A recent documentary, The Debt Saviours, aired on a Friday evening on BBC2. I was already well familiar with the organisation that it probes, Christians Against Poverty; I watched with the aim of considering the messages that were to be imparted to hundreds of thousands of non-Christians.
“How do you expect to be judged at the gates of heaven?” John Kirkby, head of CAP is asked in one scene.
“I’m not expecting to be judged at the gates of heaven, I expect to be welcomed in.”
“What makes you think that?”
“My faith.”
My worry about the fragment of interview quoted above, is that some viewers will perceive this as a sense of entitlement on Kirkby’s part, and perhaps on the part of Christians generally. The Gospel is that anyone is welcomed on account of what Jesus has done and not by any merit of our own; but this is not made clear in the documentary, and therefore it may well seem that the emphasis is on a Christian believing that HE will be “welcomed.” I wonder whether Kirkby said more at this point about Christ, words which the BBC omitted to show?
Instead, responding to the presenter asking him why he’s just brought Jesus into a conversation with a beneficiary — despite the willingness of that client to be prayed for — a CAP staff member very capably explains: “We believe, as a Christian body, that there is a place in heaven for everyone, and I think it would be too good to miss out on. One thing that God promises is, in heaven, we don’t have any of this — we don’t have any sickness; we don’t have any stress; we don’t have any poverty; and you’re there for eternity. That’s what we believe as a Christian faith. It would be very selfish not to share that news with other people.”
But this is not followed by a further question — or if it was, it’s been cut. So the audience sees Kirkby saying that he believes he’ll be welcomed into heaven on the basis of his faith, but the good news that there’s a place for everyone is brushed past.
At numerous points in Debt Saviours, we’re shown congregational singing of some of the most recent Christian songs. How many people are deterred from Church in some small part because they wrongly imagine them to be exclusively filled with hymns? (I commented, on a post about the ‘loneliness epidemic,’ that Church is an opportunity for social contact that more people should try. The reply to my comment was that it might work if one is over fifty.) It seems bizarre, however, that so much time is spent with the camera closed in on Kirkby as he participates in the worship — it’s as though the camera man is trying to push Kirkby into snapping at them to get out of his face. Kirkby continues to sing and smile ear to ear, but I suspect that a deliberate attempt is being made to portray him as unhinged. Why not give the wider congregation a few more moments of screen time instead of expending quite so many on Kirkby? That many people are filled with joy in worship is skirted around so that Kirkby can be implied to be eccentric.
At several points, text facts are shown on screen in white font against a black background — but why not present some measure of CAP’s efficacy or independently assessed credibility? More relevant than telling us the number of staff, for example, would be the success rate that CAP has in getting beneficiaries into the black. We’re told that 6,000 clients have committed to Christ — to an agnostic audience, this might well prompt some suspicion, and no numbers are offered telling us of how many clients this 6,000 is a part (only 4%, according to CAP’s site). We aren’t told how many clients have been helped with advice; how many have been supported into work; how many have become debt free, nor any other measure of success that would convince the secular viewing public of CAP’s virtue. There’s plenty of data in CAP’s financial reports. So why did the documentary not include any of it?
Also absent is any remotely adequate explanation of CAP’s practical support; jobs clubs; life skills classes and debt counselling offered to beneficiaries for free by CAP which are life changing for tens of thousands of the nation’s most disadvantaged people. But the audience aren’t shown this. CAP’s initiatives are obscured, so that viewers are left ambivalent about its merit.
We see Kirkby entertaining bankers at a fundraiser on “Jersey, The Channel Islands”, as an on-screen caption tells us. We’ve not been told anything about locations at any other point in the documentary. Might this reference to the islands be a deliberate, subtle attempt to subconsciously conjure up viewers’ anger about tax havens? We’re given several lines about the payment system operated by CAP: indebted individuals pay CAP who pay off their loans, and CAP has an arrangement with banks from which they benefit financially. It’s oddly vague. Presumably CAP’s funds and involvement ultimately make it possible for extortionate interest to be avoided by those in debt; but what’s shown might give the impression that CAP is aiming to profit itself. Kirkby is shown telling the bankers that their plans are expansive and they “have needs” but no footage is included of him telling the bankers about beneficiaries. It seems a deliberate effort to give the impression that Kirkby is greed-driven.
We see an aged photo of two small boys. Our tugged hearts are broken as a late-20’s Gaz tells us that at the time that he was one of those boys, he was being abused. The nickname that he tells us that he was subsequently bullied with when his torture became known to his classmates makes us aware that this abuse included rape. His mother threw him out as a teenager, leaving him living in a skip. Gaz’s attitude is truly remarkable; our secular culture today favours the concept of moving on, but he goes further, telling us that his experience is nothing to run from, but is a tool to help others. Will non-Christian viewers take note of this? One of the most frequently expressed objections to God is that He permits suffering — but Gaz, like many Christians, is testament to the fact that suffering can be used for good when our lives are dedicated to God, almost nullifying the atheists’ objection. Watching him later recount to CAP beneficiaries having encountered his abuser in adulthood, Gaz describes his conscious decision to forgive — but we see no mention of Jesus. It seems to me certain that this will have been on account of the programme’s editing.
Glen Scrivener, a notable online evangelical personality tweeted about the making of this programme, “The BBC cameras were there when @MartinSLewis came. They filmed him saying ‘Christians Against Poverty is not about helping Christians, it’s about helping people.. I, not as a member of your faith, will continue to support you with every ounce of my being’.” This was affirmed by Martin Lewis who retweeted Glen Scrivener’s comment — and yet that moment of footage ended up on the cutting room floor. Why? Martin Lewis has an OBE, appears regularly on television — both as a guest and as a host of his own programme — and has 12 million people subscribed to his website’s weekly email. To exclude commentary from such a respected figure would seem to betray significant bias on the part of the programme makers.
According to 2017 Barna research, 59% of British adults see a role for the Church, but only 33% believe that Churches are currently making a positive difference in the world. Debt Saviours should have been an occasion for some of the non-Christian public to discover that the Church is serving a role; but the obfuscation of CAP’s efficacy in relieving debt has perhaps denied them this.
Have the BBC cut footage of Jesus being mentioned? It seems to me unlikely that evangelicals would fail to mention the Gospel for all of the time that they were being interviewed. CAP’s site states: “we all have joy, hope, peace, love and compassion in our hearts that we believe are the fruit of knowing and following Jesus. [... P]ouring love, care and attention into often very dysfunctional families [... is] what we believe Jesus asks us to do.” The programme’s neglect of these points renders it shallow, devoid of the ultimate message of hope, and misleads the audience into imagining selfish motivations on the part of CAP.
During CAP’s retreat, Kirkby informs one beneficiary — Holly — that she’s now debt free, and he and a female mentor shower Holly with congratulations. Holly sits alone on her bed and releases some of her joy in expletives. It’s authentic and heartwarming, as much as I dislike the F word. Prior to this, she’s discussed wanting to become a Christian and being uncertain of how to do so. Later she declares her intention to engage substantially with the Church. Her story truly appears a genuine example of a CAP client becoming enthusiastic about exploring Christianity — but the documentary has been so devoid of The Good News being shared with beneficiaries, one might wonder why.
It is made clear, however, that prayer is offered, as we witness during several visits to beneficiaries. Kirkby, quizzed about this by the interviewer, expounds, “I hugely believe in the power of prayer.” “But they’re vulnerable,” the interviewer asserts — “so it’s not surprising that an individual would say yes.”
Kirkby: “Well yeah, they’re in need of hope.”
Based on this programme, perhaps many non-Christians will take the view that the deception which they consider Christianity to be overrules the hope that’s created. It’s common practice for journalists to ask questions to which they know the answer of course, so perhaps the interviewer has the intention of drawing out of Kirkby what needs to be underscored. Yet it seems very much to be the interviewer’s presumption that it’s inherently wrong that people would be presented with an offer of prayer whilst they’re particularly likely to accept it. It’s been pre-determined that prayer is inherently conniving or exploitative, and that CAP are cynically targeting disadvantaged, perhaps even gullible people of whom they can take advantage. Christians watching are gladdened to see the good news being shared; but the interrogation by the presenter — who keeps himself off-camera throughout — seeks to affirm non-Christians’ suspicion that the priority of Christian organisations is proselytising.
On their blog, CAP published a statement about Debt Saviours. One point that feels pertinent is that they were allowed no editorial control. They decided to agree to the project whilst taking this into consideration since it would be an invaluable opportunity to make themselves known, but what legitimate reason could the production company have had for allowing CAP no input whatsoever? “It wasn’t a perfect representation of CAP but still worth doing. Of course, there are frustrations that the documentary didn’t show all we wanted but viewers aren’t daft. They see through it.” I dearly wish that were true for all viewers! but I’m certain that it wasn’t. CAP were manipulated by the programme makers — and some tweeters and bloggers observed this whilst others were led to believe that CAP is the manipulator.
Nevertheless, as they note on their blog they “felt the love. A team of us were kept busy on social media through Friday night and #TheDebtSaviours was trending. Across the weekend it never stopped.” The crux of the matter is whether the net positivity in viewers’ minds on witnessing CAP’s help and kindness outweighed the negativity felt by viewers as a result of the skewed portrayal of CAP’s Christian ethos. On the assumption that individuals who are opposed to offering prayer to non-Christians would have already harboured this resentment, such that in their minds the programme would have made little difference, I suspect that Debt Saviours may indeed have had a slight net positive impact. There’s certainly multifarious commentary on social media:
#debtsaviours The more I look into CAP, the more frightening it looks. If only it was just helping 'The Poor'. It/Kirkby appear to have links with C3, Phil Pringle, and a host of apparently rich evangelists in NZ, Canada, Australia. These were not mentioned on the programme. Why?
@CAPuk @JohnKirkby #debtsaviours OMG, am I the only 1 who finds all this a bit sinister? These ppl are vulnerable & to get them up and speak about what CAP have done for them was using their abuse/history for donations. What a lucrative business though! BTW, r cults tax exempt?
#Debtsaviours Seems to be a program on BBC2 where evangelicals are preying on the most vulnerable people in our society. Very creepy.
#Debtsaviours just a big recruitment drive for their church.
Watching #Debtsaviours Known @CAPuk since it started & nothing I didn’t already know. As an atheist I always struggle with people with firmly held religious views not least because faith in a god is so clearly ridiculous I assume that anyone who says they believes is a fraud.
#debtsaviours I personally have no faith but I do know that the work my Mum does for @CAPuk is about helping people of all faiths (or none) and backgrounds in the community. She was disappointed the portrayal on @BBCTwo didn’t show more of their work within EVERY community.
Conflicted by #Debtsaviours. We work with @CAPuk and they deliver great outcomes for clients. But some of the evangelical practice did make me feel very uncomfortable. Questioning my own bias as most of #twitter seems supportive.
Christians Against Poverty's work has had a positive impact on the lives of the people it's helped. But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to some of its more ethically dubious practices, says our chief executive @Stephenmevans1 https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2018/10/the-questionable-ethics-of-evangelical-debt-advice … #TheDebtSaviours
The article to which this last tweet linked — a statement by Secularism UK — conveyed predictable hostility, alongside the single complimentary sentence, “Christians Against Poverty’s work has had a positive impact on the lives of the people it has helped.” It claims — on what evidence is undisclosed — that “CAP has a poor reputation amongst professional debt advisers from organisations such as Citizens Advice.” But that it then states that, “A particular concern is that the volunteers invite their clients to pray. It also invites some clients along to ‘discovery breaks’.” This suggests that there’s a lack of real evidence that CAP are ineffective in debt alleviation. Secularism UK alerts us that clients are “manipulated into considering ‘the reality of a God who loves and cares for them.’” But does not ‘manipulation’ imply the motivation of profiting from the person being manipulated? Some viewers of Debt Saviours will interpret CAP as manipulative — but some will acknowledge that, if nothing else, CAP’s pastoral care is positive for individuals feeling dejected. As one tweet in reply to Secularism UK stated:
Struggling to see the “ethically dubious practices” you seem hung up about. @CAPuk #DebtSaviours does not insist clients participate in prayer/weekends away in order to use the service. They are just taking a more holistic approach, they care, is this so wrong?
I was slightly disappointed in #DebtSaviours @BBCTwo @CAPuk is an amazing organisation which helps people of all faiths and none, but it was portrayed as slightly cultish in its #Christianity which I think gave the wrong impression.
@BBC You've focused too much on the 'Christian' and not enough on the 'Against Poverty'. I think you've been pretty divisive, if I'm honest. Not all clients make any link to a Church, but they still get help!!.....
….I have to agree; pretty nasty attempt by #BBC to discredit #CAP in the eyes of our liberal pluralistic society - #DebtSaviours last night. Debt is a killer - too many suicides. CAP has literally saved hundreds of lives.
Well done @JohnKirkby putting up with this muppet skeptic interviewer
What a guy. Could listen to John Kirby #christiansagainstpoverty @CAPuk all day
Many other tweets gushed with glee to see a Christian organisation on BBC primetime television, but most were conspicuously from Christians. Perhaps some will be inspired to consider ways in which they support work like CAP’s; but of paramount significance is the impact that Debt Saviours had on viewers like these:
Sorry, I'm a militant atheist but I don't think people are being fair to CAP. They do good work and sure, they bang on about god a bit, but their motivation is to bring people into their community rather than dump them when the job is done.
Can’t fault religion when it causes people to do good things like this @CAPuk #Debtsaviours
#Debtsaviours If you believe that they were following an imaginary friend in the sky, and are deluded, at the least, their delusion is leading those who work for CAP to strive to help those in desperate need. This isn't being a fraud, it's genuinely seeking the good of others.
It falls to us to pray and strive for those around to come to know that indeed CAP wants to tell people about Christ — because He offers to pay the ultimate debt that we each owe.
* * *
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
Thursday 7 March 2019
Something wicked this way comes
Sabrina the Teenage Witch was rebooted for Generation Z recently.
It’s just one marker of an undeniable trend — of reboots, but also of
witchcraft. Whilst I and other millennials were growing up, Sabrina was
popular, and I avoided the programme having somehow picked up the idea
that witchcraft — albeit in a sitcom — was not something with which we
ought sympathise. Sabrina would have otherwise appeared innocuous,
apparently busying herself with seemingly trivial travails of
adolescence amidst tepid comedy. By contrast, the Netflix reinvention is
entitled ‘The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina,’ and whilst Sabrina is
still a high school student, reviews indicate a radical shift in tone. A
‘chilling’ atmosphere, of course, is not necessarily something to
object to. What is deeply disturbing is that the new programme
has Satan as a central presence. Sabrina is the daughter of a Satanic
priest, and is expected to undergo a “dark baptism” — her family’s
equivalent to a Bat Mitzvah, as she tells her boyfriend. She comes to
doubt whether it’s right to surrender her soul to Satan — not because of
his being Satan, of course, but because of her objection as a feminist
to submitting to a male.
As just one small marker of the embracing of the programme, a Buzzfeed survey of almost 100,000 people placed ‘The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina’ as the most popular new drama series of the year. The survey also found it to be the most popular Netflix original series of the year, suggesting widespread acceptance of the occult amongst young adults and teens. Reportedly the program includes cannibalism, but whether this is conveyed as morally right and wrong I can’t say. “[W]hatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Philippians 4:8).
Sabrina’s reincarnation coincides with that of ‘Charmed’ — a 90s series about three sisters who are witches. Both programmes have been greeted with tremendous excitement. Nothing surprising about this, of course. We grew up with Harry Potter, as well as ‘The Worst Witch’ and other media celebrating witchcraft. Disney and many more stories suggest that witches are dangerous — but I’m certain that JK Rowling has done much to convince my peers of witchcraft’s virtues.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil…” (Isaiah 5:20)
If this social trend in popular perceptions of witchcraft is clear enough, less clear is how many people are progressing from that into identifying as witches or practising witchcraft. A Newsweek article in November declared, “Number Of Witches Rises Dramatically Across U.S. As Millennials Reject Christianity,” but the article failed to provide a reference to the data that it claims this assertion is based on (“religious studies from Trinity College, Connecticut,” seem not to be online), and the Media Research Centre argues that Newsweek’s claim is unwarranted.
Ultimately, the religious label that a person chooses to wear when surveyed doesn’t necessarily provide clear insight into their beliefs and practices. For decades, almost ten times as many British survey participants have labelled themselves as Christian as read the Bible and attend Church. As MRC suggests, Witchcraft is increasingly considered not to be evil (as it previously was), but instead to be a resistance movement aimed at supposed good. Witches were, until (relatively) recently, the villains of stories, with the word ‘witch’ itself frequently being used to refer to any unkind female. Now, those who identify as witches believe themselves to be noble warriors against social injustice — particularly The Patriarchy, which they blame in no small part on Christianity. Consequently, when surveyed regarding their religion, some might answer that they are Wiccan or Pagan whilst in fact not participating in the practices.
Nevertheless, Quartzy’s claim that Pew Research data has found that 1.5 million Americans identify as Wiccan or Pagan is disturbing. Whether casting spells or not, these individuals are rebelling against Christianity — likely their own misinterpretation of it based on negative aspects of its history, but ultimately against the Gospel itself. This is a tragedy. Here in Britain, the Office for National Statistics found that 57,000 people identified as Pagan and 39,000 as Spiritualist in 2011.
This community of occultists remains cloistered, yet inklings occasionally appear from mainstream media sources, such as the “Secret life of modern-day witches” from the BBC in 2012 which interviews witches in Lancashire. One “runs her own witch school and has taught more than 60 witches,” claiming, “We never do nasty spells. They’re always so life takes a better turn.”
Percolating through numerous mainstream news outlets across the pond earlier this year was the story that Sephora, a prominent cosmetics brand, had advertised a “Starter Witch Kit.” It was soon removed from sale due to public outcry — not that the public are unsettled by witchcraft, but rather that the kit was considered heinous cultural appropriation.
Yet there’s certainly plenty of money in the occult merchandise industry. Buzzfeed’s “How Witchcraft Became A Brand” last year spotlighted spiritual item subscription boxes — that is, subscribers paying monthly to receive a surprise selection of tea, crystals, aromatherapy and “spiritual growth tools” by post. Buzzfeed spoke to the owner of Goddess Supplies, which, at a cost of $30 monthly, increased its subscriber base from 300 to almost 6,000 in 18 months; today, its site boasts having featured in extremely widely read magazines, including Refinery29, Glamour, People and Elle. Etsy, which I’d already read is a hot spot for witches, is said by Buzzfeed to offer 28,000 results for the search term Witchcraft — but upon searching the site for Witchcraft today, less than 17 months later,[1] I’m returned over 44,000 items. Of course, there are plenty of witch-related items that simply don’t have Witchcraft in their title or tags. I’m struck by the numerical evidence of rapid growth. Items include T-shirts and jewellery — but many of the listings are for trinkets purporting to have magical powers. It bemuses me that so many would wish to spend money on entirely unscientific tools; I’m quite sure that many others would deem this a laughable superstitious con — some may be literally snake oil. The high number of listings is in spite of Etsy apparently causing uproar by banning listings of spells two years previously. Despite the reduction in sales the ban will have caused, from its imposition onwards, Etsy saw growth in witch related purchases increase almost 60% over the subsequent two years.
Market Watch reported in October 2017
that the psychic services industry grew to be worth approximately $2
billion by 2016. “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be
also” (Matthew 6:21).
The same article also claimed that more than half of young adults in the U.S. believe astrology is a science — but it’s unclear whether this includes those who mistakenly confuse astrology with astronomy. In a discussion with another spiritual subscription box seller, the piece quotes that “she says she’s seen a 75% increase in her audience in the past year,” and references an astrology app, Co-Star, which crashed three times in its premier week due to excess of demand.
No niche apps are necessary for those wishing to explore witchcraft
of course — the conventional, most widely used apps are rife with
Paganism also. Reports repeatedly reference Instagram, where, for
example, #witch today returns 7,271,165 posts — almost twice the 3.7
million that Buzzfeed refers to in their aforementioned article of a
year and a half earlier.
Stylist (distributed freely to commuters) wrote two years ago that, “Some white witches now cast emoji spells,” and offered readers suggestions to “infuse your daily routine with these magical practices, which may or may not work…” — including a Fertility spell and “Career crystal.” Earlier this year, the magazine sought to enlighten readers as to “Why it’s time to awaken your inner witch,” claiming that Tarot “cards guide you on solutions and a better sense of self-awareness, as opposed to the Yes, No, Ask Again Later advice of a Magic Eight Ball…. Magick is a way for us to weave meaning into our lives.” This is at once laughable, disturbing and tragic. One is duty bound to ask why people are so dismissive and/or unaware of the rational belief to be had in Christ, that they feel somehow comforted or empowered by pieces of stiffened paper? Have they considered that they might simply be being conned into spending on magical merchandise? How do they understand failed spells and predictions, without having the trust in a God who knows better than we do? Those pursuing Paganism are in rebellion against God — as we all were (Romans 3:23) — but at the same time, they’re engaging with the occult because they’re spiritually thirsty. Their misunderstanding of Christianity means that they’re unaware of the thirst-quenching offered to them in the Gospel.
Vice regularly champions witchcraft, as well as offering readers ongoing diagnoses of their star signs — oddly juxtaposed with some high calibre journalism (* that is to say, some of its other journalism is high calibre, there are also many varieties of folly aside from spiritualism). 2015’s “The Trials of Being a Witch Today” reflected upon historical persecution of those accused of witchcraft, and argued that, “Although women are no longer put to death for their magical powers, many still face prejudice in today’s society.” One interviewee, we were told, “was in primary school when she first found paganism.” This is a startling remark. I can’t help but wonder whether the girl was influenced by bullying, by a tumultuous home life, or by childhood fiction. She recounted being “told by a preacher that I was going to go to hell after he noticed my pentacle… as I walked past him to give a homeless man a cup of tea and a pasty because it was a cold afternoon. I found it rather ironic that I was told I was going to hell when I was clearly trying to help another in need.” Whilst a comment like this should not for a minute be regarded as anything like persecution, the anecdote should remind us as Christians to be thoughtful in how we interact with those following dangerous spiritual paths. She now “truly believe[s] children should be taught about paganism in schools as it would help to promote a better understanding of what it’s about.”
