'm concerned about human beings. In this case, because statistics show that black people are treated less well than white people, it's good to have a black main character whose visibility can make a tiny dent in this injustice. Our brains have proven mechanisms of preferring people of our own race, and more exposure to people who are different from us can reduce this - which is vital because, in case you weren't aware, people deserve equal treatment regardless of ethnicity.
Hey! There are about 5 million Danes. The story is Danish. The Danish have a specific look. What if the Danes would make a movie about an African myth or folklore and made them all white? The outcry would be heard from the moon! This is beyond ridiculous. This isn't "diversity" (although those who celebrate diversity also object to "diversity" as derogative, it seems they will never be happy), this is a simple case of hijacking another country's heritage.
Do you really think that this is oppressive of Danish people? Just because they live on the same patch of land as Hans Christian Andersen? Was the previous cast, for the cartoon of the Little Mermaid, Danes? Why would anyone feel entitled to a monopoly on the writings of someone else? I don't feel nor have any attachment to the writings of Dickens, Austen or Shakespeare - some of their work has indeed been recreated in entirety unBritish cultural settings and I can't fathom being angry about that.
Cute :) NB though - Jesus offers eternal life (heaven) to anyone who chooses to truly accept Him (and demonstrated the authenticity of His power over death by rising), Christened or not. (Christening is a tradition based on the misunderstanding that whether an infant that died would go to heaven was determined by a ceremony).
I don’t believe that. So these people that murder people that just accept that there is a God and never do a kind thing just get eternal life and go to heaven? I know what the Bible says but I prefer to have the ceremony and tradition of the baptism of babies.
If a person genuinely accepts Jesus, they'll naturally desire to try to emulate Him, thus won't murder, and will do good.
What about it? When did I say that I reject science? I'm trying to finish my Biomedical Sciences degree ATM. If you think that Theism rejects science, you've misunderstood. https://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
THERE IS NO GOD
LOL, I've never come across anyone saying that before...
Out of interest, how do you, personally, know?
Have you looked at the philosophical and scientific arguments for the existence of a creator? I used to think that God was imaginary, but as I studied biology, I realised that it seemed more likely that there is a creator than that there's not (eg, see, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gsa58Rm8Sk ). Further examination of physics conviced me further (eg , one summary, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning).
There are plenty of writings and lectures by academics (published authors with PhDs) who explain the arguments for God's existence in more detail, such as John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, Allister McGrath and more.
Your conclusions are up to you, but I'd recommend not concluding that God is imaginary on the basis of presumption without investigation.
how do you know there is one? Science points to no, but please go one spreading your unwanted dogma
As I said, If you think that science and God are opposed, you've misunderstood. Why not try the TIME magazine article I linked to?
Why exactly do you think "science points to no"? May I ask - since I'm fascinated by science and by peoples' views - what science you've undertaken yourself? What are your objections to the arguments made in the hyperlinks in my last comment?
Science measures matter and energy that God created, it's not able to analyse God Himself directly. But the improbable specificity, and the interdependence, of the universe and biological world, indicate a creator, and that's who/what God is.
hey do you remember when someone told you Santa didn’t exist? Hate to bear the news but Jesus ain’t son of god either. Still, there’s loads of other great books to read. Stay sane out there 👍🏼
LOL, how much have you studied this topic?
(No one had to tell me about Santa BTW, I worked that out around 4. Belief in God, and in Jesus, are - for me and some academics - based on scientific, historic and philosophical arguments. Have you weighed these up yourself? What do you think of the hyperllinked articles?)
oh Grace. Please do tell me of the scientific proof for Jesus’ divinity. And gods existence. Enlighten me hallelujah
"enlighten me" - have you actually looked at what I've already hyperlinked? I could explain more myself, an add more articles by PhDs, but there's no point given that you evidently aren't going to read it.
I have, what else have you got?
Really? What did you think of them?
What did you mean when you asked for "scientific proof for Jesus’ divinity"? I didn't specify that there's each of scientific, historic and philosophical support for each aspect of Christianity, different arguments support different aspects. Science supports the existence of a creator - history and philosophy support the crucial points about Jesus.
Divinity itself could obviously not be proven by science, since science measures matter and energy that the divine created, it's not able to analyse the divine itself directly.
The improbable specificity, and the interdependence, of the universe and biological world, indicate a creator, and that's who/what God is. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
Analysis of the accounts of Jesus' resurrection - only after I'd read books on the topic, led me to conclude, as daft as it sounds, that Jesus did in fact rise. This is one snippet http://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...
I shall attempt to answer your questions in order,
3, I didn’t ask for that, just for what else you’ve got
I’d be interested to hear more of the historical and scientific arguements
DM me by all means
As I said, I only felt that it was likely that Jesus rose from the dead after I'd read a lot on the topic - so there's no way that a sufficiently thorough explanation can be cobbled together in a Facebook thread.
Is it Jesus' resurrection that you dispute, or are you entirely atheist? Did you look at the links RE manuscripts and the universe?
When you ask for "what else I've got", I could go on and on, if I had time, but I need to know more about what you're thinking than "laughable".
no problem. That reading you did, was it all from apologists? Or have you tried to take an unbiased, sceptical look at the subject? You might find this interesting... https://youtu.be/rCFuhlnsF9c
Carrier is an apologist for mythicism. Each person we read/listen to is a believer in their own conclusions and would like for others to agree with their views, so Christian apologists can't immediately be dismissed, they're explaining the reasons that they've concluded the evidence points towards God and Christ's resurrection.
I'm familiar with Carrier and Craig, and have evaluated arguments from both of them already. Note, for example, Wikipedia, which - though obviously never perfect nor thorough enough - is generally neutral/secular, presents a Reception portion of Carrier's page where almost all of the academic reviews are ultimately negative "Simon Gathercole at Cambridge ...concludes that Carrier's arguments, and more broadly, the mythicist positions on different aspects of Paul's letters are contradicted by the historical data"
"reviewing Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus.... finds Carrier's arguments "problematic and unpersuasive", his use of Bayesian probabilities "unnecessarily complicated and uninviting" and criticizes Carrier's "lack of evidence, strained readings and troublesome assumptions." "etc, etc.
✅ Only appoint judges who will defend Roe v. Wade ✅ Pass Medicare for All and repeal the Hyde Amendment ✅ Codify abortion rights into federal law
What I find monumentally frustrating is that, obviously, the world needs for America to have a president who cares about the poor, refugees, and climate change, but the Democrats are making plenty of people feel unable to vote for them by fervently boasting about abortion continuously. Given that 50% of people believe that abortion is morally wrong, and that some floating voters voted for Trump because of Clinton's support for abortion, it seems likely that the Dems could win if they'd stop celebrating abortion. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/
"no one can be forced to allow another to use their body" but a human can be forced through a vacuum aspirator or between surgical blades and into an incinerator? Even when the former has already had a choice (several in fact, such as Plan B) and the latter hasn't? Why?
Christian, by definition, means "little Christ" - that is, to accept Jesus' sacrifice and in turn genuinely desire to emulate Him.
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).
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.
^They are one of the many, many people who call themselves Christian because it's a familiar label that they like, and which they hope might make them appear more noble, but calling yourself something doesn't mean that you are that thing, and the actions of a person ignoring Christ's teachings shouldn't determine what you think of Christ, regardless of them calling themselves Christian.
There are children in relative poverty (nb, different from absolute poverty, as defined by the UN, which doesn't get enough of our attention) and data and particular contributing factors to this.
There are people on the streets, and some lose their lives, an issue for which there are other statistics and contributing factors.
Children on the streets are put into care as soon as they're found, which is of course a desperately sad situation, but it's distinct from the situation for adults on the streets who might stay there and not survive.
Both of these are heartbreaking beyond words, and need to be comprehensively addressed, but they're not the same thing.
The point is that, rather than supporting the killing of unwanted babies, our society could support and facilitate adoption, since there are women utterly desperate for a newborn.
Are you unaware that abortion entails dangers and mental trauma? For example, https://www.cambridge.org/.../E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BE... ;
In Gilead, women are raped, and they're forced to give up babies that they want (they're also forced to live in servitude); how exactly is that like women being pregnant because they've chosen to have sex, and give up babies because they don't want to raise them?
I'm aware that there are children in need of adoption and that's tragic - but many adoptive couples specifically want a newborn. Were it up to me, the government would do far more (than it is now) to encourage adoption of older children also.
I agree that there should be free birth control and sex ed - but we also need to stop conning teenagers into the lie that sex is necessary as soon as one's 16.
I'd expect nothing less from a jesus freak. Calling a small bunch of useless biological cells "a tiny human" .
LOL Dinesh, define "Jesus freak". I'm happy to be called that, but what do you think it means such that you (evidently) resent it? Why do you bring it up, when I never mentioned it?
And a foetus is, by definition, a tiny human, who told you otherwise? I won't argue about embryos, but within 2 months, the unborn is a foetus (nb, foetus is simply Latin for "offspring") with brain waves, not just a few "useless cells". Even at the embryo stage, those cells are not "useless" they contain the genome that will direct them to grow into a fully developed adult. Surely you knew that? I haven't yet finished my biomedical sciences degree yet but I'm working on it, which scientific authority told you that a foetus isn't human?
I'm incredibly privileged in that my parents haven't kicked me out, I'm well aware that I live in luxury by comparison to much of humanity, and I'll continue doing housework for them and be a carer for them when they're older. But the reality, following on from the original post, is that homes here too truly are unaffordable for our generation. Yet I'm incomparably more concerned about those living in refugee camps and slums elsewehere in the world.
The far right are motivated by greed and xenophobia, pro-lifers are driven by the consciousness that the unborn is a living human.
Heathrow has placed posters for its LGBT Campaign event next to the Royal Brunei check-in.
Obviously, Brunei's previously proposed law against gay sex was utterly evil - but I'm concerned that posters about events will only make Brunei politicians more certain that the LGBT movement ought to be restrained. Does Heathrow really think that what they're doing will help gay people?
Can't we all stop obsessing over sexuality?
Seriously, I'm not meaning to sound uncaring about her loss, but I find this cognitive dissonance baffling.
Who is making that claim? And what stage of pregnancy do you think that is?
I can see from your comment on this post that you're "making this claim" - how have you ended up equating NOT killing tiny humans with the killing of Jewish human beings? Can you really not see that abortion is more comparable to Nazism than restricting abortion is?
Brain function begins within 2 months - https://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=i&s1=on&s2=on...
And Tories aren't Nazis just because of this. They're Nazis because they openly and proudly hold Nazi beliefs. Their hatred of everyone who isn't a straight white man and their desire to strip everyone else of basic rights and eventually life is what makes them Nazis.
Opposing abortion is not motivated by hatred of others, it's motivated by the conciousness that the unborn is a living human (and also that having an abortion leaves many women emotionally scarred).
It's not an "invasion". Invasion means the taking of personal propoerty and use of force - South American migrants are simply trying to move from one area of God's Earth to another, so that they can undertake work and avoid deadly gangs.
Also, rates of crime amongst migrants are in fact lower than the US population - ie they're less likely to be criminals than American citezens are.
Good grief, you honestly think that migration is the work of Satan? Can you explain that theologically?
Stories about migrants in Paris have been grossly distorted - you've been misled. Though in a few instances, problems have arisen because of Islam - even still, nearly all Muslims are genuinely good people and no threat, as most ignore (or are unaware of).Muhammed's violence. Most Muslims make a positive contribution to society - but in the tiny number of cases where some migrants in Europe have caused trouble, it's parts of Islam (parts not followed at all by most Muslims) that's to blame, so it makes no sense to block South American migrants on the basis of any problems in Europe.
How can you overlook Jesus' teachings about the good Samaritan, and the sheep and goats?
I urge others to check out Oxfam Great Britain, who sell clothes online (their site and on ebay) as well as instore - some are awful, but there are enough that are brilliant if you explore.
What "understanding" should we need? If we don't want to have sex, it's no one else's business. Why would I care if people think me never having sex is odd?
Eg. Sponsoring a child costs £25/month ($38 - or £300/year), and provides supplementary food, medical checks, lessons and mentoring for an impoverished child, enabling them to grow up healthy and able to go on to university and/or good work, rather than having to undertake tortuous work like this^. Yet it's entirely normal for us to spend more than that on updating our gadgets, perpetuating this^ brutal industry.
If a person is XX, a girl is what they are, and that's it. If they want to have short hair, dress in boys' clothes and undertake historically "male" hobbies, that's a part of the unique, priceless individual that they are - it doesn't mean, as our society impresses on them, that they were "born in the wrong body" and in need of surgery and lifelong hormone injections in order to be their "real selves".
Almost all children who question their gender are fine with their birth sex when they're older, if they aren't encouraged along the path to transition. It's horrific that our culture supports them not reaching that happiness with their natural bodies, and instead insists that it's moral and compassionate to begin giving them injections.
I can't stress enough, I'm NOT trying to criticise trans people themselves, though I know it must seem like it. It's disgusting that some trans people are attacked, and I desperately hope that that can be combatted. My frustration is with the confusion itself that some feel; and with the societal (and profit making) forces that have fuelled the reported^ increase which in fact do not have have others' best interests at heart.
You say abuse of transgender people is abhorrent then literally go on to abuse them by denying their existence! New level of cognitive dissonance right here
How, exactly, is what I've written abuse? Could you please clarify quoting specific sentences from the paragraph I wrote? I'm really, really not intending to be abusive - and your stating that what I wrote is abuse suggests somewhat that you're unaware of the severe mistreatment that some trans people do face. I haven't used derogatory language, nor criticised people themselves/individuals. I'm aware that some trans people face physical attacks, which is grotesque and heartbreaking - disagreeing with a societal force, and wishing that people were able to cope with the bodies they were born in, is not the same thing.
“If a person is XX, a girl is what they are and that’s it”. It’s untrue and denies the fact that trans women are women, just like trans men are men.
My statement wasn't abuse, just biology. But, crucially, all people - very, very, very much including those who are trans - are equally precious and deserving of respect as individuals, so I really don't want this to become an argument.
I sponsor several children, each costing £300/year - if I travelled to their countries, it would cost me that much and more, and I wouldn't be able to do anywhere near what the staff (from their communities, employed by the sponsorship money to teach and mentor them) achieve.
We need to consider what's most cost effective, and isn't contributing to Global warming.
Again, I'm not endorsing the bans, I just think that this shouldn't be compared to the civil rights movement.
But then those same people look at two toddlers holding hands and say "OMG THEYRE GONNA GET MAAAARRIIIIIEEEED SO CUUUUUTE"
Which same people? Indeed, it would be daft to talk about toddlers future marriages.
I had a boyfriend when I was 6 - but that was my decision and I'd have felt seriously violated by anyone discussing my sexuality or future marriage - not least in the press.
The parable of the sheep and the goats makes it indisputable that God wants us to help the underprivileged.
And in Matthew 22:37-9, “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’”
You keep blowing your trumpet for the e.u and I blow mine for the u.k my beloved country which is not yours stick to macron were you one of those who called for the police to go with b.b.c into cliff richards house you nosey parkers
LOL, according to who is this your country and not mine? I've lived here all my life (as have my parents, as did my grandparents, my great grand parents, and so on) - and I'm not pro-EU or Mcron at all, I simply know that we need a PM with more common sense.
Interesting the analogy to Martin Luther's reformation and what Bolz-Weber proposes. The article asserts that while Luther's reformation was Scriptural, hers isn't. 1.2 billion Catholics would disagree either are based in Scripture.
Without wanting to argue, whether or not peole agree doesn't tell us whether or not the reformation was scriptural. Something could even partially wrongly interpret a text, yet still be based on that text. Many people would disagree that Christianity as a whole is based in reality - that doesn't mean that Christianity is not real (ie, those people, despiite being of large numbers, are wrong).
Why is it unacceptable? Your GDP per capita is almost 10x that of India.
so we should just shove money to them because they are poor at the game of business....? We could just cut them out completely if they play hard ball if they really want to. Plus their living standards are much less than that of an American. So it actually isn’t that large of a gap. Might want to learn a bit more on those Economics....
Poor at business? No, they're poor, and Western nations are rich, because of centuries of theft. Eg https://www.aljazeera.com/.../britain-stole-45-trillion...
"their living standards are much less than that of an American"? Is that what you meant to write? Indeed their living standards, on average, are far lower - that's why it's right for them to benefit more from trade. It's not the same as just "shoving money to them" - but, frankly, if we have enough money to squander it on cafe beverages, flights to go on holidays, etc, we should be shoving money to those who don't even havve clean water, or who rely on farming but have so little crop yeild that they commit suicide.
She is from England, she does not understand business or how the whole economy thing works. All she knows is how important the queen is. India needs to take care of India, if America is successful it is because we earned it. We are not responsible for every country on earth, time for all the other countries to do what we did and become self sufficient. This isn't Robin Hood. Money is not given it is earned.
LOL, why do you think " All she knows is how important the queen is"? With all due respect, you evidently know nothing about Britain. The Queen is nice, but not at all politically "important", and we all know it here.
Ha, "if America is successful it is because we earned it"? According to what authority? America made itself wealthy predominantly by stealing land and forcing slaves to farm it, and now through corporations exploiting other nations. Both your country and mine are wealthy because of injustice, not because we "earned it". It's not our fault personally, but it means that we don't deserve what we have, and we have a responsibility to help those born into the world's most severe poverty.
Also, God commands us repeatedly to help the poor, specifically including those of other nations, but I don't know wehether or not you're interested in Him.
blaming Americans here and now, for other countries or old families and the reason how we got here, is like blaming my family for being German and Jewish people dying, yet they immigrated to the US before those wars. Can’t say the second statement with a straight face and be right so the first doesn’t work either. So nice try on your long shot, but epic fail with liberal logic.