Another witch in the same article recounts, “I was cornered and attacked in the toilets by a group of girls, who called me a Satanic bitch.” From this she argues that “the law desperately needs changing as we should be better protected by the [Criminal Justice Act 2003], and being able to put our belief on the census as an ‘official’ religion would be an amazing start.” We aren’t offered any data regarding attacks on witches, and conclusions can’t be drawn from a single anecdote; it is vital, however, that in opposing witchcraft, we make clear that we don’t condone any such abuse (since non-Christians will all too readily blame Christianity for discrimination). The account serves as a reminder that whilst paganism is one demonstration of an attitude that rejects God, many others reject God also: the person who violently attacks a witch is just as much in need of the salvation Jesus offers, as the witch herself is.
But will the census and the national curriculum ever include witchcraft as this witch suggested? It will presumably depend on whether the upward trend in their numbers continues. That seems plausible. Some data suggests an increase in Wicca of 1675% in just one decade between 1990 and 2001. Rather than this being a passing trend, almost two decades later the movement is flourishing, and highly popular screen depictions such as Sabrina and Charmed will prime the next generation. A Buffy reboot is reportedly in the works, along with a series adaptation of ‘His Dark Materials.’ Harry Potter may have finished at Hogwarts, but the franchise is still luring in young readers as well as continuing to entrance the millennials who grew up with it.
Whilst paganism is not yet an option on the census, another indicator suggests that society is shifting in that direction. The British Armed Forces have just initiated “the Defence Pagan Network.” This was highlighted in Spiked’s recent opinion piece “Spare me this Pagan Revival,” in which Julie Burchill bemoans the fact that “it’s been quite a year for pagans,” referencing their demand for prison chaplains and ‘Thought For The Day’ slots on Radio 4. She puts forward the interesting proposition that “these days the occult has to some extent taken the place of sex for the notoriously chaste Generation Z,” though she also acknowledges that since paganism is saturated with sex, “such people are generally perverts, and not even sexy ones.” Refreshingly, she promulgates the value of Christianity as a force for good in society — but millennial media voices seem not to see this.
Another of Vice’s many features on witchcraft declared in January 2018,
“Long stigmatized by colonizers and the Catholic Church, indigenous
forms of spirituality and witchcraft are experiencing a renaissance
among Latinx[2]
millennials,” and several others have gleefully reported on an apparent
movement by some African Americans to unshackle themselves from the
supposedly oppressive Christianity that was imposed on their enslaved
ancestors by immersing themselves in African tribal witchcraft. Perhaps
the lesson of this is that, as Christians, we need to be more forthright
and forceful in denouncing racism, even if not personally responsible
for the accusations made by anti-Christian sources.
The extent to which some modern withes believe themselves to be morally superior was evidenced this summer when dozens of them gathered together to place a hex on Brett Kavanaugh as he was awaiting confirmation to the Supreme Court. One organiser remarked, “[We see] the witch as a political figure who threatens and works to take down the patriarchy. This has been seen throughout history, but more recently in American society. We uphold this legacy which merges art, political theatre, religious iconology and socio-political resistance.”
A decade ago, Richard Dawkins and co. confidently asserted that belief in the supernatural was on its death bed. Would they have foreseen gatherings of witches making international news?
Nevertheless, amongst what we might lump together as ‘modern paganism,’ there are those who are in fact atheists. I refer to members of the Satanic Temple, an organization which recently sued the makers of the Sabrina reboot for its appropriation of their deity. I was struck, last year, by a Vice report, in which members of the Satanic Temple explained that Satan is, to them, a symbol of rebellion, rather than a supernatural being. Their site lists “seven fundamental tenets,” including, “One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason” — though others highlight the threatening nature of the organisation — “The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.” Whilst positive in theory, will clearly lead to fervent protests; “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone,” is a staunch pro-abortion proclamation (as the footage I’d seen demonstrated). “The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend,” is an unashamed declaration of intent to attack Christianity; and, “To wilfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own,” evidences their belief that they are entirely justified in doing so.
Meanwhile, the separate Church of Satan proclaims on its site that “Satanists are atheists…. Our position is to be self-centered”. It states that Satanism is “not congruent with any other philosophy or religion which endorses the belief in supernatural entities — inc. Wicca and Voodoo.”
Ironically, there is active occult practice alive within the Anglo-Catholic Church, according to a Church Times piece in December.
We have vital lessons to learn through this grotesque trend. Whilst we pray against the forces of the occult, we must remember that “rebellion is as the sin of divination” (1 Samuel 15:23) — humanity is not a binary of Godly and pagan, we must each continually repent of our sin and seek God’s help, without allowing ourselves to feel righteous because of the erroneous spirituality we see around us. It would be wrong to endorse any spirituality other than the Holy Spirit — but we must avoid demonising the misguided individuals ensnared by this evil, recognising that most are driven by frustration with historical injustices which were also antithetical to Christ’s command. With God’s guidance, we may be used by Him to steer some of those who are hungry for the supernatural towards the true bread from heaven.
As just one small marker of the embracing of the programme, a Buzzfeed survey of almost 100,000 people placed ‘The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina’ as the most popular new drama series of the year. The survey also found it to be the most popular Netflix original series of the year, suggesting widespread acceptance of the occult amongst young adults and teens. Reportedly the program includes cannibalism, but whether this is conveyed as morally right and wrong I can’t say. “[W]hatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Philippians 4:8).
Sabrina’s reincarnation coincides with that of ‘Charmed’ — a 90s series about three sisters who are witches. Both programmes have been greeted with tremendous excitement. Nothing surprising about this, of course. We grew up with Harry Potter, as well as ‘The Worst Witch’ and other media celebrating witchcraft. Disney and many more stories suggest that witches are dangerous — but I’m certain that JK Rowling has done much to convince my peers of witchcraft’s virtues.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil…” (Isaiah 5:20)
If this social trend in popular perceptions of witchcraft is clear enough, less clear is how many people are progressing from that into identifying as witches or practising witchcraft. A Newsweek article in November declared, “Number Of Witches Rises Dramatically Across U.S. As Millennials Reject Christianity,” but the article failed to provide a reference to the data that it claims this assertion is based on (“religious studies from Trinity College, Connecticut,” seem not to be online), and the Media Research Centre argues that Newsweek’s claim is unwarranted.
Ultimately, the religious label that a person chooses to wear when surveyed doesn’t necessarily provide clear insight into their beliefs and practices. For decades, almost ten times as many British survey participants have labelled themselves as Christian as read the Bible and attend Church. As MRC suggests, Witchcraft is increasingly considered not to be evil (as it previously was), but instead to be a resistance movement aimed at supposed good. Witches were, until (relatively) recently, the villains of stories, with the word ‘witch’ itself frequently being used to refer to any unkind female. Now, those who identify as witches believe themselves to be noble warriors against social injustice — particularly The Patriarchy, which they blame in no small part on Christianity. Consequently, when surveyed regarding their religion, some might answer that they are Wiccan or Pagan whilst in fact not participating in the practices.
Nevertheless, Quartzy’s claim that Pew Research data has found that 1.5 million Americans identify as Wiccan or Pagan is disturbing. Whether casting spells or not, these individuals are rebelling against Christianity — likely their own misinterpretation of it based on negative aspects of its history, but ultimately against the Gospel itself. This is a tragedy. Here in Britain, the Office for National Statistics found that 57,000 people identified as Pagan and 39,000 as Spiritualist in 2011.
This community of occultists remains cloistered, yet inklings occasionally appear from mainstream media sources, such as the “Secret life of modern-day witches” from the BBC in 2012 which interviews witches in Lancashire. One “runs her own witch school and has taught more than 60 witches,” claiming, “We never do nasty spells. They’re always so life takes a better turn.”
Percolating through numerous mainstream news outlets across the pond earlier this year was the story that Sephora, a prominent cosmetics brand, had advertised a “Starter Witch Kit.” It was soon removed from sale due to public outcry — not that the public are unsettled by witchcraft, but rather that the kit was considered heinous cultural appropriation.
Yet there’s certainly plenty of money in the occult merchandise industry. Buzzfeed’s “How Witchcraft Became A Brand” last year spotlighted spiritual item subscription boxes — that is, subscribers paying monthly to receive a surprise selection of tea, crystals, aromatherapy and “spiritual growth tools” by post. Buzzfeed spoke to the owner of Goddess Supplies, which, at a cost of $30 monthly, increased its subscriber base from 300 to almost 6,000 in 18 months; today, its site boasts having featured in extremely widely read magazines, including Refinery29, Glamour, People and Elle. Etsy, which I’d already read is a hot spot for witches, is said by Buzzfeed to offer 28,000 results for the search term Witchcraft — but upon searching the site for Witchcraft today, less than 17 months later,[1] I’m returned over 44,000 items. Of course, there are plenty of witch-related items that simply don’t have Witchcraft in their title or tags. I’m struck by the numerical evidence of rapid growth. Items include T-shirts and jewellery — but many of the listings are for trinkets purporting to have magical powers. It bemuses me that so many would wish to spend money on entirely unscientific tools; I’m quite sure that many others would deem this a laughable superstitious con — some may be literally snake oil. The high number of listings is in spite of Etsy apparently causing uproar by banning listings of spells two years previously. Despite the reduction in sales the ban will have caused, from its imposition onwards, Etsy saw growth in witch related purchases increase almost 60% over the subsequent two years.
“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”Matthew 6:21
The same article also claimed that more than half of young adults in the U.S. believe astrology is a science — but it’s unclear whether this includes those who mistakenly confuse astrology with astronomy. In a discussion with another spiritual subscription box seller, the piece quotes that “she says she’s seen a 75% increase in her audience in the past year,” and references an astrology app, Co-Star, which crashed three times in its premier week due to excess of demand.
Stylist (distributed freely to commuters) wrote two years ago that, “Some white witches now cast emoji spells,” and offered readers suggestions to “infuse your daily routine with these magical practices, which may or may not work…” — including a Fertility spell and “Career crystal.” Earlier this year, the magazine sought to enlighten readers as to “Why it’s time to awaken your inner witch,” claiming that Tarot “cards guide you on solutions and a better sense of self-awareness, as opposed to the Yes, No, Ask Again Later advice of a Magic Eight Ball…. Magick is a way for us to weave meaning into our lives.” This is at once laughable, disturbing and tragic. One is duty bound to ask why people are so dismissive and/or unaware of the rational belief to be had in Christ, that they feel somehow comforted or empowered by pieces of stiffened paper? Have they considered that they might simply be being conned into spending on magical merchandise? How do they understand failed spells and predictions, without having the trust in a God who knows better than we do? Those pursuing Paganism are in rebellion against God — as we all were (Romans 3:23) — but at the same time, they’re engaging with the occult because they’re spiritually thirsty. Their misunderstanding of Christianity means that they’re unaware of the thirst-quenching offered to them in the Gospel.
Vice regularly champions witchcraft, as well as offering readers ongoing diagnoses of their star signs — oddly juxtaposed with some high calibre journalism (* that is to say, some of its other journalism is high calibre, there are also many varieties of folly aside from spiritualism). 2015’s “The Trials of Being a Witch Today” reflected upon historical persecution of those accused of witchcraft, and argued that, “Although women are no longer put to death for their magical powers, many still face prejudice in today’s society.” One interviewee, we were told, “was in primary school when she first found paganism.” This is a startling remark. I can’t help but wonder whether the girl was influenced by bullying, by a tumultuous home life, or by childhood fiction. She recounted being “told by a preacher that I was going to go to hell after he noticed my pentacle… as I walked past him to give a homeless man a cup of tea and a pasty because it was a cold afternoon. I found it rather ironic that I was told I was going to hell when I was clearly trying to help another in need.” Whilst a comment like this should not for a minute be regarded as anything like persecution, the anecdote should remind us as Christians to be thoughtful in how we interact with those following dangerous spiritual paths. She now “truly believe[s] children should be taught about paganism in schools as it would help to promote a better understanding of what it’s about.”
Another witch in the same article recounts, “I was cornered and attacked in the toilets by a group of girls, who called me a Satanic bitch.” From this she argues that “the law desperately needs changing as we should be better protected by the [Criminal Justice Act 2003], and being able to put our belief on the census as an ‘official’ religion would be an amazing start.” We aren’t offered any data regarding attacks on witches, and conclusions can’t be drawn from a single anecdote; it is vital, however, that in opposing witchcraft, we make clear that we don’t condone any such abuse (since non-Christians will all too readily blame Christianity for discrimination). The account serves as a reminder that whilst paganism is one demonstration of an attitude that rejects God, many others reject God also: the person who violently attacks a witch is just as much in need of the salvation Jesus offers, as the witch herself is.
But will the census and the national curriculum ever include witchcraft as this witch suggested? It will presumably depend on whether the upward trend in their numbers continues. That seems plausible. Some data suggests an increase in Wicca of 1675% in just one decade between 1990 and 2001. Rather than this being a passing trend, almost two decades later the movement is flourishing, and highly popular screen depictions such as Sabrina and Charmed will prime the next generation. A Buffy reboot is reportedly in the works, along with a series adaptation of ‘His Dark Materials.’ Harry Potter may have finished at Hogwarts, but the franchise is still luring in young readers as well as continuing to entrance the millennials who grew up with it.
Whilst paganism is not yet an option on the census, another indicator suggests that society is shifting in that direction. The British Armed Forces have just initiated “the Defence Pagan Network.” This was highlighted in Spiked’s recent opinion piece “Spare me this Pagan Revival,” in which Julie Burchill bemoans the fact that “it’s been quite a year for pagans,” referencing their demand for prison chaplains and ‘Thought For The Day’ slots on Radio 4. She puts forward the interesting proposition that “these days the occult has to some extent taken the place of sex for the notoriously chaste Generation Z,” though she also acknowledges that since paganism is saturated with sex, “such people are generally perverts, and not even sexy ones.” Refreshingly, she promulgates the value of Christianity as a force for good in society — but millennial media voices seem not to see this.
Another of Vice’s many features on witchcraft declared in January 2018,
“Long stigmatized by colonizers and the Catholic Church, indigenous
forms of spirituality and witchcraft are experiencing a renaissance
among Latinx[2]
millennials,” and several others have gleefully reported on an apparent
movement by some African Americans to unshackle themselves from the
supposedly oppressive Christianity that was imposed on their enslaved
ancestors by immersing themselves in African tribal witchcraft. Perhaps
the lesson of this is that, as Christians, we need to be more forthright
and forceful in denouncing racism, even if not personally responsible
for the accusations made by anti-Christian sources.The extent to which some modern withes believe themselves to be morally superior was evidenced this summer when dozens of them gathered together to place a hex on Brett Kavanaugh as he was awaiting confirmation to the Supreme Court. One organiser remarked, “[We see] the witch as a political figure who threatens and works to take down the patriarchy. This has been seen throughout history, but more recently in American society. We uphold this legacy which merges art, political theatre, religious iconology and socio-political resistance.”
A decade ago, Richard Dawkins and co. confidently asserted that belief in the supernatural was on its death bed. Would they have foreseen gatherings of witches making international news?
Nevertheless, amongst what we might lump together as ‘modern paganism,’ there are those who are in fact atheists. I refer to members of the Satanic Temple, an organization which recently sued the makers of the Sabrina reboot for its appropriation of their deity. I was struck, last year, by a Vice report, in which members of the Satanic Temple explained that Satan is, to them, a symbol of rebellion, rather than a supernatural being. Their site lists “seven fundamental tenets,” including, “One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason” — though others highlight the threatening nature of the organisation — “The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.” Whilst positive in theory, will clearly lead to fervent protests; “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone,” is a staunch pro-abortion proclamation (as the footage I’d seen demonstrated). “The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend,” is an unashamed declaration of intent to attack Christianity; and, “To wilfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own,” evidences their belief that they are entirely justified in doing so.
Meanwhile, the separate Church of Satan proclaims on its site that “Satanists are atheists…. Our position is to be self-centered”. It states that Satanism is “not congruent with any other philosophy or religion which endorses the belief in supernatural entities — inc. Wicca and Voodoo.”
Ironically, there is active occult practice alive within the Anglo-Catholic Church, according to a Church Times piece in December.
We have vital lessons to learn through this grotesque trend. Whilst we pray against the forces of the occult, we must remember that “rebellion is as the sin of divination” (1 Samuel 15:23) — humanity is not a binary of Godly and pagan, we must each continually repent of our sin and seek God’s help, without allowing ourselves to feel righteous because of the erroneous spirituality we see around us. It would be wrong to endorse any spirituality other than the Holy Spirit — but we must avoid demonising the misguided individuals ensnared by this evil, recognising that most are driven by frustration with historical injustices which were also antithetical to Christ’s command. With God’s guidance, we may be used by Him to steer some of those who are hungry for the supernatural towards the true bread from heaven.
[1] This observation was made in November 2018; doubtless the figures have risen still more since then.
[2] For the confused reader: this is a term intended to avoid the gender bias inherent in the masculine word ‘Latino.’
My January sales shopping
256 reindeer - some glitter covered ornaments, most small solar powered dancing figures. I waited and waited for the Poundshop to lower its prices on Christmas stock, from 50p just after Christmas. Eventually, the items went down to 30p each (and I had a 10% discount code)
So happy
(Obviously, they're for Operation Christmas Child boxes later this year)
I recently watched the documentary The True Cost (I should have watched it ages ago).
I was aware of the grotesque exploitation of garment workers, working all waking hours and being paid barely enough to buy their depressing diet of rice.
I was aware that they're also put at serious risk - because corporate greed means that safety precautions are scandalously inadequate - leading to numerous casualties, including 1,134 when the Rana Plaza factory collapsed (not to mention many more left crippled - in a nation without support for the disabled - and their families left without mothers). I haven't words for how wrong it is.
Something I'd not been aware of that the programme discussed was that, in the Indian subcontinent, giant multinational corporations (namely Monsanto) sell farmers pesticides made with waste chemicals that cause extremely high levels of birth defects and cancer. Victims' families endeavour to pay for treatment (having no NHS, obvs) - inc. drugs from the same multinationals - but end up in debt.... 250, 000 Indian farmers have been recorded as having committed suicide in the last 16 years, 1 each half hour (presumably, there'll be more who aren't recorded).
It's all too heartbreaking to process.
This (Youtube clip) is utterly, beyond-words horrible, but I feel it needs sharing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0kC1B__CJ4
It continually astounds me that many people - particularly young lefties like myself - genuinely believe that abortion is a moral cause and that those opposed to abortion are immoral. This is pure evil.
NB, I'm aware that many (hopefully most) people who would consider themselves pro-choice would not support what's discussed in this clip - but this truly is a slippery slope issue. Here in the UK, the law states that an abortion should only be allowed if 2 doctors agree that "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family". Yet we all know that abortion is always presumed to be a potential choice when someone is pregnant, irrespective of whether there's risk to the woman; and that almost abortions (as evidenced by statistics) happen because the woman feels that she doesn't want a baby at the time, not because the pregnancy is dangerous.
Please note also, I *hate* abortion - I do NOT hate those who've had them. Pro-choicers endlessly bemoan pro-lifers for being "judgemental", but whilst some pro-lifers may be judgemental, that doesn't mean that we all are. As you might hate hard drugs and knife crime but not hate/judge all of those caught up in them, I hate abortion itself rather than women.
If you felt that the foetus was a human (which it is, there's no question about it biologically) child, you might hate abortion too.that's
Ultimately, abortion is mostly only ever wanted because our culture has misled us into thinking that sex is healthy and necessary regularly once we turn 16 - most accidental pregnancies occur because sex very early in a relationship has been normalised (by corporate forces, because sex sells), when in reality, that's just not necessary to enjoy life. So I blame companies that have manipulated attitudes to sex for putting women in situations where they face the stress of an accidental pregnacy.
Sorry for rambling away like a nutter.
A British Catholic Magazine Met With Steve Bannon To Come Up With A List Of “Catholic Influencers And Millionaires”
I'm compelled to beg anyone reading this - don't let hypocrites who clearly aren't following Christ determine whether you ever explore Jesus Himself.
Jesus spent much of His time arguing with people who claimed to be religious whilst in fact having hearts that were only in love with power, not with God. The same thing has continued throughout history; plenty of people use "religion", because it makes them feel proud and superior, to assume dominance. Jesus Himself made it clear repeatedly that we mustn't seek wealth, and commands us to love and humbly serve others.
There are historical arguments for Him genuinely having defeated death; and today billions of people experience inner peace and joy because of Him; and whilst I don't expect anyone reading this to take it seriously, please, please don't let people like those in this article be the reason that you don't explore Christ.
"Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world [love of wealth] corrupt you"James 1:27
256 reindeer - some glitter covered ornaments, most small solar powered dancing figures. I waited and waited for the Poundshop to lower its prices on Christmas stock, from 50p just after Christmas. Eventually, the items went down to 30p each (and I had a 10% discount code)
So happy
(Obviously, they're for Operation Christmas Child boxes later this year)
I recently watched the documentary The True Cost (I should have watched it ages ago).
I was aware of the grotesque exploitation of garment workers, working all waking hours and being paid barely enough to buy their depressing diet of rice.
I was aware that they're also put at serious risk - because corporate greed means that safety precautions are scandalously inadequate - leading to numerous casualties, including 1,134 when the Rana Plaza factory collapsed (not to mention many more left crippled - in a nation without support for the disabled - and their families left without mothers). I haven't words for how wrong it is.
Something I'd not been aware of that the programme discussed was that, in the Indian subcontinent, giant multinational corporations (namely Monsanto) sell farmers pesticides made with waste chemicals that cause extremely high levels of birth defects and cancer. Victims' families endeavour to pay for treatment (having no NHS, obvs) - inc. drugs from the same multinationals - but end up in debt.... 250, 000 Indian farmers have been recorded as having committed suicide in the last 16 years, 1 each half hour (presumably, there'll be more who aren't recorded).
It's all too heartbreaking to process.