I'm not "blaming Americans here and now" for the past, I already said that "It's not our fault personally, but it means that we don't deserve what we have, and we have a responsibility to help those born into the world's most severe poverty." - we should be more supportive of the development of impoverished countries,m where there are peole in poverty worse than we can imagine. Whether or not people happen to have "business skills" (though most of the wealth of your nation and mine is the result of theft, not skills - as well as colonialism, check out this - https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor... ) doesn't determine whether they deserve to live comfortably or not.
yes we have a high GDP but we also have 330 plus million people living in this country. Such a stupid comment you just posted. We've had successful leaders which enriched this country over the years much more than any other country has ever made. Your comment is like saying oh you worked more than me and you were more successful than me so you should give me some of your money so it's even. Just shut your foreign mouth.
Jesus told us that the most important command after loving God is to love others; that if someone hits us on the cheek, we should let them hit the other cheek; and that "those who live by the sword will die by the sword".
Judi Dench Adopts 3 Orangutans in Campaign to Save Rainforest From Palm Oil Destruction
Of course, some of what's learned at university is vital - but a substantial amount is information that's not made use of in one's career - and a person shouldn't need to have a university degree to get onto a rewarding career path.
It should be easier for people to learn whilst working so that people can support themselves and their families whilst progressing up the career ladder.
Otherwise, huge amounts of public money that could be spent on healthcare etc simply feeds the coffers of university bosses.(NB, I certainly don't mean by that last statement that there should be no government funding for people to attend university at all - just that Bernie's strategy might not give the best net outcome for addressing inequality)
I was standing there thinking: ‘My baby is dead inside me’ — Stella Creasy on miscarriage and mis...
NB - that's not, in any way, to condone abuse of non-binary or trans people - such bullying is evil - and yes, I'm aware that a small percentage of people are intersex.
Do people think that pro-lifers are desperate for those who've had abortions to feel shame? How would that help anything? We aren't trying to make people feel shame, we want fewer people to choose abortion in future. This play is clearly aiming to make money from joking about the deaths of tiny humans, risking reducing the likelihood that people will take the decision seriously themselves - that's what sucks.
But you intentionality chose in image of a fetus that is in the upper gestational stage to illustrate your point. Millions of all gestational stages have been aborted, and will continue to be so. We can give women the correct information and health care to ensure that they can make choices about their own health. Or we can use emotive images to try and control them.
Correct information? The week no. is on the picture, so if a woman is considering aborting at erlier stage she'll know that this image isn't exactly representative forthe unborn that she's carrying presently, and she can easily find other information. You seem to think that a woman would just be misled, but the gestational stage is clearly labelled and an array of further information is available at her fingertips.
Why is it "emotive"? Abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks - and if that's fine, why be emotive about it? Of course, I don't think it's fine, the reason that it's emotive is that abortion destroys a tiny human, but you seem to want that to be made less clear by objecting to a labelled scan image.
If you can't see why using an image of a 16 week old fetus would be considered emotive, and calling a fetus a "tiny human" is manipulating the correct information, then I imagine that you are also ignorant of the plethora of misinformation out there. Agencies in America are allowed to lie to pregnant women. Religious factions are constantly trying to control our bodies the world over. If you want to discuss the medical decisions women take about their health without being emotive, then leave the ultrasound imagery out
But I can see why it's emotive, that's the point. The reason that emotion is felt us because abortion is a tragedy, and our society should stop whitewashing it. We feel emotive because it's wrong, abortion shouldn't be happening. Hiding images is not an honest way to help women make decisions.
I write "tiny human" because a lot of people repeatedly misunderstand "foetus" - it means offspring in Latin, but many people think that it means that the unborn is not alive or not human. A tiny (living) human is what it is, so that's what I write. I wouldn't argue at the embryo stage, but within 2 months there's evidence of touch sensation, and by 12 weeks all organs are in place and the unborn simply needs to grow - as written on the NHS's website.
"Abortion shouldn't be happening" ; you can't apply your choices to everyone else. Abortion can and does happen for a great many very valid reasons. If you take away the ability for that to be decided by the individual and carried out by professionals in a safe environment, you don't stop it happening. It becomes a dangerous backstreet business that kills and mains. Or those who can't access that are forced into harmful situations.
Wishing the world works the way you believe is best doesn't make it so. So why use a self confessed emotive picture to influence others? Quite simply because the "pro-life" argument isn't one that can be supported by fact
Not supported by fact? Which facts prove that it's ok to kill an unborn human? Clearly, we aren't going to agree, but the fact is that the unborn is alive and human, and that at 16weeks, it looks as that image shows. A recent study found that at 16weeks, the unborn's facial features respond to music played by the mother's belly. It's also a fact that rape and foetal anomalies (combined) account for just several % of abortions. So there's already the choice not to have sex (which, trust me, is fine - but there are also many NHS provided contraceptives to choose from, as well as the morning after pill) and the choice to offer a newborn to a couple desperate for a new baby. Me commenting doesn't prevent a woman being able to have an abortion, but I don't believe that one person should be able to take away any choice whatsoever from another human, once it has brainwaves, by having it killed in abortion.
Nb supposedly safe abortions are not entirely safe. A woman died just 1.5 miles from where I am now from a Marie Stopes abortion - and some studies have found that abortion contributes to depression.
He's made the grossly racist statement about African people that he has he wants to reduce the money available for public services by cutting tax on the very wealthiest (ie. luckiest - many on far, far, far lower wages work just as hard or harder); he's made such mistakes as worsening Nazanin ZR's situation and wasting tens of millions on the garden bridge....He shouldn't be PM. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/
NB - those who are keen Brexiteers and want BoJo because they see him as being on their sr side should keep in mind that he was long undecided as to which side to support in the referendum,, and wrote essays for position. Earlier comments in his career were pro-European - He chose Leave, being ambivalent, likely for the sake of his own potential political power.never a good idea to just to conclusions. The Guardian reported this on Saturday, quoting The Times and they did not dispute it:...Did it ever cross your mind it was reported to the police to make the story more attractive to the press? Somebody that is really concerned does not record it first of all and then call the police. They call the police straight away.
Who said that they recorded and waited to call the police? They might have recorded whilst waiting for the police. But given that one wouldn't want to waste police time, but hitting a record button is easy, one could well begin recording whilst unsure whether the situation justified calling he police.
That she was angrier and he was calmer doesn't tell us that we shouldn't worry about him, it tells us that he did/said something htat made her furious.
But as I wrote, irrespective of this incident, thre are plenty of reasons that BoJo shouldn't be PM.
Crucially, sex is not at all necessary to enjoy life (as I'm finding myself, though I'm straight) and I know of gay Christians who are single/celibate and undeniably happy and in love with God - they're also sick of people trying to justify gay sex for Christians, because they've concluded, theologically, that those attempts at justification are mistaken, and they can fund them hurtful.
The real issues are people being unkind to gay people - which is unChristian, and our society's obsession with sex. In fact, friendships, family and a relationship with God can more than satisfy.
And I'm well aware that some people have tried to make the claim that I think you're making, but it's a claim that's been dismantled by plenty of academics, including some who are themselves gay.
A History of the Bible: A belter of a book
I endlessly see people presume that it's pure fiction without finding out about it, entirely on the basis of naturalism and wishful thinking. It's full of symbolism and contextually complex accounts, but it's simply not the mythology that so many people want to assume that it is. And views amongst scholars vary hugely - so this^ book about the Bible, and others, each need to be read with consideration of the potential for bias and weighing up of differing perspectives.
Most importantly, the Gospel events are in fact more historically accredited than other history by several measures - as absurd as it might seem that Jesus rose, it deserves exploration given the potential significance. http://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...
The classic God of the Bible is a genocidal maniac.Discuss.
Discuss? It's a huge topic. There are plenty of articles easily accessible that explain the issue, have you tried them?
Briefly - some passages in the Old Testament reflect the writers, men of an entirely different culture to ours (our culture in fact being shaped by Jesus' teachings, though we forget it often) who keenly boasted of success in battle, at a time when barbarism was the norm.
Many people of pagan tribes were so violent that they keenly sacrificed their children to their gods. Ultimately, God, at times, may have endorsed war against these tribes because, ultimately, He wanted to bring an end to that evil. And consider - He is just, and able to bring the innocents caught up in the battles to heaven if that was right, and their suffering living in the discomfort of BC desert amongst child killers would be over.
The events of the Old Testament were a lead up to Jesus coming - and it's Jesus who actually demonstrates clearly who God is.
Windrush victim dies while waiting for payout to visit mother's grave in Jamaica
We can all too easily forget, when we pay attention to celebrities, that we ourselves are in fact wealthy compared to much of humanity. If we contemplate everyday privileges that some others lack, such as clean water on tap; an endless selection of food; secure, snug homes; endless entertainment via TV and the internet; education and opportunities, etc, we can find huge joy in them. We can then use money that we might spend on non-necessities - such as pampering, holidays, Starbucks, cinema tickets etc to pay for far more exciting things - for example, child sponsorship, transforming a life for $38/month.