This (Youtube clip) is utterly, beyond-words horrible, but I feel it needs sharing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0kC1B__CJ4
It continually astounds me that many people - particularly young lefties like myself - genuinely believe that abortion is a moral cause and that those opposed to abortion are immoral. This is pure evil.
NB, I'm aware that many (hopefully most) people who would consider themselves pro-choice would not support what's discussed in this clip - but this truly is a slippery slope issue. Here in the UK, the law states that an abortion should only be allowed if 2 doctors agree that "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family". Yet we all know that abortion is always presumed to be a potential choice when someone is pregnant, irrespective of whether there's risk to the woman; and that almost abortions (as evidenced by statistics) happen because the woman feels that she doesn't want a baby at the time, not because the pregnancy is dangerous.
Please note also, I *hate* abortion - I do NOT hate those who've had them. Pro-choicers endlessly bemoan pro-lifers for being "judgemental", but whilst some pro-lifers may be judgemental, that doesn't mean that we all are. As you might hate hard drugs and knife crime but not hate/judge all of those caught up in them, I hate abortion itself rather than women.
If you felt that the foetus was a human (which it is, there's no question about it biologically) child, you might hate abortion too.that's
Ultimately, abortion is mostly only ever wanted because our culture has misled us into thinking that sex is healthy and necessary regularly once we turn 16 - most accidental pregnancies occur because sex very early in a relationship has been normalised (by corporate forces, because sex sells), when in reality, that's just not necessary to enjoy life. So I blame companies that have manipulated attitudes to sex for putting women in situations where they face the stress of an accidental pregnacy.
Sorry for rambling away like a nutter.
A British Catholic Magazine Met With Steve Bannon To Come Up With A List Of “Catholic Influencers And Millionaires”
I'm compelled to beg anyone reading this - don't let hypocrites who clearly aren't following Christ determine whether you ever explore Jesus Himself.
Jesus spent much of His time arguing with people who claimed to be religious whilst in fact having hearts that were only in love with power, not with God. The same thing has continued throughout history; plenty of people use "religion", because it makes them feel proud and superior, to assume dominance. Jesus Himself made it clear repeatedly that we mustn't seek wealth, and commands us to love and humbly serve others.
There are historical arguments for Him genuinely having defeated death; and today billions of people experience inner peace and joy because of Him; and whilst I don't expect anyone reading this to take it seriously, please, please don't let people like those in this article be the reason that you don't explore Christ.
"Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world [love of wealth] corrupt you"James 1:27
Sunday 3 March 2019
She's
not at all self made. She has the money that she does because of the
fame that she has on account of her family, and the fact that social
media makes it possible for the very luckiest few individuals to gain
millions of followers and in turn customers. People working in
factories, earning barely enough to survive, work far, far, far harder
than Kylie Jenne, but she's simply ridiculously lucky.
Might
not all this obsessing over Michael Jackson as a spectacle for public
interest be somewhat painful for other victims of abuse?
It's
not just about trans prisoners - unfortunately, it has to also be about
those who'd claim to be trans in order to have opportunities to assault
others. It's wrong to put "messages" you think are sent before safety
from rape* (NB again, not rape by trans people, but by some who might
claim to be trans so as to access women)
"Etiquette"?
This is literally a matter of life or death, if Metro thinks that
etiquette is the issue here then why should anyone care about Metro's
opinion?
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.....
It
also says women should be quiet in church..that's what happens when you
take verses out of context. Jesus never addressed that issue. St. Paul
was the NY one who said that--he also said that we should obey our
leaders...so Germans should have obeyed
Hitler? That's an example of taking things out of context. Paul wanted
Christians to be blameless in the eyes of the Roman Empire. They were
being persecuted and some were killed for not bowing to the Emperor.
Paul wanted christians to be model citizens.
Paul's
words about women were written to a specific Church - His words on gay
sex are about the future implications, so aren't restricted to a
community with particular issues in the same way as the verse about
women (other verses in the NT show that, in other Churches, women were in ministry without Paul disputing it).
The NT only contains a tiny chunk of all the things that Jesus said in His years of ministry, so the fact that it doesn't record Him discussing homosexual practice doesn't mean that He never did. Even if He never did, it wouldn't mean that He endorsed it. In the society He was in, it was a given that homosexual sex was prohibited, so it's unsurprising that He didn't mention it.it wasn't recorded. Rather, if He did endorse it, at a time when His audience believed it wrong, why would the NT writers not have recorded it? He did specifically urge people to adhere to God's plan of marriage being between one man and one woman, and condemned Porneia - which translates into sexual immorality, thus would, to His audience, have included homosexual sex. https://www.tvcresources.net/.../jesus-and-homosexuality
Ultimately, God loves EVERYONE, and offers infinitely more joy than sex. There are gay/same sex attracted Christians who choose to be celibate and can explain far better than I can their reasoning and their joy in life. The real issue is that our culture is sex obsessed and unaware of what God can give. https://illuminaet.wordpress.com/.../a-bridge-between.../
I'm
interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned
in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian,
always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price
for her be? I’m also a business
owner and I have an employee who insists on working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? I’m
hoping you have answers because when I say things like the thing you
said, and the things I just said, people normally look at me like I’m an
idiot, but I feel that you get me. The NT only contains a tiny chunk of all the things that Jesus said in His years of ministry, so the fact that it doesn't record Him discussing homosexual practice doesn't mean that He never did. Even if He never did, it wouldn't mean that He endorsed it. In the society He was in, it was a given that homosexual sex was prohibited, so it's unsurprising that He didn't mention it.it wasn't recorded. Rather, if He did endorse it, at a time when His audience believed it wrong, why would the NT writers not have recorded it? He did specifically urge people to adhere to God's plan of marriage being between one man and one woman, and condemned Porneia - which translates into sexual immorality, thus would, to His audience, have included homosexual sex. https://www.tvcresources.net/.../jesus-and-homosexuality
Ultimately, God loves EVERYONE, and offers infinitely more joy than sex. There are gay/same sex attracted Christians who choose to be celibate and can explain far better than I can their reasoning and their joy in life. The real issue is that our culture is sex obsessed and unaware of what God can give. https://illuminaet.wordpress.com/.../a-bridge-between.../
Why
presume that all of the laws in Exodus are equivocal? Any institution
of manual may have some rules that are situation specific and some that
are permanent. Customs such as arranged marriage and work change over
time, so God may well give particular
guidelines in situations where people are already following particular
traditions; sex is the same thing irrespective of wider society, so
God's guidelines on it can be ongoing. Crucially, various verses in the
New Testament demonstrate that many Old Testament laws no longer apply,
but that those relating to sex do. Eg, "It seemed good to the Holy
Spirit and to us not to burden You must abstain from food sacrificed to
idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual
immorality." Acts 15:28-29
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.” Matthew 15:19-20
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.” Matthew 15:19-20
hey if you’re going to pick and choose which rules you’re going to foist on others, I get to pick and choose mine. What exactly is the penalty for my wife insisting on wearing a cotton-poly blend? That’s not “voided” by the New Testament and I’m worried that I have to kill her too. Or
if you only mean the sex-related ones, I know that anything you touch
when menstruating is unclean, and that if I were to touch you when you
were, so would I. Does that still apply if I click on your Facebook
profile when you’re menstruating? Or is it only if you were menstruating
when you made the profile?
Or is it just the “doin’ it” sex ones, in which case, do I personally have to stone all of the non-virgins that I know (Deut 22:20) or will you handle that? Or is it only New Testament rules? If so, I’m also deeply concerned about your Facebook profile and you having multiple changes of clothes. Luke 3:11 is pretty clear about you needing to give those away to someone who doesn’t. We’ve established that it isn’t that though because you keep bringing up the Old Testament rules. I’m so confused! It’s almost like the goalposts keep moving to satisfy your agenda and that the rules themselves don’t actually matter!
Or is it just the “doin’ it” sex ones, in which case, do I personally have to stone all of the non-virgins that I know (Deut 22:20) or will you handle that? Or is it only New Testament rules? If so, I’m also deeply concerned about your Facebook profile and you having multiple changes of clothes. Luke 3:11 is pretty clear about you needing to give those away to someone who doesn’t. We’ve established that it isn’t that though because you keep bringing up the Old Testament rules. I’m so confused! It’s almost like the goalposts keep moving to satisfy your agenda and that the rules themselves don’t actually matter!
You've
ignored my last comment. It's legitimate not to lump all of the Bible's
rules together, but to consider their context and conflicting verses to
determine which are timeless and which are situational. Also, I'm not
foisting rules on anyone, I'm commenting, and I'm trying to discern God's guidance. And
re me - I rarely buy new clothes, when I do they're from Oxfam (so the
money goes to the poor, which is what the verse you're referencing asks
for). And I don't menstruate, not that the Bible suggests at all that that would be a reason for avoiding someone. Christ
is incomparably more important than this, it's bizarre to bicker about
these far less significant matters rather than Gospel.
It's hard to argue against the self assured self righteous
What
exactly did I say that suggests I'm self righteous? I'm just
commenting, based on what I can understand of God's word, since that's
what informs genuine evangelicalism. Though obviously, many people who
label themselves as evangelical aren't in fact evangelical at all, hence
bullying by some of them.
The world needs more homes for the homeless and those in slums; more clinics for those with no healthcare; better distribution of nutritious food and help for those who are disadvantaged. The world does not need more cruise ships.
do you go on holiday every year or do you stay home?
I stay home. I've not been abroad since family holidays as a child. We're so, so lucky to live in a country where we can have an awesome time without going anywhere :)
I'd far, far rather spend the cost of a holiday on something longer lasting, and on giving to those who aren't as lucky as we are in the UK. Most holidays cost more than it costs to sponsor a child for a year, so why would I use that money on 1 week of slightly sunnier weather?
I'd far, far rather spend the cost of a holiday on something longer lasting, and on giving to those who aren't as lucky as we are in the UK. Most holidays cost more than it costs to sponsor a child for a year, so why would I use that money on 1 week of slightly sunnier weather?
Vatican meeting shows a church incapable of holding itself to account
I hate how so many people now associate Christianity with the very opposite of what Christ did and taught, because of predators like this^
the bible teaches incest, murder and abuse. Religion is a problem. No evidence of anything they claimed is there.
No, the Bible really does not teach those things. It records occurrences of them, much of it is history, it's not just a manual. Christianity is to follow Jesus' teaching, and He repeatedly tells us to love others, meaning that the things you mention are by definition unChristian - though the Bible has plenty of other verses opposing those things in addition to Christ's teachings.
How do you know that there's "no evidence" exactly? How much have you investigated? What evidence should there be, if it were true, that's lacking?
How do you know that there's "no evidence" exactly? How much have you investigated? What evidence should there be, if it were true, that's lacking?
its a most unreliable "history" book written 500 years or more after the facts it purports to represent occured. Its difficult to get a solid testimony from people actualy present at an event, but a 500 + year remove is just works of imagination. Religion is the greatest confidence trick anybody ever concocted.
Why on Earth do you think that the events were written 500 years after they took place? Where are you getting your facts from?
Written by romans to control an unruly populace. Not a shred of evidence exists for god. None.
LOL, why would the Romans invent a God who warns people against things that the Romans worshipped and who demonstrates that He's superior to the Roman rulers?
How could you know that there's "not a shred of evidence" for God? Has it occurred to you that there might be things you've not yet discovered? Have you actually been looking? Ie, there are endless books, articles and lectures by scientists and philosophers who believe in God that explain why they believe in God - have you weighed up their arguments?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
How could you know that there's "not a shred of evidence" for God? Has it occurred to you that there might be things you've not yet discovered? Have you actually been looking? Ie, there are endless books, articles and lectures by scientists and philosophers who believe in God that explain why they believe in God - have you weighed up their arguments?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
good woman, you go on believing in your sky wizard. the "bible" records only fiction
why do you think that the Bible is just fiction and that God is a sky wizard? Seriously, what sources have led you to believe that?
why are you defending the indefensible
Mick Dalton great surname. I'm not defending the Catholic Church, what do you think I'm defending that's indefesible?
'What makes you think the bible is fiction?' We could start with the Adam and Eve fantasy. Then there's Noah's Ark, there's a good fairytale. And how about the guy who spent three days inside a whale, ffs! Not only is it fiction, it's really bad fiction.
Surely you're aware that the Bible is comprised of 66 books? Christian academics debate the literality of some parts of the Old Testament - Hebrew words don't translate perfectly into English and allegory and symbolism were important in the culture in which the Old Testament was written.
But who's to say that the creator of nature and its laws can't override those laws on occasion?
And whether or not the events that you mention are literal is of little importance by comparison to the fundamental matter of Jesus - if He truly defeated death, we should consider His offer to each of us, and nothing else matters at all as much.
Here's an Oxford professor - https://www.bethinking.org/.../the-question-of-miracles...
Get a reality check Grace. Jesus is a character in a fairy tale
But who's to say that the creator of nature and its laws can't override those laws on occasion?
And whether or not the events that you mention are literal is of little importance by comparison to the fundamental matter of Jesus - if He truly defeated death, we should consider His offer to each of us, and nothing else matters at all as much.
Here's an Oxford professor - https://www.bethinking.org/.../the-question-of-miracles...
Get a reality check Grace. Jesus is a character in a fairy tale
How do you know? Have you just bought into a popular conspiracy theory on the basis of your pre-existing faith (in atheism) or preference? https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...Have you listened to lectures from academics who believe in the resurrection explaining their reasoning?
I felt like you, until I read Who Moved the Stone, I'm well aware that it sounds like fiction - but given that how we spend eternity is the most important issue we face in this lifetime, it's odd that most people simply ignore it. https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection
not to mention all the wars and death created in the name of said religion.
Jesus specifically commanded us to be peacemakers. Those who've gone to war claiming to be fighting for Him in fact were proving by their actions that they weren't in love with and trying to follow Him at all. Human beings have often claimed some noble reasoning in attempts to justify their hunger for power, their actions don't change what genuine Christianity actually means, which is to commit to Christ.
The only thing that truly separates the Catholic church from other Christian Churches is the weight of millennia of history, and the influence that still accompanies that.
You've missed the fundamental differences between Catholic and other Churches. It's because you're thinking of Christianity only as an institution.
Indeed, institutions are full of problems, but as I originally pointed out, Christianity is not, in fact the messed up institutions we think of as Church. Christianity is, by definition, to accept Christ's offer, and in turn love Him so much that we truly want to follow His teaching and example. So the problem is with individuals who take up positions of power in Churches but in fact aren't committed to following Jesus, and who act to serve their own desires instead.
There are numerous differences between Catholicism and other Christianity - including the Pope, beliefs about Communion and Saints - but most importantly, Catholicism teaches that you earn your forgiveness, and ultimately entrance to heaven - following purgatory - through things that you do, such as giving to the Church. Other Churches (in theory, each minister might teach their own ideas) teach that it is ONLY Jesus' sacrifice that enables our salvation - our actions don't achieve it, only our genuine, full hearted acceptance of Christ. Because we love Christ and want to emulate Him; and because the Holy Spirit fills us; once we commit to Jesus we will do increasingly more good - but it's not those good actions that themselves determine salvation.
Whilst we support God's design and prohibitions regarding sex, it's vital that we denounce actual mistreatment of LGBT people. Many, many people consider Christianity to be homophobic, and this deters them from exploring Christ. Jesus stopped a woman caught in sexual sin from being stoned, then told her to go and sin no more - it's crucial that we emulate His compassion, rather than behaving like those doing the stoning. It's great that the Methodist Church is holding up God's law on this topic - but what's truly exciting is when more people turn to Him, and we need to focus on emulating and sharing Jesus as the top priority in our lives.
David Lammy's take down of Comic Relief is spot on
If David Lammy genuinely cared about the world's poorest people, he'd be highlighting the evil of colonialism on other occasions, not attacking an organisation that's making a significant difference.
He was right to mention colonialism - but it's because of colonialism that we have a duty to help. We have nothing to feel proud of if we do - but even if we did, what matters is that suffering is reduced. Stacey will be helping people by reminding people of the injustice; all he's doing is adding to racial tensions.
David Lammy presumes that white people feel like saviours as though we aren't capable of genuinely wanting to help. The reality is that Stacey sharing her pics from there will help raise more money and save lives - how dare he ignore that and put identity politics before eradicating suffering? He earns almost 3x the average British salary, and more than most Africans will in several lifetimes. It's disgusting that he would discourage something that's helping the most disadvantaged people.
He was right to mention colonialism - but it's because of colonialism that we have a duty to help. We have nothing to feel proud of if we do - but even if we did, what matters is that suffering is reduced. Stacey will be helping people by reminding people of the injustice; all he's doing is adding to racial tensions.
David Lammy presumes that white people feel like saviours as though we aren't capable of genuinely wanting to help. The reality is that Stacey sharing her pics from there will help raise more money and save lives - how dare he ignore that and put identity politics before eradicating suffering? He earns almost 3x the average British salary, and more than most Africans will in several lifetimes. It's disgusting that he would discourage something that's helping the most disadvantaged people.
Colonialism isn't responsible for the problems in today's Africa, it's corrupt African leaders who choose to steal the proceeds of their countries natural wealth and fill their off shore bank accounts Instead of helping their own people.
It's colonialism that enabled corrupt leaders to take control. Even if leaders weren't corrupt, the fact that colonialism, and present day corporations have taken so much, and prevented development that we've enjoyed here, means that it's rightfor us to give. When all children grow up with adequate nutrition and education, their generations will be able to develop better government.
did we run the slave trade then
Indeed, we didn't, but we live in far, far, far greater wealth than most of those in Africa because of colonialism, so it's right to give back.
How about don't tell black people how to feel about racial issues?
I didn't tell him how to feel. His feelings are none of my business, obviously, but I object to him making statements that will cause other people to feel starvation.
he is specifically talking about the promotion of an individual over the community they are ‘helping’.
It’s white privilege to be ignorant to the fact that most of these celebrities do it for self promotion.
Lammy only speaks truth in my experience. And as a white man I can see the privilege in exploiting ‘good deeds’ for self gain. Money is actually not the solution, education and independence is.
It’s white privilege to be ignorant to the fact that most of these celebrities do it for self promotion.
Lammy only speaks truth in my experience. And as a white man I can see the privilege in exploiting ‘good deeds’ for self gain. Money is actually not the solution, education and independence is.
How do you know Stacey's (or Ed Sheeran's etc) motives? "The individual" already has a promoted position and scores of followers whilst "the community" is usually ignored as we (Britain) live off the spoils of colonialism and put out of our minds the human beings in the most severe poverty. She's using her platform to remind others of the need they ignore and their potential to give.
Money is not the solution, education is? Are you unaware that many, many charities working in developing countries put money into providing education?
you really are ignorant to the facts... there are intelligent well educated people trying to change Africa and the countries that exploit yet Dooley holds a baby who is impoverished and can't tell Dooley the problems that the 1st world's causes by exploiting their country but it makes a great typical white saviour photo lol
Of course there are, and there's plenty more suppressed potential in Africa. But why presume that Dooley's not talked to anyone, only held a toddler?
I am completely aware Grace, but I’m afraid you’re missing my point. I do not disagree with charity or helping charity, and I don’t disagree with promoting your charitable efforts.
But if you look at the facts and numbers, the promotion of white westerners to help impoverished countries (which by the way we caused) is a grey area. They may not be helping to the extent they believe, so, with facts in place what is there motive to be so public about their charity? Is comic relief the best charity to support? Probably not with £100k+ salaries for execs.You are what I would call, pedantic and misinformed. You need to look at the facts and motives before your message is relevant
Money is not the solution, education is? Are you unaware that many, many charities working in developing countries put money into providing education?
you really are ignorant to the facts... there are intelligent well educated people trying to change Africa and the countries that exploit yet Dooley holds a baby who is impoverished and can't tell Dooley the problems that the 1st world's causes by exploiting their country but it makes a great typical white saviour photo lolOf course there are, and there's plenty more suppressed potential in Africa. But why presume that Dooley's not talked to anyone, only held a toddler?
I am completely aware Grace, but I’m afraid you’re missing my point. I do not disagree with charity or helping charity, and I don’t disagree with promoting your charitable efforts.
But if you look at the facts and numbers, the promotion of white westerners to help impoverished countries (which by the way we caused) is a grey area. They may not be helping to the extent they believe, so, with facts in place what is there motive to be so public about their charity? Is comic relief the best charity to support? Probably not with £100k+ salaries for execs.You are what I would call, pedantic and misinformed. You need to look at the facts and motives before your message is relevant
that's a blooming adorable photo, but it doesn't demonstrate that Stacey is arrogant, that she feels like a saviour, or that a majority of African people would rather she didn't share the photo she did. also, do you not think it’s insane that children need money to be educated? Who is really benefiting from the lack of education? Say what you like about money spent, but clearly they’re not educated well enough. So is money the solution?
What "facts and numbers" are you referring to exactly? Which statistics show that, as you claim, measure the effect of white involvement? The facts indeed show that a few charity programmes are of little benefit - but many do help. And over the last few decades severe poverty in developing countries has been dramatically reduced. You say that money isn't the answer because people "aren't educated enough" but that's illogical, just because a problem isn't yet entirely resolved doesn't mean that you should stop something that's helping to reduce the problem.
Why do you presume that I'm uninformed? And why do you presume that I give to Comic Relief? I don't, I give my donations to charities that do all of their work with the world's poorest people, where there's no NHS, and where there aren't the food banks and welfare state that we have here (though I am well aware that those are seriously deficient and our government should be doing much, much more). When we give to organisations that both help and empower the planet's most disadvantaged people, it's amazing how much difference can be made.
well I read the news and follow media and I've watched Dooley investigates it's hilarious ... yet you still don't understand the irony of your initial comment take away with one hand and have a showbiz event to give to another lol
That you find the programmes hilarious seems concerning given the severity of the subject matter. Are you simply laughing at Stacey for being white, working class and ginger? I hope you aren't like that. But that you consider that giving with one hand and taking with another is going on demonstrates simply lumping the entire nation together as one amalgamous lump. Are you unable to appreciate that Stacey, and most others who support overseas charity, aren't actually personally responsible for poverty in Africa? The decisions that led to Africa's poverty have been made by colonial invaders, slave traders and dodgy corporate bosses. We have unjustly benefited, by being born into a country made rich by exploitation, therefore we have a responsibility to help, but you stating that anyone's taking with one hand and giving with another makes no sense.
Stacey Dooley Investigates is hilarious it takes serious issues and turns them into two pints of lager and a packet of crisps there's a reason it's on BB3. But you still don't get the issues with the white woman saving the day and how we're also responsible for Africa's predicament along with the rest of the 1st world
How on Earth are the documentaries like two pints of lager and a packet of crisps (no, her documentaries aren't on BBC3 because they're meant to be comedy, BBC3 has plenty of factual programmes)? Seriously, you seem just to be mocking her working class accent.
And why shouldn't white people help? No one said that she's saving the day, she's there sharing photos to remind people who follow her, and who are otherwise unconcerned about the suffering that colonialism caused, that they are immensely wealthy by comparison therefore ought to give.
Do you actually care about people in poverty being helped?
Feels like if I choose to help charities I should apologise and be adhamed for being white. This has put a nasty taste in my mouth and I probably won't give to these charities any more, favouring locsl homeless charities now!
Please, please don't give less to people in the world's most severe poverty on account of people who deem identity politics more important than helping. The child who Stacey is holding, and others like him, shouldn't miss out on vital help because of David Lammy.
Stacey Dooley's motives are neither here nor there. What matters is the impact of her actions, rather than her intentions. Nobody is saying that white people "feel like saviours." Nobody is saying Stacey Dooley shouldn't help, but the way in which it is done can be improved and she needs to own up to that. She had no idea and that's fair enough, but now she can adjust her approach which can help stop reinforcing problematic stereotypes and assumptions. This has nothing to do with taking aid away from countries that need it. The child in the Instagram post would not have missed out on any of Comic Relief's aid had Stacey Dooley not taken a selfie with him and put it on social media.
But it is taking aid away, because interference like David Lammy's deters some people from donating what they would have doe otherwise. And if Stacey didn't share photos, fewer people would remember, amidst our comparatively wealthy society and our hectic lives, that we should be helping those elsewhere. What exactly should she be doing?
Ultimately, we're on the same side, in that we both care about disadvantaged people beyond our own borders, unlike a terrifyingly substantial proportion of the British population. We should all be keen to better understand the human beings in need and to move towards the most effective means for addressing the injustice, we shouldn't be arguing.
What "facts and numbers" are you referring to exactly? Which statistics show that, as you claim, measure the effect of white involvement? The facts indeed show that a few charity programmes are of little benefit - but many do help. And over the last few decades severe poverty in developing countries has been dramatically reduced. You say that money isn't the answer because people "aren't educated enough" but that's illogical, just because a problem isn't yet entirely resolved doesn't mean that you should stop something that's helping to reduce the problem.
Why do you presume that I'm uninformed? And why do you presume that I give to Comic Relief? I don't, I give my donations to charities that do all of their work with the world's poorest people, where there's no NHS, and where there aren't the food banks and welfare state that we have here (though I am well aware that those are seriously deficient and our government should be doing much, much more). When we give to organisations that both help and empower the planet's most disadvantaged people, it's amazing how much difference can be made.
well I read the news and follow media and I've watched Dooley investigates it's hilarious ... yet you still don't understand the irony of your initial comment take away with one hand and have a showbiz event to give to another lol
That you find the programmes hilarious seems concerning given the severity of the subject matter. Are you simply laughing at Stacey for being white, working class and ginger? I hope you aren't like that. But that you consider that giving with one hand and taking with another is going on demonstrates simply lumping the entire nation together as one amalgamous lump. Are you unable to appreciate that Stacey, and most others who support overseas charity, aren't actually personally responsible for poverty in Africa? The decisions that led to Africa's poverty have been made by colonial invaders, slave traders and dodgy corporate bosses. We have unjustly benefited, by being born into a country made rich by exploitation, therefore we have a responsibility to help, but you stating that anyone's taking with one hand and giving with another makes no sense.
Stacey Dooley Investigates is hilarious it takes serious issues and turns them into two pints of lager and a packet of crisps there's a reason it's on BB3. But you still don't get the issues with the white woman saving the day and how we're also responsible for Africa's predicament along with the rest of the 1st world
How on Earth are the documentaries like two pints of lager and a packet of crisps (no, her documentaries aren't on BBC3 because they're meant to be comedy, BBC3 has plenty of factual programmes)? Seriously, you seem just to be mocking her working class accent.
And why shouldn't white people help? No one said that she's saving the day, she's there sharing photos to remind people who follow her, and who are otherwise unconcerned about the suffering that colonialism caused, that they are immensely wealthy by comparison therefore ought to give.
Do you actually care about people in poverty being helped?
Feels like if I choose to help charities I should apologise and be adhamed for being white. This has put a nasty taste in my mouth and I probably won't give to these charities any more, favouring locsl homeless charities now!
Please, please don't give less to people in the world's most severe poverty on account of people who deem identity politics more important than helping. The child who Stacey is holding, and others like him, shouldn't miss out on vital help because of David Lammy.
Stacey Dooley's motives are neither here nor there. What matters is the impact of her actions, rather than her intentions. Nobody is saying that white people "feel like saviours." Nobody is saying Stacey Dooley shouldn't help, but the way in which it is done can be improved and she needs to own up to that. She had no idea and that's fair enough, but now she can adjust her approach which can help stop reinforcing problematic stereotypes and assumptions. This has nothing to do with taking aid away from countries that need it. The child in the Instagram post would not have missed out on any of Comic Relief's aid had Stacey Dooley not taken a selfie with him and put it on social media.
But it is taking aid away, because interference like David Lammy's deters some people from donating what they would have doe otherwise. And if Stacey didn't share photos, fewer people would remember, amidst our comparatively wealthy society and our hectic lives, that we should be helping those elsewhere. What exactly should she be doing?
Ultimately, we're on the same side, in that we both care about disadvantaged people beyond our own borders, unlike a terrifyingly substantial proportion of the British population. We should all be keen to better understand the human beings in need and to move towards the most effective means for addressing the injustice, we shouldn't be arguing.
why is it then that for more than fifty years they've been fund raising for Africa and things still haven't changed. There's not a very good record in these countries. Look at what happened to a lot of the Band Aid money, it was spent on buying guns etc."things haven't changed"? According to who? https://africaindata.org/?linkId=32475084#/3
There are so, so many articles reporting on the progress made in cutting severe poverty, I'm amazed that you think nothing's changed. If we give to well monitored charities, (as opposed to the few that haven't got money to where they were supposed to) that provide tools, training and healthcare, people become able to help themselves - and do so incredibly well.
http://www.theguardian.com/.../what-millennium...
We need to stop giving. It clearly doesn’t work or get to the people in need. Sometimes you have to make your own lives, as when you do things for yourself you achieve much more.
Indeed people should be able to help themselves ignores the extent to which some countries have been ravaged by colonialism and war - how can people "help themselves" if they grow up malnourished, with limited access to school, forced to put all their energy into gathering food and water and without the state services or opportunities that we have?
Brits fuelling vile child snatching trade with paedos paying £15 for 'prettiest' kids
I sponsor a child there, and highly recommend it - £25 per month is small amount for most of us, but it enables a child to receive education, food and medical checks, as well as mentoring, so that parents aren't so desperate for money that they allow their children to exploited like this^ (though obviously, it's only sometimes in their hands) - and so that if they were to be abused, they'd get help. There just aren't words for how grotesque this^ exploitation is.
how do you even know your money is actually going to where your thinking it is going
The government charities commission, and independent organisations such as Charity Navigator monitor it; and I get regular letters from my sponsor children.
Meanwhile..some people have been forced to live in slums, refugee camps, or on the street. I genuinely don't understand why anyone would spend money on a hotel^ when the money could truly transform lives.
She is, literally, a witch (according to her blog) - and trying to earn money from followers.
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.OFFS. Your Bible also says that touching the skin of a dead pig (Leviticus 11:7), wearing clothing of different fibers, and growing two crops in the same field should result in stoning. Are you going to do the stoning for these “sins?”
Leviticus has rules on different themes for differing reasons; for example, "tattoo" isn't the original word, the prohibition is against marking skin for the dead, since that was a component of pagan worship of ancestors amongst neighbouring tribes. Mixing clothes fibres was also a pagan worship custom at that point, with tribes neighbouring the Hebrews beleiving that doing so had spiritual power. Eating shellfish or pork would have caused food poisoning in that setting, and regulations about food served, in their very different culture, to illustrate the importance of being careful and selective about what material we consume. Peter's vision from God voided restrictions on food. Acts 15:28-9 "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond these essential requirements: You must abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality." - distinction is made between different themes in Old Testament law; most OT law no longer applies, but we should still avoid pagan customs and prohibitted sex. Of course, Paul also warns against homosexual sex; and when Jesus is asked about divorce, He urges adherence to God's original design for relationships, evidencing the importance of God's plan illustrated in Adam and Eve (whether you think them to have been historical or only illustrative). Jesus addressed food regulations, over turning Levitical laws on food at the same time as warning against sexual immorality, which would, to His audience, clearly included homosexual sex. Try this, for example, https://www.tvcresources.net/.../jesus-and-homosexuality
Obviously, I could link to endless articles and lectures about this, but would you look at them? http://www.livingout.org/ is particularly interesting - a site by gay/same sex attracted Christians who can explain their reasons for and experience of being celibate. Here's just one lecture from one of them - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnVskwil3Z4
Oh, does it Ms. Bully? Give me a scripture where the word “gay sex” or “homosexual” is used. You won’t be able to find one.
Why do you think that? Try this https://www.crossway.org/.../what-does-arsenokoitai-mean/...
I'm certainly not trying to bully ayone, would you please explain what I said that was bullying?
The quote from Leviticus is taken out of context and mistranslated. Read in the larger context with a historically correct translation, there is nothing about homosexuality. But that doesn't fit the narrative of conservative churches so the twist what proclaim to be the word of God.
How exactly do the context/translation overturn the interpretation? I have studied this in more detail than you seem to presume, what have you read that's led you to your conclusion?
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, Homosexuals do not believe what they are doing is a sin. Are you saying if they should be accepted into the church so they can be helped to change their ways in regards to homosexuality?
Everyone needs God's help in overcoming sin, and everyone should be welcome in Church. That doesn't mean that the Church should endorse sin itself.
Ultimately, our past empire is probably a significant underlying reason for this
Of course it's our fault. Because we were the only ones with an Empire. I still can't get over being colonised by the Romans....
I see your point, but it's not merely colonisation itself (it's also relevant that the Romans were here several times as long ago) what the empire actually did is the issue. Specifically, in this case, partition. But also, for example, https://www.aljazeera.com/.../britain-stole-45-trillion...
Dont feel bad. It would had been another Empire to take the place.
Feel bad? I didn't say we should feel guilty - we ourselves weren't even born. But we SHOULD consider that most of us are now living in far, far better conditions - and in greater safety - than people living in ex-colony nations, and think about how we can address the suffering.
I'll defend the British Empire to some extent because as well as the exploitation it also brought a civilising influence, effective bureaucracy, education and infrastructure that's evolved from empire into a commonwealth of nations
Why do you presume that India wouldn't have developed if it hadn't been colonised? Did you read the article that I added above?
Can a Giant Christian Cross Be Secular?
Why does it need to be? How is it harming anyone? What happened to freedom of expression?
The cross is used because it's where Christ willingly offered His own life to atone for our evil and failings. Are those who want rid of it ultimately ashamed and defensive about their own sin?
The cross is used because it's where Christ willingly offered His own life to atone for our evil and failings. Are those who want rid of it ultimately ashamed and defensive about their own sin?
Campbell was positive about re-incarnation, yet as ever, only mocks Christianity. I don't understand how such a blatantly biased presenter can end up roles on national TV and radio.
Christians appearing on this show in future have got to be more streetwise. *don't* try and give direct answers to his 'trick questions'. Do what Jesus did in the Gospels and point out the flaws and contradictions in either the question or the premise on which the questions are based! So true - we need to avoid simply arguing and actually emulate Jesus, who was able to make questioners think about why they were asking and what their own presumptions were.
I hate how so many people now associate Christianity with the very opposite of what Christ did and taught, because of predators like this...^ .
child abuse has been at the heart of the Christianity from the beginning. If you do some research you will see for yourself that the clergy have been using their powers for abuse from the start. Have you some sources of evidence you think I should see? Even if that's the case, you seem to have missed the point - this is the opposite of what Christ demonstrated and taught, yet evil individuals (who demonstrate through their actions that they don't love God) wear the mask of priesthood as a way to get more respect and power.
The Church invented the character as Jesus as way to distance themselves from the angry God of the new testament. A more welcoming and divine leader. And yet, despite the preachings of live and understanding the Church has consistently been an oppressor, abuser and silencer of the innocent. Their entire history is soaked with the blood of innocents. If you're a member of the Catholic Church you're supporting the largest institutionalised paedophile ring in human history. If you want to find God go look inside yourself. Don't ask others to be the middle man. They're all demons.
I'm not a member of the Catholic Church (nor Anglican). Even if I were, it wouldn't make me liable for what idiots within the organisation have done - especially since there are sex abusers in every sector. In fact, how do you know that the Catholic Church is the largest ring? I'm certainly not defending the Catholic Church, but unfortunately there are many more incidents of sex abuse that come to our attention, so how can you know that the Catholic Church hasn't had more exposure whilst other institutions have the same numbers? I'mfascinated that you mention demons. I'm sure you're right, but what exacty do you mean by "demons"? If you do believe in supernatural beings, how have how come to believe in them, and also to believe that Jesus is "invented"? I see people claim that Jesus is "invented" constantly - but why do you actuallybelieve that? What is the evidence for your hypothesis (about why Jesus was "invented"). To what extent have you explored to work of academics who do affirm the resurrection? Just for starters - https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...
Did Jay Z Say 'Satan Is Our True Lord' and 'Only Idiots Believe in Jesus?'
God is not a vending machine, you can't ask for anything at all and get it. He knows incomparably better than we can what we actually need, which isn't to have so much wealth and fame that we become proud and ignore Him, since that would mean missing out on heaven, which will be better and infinitely longer lasting than anything JayZ has.
"Ask and thou shalt receive" I mean he says it apparently hes a vending machine, but I'm sure that's taken out of context.
Indeed, there are many contextual points relevant here - crucially, He's addressing people who genuinely desire to follow God, thus won't feel that they want to use Him for material gain.
Apparently, god must think that some people need to be raped, dispossessed, suffer from mental illness, etc. Because he is a loving god, amiright?
God hates rape and other acts of cruelty. But you seem to be ignoring the point that heaven is eternal. For example, consider Paul, who was grossly persecuted, and wrote in 2 Corinthians 4:17 "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all."
Since you mention mental health, I've had problems with it for most of my life (diagnosed, obvs) including being sectioned previously (detained by doctors against mt will under the Mental Health Act - law)- it's worth it because it's led me to God, who provides deeper joy than anything.
Since you mention mental health, I've had problems with it for most of my life (diagnosed, obvs) including being sectioned previously (detained by doctors against mt will under the Mental Health Act - law)- it's worth it because it's led me to God, who provides deeper joy than anything.
Better analogy: god is like superman, all the most awesome powers in the world and yet still does not exist in reality.
Superman was invented for comic books; God created the universe.
Im sorry you're this delusional Grace, hope it dosent translate into other parts of your life.
What exactly am I deluded about? I suspect that you presume that anyone who believes in God is plain daft, because you only believe in what you can see - have you looked at the scientific and philosophical arguments for God?
You are daft and have an imaginary friend!!!! PROVE YOURS is real and we will all bugger off!!!! Not with words!!! Actual proof!!!!
Not with words? How else do we communicate?
I could write a book on why I believe, I won't waste more time on this thread trying to go through it all - but there are many scholarly articles and lectures online, as I asked already, have you looked at the scientific and philosophical arguments for God?
I could write a book on why I believe, I won't waste more time on this thread trying to go through it all - but there are many scholarly articles and lectures online, as I asked already, have you looked at the scientific and philosophical arguments for God?
If god were not a vending machine, why are all the television evangelists taking payment for people getting in to heaven?
Televangelists do need some money to produce their programmes (ie pay TV crews) - but many are corrupted by greed and are barely following God - some never were, and were only ever con artists.
I believed in god until I was 17 years old. Then I dug & dug for info. I took a philosophy of religion class my first semester in college. It was in that class that I realized that all religions are just made up. Abrahamic religions have roots in ancient religions from thousands of years prior to their existence. It’s cyclical. People needed there to be a god to create order. We don’t need that anymore though, our society has advanced past it.
Indeed, colleges tend to oppose any interpretations that support theism. I'm very familiar with the idea that religions pick up mythology from older faiths - though many of the claims made by those who hold to such theories are erroneous. For example, https://jwwartick.com/2012/06/04/parallelomania/ - supposed similarities in accounts cannot prove that they've copied one another, especially when about broad themes such as a creator, but furthermore, many things that some writers have said about ancient beliefs are in fact entirely unevidenced.
And have you considered the notion that many civilisations came to believe in a god because of an inbuilt instinct from a creator? Obviously though, many civilisations theorised what gods might be like based on what they saw in humanity; gods with bodies, who fight and reproduce with each other etc.They're very distinct from monotheism, which doesn't create an imagined character.
Fundamentally, as I studied microbiology, I became convinced that there must be a creator, and exploration of physics gave me certainty. After reading Who Moved the Stone and other work by PhDs on the case for the resurrection, I concluded that though I can't wrap my limited human brain around it, Jesus must have risen.
As I asked earlier, have you looked at the arguments for God to weigh them up for yourself? One site I've found interesting is https://www.reasonablefaith.org/.../the-existence-of-god/ or http://reasons.org/explore
Indeed, colleges tend to oppose any interpretations that support theism. I'm very familiar with the idea that religions pick up mythology from older faiths - though many of the claims made by those who hold to such theories are erroneous. For example, https://jwwartick.com/2012/06/04/parallelomania/ - supposed similarities in accounts cannot prove that they've copied one another, especially when about broad themes such as a creator, but furthermore, many things that some writers have said about ancient beliefs are in fact entirely unevidenced.
And have you considered the notion that many civilisations came to believe in a god because of an inbuilt instinct from a creator? Obviously though, many civilisations theorised what gods might be like based on what they saw in humanity; gods with bodies, who fight and reproduce with each other etc.They're very distinct from monotheism, which doesn't create an imagined character.
Fundamentally, as I studied microbiology, I became convinced that there must be a creator, and exploration of physics gave me certainty. After reading Who Moved the Stone and other work by PhDs on the case for the resurrection, I concluded that though I can't wrap my limited human brain around it, Jesus must have risen.
As I asked earlier, have you looked at the arguments for God to weigh them up for yourself? One site I've found interesting is https://www.reasonablefaith.org/.../the-existence-of-god/ or http://reasons.org/explore
i find it i quiet ironic that you're so concerned about proof when its about something that Challengs your faith, but you're so certain god is real without any hard evidence whatsoever. Im sorry you have mental health problems, and that might explain your need to have such a beliefe. But you're fooling yourself in the long run.
What, exactly, do you mean by "without any hard evidence whatsoever"? You've already demonstrated that you're unaware of the information which has led me to conclude that God exists. What "hard evidence" do you personally have for your beliefs?
I dont have any beliefs Grace. Tho it would be awesome to wake up in Valhalla when i die😁 but personal experience tells me thats not gonna be the case. There is absolutly no evidence for a supreme being, there is evidence for evolution. In the bacterial world you can even see it in real time
Of course you have beliefs. You believe, for example, that the universe and entire biological world, came into being on its own from nothing, with no energy or mind to initiate nor direct it. You believe that your own mind, and the sources that you've encountered, convey truth, though they contradict others. How do you know that "There is absolutely no evidence for a supreme being"? What, exactly, do you know about evolution? In mentioning bacteria, you're referring to micro evolution, what is your thought process regarding macro evolution? Consider, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187878/ Regardless, why would evolution of any sort disprove God?
No i dont i know there prob was some sort of event that caused the univers to expand. I have no clue or beliefs in what lies before that. Sorry
Kristian Nygaard Kristensen have you read my earlier comments about why I believe? How do you define evidence? If you have no clue about how the universe began, how do you know that it wasn't created by God, who created through the process now referred to as the big bang?
As I've said, discussing the evidence would take far more than a Facebook thread - but start here https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
I actually like talking with you Grace. Tho you'll prob never convince me of gods exsistence. Sorry if i came off harsh, it wasnt meant that way. I know nothing of you and your hardships. Ill read what you linked just out of respect for you:)As I've said, discussing the evidence would take far more than a Facebook thread - but start here https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
Why do you insist on defining him by his sex life? Countless people have enjoyed his music, not having sex with him, so why should the film feed your hunger to see sex themed content? And who said that it should be all about him rather than the band as a whole? You're saying that Freddie Mercury's sex life is more important than the rest of his life, his work, and his the lives and work of his bandmates.
We all need to remind ourselves of things like this daily when we're feeling frustrated about our first world problems. We're so, so privileged, simply to live in relative peace. Perhaps we can feel more joy in the every day basics we forget to be happy about, and in turn spend a little less on things we don't need so that we can give to charities helping these^ people? Can Vice advise on which charities are most able to reach them^?
What beliefs is he referring to? Chistianity having largely erased tribal beliefs isn't a cause of under development - and it gives hope to many people amidst suffering. Africa isn't "backwards", it simply hasn't had quite so many schools and universities because our colonialism crippled it. Indeed, as he said, our ancestors took everything, and it amazes me that I regularly see people argue that, because colonialism is over, we owe nothing to Africa now. It's thrilling how quickly development happens when people are given basic resources - people in Africa are intelligent and enterprising, and we should be working with local groups there to help eradicate remaining lack of food, clean water, education and healthcare. And we need to stampout existing exploitation, we're still grossly taking advantage of Africa.
Right, so given that the occult is "horror", why does Vice celebrate it and portray it as a force for good in so, so many articles?