Crucially(literally, the word comes from crucifixion) Jesus died for anyone willing to truly accept Him into their hearts. Everyone gets to make their own choice about that. If you reject Him, THIS^ is just a big piece of stone to you, so why get flustered?
as long as they allow Baphomet, or a giant Islamic Crescent, or other religious icons, we're all good.
I wouldn't be offended by another faith's statue, though I'd feel sad that there was such fervour in rejecting Jesus has increased so much that a statue as such would be put up. To atheists wanting this cross removed, it represents nothing, so putting up something else isn't equivocal. Further, the US has a Christian heritage (and, when people have GENUINELY been following Christ - as opposed to just calling themselves Christian whilst enacting human selfishness, that has done tremendous good for society), which is how this cross ended up there, so a statue to another faith wouldn't be comparable.
But I can't stress enough, it's people rejecting Jesus that makes me sad - this statue in itself is unimportant. I'm well aware of the fact that very few people now follow Him, and whether those rejecting Him are Muslim, Atheist or something else, it breaks my heart. That's because the study I've done has led me to conclude that Jesus did in fact rise from death thus demonstrating that He could be trusted in offering eternal life - and my experience, and that of countless others, is that genuinely accepting Jesus brings more joy and fulfillment than anything else. So I by no means believe that I, or Christians in general, are superior; nor can Christianity be forced on anyone. I'm just sad about what the desire to take this cross down demonstrates.
I see the tax issue - and would make it the responsibility of its supporters to "maintain" it. But can anyone actually find data on what's being spent on its maintenance? What's being done to it that taxes are being spent on? And how would that figure sit as a proportion of tax expenditure?
Land being public property doesn't mean that everyone is going to like everything on it. The question is how is it doing you any harm?
show me where he died n buried.. If u cant no stupid jesus existed.. Other then for people to use the ideology to rape kids.
its maintained by american tax dollars. Thats legit all that needs to be said. I dont want my tax dollars going towards anything religious and a cross is in fact religious.
How do you define "religious"/"religion" ? Seriously, many pastors draw a distinction between religion and the Gospel, criticising the former. Either way, it's a non-sequitter. The dogma of separation of Church and State that is so religiously held to doesn't answer my question - why does a piece of stone bother you so much? What impact does it have on you? It's not causing pain or trauma, it's not releasing noise or a smell. As I've said, it's maintenance should be funded by donations rather than tax - but the amount is negligible, and ultimately that money simply ends up paying workers.
The cross is where Jesus died for EVERYONE - it's not a symbol of superiority or exclusion.
Your last sentence is the problem. Replace it with “Allah and his messenger Mohammed (PBUH) are here for everyone.” And also replace the cross with a crescent and star of Islam. Now how do you feel?
That's not what Islam teaches.
Irrelevant. I could say the same for the comment on Christianity. The question remains.
But you'd be wrong (to say the same of Christianity) - Islam and Christianity are not simply things that we can each have our own opinions on, they are distinct sets of very different texts and teachings.
Sir, Germany was considered, in 1939 as the most churched country in Europe. Most low level Nazis were Christian.
No, Nazis were not Christian, because Christian means to love Jesus and thus desire to emulate Him - and His actions and teachings were entirely contrary to Nazism. Plenty of people throughout the centuries have called themselves Christians because they like the label, but calling oneself something doesn't mean that one is, and people calling themselves Christians whilst acting in an unChristlike way certainly don't define who Jesus was.
The Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian. Lutherans and Catholics mostly. Their belt buckles said“God is with us” Hitler claimed to be a Catholic himself and referred to god in both his book and speeches. Hitler belongs to Christians.
no, people calling themselves something doesn't mean that they are, nor define that thing. I could call myself a football fan, but given that I don't actually follow football at all, I'd be wrong, and I certainly wouldn't define what football is. Nazis calling themselves Christians doesn't mean that they actually were, and it makes no sense for you to judge Christ by their actions, specifically because they were doing the opposite of what Jesus taught.
You are a pathetic self righteous imbecile.
What exactly - which phrases - suggests that I'm self righteous?
Says who? Can You tell me who wrote the Bible? And where they got their facts from? PROOF! I NEED ACTUAL FACTS PLS! I'll wait! LMAO
The Bible is a compilation of texts written by a number of different people - and different texts within it corroborate each other, with further corroboration from other texts from the Church Fathers and texts from other historical writers at the time. I personally became convinced of the resurrection after reading Who Moved The Stone, which helps one to see why the Gospel accounts can be trusted.
Have you tried reading/listening to the scholars who've concluded that Jesus died and rose to weigh up the matter for yourself? https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection
Anti-abortion posters plastered on buses in Australia
Learn biology? I've been studying biomedical sciences at university. I didn't say that it's a baby, but at 4 weeks, it's an embryo with primordial organ structures, not only a collection of cells (technically, we're all collections of cells). Personally, I'm concerned about the millions of abortions that happpen far later than 4 weeks, at stages where the unborn has brain functionality.
Proverbs 6:16-19 "There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers."
"America First" is not a just cause. It is seeking to perpetuate the inJUSTice of America being far wealthier than most of humanity, and all of humanity is in fact equal before God. God repeatedly tells us to be generous, compassionate and selfless. Trump is not.
I am furious about the Dems' support for abortion, so couldn't vote for them.
So, you preferred a president who was Muslim through and through??? You must be doing well in a Christian country that gave you everything.......ditch Trump and you will soon be living in a hell of your own making.
LOL, I'm in the UK. How was Obama "Muslim"?
Nice sentiments Grace, but humans are not yet ready for global love-ins. God gives men a choice, and the best we can hope for is a strong leader like Trump, who has your best interests at heart. Without him, the Global elites who let me tell you, are without humanity, will enforce multiculturalism to the point when Islam will implement Sharia Law, then you'll be covered from head to toe, not allowed to go out without your husband, as partners are not permitted.
You'll be circumcised, allowed to be beaten and forever be a mammal only, which is the legal term for women. Believe me,
Mr Trump is our ONLY HOPE of living free, as safe as possible and with our choices intact.
His mother was, and he is[Christian]. Presbyterian actually. I'm from Britain and I know that.....do you know your own president? I think not.
How, exactly, do you know that Trump is a Christian? Countless people call themselves Christians because they like the label, but in fact it means, by definition, to genuinely love Christ so much that you truly desire to follow Him. I'm not saying that Trump isn't a Christian, I can't know, but Jesus said that His followers would be clear from their actions, and some of Trump's actions strongly suggest that he isn't trying to emulate Jesus.
Why are you certain that without Trump, Islam will take over?
If you go back to [Obama's] administration while he was president. He NEVER mentioned Christians, he backed Muslim integration, and now, five times a day in New York the wailing call to prayer is heard. Obama was all the way LEFT which loves globalism, Islam and no borders anywhere. The left are responsible for the catastrophic state of both our countries today........totally supported by Obama.
How exactly did Obama back integration in such a way as to show that he was "Muslim through and through"? That there are now calls to prayer (where did you get that information?) would only suggest a greater number of Muslims, largely because they have a higher birthrate.
Whilst aspects of Islam are indeed deeply concerning, most Muslims are sfe or even make a positive contribution to society. Our priority, far beyond anything else, must be to serve God by sharing the Gospel with those around us - Muslim or otherwise, and by helping those in need IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THEY SHARE OUR NATIONALITY as God repeatedly commands.
(I comment simply with 12 week pregnancy image)
Explain? Seriously, how many babies born to women who'd wanted and not been able to abort them end up beaten to death? Babies being beaten at all, let alone to death is abhorrent beyond words, but that doesn't justify abortion.
Does it honestly not concern you that tiny humans just a few months younger than babies can be vacuumed to death or chopped up?
when people twist scientific facts, that is abhorrent. When people try to force their religious views on others, that is the most abhorrent.
How am I "forcing" views on others? I'm only commenting, which we all do here. When an abortion happens, one person's view is genuinely being forced on another - one human is killed because of another's "view". I'm not forcing anyone to do or not do anything, I'm just typing.
When did I mention religion?
Week8, Size of a raspberry
Why does that give someone else - who's already made a choice (unless raped, but again, that's only the case in 1% of abortions) - the right to destroy that tiny human? A newborn couldn't survive on their own. All of us rely on others to survive - those who provide our water and food. Relying on others doesn't mean that a person can be killed - especially when the person on whom they rely is the person who put them in htat position of reliance.
Have you considered that not all abortions happen because the fetus is healthy?
I'm well aware of the tragedy of severe deformitiy - however it's by no means accurately diagnosed in utero, ie. there are plenty of unborn diagnosed with severe deformities who are born healthy. If, tragically, they do pass away hours after birth, they could save the lives of other babies in need of organ transplants.
It can well be more comforting for a parent who knows that their baby will live for only hours to have an hold them for that time than to have the ache of aborting them.