I still don't get it. We can buy refurbished smartphones for less than a sixth of that, reducing environmental impact and leaving enough money both sponsor a child for a year and buy a year's worth of phone credit.
is that what you do?
Yes, it is. And with Tesco Pay as You Go (which also gives Clubcard points and a 10% on regular top ups), I can donate every £ that I spend on credit to charity (which I find so, so exciting :) ) and use the free credit for my phone needs. If everyone stops buying new and buys refurbished phones, they’ll be no new phones purchased to be refurbished for anyone to buy..
Theoretically, but that's not going to happen, especially whilst so many people get new phones with new contracts. Right now, it's become normal to upgrade far more often than necessary- which is particularly tragic given that people in the world's poorest countries have slaved away to mine the materials used to make phones' internal components.
Why give to them at all? If one's concerned about womens' rights, why not give that money to charities working to keep girls in developing countries safe from FGM and forced marriage?
I'm so, so frustrated by the discussion about whether Shamima Begum should be allowed back into the UK, with most people (so far as I've seen) hysterically moaning that she shouldn't. It goes without saying, she doesn't deserve to return (since she's not sorry)- but how dare we treat other countries as rubbish bins in which to dump our problems?
Syrian people are suffering horrendously, through no fault of their own. Many Bangladeshis are in extreme poverty because of Britain's colonialism. We have comparatively cushy lives; why should we expect them to have to put up with our terrorists?
Here, she can be locked up, and potentially later tracked, to prevent her doing harm; instead, we're leaving her to be a threat to Syrian people, as though we think they don't matter. She should be here being investigated by anti-terrorism forces, so that they can better understand - and thus tackle - radicalisation.aren't we being treated like a rubbish bin? Even Holland want nothing to do with her. You might argue Syria allowed terrorists into their country so really is up to them to sort her out.
Seriously? Syria is utterly ravaged by war and ISIS, and the people are suffering beyond anything we can imagine. They didn't have the facilities to keep her out; they don't have the facilities to deal with her now; and we need to recognise that we (living in Britain) are some of the most privileged people on Earth.
why should WE she hates this country, if she comes back I hope to god it’s in a box
You've ignored my question, why should Syria have to have her? She's from here. And here, should could be incarcerated and tracked - you think it's right that she's left to endanger Syrians?
you think it’s right to endanger everyone in the country she hates??????🤬 fingers crossed she’s gruesomely killed ASAP!
I don't think it's right for her to endanger lives anywhere, she's from here therefore she should be here, in prison. I can't understand how you keep ignoring that Syrian people don't deserve a British terrorist among them - do you think that Syrian people are somehow less human than us?
why don’t you just say Syrian Christians should be given sanctuary here, instead of pretending, as usual, that your concern is for every Syrian? You’re a Christian fundamentalist, stop trying to cover your beliefs with politics!!
What the frack? The faith of the Syrians I referred to hadn't even crossed my mind. You're putting words in my mouth, presumably because you hate Christianity and clearly obsess about that hatred, I never mentioned it at all here.
Since you mention it, what do you mean by "Christian fundamentalist"? And what have I done to demonstrate that I am one?
previous posts on this very site. You didn’t mention the faith of the Syrians you refer to. That’s my point..you never do. It’s always ‘gee wouldn’t it be great if we could all get along...’ ‘wouldn’t it be great if there was no poverty in the world...’ ‘it would be so awesome if there was...you know..some kind of all powerful force watching over us, who...just off the top of my head, sent his son down to earth to save us all...OH HANG ON!!’ Perrr-lezz Grace, just be honest, and open with your views. This is kinda what this site is all about. I don’t hate Christianity, I just hate sneaky entryists...
How do my previous posts prove your point? You're just assuming that the only reason I would have for caring about people is that they might be Christian? Why? Do you specifically only care about people in need if you know that they share your beliefs? Say perrrlezz all you want, you're just imagining what's going on in mind purely on the basis of speculation. The fact is that I have an emotional attachment to other human beings, and seeing suffering and injustice can make me upset and angry, and induce an instinctive urge to want the injustice to be addressed. I hate myself for not being able to do more. If you only care about yourself or people like yourself, that's up to you, it doesn't mean that I'm the same. Additionally, if I only cared about Christians, why would I have commented that Shamima should return to Britain, rather than stay in Syria where the Christian population is smaller?
because you say one thing, and mean another. The undercurrent of all your posts is your Christian faith, and how the world would be a better place if many more folk shared your faith too. Me assuming is bad? Like you assuming that I only care about me and those that are like me? I think I said I dislike how you try to smuggle your religious views in to your posts, pretending they are a political view. Not wanting the UK to allow an unrepentant Islamist, with deep connections to a group of barbarians, is actually looking after my fellow man. Something I thought you’d support...
How? How do my posts have an "undercurrent of Christian faith" that demonstrates that I only care about Christian people? You're still making assumptions without any reasoning.
I only suggested that you only care about those like you because that's the assumption you've made of me, and I couldn't see why you'd presume that someone you don't know feels that way, unless it's because that's a feeling that comes naturally to you yourself.
Indeed, I wish that other people accepted Christ - because I believe that He offers them eternal life (heaven) and also greater inner peace and fulfillment in this lifetime. That doesn't change the fact that I feel an intense desire to see suffering reduced for any human beings.
And what, you've still not said, is a "Christian fundamentalist"? I am, fundamentally, committed to God more than anything else in life - that doesn't mean that I feel that other people should be controlled by theocracy in the way that Islamic fundamentalists do. Even more than one otherwise might, because I desperately want to follow Christ, I hate the violence and bullying carried out by some people in the name of religious fundamentalism.
so two wrongs make a right? You have a go at me for making assumptions about you, so in retaliation you make them up about me? Very mature.
‘And what, you’ve still not said, is a “Christian fundamentalist”? I am fundamentally , committed to God more than anything else in life...’ There you go, you answered your own question. I take it you believe in the bible?
why should WE she hates this country, if she comes back I hope to god it’s in a box
You've ignored my question, why should Syria have to have her? She's from here. And here, should could be incarcerated and tracked - you think it's right that she's left to endanger Syrians?
you think it’s right to endanger everyone in the country she hates??????🤬 fingers crossed she’s gruesomely killed ASAP!
I don't think it's right for her to endanger lives anywhere, she's from here therefore she should be here, in prison. I can't understand how you keep ignoring that Syrian people don't deserve a British terrorist among them - do you think that Syrian people are somehow less human than us?
why don’t you just say Syrian Christians should be given sanctuary here, instead of pretending, as usual, that your concern is for every Syrian? You’re a Christian fundamentalist, stop trying to cover your beliefs with politics!!
What the frack? The faith of the Syrians I referred to hadn't even crossed my mind. You're putting words in my mouth, presumably because you hate Christianity and clearly obsess about that hatred, I never mentioned it at all here.
Since you mention it, what do you mean by "Christian fundamentalist"? And what have I done to demonstrate that I am one?
previous posts on this very site. You didn’t mention the faith of the Syrians you refer to. That’s my point..you never do. It’s always ‘gee wouldn’t it be great if we could all get along...’ ‘wouldn’t it be great if there was no poverty in the world...’ ‘it would be so awesome if there was...you know..some kind of all powerful force watching over us, who...just off the top of my head, sent his son down to earth to save us all...OH HANG ON!!’ Perrr-lezz Grace, just be honest, and open with your views. This is kinda what this site is all about. I don’t hate Christianity, I just hate sneaky entryists...
How do my previous posts prove your point? You're just assuming that the only reason I would have for caring about people is that they might be Christian? Why? Do you specifically only care about people in need if you know that they share your beliefs? Say perrrlezz all you want, you're just imagining what's going on in mind purely on the basis of speculation. The fact is that I have an emotional attachment to other human beings, and seeing suffering and injustice can make me upset and angry, and induce an instinctive urge to want the injustice to be addressed. I hate myself for not being able to do more. If you only care about yourself or people like yourself, that's up to you, it doesn't mean that I'm the same. Additionally, if I only cared about Christians, why would I have commented that Shamima should return to Britain, rather than stay in Syria where the Christian population is smaller?
because you say one thing, and mean another. The undercurrent of all your posts is your Christian faith, and how the world would be a better place if many more folk shared your faith too. Me assuming is bad? Like you assuming that I only care about me and those that are like me? I think I said I dislike how you try to smuggle your religious views in to your posts, pretending they are a political view. Not wanting the UK to allow an unrepentant Islamist, with deep connections to a group of barbarians, is actually looking after my fellow man. Something I thought you’d support...
How? How do my posts have an "undercurrent of Christian faith" that demonstrates that I only care about Christian people? You're still making assumptions without any reasoning.
I only suggested that you only care about those like you because that's the assumption you've made of me, and I couldn't see why you'd presume that someone you don't know feels that way, unless it's because that's a feeling that comes naturally to you yourself.
Indeed, I wish that other people accepted Christ - because I believe that He offers them eternal life (heaven) and also greater inner peace and fulfillment in this lifetime. That doesn't change the fact that I feel an intense desire to see suffering reduced for any human beings.
And what, you've still not said, is a "Christian fundamentalist"? I am, fundamentally, committed to God more than anything else in life - that doesn't mean that I feel that other people should be controlled by theocracy in the way that Islamic fundamentalists do. Even more than one otherwise might, because I desperately want to follow Christ, I hate the violence and bullying carried out by some people in the name of religious fundamentalism.
so two wrongs make a right? You have a go at me for making assumptions about you, so in retaliation you make them up about me? Very mature.
‘And what, you’ve still not said, is a “Christian fundamentalist”? I am fundamentally , committed to God more than anything else in life...’ There you go, you answered your own question. I take it you believe in the bible?
It's not about 2 wrongs making a right, as I said, you presumed that I only care about others like me, and I was trying to understand why you'd feel that was a natural mindset. If you told me that I obviously see everything as pink, I'd suspect that it was because you were wearing rose tinted glasses that made you unaware of the world's colours.
What do you mean by "believe the Bible"? The question itself demonstrates a misunderstanding of its complexity.
well tell me the books you take literally, and the ones you think fiction...
There are endless articles, lectures and books about interpretation of the Bible. Some parts are historical records; some parts are poetry; some parts are allegories or parables; some parts are letters. None was originally written in English, obviously, and translation between languages isn't precise.
For example, the original Hebrew in which Old Testament genealogies were written uses the same word for son and descendant. Thus, when family trees were written -that some people calculated to indicate that humanity has only existed for a few thousand years- they will in fact have ben referring to far larger stretches of time, because they referred to great great great etc grandsons, not sons, but they didn't have distinct words for these as we do now.
The word translated as "day" in Genesis doesn't necessarily mean 24 hour period - just as we might say "back in my day" "the good old days" etc, the creation in Genesis is referring to eras.
Jesus repeatedly uses metaphors and allegories, such as calling Himself The Light of the world - He's not literally a light, but thr book of the Bible in which His words are recorded is a historical account, not "fiction". How much have you studied the Bible yourself?
not since I was a child, but you’ve clearly studied politics, because if there was ever a politicians answer....the above was it!! Ok, do you believe we’re all descended from Adam and Eve? That Jesus turned water into wine? That he rose from the dead? Is God responsible for every living organism on earth? Does he punish sinners, and reward the righteous?
I really want to discuss all this with you, but I genuinely need to stop spending time on this conversation. Would you look at sites where academics discuss some of these questions, or are you not actually interested?
In a nutshell however, I'll at least say that I do indeed believe that Jesus rose, defeating death - but only because after reading books on the details of the accounts, I can't see any other option that isn't too flawed. I don't expect you to think any other than that I'm mad for believing in the resurrection, and I can't at all get my head around it, but it's a topic that needs far more exploration than a Facebook thread. If you're ever genuinely interested, I recommend Whooved the Stone in particular, though I suspect that you're only here to.mock me(?) rather than find out other peoples' rationale(?).
[Comment Deleted]
I began to believe in God whilst learning about the biochemistry of photosynthesis. Cellular processes are not only immensely complex, but their interdependence shows that they couldn't have developed by chance natural selection alone, without a designer. Ie, if one chance mutation occurs, and happens to translate into a change in a protein molecule, it can only provide an advantage to the organism that could contribute to evolution if a multitude of other, separate proteins are in the precisely correct shape to bind with it.
We can't test forGod directly because He's not composed of the matter/energy that scientific instruments measure, but what we can measure demonstrates that the universe and biological world have a designer.
"If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form." (Stephen Hawking) And there are many other things about the universe, such as the ratio of the masses of protons/neutrons that are similarly remarkably correct against the odds. One of Hawking's closest colleagues, Sir Roger Penrose, calculated that the odds of our universe - given the values of numerous parameters (such as the cosmological constant, the proton/neutron mass ratio etc) occurring by chance are around 1 in 10^123 (10 with 123 more zeros).
Of course, there are plenty of lectures and writings by maths/science PHDs that explain this far more thoroughly, just one example being http://www.johnlennox.org/guide-to-resources/ but I could add more if you're interested.
How Far-Right Extremism Is Dividing America
What do you mean by "believe the Bible"? The question itself demonstrates a misunderstanding of its complexity.
believe in the teachings of the bible literally. What was written, was what happened
Which books?well tell me the books you take literally, and the ones you think fiction...
There are endless articles, lectures and books about interpretation of the Bible. Some parts are historical records; some parts are poetry; some parts are allegories or parables; some parts are letters. None was originally written in English, obviously, and translation between languages isn't precise. For example, the original Hebrew in which Old Testament genealogies were written uses the same word for son and descendant. Thus, when family trees were written -that some people calculated to indicate that humanity has only existed for a few thousand years- they will in fact have ben referring to far larger stretches of time, because they referred to great great great etc grandsons, not sons, but they didn't have distinct words for these as we do now.
The word translated as "day" in Genesis doesn't necessarily mean 24 hour period - just as we might say "back in my day" "the good old days" etc, the creation in Genesis is referring to eras.
Jesus repeatedly uses metaphors and allegories, such as calling Himself The Light of the world - He's not literally a light, but thr book of the Bible in which His words are recorded is a historical account, not "fiction". How much have you studied the Bible yourself?
not since I was a child, but you’ve clearly studied politics, because if there was ever a politicians answer....the above was it!! Ok, do you believe we’re all descended from Adam and Eve? That Jesus turned water into wine? That he rose from the dead? Is God responsible for every living organism on earth? Does he punish sinners, and reward the righteous?
I really want to discuss all this with you, but I genuinely need to stop spending time on this conversation. Would you look at sites where academics discuss some of these questions, or are you not actually interested?
In a nutshell however, I'll at least say that I do indeed believe that Jesus rose, defeating death - but only because after reading books on the details of the accounts, I can't see any other option that isn't too flawed. I don't expect you to think any other than that I'm mad for believing in the resurrection, and I can't at all get my head around it, but it's a topic that needs far more exploration than a Facebook thread. If you're ever genuinely interested, I recommend Whooved the Stone in particular, though I suspect that you're only here to.mock me(?) rather than find out other peoples' rationale(?).
[Comment Deleted]
I began to believe in God whilst learning about the biochemistry of photosynthesis. Cellular processes are not only immensely complex, but their interdependence shows that they couldn't have developed by chance natural selection alone, without a designer. Ie, if one chance mutation occurs, and happens to translate into a change in a protein molecule, it can only provide an advantage to the organism that could contribute to evolution if a multitude of other, separate proteins are in the precisely correct shape to bind with it.
We can't test forGod directly because He's not composed of the matter/energy that scientific instruments measure, but what we can measure demonstrates that the universe and biological world have a designer.
"If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form." (Stephen Hawking) And there are many other things about the universe, such as the ratio of the masses of protons/neutrons that are similarly remarkably correct against the odds. One of Hawking's closest colleagues, Sir Roger Penrose, calculated that the odds of our universe - given the values of numerous parameters (such as the cosmological constant, the proton/neutron mass ratio etc) occurring by chance are around 1 in 10^123 (10 with 123 more zeros).
Of course, there are plenty of lectures and writings by maths/science PHDs that explain this far more thoroughly, just one example being http://www.johnlennox.org/guide-to-resources/ but I could add more if you're interested.
How Far-Right Extremism Is Dividing America
That cross has no place there. I am so, so, so furious with the far right using the cross - the cross is a symbol used in our culture because Jesus committed the ultimate act of selflessness on it, it's entirely the opposite of selfish nationalism.
using the cross is a form of worshipping an idol sis we (actual Christians, I can't speak for the far right who misuse the cross, or claim to be Christian, for the sake of pride) don't worship the cross, we worship Jesus. The cross is a symbol that indicates to others that Jesus is the focus of our lives; and it helps us never to lose focus on what Christ has done.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied. — Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV
Don't hikers/explorers carry swiss army knives? At the time in which Jesus was speaking to His disciples, carrying a small sword was simply the norm for practical purposes, and potentially for self defence. Jesus' other teachings make it abundantly clear that He doesn't want His followers to strike anyone. Matthew 26:52-53: “Put your sword back in its place… for all who take the sword will die by the sword. Try this - https://charismactivism.com/2013/01/18/why-did-jesus-tell-the-disciples-to-buy-two-swords/
Parents should warn their children from an early age that there are things on the internet that are very, very bad, and can hurt their minds, so they should stay on safe websites and talk with their parents about anything that they see which is strange. Parental locks/various child-proofing firewalls can be set up. Then children could have the benefits of the internet and grow up with an instinctive hatred of porn without wanting to look at it when they eventually get the chance.
Corbyn hires Tony Blair's former roommate in DESPERATE bid to solve anti-Semitism crisis
Anti-Semitism is, obviously, evil beyond words. But the lack of evidence leads me to suspect that the furore about it is mainly an effort to obstruct Corbyn.
The two faces of Winston Churchill hindustantimes.com
As a Brit, I'm constantly infuriated and ashamed by how many of my compatriots deny the extreme oppression and theft by Britain of India. We owe you so, so much.
Giving time to support UNICEF makes them better than the vast majority of the super rich so far as I'm concerned.
You shouldn't believe in something merely on the basis of culture - but there are legitimate arguments from science and philosophy to conclude that God exists. It's irritating observing Vice and much of our culture simply presume that everyone who believes in God is brainwashed without even being informed of the academic debate around God's existence.
Jesus prevented a woman caught in sexual son from being attacked, then told her to go and sin no more. Those who bully others demonstrate that they aren't in love with, and thus seeking to emulate, Christ. We know that God knows better than we ever could what's best for human beings - so we shouldn't ignore His prohibition of gay sex, but orientation does not compel action, and action does not justify cruelty.
yet you ignore his prohibitions regarding the eating of pork & shellfish - prohibitions against tattoos & divorce - rules for proper behavior of menstruating women - prohibitions against the participation of women in the function of the church - you are just another self-righteous, sanctimonious, hypocrite - your religion is not allowed to impose its beliefs upon other citizens who do not share those beliefs - you have no right to interfere with the way people live their lives... Leviticus has rules on different themes for differing reasons; for example, "tattoo" isn't the original word, the prohibition is against marking skin for the dead, since that was a component of pagan worship of ancestors amongst neighbouring tribes. Eating shellfish or pork would have caused food poisoning in that setting, and regulations about food served, in their very different culture, to illustrate the importance of being careful and selective about what material we consume. Jesus later addressed food regulations, over turning Leitical laws on food.
Peter's vision from God also voided restrictions on food.
Acts 15:28-9 "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond these essential requirements: You must abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality." - distinction is made between different themes in Old Testament law; most OT law no longerapplies, but we should still avoid pagan customs and prohibitted sex.
Obviously, Paul also warns against homosexual sex; and when Jesus is asked about divorce, He urges adherence to God's original design for relationships, evidencing the importance of God's plan illustratedin Adam and Eve (whether you think them to have been historical or only illustrative).
Paul actually urges us to never marry at all. And Adam and Eve never formed a bond of marriage. Then think further that their children engaged in what we would think of as incest. After that you move on to multiple wives, sleeping with your in-laws, and even more types of marriage that work and end. It is extremely dangerous to ignore the fact that those were cultural norms and not biblical design. Do not let your own preferences determine the standard for someone else. My preferences? Indeed, my preferences never determine what anyone else does, but this is all just discussion, and how have I demonstrated being the rationale for my points? Hetero marraige isn't my "preference", I think that all sex is vile and will die a virgin, I'm just trying to understand what God thinks. Multiple wives etc were not God's command, so they don't help us to understand what He does and doesn't think is OK.
ultimately, what the bible really says or means is irrelevant, since it's all a bunch of fairy tales and superstitions - in the USA the followers of any religions, by law can not impose their religious beliefs on other citizens - you are free to worship your deities and practice the rules & rituals of your faiths to your heart's content - but you are not permitted to impel everyone else to do the same...
When did I say that I intend to try to "impel" anyone to do anything? I only commented, we're all entitled to an opinion. Specifically, I commented on God's guidance, and if you don't believe in Him, why care at all what I think about His commands?
Far more importantly, why do you think that He's a fairytale?
Please show me where Jesus said ANYTHING about homosexuality.
Only a tiny proportion of all the things that Jesus will have said in His years of teaching are recorded; even if everything that He'd said was recorded, there'd be no reason to expect Him to discuss homosexuality, since amongst the Jewish people to whom He preached it was known to be against God's law, people likely wouldn't have been debating it. Though, as I mentioned, He does say "“Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ " (Matt 19) demonstrating His support of the original design for marriage.
Your question seems to imply that, because we don't have a record of Jesus condoning homosexual sex, it's OK with God - but this is a fallacy, Jesus' not having discussed it in the NT simply means that we need to try to understand God's view from other scripture. It also means that the issue shouldn't be a cause of division - the Gospel is incomparably more important.
Crucially though, sex isn't necessary to enjoy life (as I can testify) and there are Christians, such as a family member of mine, who live celibate because of their orientation - they're not depressed/oppressed. I urge you to check out David Bennett, Sam Alberry and LivingOut.
He made them man and woman. There was no marriage at the time so Adam and Eve never married. They had children. Think on this - who do you think their children had sex with in order to have more children... Does that mean that because God didn't create more than just one man and one woman that in today's society incest is acceptable to God? Be careful how far down that rabbit hole you fall. Society's moral code prior to Jesus' birth was not one man and one woman. In many cases it was one man and several women. Women were also bartered like property. This didn't change due to Biblical edict or teaching. It changed due to society. For you sex isn't necessary to enjoy life. For others it is. Neither is wrong. I am saddened to hear your family member feels the need to remain celibate because of their orientation. I don't believe God made a mistake in their orientation, I believe those around them made a mistake in supporting the idea they're not made in His image just the way they are. What a waste.
When did I say that we should aim for "Society's moral code prior to Jesus' birth"?
What does the incest between Adam and Eve's children have to do with this?
Who are you to say that my relative is wrong in their decision to be celibate? He wasn't dictated to by people around him, he believes that it's the best way to live for God, as do other gay Christians as mentioned (obviously I could list more). He's 70 and one of the happiest people I know, in a strong relationship with God - who are you to say "what a waste"? And given that some of the most important people in Christian history, not least Paul and Jesus Himself, why do you think that sex is genuinely essential for anyone? In addition to family relationships and friendships, do you not believe that God can provide enough joy and satisfaction?
It also says women should be quiet in church..that's what happens when you take verses out of context. Jesus never addressed that issue. St. Paul was the NY one who said that--he also said that we should obey our leaders...so Germans should have obeyed Hitler? That's an example of taking things out of context. Paul wanted Christians to be blameless in the eyes of the Roman Empire. They were being persecuted and some were killed for not bowing to the Emperor. Paul wanted christians to be model citizens.
Paul's words about women were written to a specific Church - His words on gay sex are about the future implications, so aren't restricted to a community with particular issues in the same way as the verse about women (other verses in the NT show that, in other Churches, women were in ministry without Paul disputing it).
The NT only contains a tiny chunk of all the things that Jesus said in His years of ministry, so the fact that it doesn't record Him discussing homosexual practice doesn't mean that He never did. Even if He never did, it wouldn't mean that He endorsed it. In the society He was in, it was a given that homosexual sex was prohibited, so it's unsurprising that He didn't mention it.it wasn't recorded. Rather, if He did endorse it, at a time when His audience believed it wrong, why would the NT writers not have recorded it? He did specifically urge people to adhere to God's plan of marriage being between one man and one woman, and condemned Porneia - which translates into sexual immorality, thus would, to His audience, have included homosexual sex. https://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/articles/jesus-and-homosexuality
Ultimately, God loves EVERYONE, and offers infinitely more joy than sex. There are gay/same sex attracted Christians who choose to be celibate and can explain far better than I can their reasoning and their joy in life. The real issue is that our culture is sex obsessed and unaware of what God can give. https://illuminaet.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/a-bridge-between-statements-a-bridge-between-worlds-why-i-call-myself-a-gay-or-ssa-celibate-christian/
I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? I’m also a business owner and I have an employee who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? I’m hoping you have answers because when I say things like the thing you said, and the things I just said, people normally look at me like I’m an idiot, but I feel that you get me.
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.” Matthew 15:19-20
I'm bored of Vice posting about sex.
Gay Christians in UK forced to have straight sex in ‘gay cure therapies’
There's nothing Christian about this (forcing people that is, I'm not blaming the "Gay Christian" victims, obviously). I'm so sick of daft, evil things being done by people falsely calling themselves Christians, who demonstrate by their actions that they aren't following Christ at all. NB, some Christian groups offer counselling to LGBT people, which is nothing like this^ - but the media lumps it all together as "conversion" or "gay cure" therapy.
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Eliminate religion. All of it. All it does is give more reason for people to persecute one another.
When religious leaders asked Jesus if they could stone a woman caught having sex that broke their Old Testament law, he saved her – then said to her to go and sin no more. To say that all religion should be eliminated is to fatally oversimplify. The reality is that most positive and compassionate values and institutions stem from Jesus teachings' impact on society.
I continually encounter people who simply laugh at the notion of God without even looking at the scientific and philosophical arguments for concluding that He exists. There's a presumption that the concept of God is ridiculous, to the extent that many people seem to think themselves intellectually superior for not becoming informed about the academic debate.
But the term itself is too vague. Evil things done to some people in the past are not the same as other people today choosing to have counselling. And beliefs about certain practices (gay sex) do not equate to hatred of human beings.
It seems ironic that the "Independent" group is founded on wanting to avoid independence from a bureaucratic giant establishment.
DC Comics drops ‘superhero Jesus’ series after campaign calls it ‘blasphemous’
I find that 100+ year after the fact hearsay doesn't really count as evidence though. In the court of law today we don't even accept hearsay from hours after an event. So why should 100+ year old written hearsay about Jesus be taken at factual value? Especially when there was many active writers recording other major events in the same area around the same time as Jesus lived/died?
Why do you think that Jesus' life is "100+ hearsay"? The first Christians, living at a time in which people passed on information by thorough oratory technique, weren't prioritising writing - yet the New Testament's earliest books were written within a few decades of the events. The New Testament is in fact far more reliable than other historical texts http://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...
Worse than a potential comic, is that our culture has normalised simply presuming Jesus to be fictional and never actually looking at the historical case for Him.
the historical case being how all historians who aren't uber religious say there is no proof of him right?
Who told you that? That's a popular conspiracy theory, ignoring serious history because it's easier and more fun for people to mock than to investigate Jesus. https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...
I find that 100+ year after the fact hearsay doesn't really count as evidence though. In the court of law today we don't even accept hearsay from hours after an event. So why should 100+ year old written hearsay about Jesus be taken at factual value? Especially when there was many active writers recording other major events in the same area around the same time as Jesus lived/died? Why do you think that Jesus' life is "100+ hearsay"? The first Christians, living at a time in which people passed on information by thorough oratory technique, weren't prioritising writing - yet the New Testament's earliest books were written within a few decades of the events. The New Testament is in fact far more reliable than other historical texts http://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...
Why do I think it's hearsay? Because it is. In the New Testament he is mentioned ~40 years after his death. Outside of the New Testament he isn't written about by anyone of his time period until over 100 years after his death. Even the earliest Christians didn't start mentioning him until decades after his life. That's the very definition of hearsay. There was many proficient writers and documents from the same area and time Jesus was said to have existed, yes people used oral tradition but there was many writings as well. It's just a red flag to me that there isn't any about what apperently was the the most significant event in human history at the time. "The New Testament is in fact far more reliable than other historical texts" Does it say that in the New Testament?
Why do you think that the NT is "40 years after His death"? The Pauline epistles are dated to 20 years after His death - entirely different to the "100+" that you originally claimed. Who told you that "Even the earliest Christians didn't start mentioning him until decades after his life."? Why do you expect that there would have been texts that were written even earlier; also survived 2000 years; and also have been found, given that, as I highlighted already, other historical works have a far larger time gap, and that persecution of the early Church brought the destruction of many artifacts? "Does it say that in the New Testament?" no, I'm obviously referring to data regarding the span of historical texts, as summarised in the article to which I linked.
people have been looking for Jesus for 2000 years more or less... still nothing has been found.
Indeed - He was raised up, there's no body to find.
Have you ignored the articles I've already linked? They specifically address the common fallacies that you've espoused. Should I link to work by further scholars, or are you opposed to reading anything you want not to be true? Why exactly do you think that " There is no 'historical' case for" Jesus? https://jwwartick.com/2012/06/04/parallelomania/
All his mericles can be explianed with non magic means
How much have you investigated? Which academics and writers have helped you reach your conclusion?
easy magic mericles is make belief so clearly there is a rational explanation for all his mericles i dont need academics just common sense name a mericle i can give logical explanation
That's circular reasoning. You're saying that supernatural things don't happen just because supernatural things don't happen, you aren't explaining a rational argument. By definition, the laws of nature virtually always apply - that's what makes something a miracle. But the creator of nature itself can break those natural laws on occasion. Indeed, there are many, many events which some people refer to as miracles that in fact aren't at all - but that doesn't mean that miracles are impossible when God's involved. Have you read the accounts of Christ's resurrection?
Have you investigated the work of academics who explain why science and philosophy point to the conclusion that God exists? For example, https://www.bethinking.org/.../the-question-of-miracles...
easy magic mericles is make belief so clearly there is a rational explanation for all his mericles i dont need academics just common sense name a mericle i can give logical explanation
That's circular reasoning. You're saying that supernatural things don't happen just because supernatural things don't happen, you aren't explaining a rational argument. By definition, the laws of nature virtually always apply - that's what makes something a miracle. But the creator of nature itself can break those natural laws on occasion. Indeed, there are many, many events which some people refer to as miracles that in fact aren't at all - but that doesn't mean that miracles are impossible when God's involved. Have you read the accounts of Christ's resurrection?
Have you investigated the work of academics who explain why science and philosophy point to the conclusion that God exists? For example, https://www.bethinking.org/.../the-question-of-miracles...
$5k could provide education for at least half a dozen other children (who themselves are too impoverished to have access to hot chocolate).
We can't be certain that he's racist, so calling him "little Hitler" is non-sensical - plenty of people genuinely think that the wall is a solution to the opioid crisis. But his parents should instead be encouraging him to think about those who aren't privileged enough to be born into the relatively comfortable life that he is (and we are). Their "values", in putting their own isolationism before the exciting potential to help others (with money raised for charity) are disturbing.
We can't be certain that he's racist, so calling him "little Hitler" is non-sensical - plenty of people genuinely think that the wall is a solution to the opioid crisis. But his parents should instead be encouraging him to think about those who aren't privileged enough to be born into the relatively comfortable life that he is (and we are). Their "values", in putting their own isolationism before the exciting potential to help others (with money raised for charity) are disturbing.
Why painful? If someone's wasted £30,000 in an attempt to show off or get drunk, why should we feel particularly concerned about where the liquid ends up?
Sorry that probably makes me very heartless, I'm just struggling to empathise with someone who'd spend £30.000 on a drink for themselves/mates, when there are still people in the world who don't even have clean water to drink - it's them who I feel pain for.
Sorry that probably makes me very heartless, I'm just struggling to empathise with someone who'd spend £30.000 on a drink for themselves/mates, when there are still people in the world who don't even have clean water to drink - it's them who I feel pain for.
I don't understand why the media here is massively concerned about the gender pay gap - especially between male and female millionaire actors and TV presenters - and not concerned at all about the pay gap between most of us in the West and those in developing countries.
The cross is about us being offered liberation from sin; not about men subjugating women.
it's a fictional story. How do you know? Have you just bought into a popular conspiracy theory on the basis of your pre-existing faith (in atheism) or preference? https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical...
Have you listened to lectures from academics who believe in the resurrection explaining their reasoning?
I felt like you, until I read Who Moved the Stone, I'm well aware that it sounds like fiction - but given that how we spend eternity is the most important issue we face in this lifetime, it's odd that most people simply ignore it. https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection
bahahaha I suppose you believe in the tooth fairy too
Why? I've not ever believed in the tooth fairy, it was obvious when I was first told about it as a small child that it's fictional - that's entirely different from God. You lumping the 2 together shows that you've not looked at any of the academic discussion regarding God. You might find that you still disagree, but there's lots for you to consider.
Why Ariana Grande Fans Are Boycotting '7 Rings'
It boasts about overspending on unnecessary luxuries, whilst we live in a world where there are people living in slums/sleeping on streets; without food; without clean water; without healthcare; without electricity - and without any way to escape their poverty- because of the corruption that's made our Western nations so wealthy that popstar are able to accumulate far, far, far more money than they could ever need.
How will underpsending on luxuries solve those problems?.
You can't "underspend on luxuries", any luxury by definition is unnecessary, so there's no required amount to undercut.
If public figures stopped boasting about their wealth, more of their fans would be able to see how lucky we are to have comfortable homes; good food; public services etc, and enjoy those things more - and more people might ultimately donate to help the world's poorest people because they wouldn;t be wasting their money on things that Grande and Co mislead fans into thinking are necessary.
You have a good point concerning the topic of underspending on luxuries.But I find everyhting else that you have mentioned to be very questionable. Most schools in the UK are open air borstals that close at three thirty in the afternoon.Various subjects are often taught in a disjointed,non-linear, fashion.Causing pupils to lose interest or at best have a poor understanding of the subject concerned. Ask yourself the following question.When was the last time you ate a decent meat joint.For me it has been many years!.The quality of food in the UK is very bad. As for the issue of charity solving the economic problems of various countries.What makes you think it will work or has not been tried?.The UK government alone in 2016 spent 13.4 billion on overseas aid.Quality of life can only be raised through the behaviour of the population concerned.Money alone will never be the answer.Because money is a means and not a end. If public figures stopped boasting about their wealth, more of their fans would be able to see how lucky we are to have comfortable homes; good food; public services etc, and enjoy those things more - and more people might ultimately donate to help the world's poorest people because they wouldn;t be wasting their money on things that Grande and Co mislead fans into thinking are necessary.
What do schools or meat have to do with this?
The aid that we give is 0.7% of our GDP - why do you think that that would be enough to resolve poverty in developing countries? You're presuming that, because £13.4 seems like a large amount, the fact that poverty hasn't been ended - but in terms of national budgets, it's tiny (as I said,0.7% of what we have). And our corporations are, in fact, taking more from developing countries than is given in government aid https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
Crucially, if we give to organisations that enable people to become self sufficient, it's utterly amazing how much of a difference can be made. For example, sponsoring a child with the money saved by skipping a restaurant meal each month (£25) gives them lessons, mentoring, health checks, and more - enabling them to grown up to support their family. Giving a family a goat can give them an ongoing supply of milk, preventing malnutrition and the risk that children will grow up weakened.
The aid that we give is 0.7% of our GDP - why do you think that that would be enough to resolve poverty in developing countries? You're presuming that, because £13.4 seems like a large amount, the fact that poverty hasn't been ended - but in terms of national budgets, it's tiny (as I said,0.7% of what we have). And our corporations are, in fact, taking more from developing countries than is given in government aid https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
Crucially, if we give to organisations that enable people to become self sufficient, it's utterly amazing how much of a difference can be made. For example, sponsoring a child with the money saved by skipping a restaurant meal each month (£25) gives them lessons, mentoring, health checks, and more - enabling them to grown up to support their family. Giving a family a goat can give them an ongoing supply of milk, preventing malnutrition and the risk that children will grow up weakened.
As opposed to when it wasn't time for the super rich to do the morally right thing?
We should keep in mind though, that even though we're far, far, far less wealthy than those to whom Bernie's referring, many of us are still in the top 10(or less)% of the world's wealthiest, and have lifestyles incomparably more comfortable than much of humanity. If we resist corporations' attempts to pressure us into spending on things we don't need, we can genuinely make a significant difference to some of the world's poorest people. I find it incredibly exciting how much of a bargain it is to sponsor a child in a developing country, for example - the equivalent of half a dozen Starbucks trips each month could give a child a totally transformed future.
We should keep in mind though, that even though we're far, far, far less wealthy than those to whom Bernie's referring, many of us are still in the top 10(or less)% of the world's wealthiest, and have lifestyles incomparably more comfortable than much of humanity. If we resist corporations' attempts to pressure us into spending on things we don't need, we can genuinely make a significant difference to some of the world's poorest people. I find it incredibly exciting how much of a bargain it is to sponsor a child in a developing country, for example - the equivalent of half a dozen Starbucks trips each month could give a child a totally transformed future.
I know this will sound stupidly oversensitive, but as someone who's had life ruined by anorexia, would you please consider not casually telling people to "get skinny"?
I know that, for those who've not had an eating disorder, it sounds laughable - but in reality little phrases like this get stuck in our heads - and because we never think we're skinny enough, you're instructing us to starve ourselves. Unfortunately, we can't simply switch off the messages that get stuck in our minds.
I know that, for those who've not had an eating disorder, it sounds laughable - but in reality little phrases like this get stuck in our heads - and because we never think we're skinny enough, you're instructing us to starve ourselves. Unfortunately, we can't simply switch off the messages that get stuck in our minds.
yeah but obesity is an epidemic now and if throw away phrases like skinny are banded about, its not a big price to pay to sort out the biggest killer which is obesity Anorexia is not a common problem, we are all overweight
When you say "not a small price to pay", I presume you're referring to the lives of those who have eating disorders?
What about the parents' and others who are devastated at seeing their loved ones waste away?
I'm aware that obesity is a huge issue, but the phrase "get skinny" isn't going to help it at all.
What about the parents' and others who are devastated at seeing their loved ones waste away?
I'm aware that obesity is a huge issue, but the phrase "get skinny" isn't going to help it at all.
Can you aknowledge that life isn't only about you and different people strugle from different problems. Getting offended by things that are helpfull for others is a absurd way to roll.
When did I say that life is only about me? Millions of people suffer with eating disorders - and most have numerous family members who are affected as a result. I'm not unconcerned about those struggling with being overweight - but the phrase "get skinny" won't help them.
How can we encourage individuals like Ellen Page to see that there are distinctions between a person, their feelings, and their actions? Ie, to feel or desire something does not compel one to act on it - our culture gives the message that humans are powerless pawns to our sexual urges (should I blame Freud?) but we know that human beings are more powerful than that. If a person does act, God - cliched as it sounds to those of us in the Christian community - loves the sinner whilst hating the sin. Our culture ignores the inherent value of a human by insisting that to disagree with their actions is to hate them.
No, one person's words don't "prove" something about everyone on one side of the political spectrum. Obviously, I don't doubt that there are some of the left with indefensible views - but everyone is unique, with their own combination of opinions, influenced by their personal experiences and knowledge; and everyone is responsible for their own words, not other peoples'.
Many cocoa bean pickers are so poor that they can't afford to buy any chocolate themselves. The $hundreds or $thousands that it costs us to go on holiday could genuinely transform life for one of them, and their family (even after subtracting enough$ to buy a stack of chocolate for ourselves, if we so choose).
And wouldn't it be great not to add the large amount of gas that flying produces into the atmosphere?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEN4hcZutO0
And wouldn't it be great not to add the large amount of gas that flying produces into the atmosphere?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEN4hcZutO0
Africa needs law and regulations badly
Indeed, colonisation left it ripe for unscrupulous individuals to seize control over their plundered nations. Whilst nations like ours were gradually developing an - albeit far from perfect - democracy, which evidently requires time and stability, slave traders and colonisers paid the selfish (which any society has a few of) to help them steal from and enslave others. The continent was left lacking governance and infrastructure, with some people so desperate that they could be manipulated into joining militia groups (such as Boko Haram).
I've been stunned by how many people genuinely believe that the foetus is "just a clump of cells", that it's not human, and not a living thing.
The extreme, rare incidences of fatal abnormalities are repeatedly presumed to justify law changes that will lead to the death of tens of thousands of healthy unborn humans. Photos of foetuses are deemed offensive - whilst scans of foetuses of the same ages are celebrated when the parents want them. Rape is regularly used as an argument in support of abortion, though Planned Parenthood's own stats say that rape is only the cause of 1% of pregnancies that women want to abort (it's reasonable to suspect that the real figure would be less than 1% here, and without the bias of PP).
Has it not occurred to us that women are more likely to have unsafe sex when abortion is readily available?
Are abortion supporters unaware that women are often left emotionally scarred after having abortions – and that some have died in legal supposedly "safe" abortion procedures? https://is.gd/8AHSzb Ambulances were called a total of 466 times at London abortion clinics over the last year.(data from the London Ambulance Service)https://lifecharity.org.uk/
There are infertile couples desperate for babies - why are so many people in support of it being possible to suction them to pieces?
The extreme, rare incidences of fatal abnormalities are repeatedly presumed to justify law changes that will lead to the death of tens of thousands of healthy unborn humans. Photos of foetuses are deemed offensive - whilst scans of foetuses of the same ages are celebrated when the parents want them. Rape is regularly used as an argument in support of abortion, though Planned Parenthood's own stats say that rape is only the cause of 1% of pregnancies that women want to abort (it's reasonable to suspect that the real figure would be less than 1% here, and without the bias of PP).
Has it not occurred to us that women are more likely to have unsafe sex when abortion is readily available?
Are abortion supporters unaware that women are often left emotionally scarred after having abortions – and that some have died in legal supposedly "safe" abortion procedures? https://is.gd/8AHSzb Ambulances were called a total of 466 times at London abortion clinics over the last year.(data from the London Ambulance Service)https://lifecharity.org.uk/
There are infertile couples desperate for babies - why are so many people in support of it being possible to suction them to pieces?
I want to be supportive - but people boasting about and deifying money is at the root of many of humanity's problems - if only she could use her skill to rap about something else.
(obvs. I feel the same about numerous other artists, I was just particularly struck by the thought during her Grammy's performance)
(obvs. I feel the same about numerous other artists, I was just particularly struck by the thought during her Grammy's performance)
Explore Oxfam - they sell online (their site, and ebay) a well as in store. It's better for the planet than any new items, and the money all (aside from admin costs) goes to the world's very poorest people. Some of the items are brand new, some are from very expensive brands, styles vary endlessly.
Only problem is, about 90% of what is raised by Oxfam goes on administration, wages, fees etc, only 10% goes to those who need it. You'd be better off buying from a Hospice shop (eg St.Luke's) where the figures are reversed.
Why do you think that? Where did you get that data from? Oxfam spends aroud 20% on admin, similar to other charities. And what's led you to think that hospices are vastly more efficient? Though indeed, it's obviously better to buy from a hospice than to buy froma regular shop.
Cancers Are Overly-Sensitive, Moody as Hell, and Can't Take Criticism
Would Vice care to explain why on Earth horoscopes would be thought to have any relation to who we are, or what happens to us, at all?
There are an array of historical, scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of God (eg. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning ), that we should each weigh up for ourselves to reach our own conclusions - but I've never seen anyone present any explanation for believing in horoscopes. Will anyone enlighten me?
There are an array of historical, scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of God (eg. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning ), that we should each weigh up for ourselves to reach our own conclusions - but I've never seen anyone present any explanation for believing in horoscopes. Will anyone enlighten me?
People in glass churches throwing stones
Why do you think that Christianity's equivocal to astrology? Christianity's based on science, philosophy and events - obviously, you interpret science and philosophy differently, and you presume those events to not have actually happened (have you weighed up the arguments on both sides?) - but they mean that believing in Christianity is entirely different from believing in horoscopes.