Crucially, only a tiny, tiny minority of abortions happen because of deformities anyway. I wouldn't argue about these cases anyway, I'm debating abortion because of the huge majority - likely over 98% (see statistics and analysis here - http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/.../abortion/abreasons.html ) who are aborted without any deformity or health issue, nor because of rape or threat to the mother.
NB, abortion is also dangerous, for example, https://lifecharity.org.uk/.../ambulances-called-778.../
and harmful to mental health - https://www.cambridge.org/.../E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BE...
replace items with newer versions far sooner than we need to, contributing to the depletion of natural resources and to pollution. There are adverts that con desperate people into wasting the little money they have on gambling and lottery tickets. There are adverts that force people to hate their bodies and feel unavoidably anxious.
Those adverts are harmful, I don't think that stereotypes are harming us anymore.
Jesus also said follow the law of the land. They are not refugees. They have crossed the border illegally, they are therefor illegal aliens.
Where exactly did Jesus say that? Can you give a reference? Either way, it doesn't change the fact that those who show no compassion to migrants are breaking what Jesus said was most important after loving God.
Love how Lefties use the Bible to justify things that they are for, but deny what the Bible says about things they disagree with. Shameful
How are you defining "lefties"? Which of my views denies the Bible and is shameful?
I suspect that you're simply making resumptions and putting me in a box. But that's a logical fallacy (ie, illogical) and I don't fit in a box.
God has killed more people than any being in the history of the world. I don't think he's the one to make a comparison with.
How do you define "God killing"? God creates life, and eventually, life on Earth ends and He gives the option, through Jesus, of life in His presence, without the frustrations of life on Earth. Which deaths are you blaming God for when you compare them to killings for "other beings"? Why do you think that you know better than God about how long lives should last?
This is the land of laws and rules. How’s it working out for you in London?
Oh dear, have you been conned by your right wing press into thinking that London is a war zone? Are you aware that the murder rate here in London (murders per 100,000 people) is less than a third that of the US?
The violence that exists in certain areas is due to gang/drug wars, not immigrants
but we are to take care of our own people first! Do you have a well balanced financial plan by which we can house. Feed, cloth, educate and meet the many medical needs of the 100's thousands of illegals who have entered and are still entering our borders???
The microevolution of variation within species is obvious - but the neo-Darwinian dogma that all life evolved from nothing by natural selection alone is more debated amongst the scientific community than the public is led to believe.
For example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187878/
Religion = state sanctioned, controlling superstitious nonsense for the gullible.
What did you think of the hyperlinked articles?
How far (GCSE? Alevel? Uni?) have you studied biology?
When did I mention Noah's ark?
What is it that you think I believe?
How are you defining "religion"?
*[Paul, who wrote this, was referring to the imprisonment and torture he experienced - he was eventually executed]
I'm NOT trying to minimise the evil of slavery - but I know that God hates injustice and offers eternal bliss that will make that suffering seem brief by comparison.
I can't get my head around why anyone thinks that it's within the London mayor's power to end gang wars. Meanwhile, scores of people have died in the US due to guns, which Trump has lobbied for.
The murder rate in London is around 1.5 per 100,000 - higher than the UK average, but a fraction of the rate for Trump's nation, with a murder rate of 5 per 100,000
Check this out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I'd love to see what the Dems could achieve for social justice if they'd dro this issue and consequently take back power.
Why do people (who criticise prolifers) seem to think it's wrong to want to stop the tearing up of tiny humans?
As I said when I saw this advertised on TV yesterday, I'm really, desperately hoping that between us and gen Z, we might be able to change this. The evil of fast fashion powered by grossly exploited workers is something we've grown up more aware of than current company bosses (not that I'm excusing them) and with generational turnover more and more consumers are of a more globally minded demographic. I've been so excited to see my little sister (20) get into buying all her clothes from charity shops, and the little girls I look after (6 and 9) ask often about poverty and declare their plans to help..
Those adverts are harmful, I don't think that stereotypes are harming us anymore.
Maajid Nawaz hits out at the "rank hypocrisy" in the fallout following Jo Brand's battery acid joke, calling out the tribalistic politics behind calls for her to be sacked.
But how do you define "religious"? Plenty of people call themselves religious/Christian, but to genuinely be committed to God and following Christ means disregarding nationist pride.
"Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27
Second, in Loving v. Virginia 1967, SCOTUS ruled that marriage cannot be infringed by the state. In Oberfell v. Hodges 2015, the same agreement was reached in regards to same sex marriage. It's taken so much blood, tears, and sweat to get this far.
And it's not right for other countries to criminalize something that cannot be changed because it's an intrinsic part of who someone is.
Only a tiny minority of the things that Jesus said in His years of preaching are written down, so, contrary to the oft repeated claim that we should presume Jesus endorsed homosexual sex because the New Testament doesn't mention Him forbidding it, we can only conclude that it wasn't deemed important enough for the Gospel writers to include in their concise accounts. At the time, the Jewish audience wouldn't have been considering that homosexuality might be Ok.
Jesus affirmed Yahweh, and God's design of one man and one woman. Paul, following Jesus's direction, wrote that homosexual sex stands in the way between people and God.
Crucially, when religious leaders brought Jesus a woman caught having sex that God's old Testament law had forbidden, Jesus saved her from being punished, and told her to go and sin no more. He didn't endorse the sex, He told her to stop it, but He also showed her compassion rather than allowing her to be hurt.
Again, the Gospel matters more than all of this - why is that never discussed?
Why are there still so many unanswered questions? #Grenfell Why the frack is there a laughter reaction to this? Because sometimes accidents happen. It's impossible to foresee all eventualities. Almost 95% of the residents paid no rent at all and were totally supported by the taxpayer so were you expecting every flat to have it's own fire warden ? How do you know that "Almost 95% of the residents paid no rent"? And do you know how difficult it is to get work here in London ATM? Note also that many were elderly or disabled. Regardless, to laugh about them being burned to death is evil.
Your phrase "little book of hate and oppression" demonstrates that you've fundamentally misunderstood genuine Christianity - perhaps because of the many unChristian actions of people claiming (since they lke the label) to be Christian. It's because of Jesus' teaching that our society has standards of human rights and compassion that were lacking from pre-Christian cultures.
I'm not "trying to force religion on people", I'm just commenting, on the basis of my concern about destruction of humans, not "religion" - abortion forces peoples' opinion into an unborn human by actual killing them, whilst me typing doesn't change anything.
"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." James 1:27
"Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” " Matthew 22:37-40
More importantly, "invisible man in the sky" is a serious misunderstanding of what I believe. Have you looked at the scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of a creator for yourself?
How you've concluded that the biological process that we're here because of, and which can be avoided by not having sex (or using contraception and plan B) is torture is beyond me, but clearly this argument is futile.
Ultimately, all of this unimportant by comparison to the question of God, ans your earlier comment demonstrates that you're unaware of that field of debate, so I think that we should stop wasting time here. There are plenty of scholars (with PhDs in sciences and philosophy) who explain why they've concluded that God exists in books and easily accessible online articles and lectures. If you wanted to weigh them up for yourself, you could, but you've just chosen to ignore them. I can't force you.
Have a good week, seriously.
Have you statistically analysed research from large numbers of Church attendees? I am BY NO MEANS excusing any abuse or suppression of it being addressed, but I suspect that you don't actually have enough information to know that it's "almost impossible" to speak about abuse, and that you're just using an opportunity to the bashes the Church. I know, for example, that a particular evangelical Church that has been said, by a main newspaper, to be covering up an incident of abuse, did in fact inform the congregation about it last year (I was listening then).
I think that you're taking advantage of grotesque abuse for the sake of an article. NB - Evangelical, by definition, means to want to tell people about how Jesus died and rose for humanity - not everyone who calls themselves evangelical actually fits that description, and anyone who genuinely loves Jesus will hate some of Trump's words and policies.
Wow, obviously I don't have time to respond to all of these comments, so please don't think I don't have responses, I just have better things to do than respond to lots of people who are mostly telling me I'm an idiot without actually giving any explanation.
But a few things need saying - the "Trump post" that one of you referred to was me resharing a joke about his hair. I'm by no means a Trump fan. Here in the UK, I vote Left, and I'm FURIOUS about our government enabling war in Yemen.
Why ---- thinks I'm a troll is beyond me. You honestly think that because the UK is "not religious" that there's no one here who believes in God and posts about it? You know that's nonsensical. In any nation, in case you weren't aware, individuals have different views. I concluded that God exists whilst studying molecular biology, and separately, study of the accounts of the resurrection led me to conclude that it happened. That's more important than anything. I'm sorry that I fail to be a emulate Jesus enough - but consider also that you can't know about me by making presumptions on the basis of other people who are prolife. Again, each individual is different - the anger that some of you have because of certain politicians and others who call themselves prolife but don't have compassion for others is a non sequittor in this thread. It's a logical fallacy to argue against me on the basis of other peoples' words and actions.