Astrology is science based on the vibrations the planets were making when you took your first breath. Anyone who has tried to disprove this science, has come back as a believer.
Why would the "vibrations" of planners when we're born affect our life's course or personality? Which scientific findings are you referring to?
Why do you think that "everyone" who's set out to disprove astrology has become a believer in it? (Ie where's the data that's led you to believe that they have?)
Why do you think that "everyone" who's set out to disprove astrology has become a believer in it? (Ie where's the data that's led you to believe that they have?)
Inside Hillsong where LGBTQ worshippers are welcome but Chris Pratt less so
The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - but that doesn't mean that gay people are to be bullied in any way or excluded from Church. 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.
Please note – many people who’ve called themselves Christians aren’t actually following Christ; Jesus was consistently peaceful and compassionate.
[Comment Deleted]
That's Paul encouraging employees to be respectful, not God saying that anyone should have taken slaves in the first place.
It was written in a society where slavery was the unquestioned norm, and the Bible 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.
https://www.zachariastrust.org/does-the-bible-condone...
Jesus shows us how God actually wants us to live and treat others.
It was written in a society where slavery was the unquestioned norm, and the Bible 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.
https://www.zachariastrust.org/does-the-bible-condone...
Jesus shows us how God actually wants us to live and treat others.
I never said that God opposes love, it's sex that He gives guidelines on. Our culture misleads us into thinking that sex is love, and that it(sex) is necessary for a fulfilled, enjoyable life. It isn't.
How is Romans 4:4 proving your idea about what the Bible means by slavery?Also, you seem to have very much misunderstood the context of the verse, which is nothing to do with slavery or employment. How did you arrive at that verse?
Leviticus says gay men should be stoned. Utter bull crap. Stop cherry picking.
No, it doesn't. Also, did you read my original comment? Jesus stopped Jewish leaders from stoning someone for sexual sin. Christianity is to follow Christ.
She's not a feminist. A feminist catres about women, and she's spending her life on trying to make herself (what she deems to be) superior.
"If you can do what makes you happy, then you should just go for it, no matter what people think"
According to who? I imagine that criminals and dodgy bankers are doing what makes them happy, should they just go for it? If we want to make the world a better place, we need to consider others - which I'd have thougt was obvious, but she seems keen to affirm the stereotype that she claims to oppose.
"If you can do what makes you happy, then you should just go for it, no matter what people think"
According to who? I imagine that criminals and dodgy bankers are doing what makes them happy, should they just go for it? If we want to make the world a better place, we need to consider others - which I'd have thougt was obvious, but she seems keen to affirm the stereotype that she claims to oppose.
For Decades, the United States and Russia Stepped Back From the Brink. Until Now.
It's MAD
(Mutually Assured Destruction)- and such a tragedy given all of the people who could be freed from severe poverty if the money spent on weapons were spent on water pumps; schools; hospitals and tools instead.
(Mutually Assured Destruction)- and such a tragedy given all of the people who could be freed from severe poverty if the money spent on weapons were spent on water pumps; schools; hospitals and tools instead.
Michelle Obama makes a surprise appearance at the opening of the Grammys
"[Music] allows us to hear one another, to invite each other in. Music shows us that all of it matters. Every story within every voice. Every note within every song."
It certainly can do, but quite a bit of music in the charts ATM is about sex and money, it's not inviting or unifying.
Because anyone with common sense knows sex and money sells. Better chance of making it big rather than singing about how Charlie is lonesome because his wife left with the dog
There has been plenty of successful music that's not been about sex or money (though obviously , they've always been themes). Just a decade ago, a lot of what was in the charts was about emotion and angst. It bothers me that people get misled about sex - such as girls feeling that letting themselves be used as objects for guys' gratification is the way to affection; and that people feel dissatisfied with what they have when songs boast about luxuries.
Looking at some of the Grammys dresses, I reckon there's a lot of money to be made in chopping waist holes in tents, sewing lampshades on top and calling them designer dresses.
"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.’ "Matthew 22:36-39
How do you cope when a religious upbringing makes you feel guilty about sex?
"Religious" defined how? Indeed some "religious" people have spread harmful messages; but "religious" groups and people vary endlessly. That sex should happen exclusively between two people who are married to each other is a concept that would save immeasurable disease and heartbreak - and God advises it because He knows (better than we do) and wants what's best for us.
wearing a condom cut down on std's and sti's and are way more effective than a wedding ring and also condoms doesn't discriminate against the LGBT community, like religion dose
When did I say that wedding rings solve problems? It's people actually being faithful that's beneficial; why are you presuming that most married people have sex with other people?
Why are you lumping together people who discriminate with belief in God? Christianity teaches that people shouldn't have gay sex - but those who actually bully gay people (or anyone) are demonstrating that, even if they call themselvesChristians, they aren't actually following Christ.
Why are you lumping together people who discriminate with belief in God? Christianity teaches that people shouldn't have gay sex - but those who actually bully gay people (or anyone) are demonstrating that, even if they call themselvesChristians, they aren't actually following Christ.
Anal sex in marriage. Yay or nay in gods eyes?
God doesn't say, I doubt that He's bothered - but He tells us to avoid perverted thoughts, so it's not a question I want to give thought to (also, regardless of my Christianity, I personally find the idea of any sex to be repulsive). Medically, anal sex has a far higher risk of injury and infection (relating to the particular skin and bacteria in the region).
So christians should only have sex to produce a child and not for enjoyment as im guessing god herself deems lust a sin?
When did I say that "christians should only have sex to produce a child"? Several Bible passages specifically suggest otherwise. Your putting words into my mouth suggests that - perhaps - you've developed firm beliefs about Christianity, and perhaps some of these are misconceptions...
But sex is a sin, the church have proclaimed that for centuries or am I mistaken?
I suspect you're mistaken. However, there are some Churches that teach nonsense - on all sorts of issues - so I can't be certain that no Church has proclaimed x y or z. DON'T base your understanding of Christianity on Churches or people who claim to be Christian unless their words and actions actually align with Jesus's teaching. The Bible never says that sex itself is a sin - only when it takes place in the wrong contexts.
"[Wives and Husbands]Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent for a limited time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again" 1 Corinthians 7:5
Throughout history, many people have used the label of being Christian or religious to seem superior, whilst not actually being in love with and thus wanting to emulate Christ. He is who actually matters, ignore the hypocrites.
"[Wives and Husbands]Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent for a limited time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again" 1 Corinthians 7:5
Throughout history, many people have used the label of being Christian or religious to seem superior, whilst not actually being in love with and thus wanting to emulate Christ. He is who actually matters, ignore the hypocrites.
So every other religion is nonsense apart from yours? That seems very hyporitical to be fair.
When did I say that? I never said that any whole religion is nonsense, only some teachings by some people/institutions, and wasn't even talking about other religions, only some Churches (like Westboro, which is not actually Christian at all, as it's not following Christ).
Ah so you believe That the gods of other religions are real but your god is more powerful then.
Talking of gods, what about the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the gods of the Egytians and even Nordic gods? These gods were worshippedjj for thousands of years. What is your opinion on these great civilizations that believed they were real?
I believe that science demonstrates that the universe and biological world demonstrate that they could not have come into existence and developed by random, mindless chance - therefore there is a creator, and that is God.
Ancient peoples, such as those you mentioned, created stories about gods with differing personalities and bodies, based on what they saw of human and animal behaviour. By contrast, God spoke to individuals (prophets) and enacted miracles to demonstrate Himself. Ultimately, Jesus fulfilled prophecies; performed miracles and gave teachings that have been immeasurably important to humanity - and then defeated death, as witnessed by many people a the time (as opposed to religions based solely on the testimony of one person who claims to have experienced god). The Holy Spirit has continued to act in people's lives when they are open to God ever since.
It's not about one people group being superior - God loves humanity, of all ethnicities and nationalities; Christ's offer of eternal life is open to everyone.
Ancient peoples, such as those you mentioned, created stories about gods with differing personalities and bodies, based on what they saw of human and animal behaviour. By contrast, God spoke to individuals (prophets) and enacted miracles to demonstrate Himself. Ultimately, Jesus fulfilled prophecies; performed miracles and gave teachings that have been immeasurably important to humanity - and then defeated death, as witnessed by many people a the time (as opposed to religions based solely on the testimony of one person who claims to have experienced god). The Holy Spirit has continued to act in people's lives when they are open to God ever since.
It's not about one people group being superior - God loves humanity, of all ethnicities and nationalities; Christ's offer of eternal life is open to everyone.
there is an old saying "history repeats itself"
You have literally compared your religion to the same god worshipping of those a millinia ago.
You have literally compared your religion to the same god worshipping of those a millinia ago.
What do you mean by "[my] religion" exactly? And what's your point? God created the universe billions of years ago; some people were following Him in the past, and some follow Him now. A belief isn't simply made false by time.
Millions of women are exploited beyond description through being forced into sex work around the world. If you were a feminist, you'd be concerned about suffering females, not just your own income.
Respecting the Spirituality Behind Marie Kondo's 'Tidying Up'
How are you defining "respect"? We absolutely must respect her - but not paganism.
It's possible to respect somebody’s beliefs, and their right to hold them, even if you don’t agree with them.
Obviously, I'm not going to be deliberately disrespectful/antagonistic/rude - but why would I respect an ideology that misleads people? How would doing so be loving to them? God tells us to eschew spirituality that's separate from Him. He wants all people to know The Truth.
you do understand that a couple of billion people have a faith at least as strong as yours ... but in a God that isn’t yours? That you are considered the misled one by them?
She's misunderstood the Church (Hillsong Church), and Christianity's position on homosexuality in general.The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - but that doesn't mean that gay people are to 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.
Apparently, EllenPage tweeted about it - "Oh. K. Um. But his church is infamously anti lgbtq so maybe address that too?"
How can we break through the misunderstanding that non-Christians have about genuine Christianity's stance on homosexuality? Ie, the Bible tells us that gay sex is wong, but also that we must be compassionate and non judgemental; and, crucially, action and orientation are not the same thing. How do we get people to look at Jesus rather than presume Christianity to be bigotted?
How can we break through the misunderstanding that non-Christians have about genuine Christianity's stance on homosexuality? Ie, the Bible tells us that gay sex is wong, but also that we must be compassionate and non judgemental; and, crucially, action and orientation are not the same thing. How do we get people to look at Jesus rather than presume Christianity to be bigotted?
Most of us have comfortable places to live that protect us from the elements; clean running water on tap; all the food we could want - with endless options to enjoy; snug furniture; electricity; limitless entertainment via books, TV and the internet - and so, so much more - all things that we easily forget to be happy about but which human beings elsewhere or in previous centuries could only dream of.
Thrillingly, recent decades have seen dramatic reductions in the most severe poverty; more people have clean water and education; child mortality's halved - charities working in developing countries that are well run can enable those unjustly impoverished to become able to care for their families.
Thrillingly, recent decades have seen dramatic reductions in the most severe poverty; more people have clean water and education; child mortality's halved - charities working in developing countries that are well run can enable those unjustly impoverished to become able to care for their families.
I hate how so many people now associate Christianity with the very opposite of what Christ did and taught, because of predators like this
Hey gave everyone free will, that's his get out clause
It's the perpetrators who are responsible for sex abuse - do you think that they aren't? Why does God need a get out clause?
im guessing your only familiar with what your taught about the bible and not what the bible actually contains
LOL, why on Earth do you think that? My life's purpose is to serve God, I've been through the Bible again and again and daily listen to lectures and debates about it. What is it you think that you know and I don't?
Antidepressants resolve imbalances/deficiencies in neurotransmitter concentrations, nice as these pics are, it's incredibly ignorant and inconsiderate to claim that these photos are better than medicine.
The word is constantly misused. By definition, evangelical means to want to tell others about something awesome - ie. Jesus' offer. There are many people labelled as evangelicals who demonstrate through their actions that they're not actually in love with and trying to emulate Jesus at all (not referring specifically to those in the photo^).
Donald Trump to visit UK for major Nato summit in London
Could there be something more constructive than a protest this time? Such as a huge fundraising festival in central London to raise money for refugees?
Refugees! If anything was held should be raising funds for brits struggling in our own country
Our homeless x armed forces and familys put into hardship from benefit sanctions through no fault of there own. That's who need it first.
Our homeless x armed forces and familys put into hardship from benefit sanctions through no fault of there own. That's who need it first.
Why? Refugees have had their homes and loved ones blown up through no fault of their own. Unlike the poor here, they have no welfare state, no homeless shelters, no NHS, no local opportunities for work to rebuild their lives. I absolutely am not saying that there shouldn't be more help for the poor here, there absolutely must be. But refugees are in even greater need (and I mentioned them specifically because this is about Trump).
I'm sorry for those people's jobs - but the company should die, it grossly exploits the poor.
Decriminalising it would also make it easier for men to force women into sex work. Public sector workers should be paid more - with money raised by taxing billionaires at higher rates - decriminalising sex work is not the answer, and ultimately is endorsing of something that is ultimately grossly harmful to women.
He was sickeningly, abhorrently racist. It is possible for people to change. But we white people need to be sensitive to the reality that there are still racist thugs in our world, people of colour are entitled to be angry. We also need to - about all evils in life - be humble enough to admit our mistakes and that we need to become better people.
"our mistakes"?
Yes. We all do things that wrong. most of us, no where remotely nearly as bad as Neeson considered doing, but we should still identify our failings and challenge ourselves to become better people.
Yes, I studied biomedical sciences at uni. But with regard to this trait of human genetics, it is extremely rare not to be XX or XY - and it shouldn't be something to argue about since both girls and boys should be allowed to explore the different activities, styles and career paths they're suited to.
*This is, obviously, not to deny that those with gender dysphoria, who are trans or who are intersex should not be protected from the beyond-words-abhorrent abuse that they're targetted with*
But public attention is finite. If, in place of articles about actresses, TV presenters, business women etc, there were more about the human beings actually suffering because of lowpay, there might actually be significant transformations to harsh lives.
Bernie Sanders to significantly raise taxes on the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans.
Aw, those poor little billionaires.
Seriously though, we mustn't let the insane wealth of the top 1% lead s to forget that most of us are still in the top 10% (of humanity in terms of wealth) - let's keep reminding ourselves how luxurious it is (compared to most of humanity or those who lived earlier in history) to have comfortable, furnished homes; clean water and electricity; an endless selection of food and entertainment; and so much more. We're surrounded by a culture that encourages us to feel frustrated that we don't have the things that we see celebrities have, but we enjoy life far more when we remember to be glad about what we have.
And we can make a truly amazing difference to those who are in poverty beyond anything we can imagine; for example, each $6 (a trip to Starbucks?) can feed a starving child for a month with Feed The Hungry USA
OK, that's helpful, thank you - but can you clarify what Pence has done regarding conversion therapy and what you mean by conversion therapy? Ie there's a world of difference between people being forced into something and choosing to ask for something; and between the evil electric shock treatments of the past and counselling.
when you're sitting with a computer in front of you and ask other people to do your homework for you it doesn't really look like you want answers. Google is your friend.
Obviously I've looked at various sources, but I'm curious as to the options of those who agree with Ellen Page since despite having researched Pence, I can't see the logic of her statement. Honestly, I think that there's a huge chasm between what Christianity actually is and how secular society perceives it - in part because of the many who call themselves Christians because they like the label, whilst not actually being in love with (and thus longing to emulate) Christ. As I said, we need clarity about what's meant by "conversion therapy". It's a catch all phrase used to decribe entirely differing things. Talking therapy (for people wanting to reduce sexual thoughts) is not evil, but gets labelled "conversion therapy" along with historical practices that obviously were evil. As the Snopes link points out, it was wrongly reported that Pence supportd electric shock treatments. Elizabeth Walton is there evidence that the aversion conditioning that you describe is whay Pence supports?
Why do you think that the Bible was editted again and again, Stephen King? Textual studies of the ancient manuscripts evidence the crucial fact that scripture, deemed as Holy, was copied meticulously, Many pious Rabbis learnt Moses' words (from God) by heart with immense pride - it couldn't be that edits werre made since others would object.
However, Jesus taught that the laws regarding material things - food, appearance - no longer applied. It's perfectly reasonable that God would have given the Hebrews in Moses' time specific guidelines for that time and place,for their own safety and for the purpose of avoiding the paganism surrounding them at the time -thus some of the Levitical laws relate to avoiding food that would have been dangerous with the limited cooking techniques of the time, or to avoiding pagan worship customs of surrounding tribes.
Ultimately, Jesus, when brought a woman caught having sex that she shouldn't have been, saved her from being attacked, and told her to "go and sin no more". So Christianity is, without question entirely opposed to the abuse that Ellen Page refers to. He demonstrated that there's a distinction between people and their actions, ie to believe that an action is against God's plan doesn't mean hating the person. And I can't see how Pence disapproving of gay marriage would lead to people physically attacking gay people - I think that the sad reality is that some people just get a kick out of violence.
At the same time, all of us Christians need to do better at showing the love that Jesus commands.
No, that would imply that I've tried to get a partner and failed because I'm irritating. Indeed, I am irritating, but I've not tried at all to get a partner of any sort in the first place. Thus the reason I'm single is that I choose to be. And I don't care that you think I'm weird :)
Does anybody care? Don't buy a Starbucks and donate your coffee money to a charity if that's how you feel.
You honestly don't care about the human beings working all hours and being paid so little they can literally barely afford to eat - who provide what WE consume?
Why? Are you unaware that they're every bit as human as you?
"Sent from grace's iPhone"
What? I've never owned an iPhone. Trying to point out someone's hypocrisy blatantly fails when what you're basing your comment on is your own factless assumption.
The cost of the computer or smart phone you types this reply on could feed a family for a year. I'm actually sympathetic to the point I think you're trying to make, but it doesn't make sense as a barrier to entry. Otherwise, we are all guilty and none of us should try do anything helpful.
I'm on a laptop, from an outlet so that it was cheap, that was my birthday gift from my parents. Without it, I'd be unable to look for work (which I need in order to get money to donate) or research global issues.
My phone is a very old model, from a second hand seller, and vital for the childcare work I do. I've discovered a trick with my phone service provider that enables me to donate all of the money spent on texts/call minutes to charity.
Boohoo and Missguided have been listed among the worst offenders when it comes to failing to take action to promote environmental sustainability and protect its workers
Why buy from them anyway? Oxfam shops - and their website and ebay listings - have higher quality and vintage items. And isn't it awesome to know that, as well as buying an item of clothing, you're also making a significant difference to the life of one of the world's very poorest people?
How can it be right for 300,000 tonnes of used clothing to keep going to landfill (UK) every year? How can it be OK for clothes companies to still maintain supply chains where garment factory workers work 12 hour days (in dangerous factories) for annual salaries of $900?
https://qz.com/.../top-fashion-ceos-earn-a-garment.../
You seem to be tragically unaware of the issue of modern day slavery - indeed some Islamic groups have done abhorrent things, but unfortunately, the problem is far, far more extensive. And I refer - with regard to slavery and poverty - not only to that which exists within the UK. Our nation is wealthy in large part because of greed that has made other nations poor, and many items that use daily have been in part produced through gross exploitation of human beings elsewhere in the world who are every bit as human as we are. https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/.../united-kingdom/
Our nation is not "wealthy in a large part because of greed that has made others poor". It is wealthy due to education, law and order which we exported around the world. Poverty is mostly caused by ignorance and where there is no law and order. Ie see where there is socialism.
Are you honestly unaware of the colossal quantities of natural resources and slave labour that Britain took from other countries? And today, https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
Indeed, impoverished countries have a lack of "law and order" and education - because colonisation left countries without the democratic/legal systems and educational institutions that we have. The people are every bit as human and deserving as us, but are born into circumstances where they lack the protection and educational opportunities that we all have here, What would you do if you were a young person in Africa who couldn't go to school because your parents couldn't afford it, or needed you to help with crops so that the family had enough food to survive? What would you do f you were a young adult with no job opportunities other than to work in a sweatshop or plantation?
When did I mention a "sky daddy"?
Your head must be up the same ass you pulled those figures from.
"Those figures"? Is that what you were referring to? The data is from the Guttmacher Institute - the research division of Planned Parenthood. You're all accusing me of being ignorant of abusive relationships - but the point of my comment was, as the data shows, that they're almost never the reason for an abortion, thus the original post title and caption by Vice) are misleading.
I'm aware that it's extremely difficult for a woman to escape/be freed from, an abusive relationship, I was merely stating that I believe that more should be done to help these women, rather than more be done to facilitate abortion (which is what Vice is arguing for here).
What Vice is attempting to do is to justify abortion on the basis of exceptionally rare cases, which is faulty logic. Trump uses the same strategy when he uses cases of crimes by migrants to justify keeping out all migrants - (please note that I'm comparing Vice - not women - to Trump) - the vast majority of migrants are not criminals, so policy should be based on helping innocent refugees; the vast majority of abortions are not because they would avert partner abuse, so discussion regarding abortion should be based on those more common reasons.
What's ironic that when the far right christian taliban goes on about abortion, once that teen mom gives birth, they call her a whore and deny her benefits. Republicans don't seem to care about living children or they wouldn't put them in cages.
You're presuming that because I'm not pro-abortion I must be far right and would call teen mums (or anyone, for that matter) whores and endorse putting children in cages? Why? Did you even read my earlier comments?
I'm in the UK, and always vote left. My biggest political concern is poverty - most of all in developing countries, I spend a lot of my time on Facebook arguing in favour of supporting migrants and increasing foreign aid.
Anyone can call themselves a Christian, and I know that where you are, many people do because they like the label - but if you think that actual Christianity is at all comparable to the taliban, you've very much misunderstood
there is NO such thing as a "PRO-ABORTION" movement FFS. it's called PRO-CHOICE. you do not get to decide what another wants to do with her body. that's it. don't want an abortion, don't get one!
I know I don't get to decide, I'm just commenting. We all do that online.
But on the subject of doing things with other peoples' bodies, why is it that you think it's OK for a person to destroy the body (and life) of a tiny human?
Nearest country they would be safe - which is? And why should other countries take all of them? We take in a tiny, tiny fraction of the numbers that France and Germany do. And in France, they aren't even allowed to work.
Do you speak any other languages? What would you do in a country where you didn't speak the language at all? If people are fleeing extreme poverty or war, they'll be desperate to go somewhere where they feel that they have some chance of integrating and getting work. Because English is a second language in the most countries, and filters into media and the internet that's viewed around the world, people coming from impoverished and war torn countries are more likely to know some English (than another Western language). They come here clinging to the hope that they'll be able to support themselves and their children.
See - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44660699 and https://www.theguardian.com/.../we-want-to-work-refugees...
Girl or boy, female or male, is simply what a person is (unless intersex) synonymous with their having XX or XY chromosomes. That's simply what those words mean. Whether a person is male or female, they still have their own unique personality; immeasurable - equal - worth as a human being; and shouldn't feel bound by gender stereotypes.
you know that chromosomes and biology are a lot more complex then a binary right? 
*This is, obviously, not to deny that those with gender dysphoria, who are trans or who are intersex should not be protected from the beyond-words-abhorrent abuse that they're targetted with*
Kids will be able to make up their own minds. Our culture presumes that the Bible is pure fiction without bothering to investigate - kids should be informed of the philosophical and historical support for it that most adults are unaware of, as well as opposing arguments, so that they can decide for themselves. Either way, the Bible has messages that can be seriously positive. https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection
which ones? The ones that support retribution, slavery, sexism, rape and incest?
The Bible is not merely an instruction manual; much of it recounts what flaedhuman beings did. So it informs the reader about incidents of the things you mention, and, often their consequences. It's not instructing them.
Why are we not more concerned about those paid just several £ per day - for 12 hours, in dangerous conditions - for the multinational corporations who sell us food, clothes and electronics?
Instead, female politicians and screen personalities get the attention for not earning as much as their male counterparts. Whilst that inequality is obviously wrong, I'm heartbroken that finite media attention is expended on women who are the most privileged on the planet whilst other human beings work incomparably more depressing jobs and struggle to afford their diet of rice whils living in extreme squalour.
you know you can be concerned about more than one thing at once? Instead, female politicians and screen personalities get the attention for not earning as much as their male counterparts. Whilst that inequality is obviously wrong, I'm heartbroken that finite media attention is expended on women who are the most privileged on the planet whilst other human beings work incomparably more depressing jobs and struggle to afford their diet of rice whils living in extreme squalour.
But public attention is finite. If, in place of articles about actresses, TV presenters, business women etc, there were more about the human beings actually suffering because of lowpay, there might actually be significant transformations to harsh lives.
Bernie Sanders to significantly raise taxes on the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans.
Aw, those poor little billionaires.
Seriously though, we mustn't let the insane wealth of the top 1% lead s to forget that most of us are still in the top 10% (of humanity in terms of wealth) - let's keep reminding ourselves how luxurious it is (compared to most of humanity or those who lived earlier in history) to have comfortable, furnished homes; clean water and electricity; an endless selection of food and entertainment; and so much more. We're surrounded by a culture that encourages us to feel frustrated that we don't have the things that we see celebrities have, but we enjoy life far more when we remember to be glad about what we have.
And we can make a truly amazing difference to those who are in poverty beyond anything we can imagine; for example, each $6 (a trip to Starbucks?) can feed a starving child for a month with Feed The Hungry USA
I don't doubt that there is hatred on the right that needs addressing - but simply believing that God knows better than we do about sex does not mean that Mike Pence hates people and is trying to cause suffering. I'm in the UK, so I don't know enough about this - but has he specifically said or done hateful things?
two words: conversion therapyOK, that's helpful, thank you - but can you clarify what Pence has done regarding conversion therapy and what you mean by conversion therapy? Ie there's a world of difference between people being forced into something and choosing to ask for something; and between the evil electric shock treatments of the past and counselling.
when you're sitting with a computer in front of you and ask other people to do your homework for you it doesn't really look like you want answers. Google is your friend.
Obviously I've looked at various sources, but I'm curious as to the options of those who agree with Ellen Page since despite having researched Pence, I can't see the logic of her statement. Honestly, I think that there's a huge chasm between what Christianity actually is and how secular society perceives it - in part because of the many who call themselves Christians because they like the label, whilst not actually being in love with (and thus longing to emulate) Christ. As I said, we need clarity about what's meant by "conversion therapy". It's a catch all phrase used to decribe entirely differing things. Talking therapy (for people wanting to reduce sexual thoughts) is not evil, but gets labelled "conversion therapy" along with historical practices that obviously were evil. As the Snopes link points out, it was wrongly reported that Pence supportd electric shock treatments. Elizabeth Walton is there evidence that the aversion conditioning that you describe is whay Pence supports?
Why do you think that the Bible was editted again and again, Stephen King? Textual studies of the ancient manuscripts evidence the crucial fact that scripture, deemed as Holy, was copied meticulously, Many pious Rabbis learnt Moses' words (from God) by heart with immense pride - it couldn't be that edits werre made since others would object.
However, Jesus taught that the laws regarding material things - food, appearance - no longer applied. It's perfectly reasonable that God would have given the Hebrews in Moses' time specific guidelines for that time and place,for their own safety and for the purpose of avoiding the paganism surrounding them at the time -thus some of the Levitical laws relate to avoiding food that would have been dangerous with the limited cooking techniques of the time, or to avoiding pagan worship customs of surrounding tribes.
Ultimately, Jesus, when brought a woman caught having sex that she shouldn't have been, saved her from being attacked, and told her to "go and sin no more". So Christianity is, without question entirely opposed to the abuse that Ellen Page refers to. He demonstrated that there's a distinction between people and their actions, ie to believe that an action is against God's plan doesn't mean hating the person. And I can't see how Pence disapproving of gay marriage would lead to people physically attacking gay people - I think that the sad reality is that some people just get a kick out of violence.
At the same time, all of us Christians need to do better at showing the love that Jesus commands.
Does anyone know what % of the cost of Starbucks drinks go to the third world labourers who provide the coffee beans (and cocoa and sugar)? The cost of a Starbucks drink could feed a child in a famine for weeks, so I can't help but think of it as a symbol of unjust capitalism.
I see why you're single.No, that would imply that I've tried to get a partner and failed because I'm irritating. Indeed, I am irritating, but I've not tried at all to get a partner of any sort in the first place. Thus the reason I'm single is that I choose to be. And I don't care that you think I'm weird :)
Does anybody care? Don't buy a Starbucks and donate your coffee money to a charity if that's how you feel.
You honestly don't care about the human beings working all hours and being paid so little they can literally barely afford to eat - who provide what WE consume?
Why? Are you unaware that they're every bit as human as you?
"Sent from grace's iPhone"
What? I've never owned an iPhone. Trying to point out someone's hypocrisy blatantly fails when what you're basing your comment on is your own factless assumption.
The cost of the computer or smart phone you types this reply on could feed a family for a year. I'm actually sympathetic to the point I think you're trying to make, but it doesn't make sense as a barrier to entry. Otherwise, we are all guilty and none of us should try do anything helpful.
I'm on a laptop, from an outlet so that it was cheap, that was my birthday gift from my parents. Without it, I'd be unable to look for work (which I need in order to get money to donate) or research global issues.
My phone is a very old model, from a second hand seller, and vital for the childcare work I do. I've discovered a trick with my phone service provider that enables me to donate all of the money spent on texts/call minutes to charity.
Boohoo and Missguided have been listed among the worst offenders when it comes to failing to take action to promote environmental sustainability and protect its workers
Why buy from them anyway? Oxfam shops - and their website and ebay listings - have higher quality and vintage items. And isn't it awesome to know that, as well as buying an item of clothing, you're also making a significant difference to the life of one of the world's very poorest people?
How can it be right for 300,000 tonnes of used clothing to keep going to landfill (UK) every year? How can it be OK for clothes companies to still maintain supply chains where garment factory workers work 12 hour days (in dangerous factories) for annual salaries of $900?
https://qz.com/.../top-fashion-ceos-earn-a-garment.../
But should we not end the system of giving EU citizens priority over those from elsewhere? We should be prioritising those who most need to come - ie refugees before EU citizens who already have safe places to live.
Ultimately, if Labour is too pro-immigration, they'll never win back enough of the voters who are concerned about immigration to take power and be able to enact their principles.
Ultimately, if Labour is too pro-immigration, they'll never win back enough of the voters who are concerned about immigration to take power and be able to enact their principles.
I'm wondering what got them into ministry in the first place that's changed(?). I think that some do because they have a faith upbringing and or experience - but it seems surprising that people enter a profession based only their hearts and not their heads. I only became a Christian when I was convinced that science indicates a creator and then that the accounts of Jesus' resurrection add up. Have these^ ministers abandoned the supporting arguments for God's existence amidst emotional weariness?
Trump has some seriously concerning attitudes - obviously - why traumatise people by talking about his genitals when there are serious issues that need discussion?
She won't make his supporters less likely to vote for him - if anything she makes some voters more opposed to the left because she's adding to their perception of Trump's opponents being sexually immoral.
Clearly, she's just trying to keep her spell in the spotlight going - it's a shame that she doesn't instead use it more constructively.
She won't make his supporters less likely to vote for him - if anything she makes some voters more opposed to the left because she's adding to their perception of Trump's opponents being sexually immoral.
Clearly, she's just trying to keep her spell in the spotlight going - it's a shame that she doesn't instead use it more constructively.
It’s no wonder young people are falling out of love with Corbyn
That Corbyn, a lifelong eurosceptic, plumped for Remain at the EU referendum, and is now at the forefront of pushing for a softer Brexit, dashes any claim he might once have had to be a ‘man of principle'
No, it doesn't, because one can have long had concerns about an institution but see that at the present time, it of net benefit to the population (not that I necessarily think that is myself, I still don't know). Ie, the situation may have changed, and/or his understanding of it may have changed, he is not necessarily without principle.
Crucially, a politician may have principles greater than whether or not we're in the EU. it amazes me that politics and the press spend nearly all of their time obsessing over Brexit whilst ignoring actual suffering that they could address. Imagine if all the energy put into arguing about Brexit could be put tackling poverty and modern day slavery....
Modern
day slavery? Like in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oxford, Newcastle
and the scores of other towns where Labour turned a blind eye to English
girls being used as child sex slaves?Crucially, a politician may have principles greater than whether or not we're in the EU. it amazes me that politics and the press spend nearly all of their time obsessing over Brexit whilst ignoring actual suffering that they could address. Imagine if all the energy put into arguing about Brexit could be put tackling poverty and modern day slavery....
You seem to be tragically unaware of the issue of modern day slavery - indeed some Islamic groups have done abhorrent things, but unfortunately, the problem is far, far more extensive. And I refer - with regard to slavery and poverty - not only to that which exists within the UK. Our nation is wealthy in large part because of greed that has made other nations poor, and many items that use daily have been in part produced through gross exploitation of human beings elsewhere in the world who are every bit as human as we are. https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/.../united-kingdom/
Our nation is not "wealthy in a large part because of greed that has made others poor". It is wealthy due to education, law and order which we exported around the world. Poverty is mostly caused by ignorance and where there is no law and order. Ie see where there is socialism.
Are you honestly unaware of the colossal quantities of natural resources and slave labour that Britain took from other countries? And today, https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
Indeed, impoverished countries have a lack of "law and order" and education - because colonisation left countries without the democratic/legal systems and educational institutions that we have. The people are every bit as human and deserving as us, but are born into circumstances where they lack the protection and educational opportunities that we all have here, What would you do if you were a young person in Africa who couldn't go to school because your parents couldn't afford it, or needed you to help with crops so that the family had enough food to survive? What would you do f you were a young adult with no job opportunities other than to work in a sweatshop or plantation?
Travel: Hotel stay for the culturally curious churchtimes.co.uk
I find myself ever more baffled as to how this is "Church" Times.
God calls us to seek justice and help the poor - not use wealth that we have on account of being in a nation that's become rich through injustice to indulge ourselves with holidays that cost more per day than much of humanity earns in a year.
We can sponsor a child for £300 annually, giving them Christian mentoring, lessons, healthchecks, food etc - and a future. Or buy 60 Bibles for those without access to them. Why is "Church" Times encouraging us to spend several times that amount on a brief experience (which will also add a substantial amount of CO2 to the atmosphere through travel fuel)?
God calls us to seek justice and help the poor - not use wealth that we have on account of being in a nation that's become rich through injustice to indulge ourselves with holidays that cost more per day than much of humanity earns in a year.
We can sponsor a child for £300 annually, giving them Christian mentoring, lessons, healthchecks, food etc - and a future. Or buy 60 Bibles for those without access to them. Why is "Church" Times encouraging us to spend several times that amount on a brief experience (which will also add a substantial amount of CO2 to the atmosphere through travel fuel)?
Nice, but the Old Testament mentions influential women also, so why is Mary the first?
Why We Need to Challenge the Culture of Monogamy
The
brain releases a tonne of oxytocin during sex, making many people feel
subconsciously attached to their partner. Our culture of having sex
early in a relationship means that people end up hurt.
Statistically, children who don't grow up with fathers are far more likely to have difficult lives (to drop out of school, to end up in jail etc) - though obviously, single parents are heroes.
We're not designed to have scores of sexual partners - media like Vice have contributed to changing societal norms in a way that seriously hurts people.
Also, research repeatedly finds that married people are happier (this will be even more significant as more people live longer, and in old age want companionship more than new sex partners) - VICE even wrote about it https://tonic.vice.com/.../marriage-makes-people-happier...
It
minimises heartbreak, STIs, housing struggles, and emotional suffering
for kids. But you don't care about those things, obviously, because
hookups and polyamory will get you more clicks. You're putting profit
before human wellbeing.
The
brain releases a tonne of oxytocin during sex, making many people feel
subconsciously attached to their partner. Our culture of having sex
early in a relationship means that people end up hurt.Statistically, children who don't grow up with fathers are far more likely to have difficult lives (to drop out of school, to end up in jail etc) - though obviously, single parents are heroes.
We're not designed to have scores of sexual partners - media like Vice have contributed to changing societal norms in a way that seriously hurts people.
Also, research repeatedly finds that married people are happier (this will be even more significant as more people live longer, and in old age want companionship more than new sex partners) - VICE even wrote about it https://tonic.vice.com/.../marriage-makes-people-happier...
[Comment Deleted]
Do
you really think that one person's opinion piece suggesting that part
of the correlation between marriage and happiness may be because happier
people are more likely to marry voids the many studies showing that
marriage aids happiness? And if happier
singles are more likely to marry - which would still not disprove that
marriage aids happiness - it will be, at least in part because those
happier unmarried people are in relationships that are committed and on
track towards marriage.
Sorry
Grace but I don't trust someone's opinion on polyamory whose
introduction on their page is "I can be forgiven because of Jesus's
horrible death; so can you"
That's
a logical fallacy - you haven't addressed the reasons that I stated as
to why monogamy is positive, my opnions on another topic don't determine
whether or not those points are meaningful arguments.
But I'm not expecting you to "trust my opinion", I just felt the yrge to comment on Vice's post. We all do that.
More importantly, have you looked at the rationale that scholars who are Christians have for believing what I stated about Jesus? Many people simply believe because of their background, but there is an endless array of written work and lectures exploring the events that actually demonstrate the concept in which we believe. Have you investigated the historical and philosophical arguments yourself, or simply presumed it all mere myth without exploring?
But I'm not expecting you to "trust my opinion", I just felt the yrge to comment on Vice's post. We all do that.
More importantly, have you looked at the rationale that scholars who are Christians have for believing what I stated about Jesus? Many people simply believe because of their background, but there is an endless array of written work and lectures exploring the events that actually demonstrate the concept in which we believe. Have you investigated the historical and philosophical arguments yourself, or simply presumed it all mere myth without exploring?
I
was like who is this idiot seeking attention... then I just realized
everyone was berating you for your idiotic views on abortion. You must
be hard up for attention and have no brains to follow a cult. Get a
life. we
have explored your religion and many others. You have only looked at
the side they are feeding you to indoctrinate the weak minded.
You say you've explored my religion - how exactly? Have you
read/listened to writings/lectures from Christian academics regarding
the scientific/philosophical/historical basis for what we believe? It's a
ridiculously misunderstood word, how do you even define "religion"?
How do you (think you) know that I "have only looked at the side they are feeding you to indoctrinate the weak minded"? My points haven't even mentioned Christianity, why does your hatred of Christianity disprove that monogamy minimises heartbreak, STIs, housing struggles, and emotional suffering for kids?
How do you (think you) know that I "have only looked at the side they are feeding you to indoctrinate the weak minded"? My points haven't even mentioned Christianity, why does your hatred of Christianity disprove that monogamy minimises heartbreak, STIs, housing struggles, and emotional suffering for kids?
If
it hadn't become normal to constantly throw away and replace things*
simply to have a new model, perhaps the planet wouldn't be in so much
trouble.
*Things like iPhones
*Things like iPhones
Reasons for abortions vary endlessly - very, very few happen because of partner abuse.
If that situation does arise, the solution is to leave the partner, who, aside from the issue of abortion, clearly should be avoided on account of being dangerous. Fortunately, there's more help for women in abusive relationships today than there was in 1917, though obviously much more is needed. What this^ ignores is the reality that today, there are many forced into abortions by abusive partners or pimps, and the pro-abortion movement, campaigning for no-questions-asked abortion - including for teenagers without parental knowledge - and campaigning against pro-life groups, are aiding exploitation.
If that situation does arise, the solution is to leave the partner, who, aside from the issue of abortion, clearly should be avoided on account of being dangerous. Fortunately, there's more help for women in abusive relationships today than there was in 1917, though obviously much more is needed. What this^ ignores is the reality that today, there are many forced into abortions by abusive partners or pimps, and the pro-abortion movement, campaigning for no-questions-asked abortion - including for teenagers without parental knowledge - and campaigning against pro-life groups, are aiding exploitation.
lol "leave the partner" that ignorance is so blissful huh
Gosh,
I'm not suggesting that a woman in abusive relationship can easily
leave her partner - but it's ridiculous that a clinic will kill the tiny
human and send the woman back to the abuser rather than help her to
leave him. I know I don't get to decide, I'm just commenting. We all do that online.
But on the subject of doing things with other peoples' bodies, why is it that you think it's OK for a person to destroy the body (and life) of a tiny human? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/.../abortion/abreasons.html
Religious. What a surprise. Keep your insane sky-daddy nonsense out of reality. But on the subject of doing things with other peoples' bodies, why is it that you think it's OK for a person to destroy the body (and life) of a tiny human? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/.../abortion/abreasons.html
When did I mention a "sky daddy"?
Your head must be up the same ass you pulled those figures from.
"Those figures"? Is that what you were referring to? The data is from the Guttmacher Institute - the research division of Planned Parenthood. You're all accusing me of being ignorant of abusive relationships - but the point of my comment was, as the data shows, that they're almost never the reason for an abortion, thus the original post title and caption by Vice) are misleading.
I'm aware that it's extremely difficult for a woman to escape/be freed from, an abusive relationship, I was merely stating that I believe that more should be done to help these women, rather than more be done to facilitate abortion (which is what Vice is arguing for here).
What Vice is attempting to do is to justify abortion on the basis of exceptionally rare cases, which is faulty logic. Trump uses the same strategy when he uses cases of crimes by migrants to justify keeping out all migrants - (please note that I'm comparing Vice - not women - to Trump) - the vast majority of migrants are not criminals, so policy should be based on helping innocent refugees; the vast majority of abortions are not because they would avert partner abuse, so discussion regarding abortion should be based on those more common reasons.
What's ironic that when the far right christian taliban goes on about abortion, once that teen mom gives birth, they call her a whore and deny her benefits. Republicans don't seem to care about living children or they wouldn't put them in cages.
You're presuming that because I'm not pro-abortion I must be far right and would call teen mums (or anyone, for that matter) whores and endorse putting children in cages? Why? Did you even read my earlier comments?
I'm in the UK, and always vote left. My biggest political concern is poverty - most of all in developing countries, I spend a lot of my time on Facebook arguing in favour of supporting migrants and increasing foreign aid.
Anyone can call themselves a Christian, and I know that where you are, many people do because they like the label - but if you think that actual Christianity is at all comparable to the taliban, you've very much misunderstood
there is NO such thing as a "PRO-ABORTION" movement FFS. it's called PRO-CHOICE. you do not get to decide what another wants to do with her body. that's it. don't want an abortion, don't get one!
I know I don't get to decide, I'm just commenting. We all do that online.
But on the subject of doing things with other peoples' bodies, why is it that you think it's OK for a person to destroy the body (and life) of a tiny human?
So
far as I could see, it accomplished the strengthening of community
relationships as people helped one another and demonstrated that
compassion trumps politics.
NB, I'm not saying that that justified the hurt caused to workers, I'm seriously upset that they were so mistreated.
NB, I'm not saying that that justified the hurt caused to workers, I'm seriously upset that they were so mistreated.
Because
their countries have been ruined y the colonisation and exploitation
carried out by our ancestors and multinational corps.
get
a grip, as a person above said, they were a refugee and rather than
bypass countries, they would go to the nearest country where they would
be safe, trouble is uk is way too soft, soldiers and kids sleeping on
the streets! Yet take in people who could have found safety elsewhere
nearer in their journeyNearest country they would be safe - which is? And why should other countries take all of them? We take in a tiny, tiny fraction of the numbers that France and Germany do. And in France, they aren't even allowed to work.
Do you speak any other languages? What would you do in a country where you didn't speak the language at all? If people are fleeing extreme poverty or war, they'll be desperate to go somewhere where they feel that they have some chance of integrating and getting work. Because English is a second language in the most countries, and filters into media and the internet that's viewed around the world, people coming from impoverished and war torn countries are more likely to know some English (than another Western language). They come here clinging to the hope that they'll be able to support themselves and their children.
See - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44660699 and https://www.theguardian.com/.../we-want-to-work-refugees...
I hate how people are described as being "worth $X". Human beings are each of equal value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)