I'm firmly in support of good government healthcare provision, substantial paid maternity leave, and pacifism. I'm aware that Planned Parenthood provides some positive services - but the figure stated that only 6% of Planned Parenthood services are abortion is a deliberate skewing of figures and has been debunked. Contraception, sex education and cancer tests should be provided - well - by the state. Thats what's so weird about you saying you support Left. But your beliefs are that of a force birther all the way.
You're a woman. Don't you believe that we should have rights over our bodies???
If you don't like Abortion. Don't have one. But don't judge, condemn or or make laws difficult for other women to have them.
Otherwise, it's back to the days when it's back street abortions and women would die.
Do you think it's acceptable that a bunch of white men in Alabama can make laws that can jail a woman for needing an abortion. And those nutters claim a miscarriage can be an abortion.
Im here in the UK and disgusted that women in N. Ireland have to jump through hoops to get one, or hop on a ferry. Its 2019.
Can you not have children? Is that why you're so pro birth??
Its not about aborting babies. It's about taking away a woman's right to choose. And that is the crux of it. You want to save a baby? Adopt or Foster one.
Plenty out there. As I said, don't lump me together with others. Other than in cases of rape, which account for only 1% of abortions, no one's "forcing" birth, and we do have control over our own bodies. The issue in abortion is destroying the body, and taking the life, if another human. I've said and will say again, I believe that there should be state provision of contraceptives, there are also the options of the morning after pill (Plan B) and tubal ligation - but more importantly, it's just not necessary to have sex to enjoy life. Indeed, I'm unable to have kids having evidently (I don't have periods) rendered myself infertile through starving myself as a teenager - but that's irrelevant, I'm frustrated because of tiny humans being dismembered.
Telling me to adopt is a moot point, since a woman's pregnancy results from her choice to have sex, whereas the fact that there are children in need of adoption is not a result of my actions, nor am I attempting to destroy them as is the case in abortion. But of course I'm heartbroken over children in need - I can't adopt ATM, since I still have anorexia to the extent that I can barely support myself, I wouldn't be allowed (by social services) to adopt. I hope that I can in the future. In the meantime, I can sponsor children in developing countries.
[Deleted Comments] How, exactly, do you know that I'm "not so bright"? Simply because I disagree with you? Seriously, there was quite a bit of embryology in my Biomedical Sciences course at uni, please tell me what you think you know that I don't. LOL, you honestly think that a sperm is equivocal to a zygote? With all due respect, I recommend trying some high school level biology (seriously, I'm not wanting to be insulting ) - a sperm is haploid, it has only half of the chromosomes required for a human. A zygote has the genetic information to develop into a fully formed human, and is genetically programmed to do so. Only 1% of abortions follow rape, according to Planned Parenthood's own data. I won't argue about those cases. But are you honestly saying that a baby doesn't deserve to live simply because it's not privileged enough to be born into a perfect family? [Deleted Comments]
Seriously, what biology textbook told you that? "Nothing more than parasitic tissue"? With all due respect, you've been seriously misled. The fact that it temporarily relies on the mother's blood supply doesn't mean, at all, that it is "nothing more than parasitic tissue" - it is, by definition, human. I'm not arguing about zygotes - but a foetus begins to have brain function before the 2nd trimester, and I don't see why someone else has the right to suction or chop it to pieces. People who need blood and other donations aren't in that situation because someone else chose to have sex, so they're not at all comparable. Of course, people in need of donations ARE provided with them, rightly so.
That we can feed a starving child for a month for £4 is thrilling, and development has made a serious dent in poverty in recent decades because it can be amazingly cost effective - there's still horrific need that we have the privilege of helping.
In fact, children are fed in this country. Few parents are genuinely unable to buy food, and there are free school meals, benefits, and food banks. The system needs to be improved, but those children who have the least do so because of issues with the DWP, not because we should give less to those whose poverty is even more severe.
here's the thing: Nobody was christian outside of Europe. If this doesn't prove no god exists, then you will find out eventually.
Christianity, from its own texts, is PRO slavery.
The Bible was written in a society where slavery was the unquestioned norm, and it compels slave masters to treat their slaves well, contrary to other cultures at the time, and to ultimately to free them. It specifically outlaws kidnapping - so taking slaves is banned; slaves already existed, more equivalent to employees today than the slave trade's victims.
God gave rules to the Hebrews designed to help them best manage society at the time given deeply held attitudes at the time. Their culture presumed that women were property - God's laws for them at that time were to challenge those attitudes, He couldn't force people to immediately view the world entirely diifferently.
Jesus shows us how God actually wants us to live and treat others. Jesus would have owned slaves if it were within his station during his life because he was a devout Jew, which means his own religious guidance came from the Old Testament. That Jesus was a "devout Jew" means that He was dedicated to Yaweh, not that He copied other people who were Jewish by heritage. Jesus taught that we must treat others as we would want to be treated, and that most important thing aside from loving God is to love others. I'm glad that's your position, because it means you're more moral than the bible. The bible literally gives instructions on how you can beat your slaves, where you can get your slaves, and Jesus tells slaves to obey their earthly masters as they would the Lord.
No, people at the time that the Bible was written saw it as entirely normal to beat their slaves, and the Bible sets bold restrictions - by no means does it "give instructions on how you can beat your slaves". And the words about obedience to which you refer are Paul's, not Jesus's. Again JESUS COMPELLED US TO LOVE OTHERS AS OURSELVES. https://theweeflea.com/.../a-s-k-3-does-the-bible.../..
"Go die, bitch." - paraphrased Matthew 15:21-28
Jesus was prompting the woman to state what needed to be said. Other teachings of His, such as the parable of the good Samaritan, make it clear that He wants people of differing ethnic groups to be treated the same.
(NB, I'm by no means calling all who voted for Trump far right - people had a broad range of reasons for voting for Trump, and I'm confused as to why the Dems aren't doing more to address them so that they could stand a chance of actually being able to win power and enact the social justice policies that are so needed)
Migrants Flood Small Bosnian Town
They're human beings, not flooding. They're moving because the places that they've been born into - through no fault of their own - make it impossible for them to survive or life comfortably. At the very least, we need to have comassion.
It's absolutely their fault, Muslims are never in peace since the day of their existence. Millions of lives had been lost due to the Shia vs Sunni over who's more peaceful between them. The facts is they are not the most peaceful people on earth nor they are poor, Islamic countries are well known for their rich natural resources. Look at Europe, wherever Muslims spread their peace, crime rates keep going up triple.
I'm well aware that some aspects of Islam are dangerous - but someone being born in am Islamic country doesn't mean that anything is "their fault". Each individual is different, and the minority who behave as criminals aren't the fault of the innocent, suffering people who happen to have been born in the same area. Many people who are Muslim by birth in fact contribute more positively to humanity than us average Europeans. Correlation is not causation : the increase in crime in Europe is the result of various factors, and the increase in Muslims doesn't mean that Muslims are to blame - both trends are factors of the modern world. A particular cause of increased crime, amonst others, is that fewer people are trying to emulate Jesus than previously.
Why do people (who criticise Hunt here) seem to think it's wrong to want to stop the tearing up of tiny humans?
because at 12 weeks gestation and even up to 22-24 weeks they cannot live outside of their mothers womb. In all real sense, until they can, they could be considered a parasite! After all, they take nutrients from the mother, cause sickness and other medical problems. If it were an intestinal worm, you'd want rid, humans aren't all that you know. Just look around you! And before I get the "I hope you never breed" comment, I've had 4 children and the last one nearly killed me.
"A parasite"? By what definition is someone a human in your ideology?
Of course I'm concerned for the mother, and there should be far more support for them. However, the mother has, in 99% of cases already made a decision; and stands to go through a normal biological process, whilst the unborn human stands to be torn up.Why on Earth do you think I'd say that I hope you never breed? I'm so sorry that your pregnancy was tough.
it's none of your business.
You might well argue that a parent hasn't the right to kill their newborn - it would be none of your business, but it would be right to argue because the newborn is a human who no one else has the right to kill. A foetus is simply a few months younger - saying that "it's no one lse's busniess" doesn't make killing that tiny human OK.
there are abnormalities that aren't picked up until the 20 week scan. One that can kill mother and foetus in utero or shortly after birth. Not all abortion is used as birth control.
No one is opposing abortion that's genuinely necessary to save the mother's life. Which abnormalities are you referring to? Many don't justify abortion.
even in the Bible, life begins at the first breath and a foetus is not considered to be a separate person. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one, but don't force your opinions on other women.
LOL, which Bible have you been reading? Seriously, it doesn't say that, and several verses refer to the preciousness of the unborn
https://www.huffpost.com/.../abortion-what-the-bible-says...In any event, why should your opinion be forced on another woman? Noone is asking you to have an abortion you don't want.
I'm just commenting, we all comment, it "forces" nothing. An abortion forces someone else's opinion on the unborn human by actually destroying them. And why not actually highlight the Bible verses you're referring to? Why should I read a Huffpost article (Huffpost is seriously biased, I'd rather not give it ad revenue unnecessarily).
None of those verses indicate that life "doesn't begin until breath". The verse about being called in the womb is not be necessarily only about the nation by any means. And obviously, there are other verses about being in the womb, such as Psalm 139. In the NT, we're told that John the Baptist lept for joy in His mother's womb - which is of course, not strictly literal, but clearly makes the case that the preborn are considered to be alive and important. Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone who isn't a Christian to care what the Bible says, and I didn't bring it up.
What bothers me is that some abortions happen at a stage where the foetus is sufficiently developed to have brain activity - and that's long before 24 weeks. Last year, a prize was won for a scientific study of how 16 week foetuses change their expressions in response to music played just outside the womb. Ultimately, contraception is freely available, there's also the morning after pill, and there are parents desperate for newborns. This isn't even about banning abortion, only banning it after 3 months. There are plenty of options available - and as I've found, contrary to the lie we've been sold since the 60s, it's perfectly possible to enjoy life without sex :)
you god-squadders make me sick. You have no regard for a child born with multiple disabilities, living with absolutely no quality of life at all. I have worked with such children, have you? Have you given birth to one?
Yikes, "God squadders"? I didn't even bring up God. Without thinking about God, I'm concerned about human beings being torn limb from limb, is it only us Christians who care about that? Why do you think we don't care about children who are disabled? I didn't say that whether or not abortions should be allowed for the very most severe cases, I asked which "abnormalities" are being referred to - because I wouldn't argue in those instances where it could be certain that the child would suffer more than they'd enjoy life, but in many instances that isn't the case. There are plenty of examples of women who've been advised to abort because of "abnormalaties" but have refused, and their child has been born healthy. There are also endless examples of abnormalaties being a reason that doctors advise abortion, but in fact the child, though not entirely "typical" grows up to be a blessing to those they meet, such as many cases of Down's syndrome. There are "abnormalities" that, increasingly, can be treated, such as spina bifida which has begun to be operated on in the womb. There are also plenty of cases of women refusing to abort a baby with severe abnormalities, and being glad to have spent a few hours with the baby after birth - though it's heartbreaking for a baby to have an abnormality that means that they won't survive, the parents still find that, in such a situation, it brings them more peace to bring that baby to term than to abort it.
Crucially, "God squadders" have been driving care for those with disabilities throughout Christianity's history, because of the belief that every person is valuable to God, whilst various atheist figures and political groups advocate for killing the disabled. (Nb, I'm well aware that most atheists would not advocate that).
No, I've not given birth to anyone, I've not had sex. Our culture has conned us into thinking that we all need regular sex as soon as we reach the age of consent - it's a lie perpetuated because sex sells.
- but not actually been trying to follow Christ, which is, I'm fact, the definition of Christian.
Many who actually have been following Jesus commands have done awesome things - though Christianity became such an assumption in our society that we often to recognise how much of the good in human history was inspired by people wanting to emulate Christ. (Nb, that does NOT mean that I consider us superior).
This wasn't even a debate about Christianity, with all due respect, have you actually read what I've written? And it isn't about people trying to control women, it's just expressing the opinion that once a woman has chosen to have sex, and a tiny human has developed to stage of brain activity, she shouldn't kill it. You might well argue that a parent hasn't the right to kill their newborn - it would be none of your business, but it would be right to argue because the newborn is a human who no one else has the right to kill. Even if you deny that a human several weeks younger than that is a human, it's my knowing that it is that males me frustrated with abortion.
Ultimately, God, who loves everyone, is an incomparably more important topic than this, and I hate wasting time on these debates. We Christians have other things we want to tell the world.
Churches should certainly be loving toward trans people an no bullying is ever OK -but to actually offer celebratory services because someone believes that God made a mistake isn't actually loving.
There are a minority of intersex people - otherwise, male is to have XY chromosomes and female is to have XX chromosomes, by definition. If a person feels they're "in the wrong body", what they're uncomfortable with is the stereotype they feel is associated with their chromosomes. But they're a priceless, unique individual, and don't have to adhere to a stereotype they resent - becoming the opposing stereotype, and having their bodies changed is not something others should "celebrate". We should love them whatever, but hope that they can accept their bodies as God made them - and that they can focus instead on the array of traits and skills that make them who they are.
Three priests accused of enabling W.Va. bishop’s ‘predatory and harassing conduct’ resign
God commands us again and again to treat others well.
We'd be robots lacking free will and thus meaning if He blocked every wrong human action - but if we're all merely molecules and no more, how and why do you care about abuse?
God offers eternal life free of suffering, which will make the pains of this lifetime seem momentary, and if our time on Earth were perfect, we'd all ignore Him and thus miss out on that far better, longer existence. "...our light and temporary affliction* is producing for us an eternal glory that far outweighs our troubles. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.…" (2 Corinthians 4:17-18)
*[Paul, who wrote this, was referring to the imprisonment and torture he experienced - he was eventually executed]
Our culture doesn't pay enough attention to the grotesque poverty in other parts of the world - many of which are ultimately poor because of the colonialism that's made us rich (as well as the following despotic regimes that colonialism enabled; the natural disasters resulting from our lifestyles; and the greed and corruption of our corporations).
I constantly see comments that we shouldn't donate to those in poverty overseas because of the need here - but those helped by charities overseas have no NHS (and do have many diseases that we don't have to face at all), and have little or no state services/welfare state; as well as little or no education access and even fewer job opportunities (if any) than there are here.
Our government should be doing far, far, far more to help the disadvantaged here, the wealth gap they've facilitated is despicable - but we should also keep in mind that equally precious human beings are suffering even more severly beyond our little island; and you and I can, with thrilling cost/value (eg, we can feed a starving child for a month for £4), transform some of their lives.
We'd be robots lacking free will and thus meaning if He blocked every wrong human action - but if we're all merely molecules and no more, how and why do you care about Hitler?
*[Paul, who wrote this, was referring to the imprisonment and torture he experienced - he was eventually executed]
But He doesn't obsess about gay sex in the way that our media suggests Christians believe He does - His concern is that people reject Him. Jesus suffered beyond anything that anyone could imagine to make The Way for anyone to be forgiven - because God loves everyone, whatever their sexuality.
'Fight liberal tyranny': Catholic politician Ann Widdecombe hits back after her show is axed - Premier
I never said we should "force beliefs on others", we should explain, asking God to guide our words, what we believe and why - especially since Muslims have been taught many falsehoods about Christianity.
Why do you think that "Jesus wants" us not to talk to others about the awesome offer He has made to them? Surely you're aware that He said 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."?
What rationale is there for believing that there's hope of eternal life without Jesus? He defeated death - Muhammed didn't.
And why the defensiveness? It's very clear that EVERYONE, including those who are currently Muslims, are welcomed to turn to Christ. We, as current Christians are in no way superior, nor should any mistreatment of Muslims ever be condoned, so why are you so argumentative?
What evidence is there of salvation - from death - apart from Jesus?
And why are you so argumentative? I've specifically stated that we must love Muslims, yet you're reacting as though I'm an Islamophobe.
"they could all be right or they could all be wrong." no, it's not possible for all beliefs to be right. Muslims believe that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross - it's not possible for that belief, and what the texts from the actual witnesses saying that He did die (and rise), to both be correct. Do you trust Muhammed, who lived 600 years after Jesus, or numerous writers who lived at the same time as Jesus?
"it is not for you to judge." when did I say I was "judging"?
Sugar Daddy website founder to pay for abortions of women who have to travel out of restrictive states
If he cared about women, he would use his money to fund contraception and perhaps even to help women in extreme poverty - in fact he's simply investing money into his own business of profiting from womens' bodies.
Obviously, other verses back it up (eg, Acts 4:12 'Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved'); as do writings of the Church Fathers (who lived straight after the disciples - when witnesses were still discussing Jesus, and there'd been no oportunity for Imperialism or mythology to alter the message).
Crucially, we can trust this because, bizarre as it might seem, there's a compelling case to be made that Jesus truly did rise from the dead - but I don't expect you to simply believe me, I wasn't convinced until I read Who Moved The Stone (The Case For Christ is also good, and there are many, many other books and lectures in which historians describe the reasoning for concluding that the resurrection was a real event)
And, excitingly, we can make a HUGE difference to people who don't even have enough food, nor electricity - let alone ice cream - if we donate to the best charities (rather than spending that money on luxuries that we don't need).
Also, why should I have sympathy with you when you mock other people's appearance?
No disrespect to football fans - but the extent of our media's obsession with it, whilst we rarely hear about serious issues elsewhere in the world that we have the power to help resolve, is frustrating.
I don’t tolerate somebody. I respect somebody, I work with somebody, I love somebody.
I don’t like the idea I’ve got to tolerate them because they’re a different faith. No, respect is a much better way.
(Obviously, they're great words, but saying that some people are of a different faith implies that you have some faith, and it'd be fascinating to know what that is)
Plenty of people, especially politicians, call themselves Christian because it's a familiar label that they like, or that they hope will score them a few votes; if people genuinely believed in Jesus enough that they desired to emulate His example and teaching, our country would be a fairer, more compassionate place.
As I said, there's a crucial distinction between people calling themselves Christian - because they like how familiar it feels to them or because they hope that it might mean that some people think more highly of them - and actually following Christ.
PS - atheist regimes (since you mention atheism) have killed far, far, far more people than so-called "religious wars" (which were often, in fact, entirely opposed to what Jesus actually taught us about how to live).
As I said, human beings are all selfish to some extent. So when you say that "religious" people mistreat others and try to justify it by "religion" it's simply because, as I said, it's a label that they like, or they hope some people will think of them as more noble. So "religion" is simply the best excuse they can think of for trying to justify themselves - but what they say and do doesn't actually define what genuine Christianity is.I didn't say, as you've just said I did, that faith would make the world a better place. I said that if people were genuinely trying to follow Jesus, the world would be a better place. Plenty of people who call themselves Christians aren't actually following Him. Those of us who are trying still fail - but we become more compassionate than we ourselves were before we followed Jesus. It's not, as you suggest, because we want to score points with God - that's the ideology that other faiths teach, and that we can fall in to, but in fact Jesus taught that it's not what we do that determines whether we get to heaven. Nothing we could do is enough - but Jesus offers heaven to everyone, so salvation depends entirely on whether we truly, deep in our hearts, choose to accept Him. IF we do, we naturally WANT to love others as He taught. And we also believe, though obviously you don't, that by committing ourselves to Jesus, we're giving Him permission yo work with us in overcoming our inclinations to sin - so the good that we do is NEVER anything to be boastful about, because it's through God's help that we gradually become better people.
I'm desperate for poverty to be tackled (and obviously, there should be universal essential sex ed and contraception). You seem to be presuming that I'm opposed to things that I didn't comment on the basis of my opposing abortion, but that's a fallacy - I hate abortion because of the destruction of tiny humans, I'm not unconcerned about injustice. I'm in the UK, where I vote left and spend much of my time arguing against the causes of poverty, abortion isn't my top concern
Yikes, of course I'm concerned about humans who are already born! Why presume that I'm pro war? I'm heartbroken about victims of war and severe poverty, why would opposition to abortion mean that I wasn't? I'm well aware that there may be a correlation, but each person has their own set of opinions, abortion isn't legitimised by the evils of some Republicans.
Awesome progress has been made in recent decades - but still 40% of people live on less than $1.90/day, because of the past colonialism and current multinational corporate theft that we in the West benefit from. We should be doing more to support development - the agony that some innocent people endure because of greed that's made us rich is abominable beyond words.
There's also, contrary to the lie we've been sold by our culture for decades, the option to not have sex in the first place (of course, I'm not referring to rape, but this accounts for only 1% of abortion cases according to Planned Parenthood's own data). Obviously, there's no point saying that once a woman is pregnant, but it's something that should be discussed more, because the lie that we're indoctrinated with - that sex is necessary regularly as soon as one's old enough - is hurting people (particularly girls and women pressured into sex - which is not me suggesting that all are).
There are tiny humans having their skulls crushed and limbs ripped off - despite the fact that, in all but 1% (according to Planned Parenthood's own data), the sex was a choice, and various contraception and Plan B are available (and I'm not opposing that - I think that the sexual revolution brought about by contraception's availability has hurt a lot of people, but on balance still support free contraception). We've all got different opinions - but it shouldn't need explaining that some people are opposed to abortion, and this^ article's tagline is almost hilariously daft, presuming that prolifers want to restrict rights because the writer ignores what prolifers believe about what abortion is.
For the record, I'm in the UK, where I vote left, I'm not a Republican. my primary political concern is that wealth should be more equally distributed.
What's your biological criteria for the start of a human? Are premature babies not human to you because they've not had 40 weeks gestation? Or caesareans because they've not been through the vaginal canal?
I argue (NB, we all argue online about everything, we're each entitled to simply have opinions), though it's "none of my business" because another human being is victimised. If you knew that someone was going to tear the limbs off a newborn in a hospital, you might argue about it, even though it's "none of your business"
(Also, I feel I should say, since you seem to be making presumptions about me, that I'm fervently antigun)
And in fact, they ARE partially our natural disasters, because it's emissions from countries like ours (not developing countries, where carbon footprints are absolutely tiny by comparison) that are increasing the risk of natural disasters. And the colonialism of our ancestors and multinational corporations which means that we've been born into relative wealth is the reason that people in developing countries can't protect themselves or recover from natural disasters.
Much more needs to be done to help those who are underprivileged here in the UK, so please don't think that I'm opposing that - but many, many people argue that Aid should be stopped since there's poverty here, and we need to clarify that there's even more severe need in developing countries (thus we should give more Aid).
Even when "safe" abortion is dangerous to womens' physical and mental wellbeing. What's needed is a combination of encouraging of abstinence (which is best for avoiding heartache, STIs, etc) alongside sex ed; free contraceptives (inc. vasectomies and tubal ligation) and far improved networks for pairing up unwanted unborn babies with parents desperate to adopt newborns.
Do the foetuses that have their skulls crushed and limbs ripped off give consent?
Therefore when people are cruel, they're not following Him, because He's clearly instructed us to love others.
I genuinely can't fathom why you were told, or got the impression, that being sexually abused is a sin. I'm also bemused as to why you're angry with the pregnancy centre for encouraging you to speak up about the abuse, especially when you're angry with the Catholic Church for not encouraging you to speak up....
The fault is with the abuser, and family for abandoning you. Encouraging victims to report abuse is the right thing - by consensus across our society - to do......
I'm NOT comparing my experience to yours, but I was prescribed anti depressants as son as I was old enough to take them and have been on them ever since. I was sectioned (forced against my will under mental health law into a mental health facility for most of a year). It resulted in me spending huge amounts of time (since I was stuck indoors) looking at the reasoning supporting the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, concluding that (though I couldn't get my head around them) they were true, and then drew closer to God. That's enabled me to feel happier than I ever had done. But I know that will all sound daft to you.
What's fundamental, is that Jesus has made the offer of eternal life to anyone who will accept Him, though none of us are deserving. So whilst God may have "chosen" some for certain tasks, we have no reason to feel proud, and we are compelled to have empathy and compassion for everyone.
Even when "safe" abortion is dangerous to womens' physical and mental wellbeing. What's needed is a combination of encouraging of abstinence (which is best for avoiding heartache, STIs, etc) alongside sex ed; free contraceptives (inc. vasectomies and tubal ligation) and far improved networks for pairing up unwanted unborn babies with parents desperate to adopt newborns.
Also, as politicians should be able to acknowledge, everyone is different, so whilst some pro-lifers may have certain other views, not all pro-lifers share those views (on migration etc). Would she want us to lump all Muslims together?
If it were necessary to attach another human to me to keep them alive, I'd absolutely oblige - but that's not comparable, because the woman has already chosen to have sex (only 1% of abortions are due to rape - and yes, obviously the man should be forced to pay ample child support).
And given that the brain releases high levels of oxytocin during sex, as well as the risks of STIs, it genuinely is optimal for mental and physical health not to have sex before marriage - but our culture worships sex, and outlets like Buzzfeed clearly deem it blasphemous to suggest that we shouldn't all be sexually active ASAP.
Having a committed, private, unique bond with one person has worked well for much of humanity for much of human history - especially when people are older and an emotional bond increasingly becomes more important than sex. It seems sad that you don't get that.
How do you know that prayer hasn't achieved anything (or not as much as Dolly Parton)? How much have you investigated it? Even if you don't believe that it has, you can only speculate. And prayer certainly has helped countless people to feel relaxed and hopeful in the midst of desperation - it's been more helpful for mental health than we could ever measure.
Other than in cases of rape, which account for just 1% of abortions, the woman has already made a choice.
The average cost of a Briton's holiday could fund sponsorship of 2 children for the year, and still leave money left over for plenty of sightseeing here. Besides, if we want to stop our planet being destroyed by climate change, giving u flying is, by far, the most efficient means to do so.
Apologies, I wrote "I'd argue", but I don't want to argue at all
Aside from that, it's pretty vile that people are laughing at the potential for this^ guy to be murdered - and if you think that there is no potential for it, you're very much unaware of the epidemic of persecution of Christians outside of the Western world. Did you not see the crowds of angry men in Pakistan screaming for Asia Bibi to be executed?
What about my "type of thinking is why this man could be killed"? All I've implied is that I believe that God exists - though as my profile makes evident, I also want to emulate Jesus - this^ man is at risk because of people trying to emulate Muhammed, who was entirely different (though, obviously, the majority of people who consider themselves Muslims would never dream of copying Muhammed's violence).
*Seriously, I'm not condoning the school being mean, I just don't understand the hysteria over this
You could sponsor a child for a year with that amount, and also have a great family day out Don't let Disney con you into thinking that kids need to go to Disneyland to be happy - I thought, as a kid, that I'd like to go, now I'm glad I didn't, I'd have been spoiled.