Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘A History of Christianity’ — Episode 1

10 years ago, the BBC aired A History of Christianity, and recently recycled it. More specifically, it’s Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘A History of Christianity’; and the crucial question is to what extent the programmes are an accurate summary of Christianity, or are primarily MacCulloch’s personal opinion. Broadly speaking, he addresses and narrates to us with a lack of nuance; his interpretation is presented as fact, whilst little time is afforded to Christians to describe their own beliefs and experiences. But what proportion of viewers will be cognisant of the convolution and intricacy of history, and that differing historical artefacts, and differing interpretations of them, render history an inexact science in which scholars regularly have varying views of what took place?

It would be preferable for the series to highlight some of the most consequential differences of opinion among respected historians, and the evidence supporting statements made, rather than MacCulloch presumptuously expecting viewers to fully trust his interpretation.
“We’ve all heard something of the Christian story. Jesus, the wandering Jewish teacher crucified by the Romans. Paul, who had hunted down Christians until, on the road to Damascus, he experienced a blinding vision of Jesus Christ, resurrected from the dead. Paul’s new-found zeal focused on people beyond the Jews, Gentiles. It took him far from Jerusalem to Rome, and it reshaped not just the faith of Christ but in the end, all Western civilisation.” Does he truly think that “we’ve all heard” those points? I suspect, given how unfamiliar most of Britain is with the Bible, that only a minority know of Saul’s Damascene conversion. Yet no explanation is offered — leaving the audience without a significant piece of the rationale for trusting Christianity. That a zealous antagonist of Christianity, passionately committed to destroying it, would become its most influential exponent is too remarkable simply to mention in passing. It demands an explanation. The New Testament tells us that Saul was overwhelmed by a supernatural experience of Jesus. We can infer that MacCulloch rejects that this truly took place, but it is negligent that he does not mention it as a component of Christians’ rationale for belief.
“Somehow, the followers of Jesus became convinced that he rose from here to new life,” MacCulloch declares — failing to offer any further explanation whatsoever in the entirety of his programme. This is, undoubtedly, the biggest problem of the whole series. My personal experience is of having gone from disbelieving to believing in the resurrection through consuming the work of Christian historians, who expound the case for concluding that the resurrection was an historical event. Offering viewers no insight whatsoever into the basis for Christians’ conclusions regarding the resurrection prevents the audience from comprehending the mindset behind the movement he spends six hours documenting. It also demonstrates that he’s not grasped what Christianity is — it is not merely a cultural institution.
Amidst a montage of evocative images, MacCulloch opines that “The belief that Jesus can overcome death is the most difficult and troubling affirmation of the Christian faith. Over twenty centuries it’s made Christians act in heroic, joyful, beautiful, terrible ways.” How, exactly, has he concluded that Jesus overcoming death is “difficult and troubling” — let alone “the most difficult and troubling”?
Why are not the existence of hell; the doctrine that we are each flawed and sinful; or Jesus’ warning that we will face persecution, more troubling? Is it legitimate to attribute to belief in Christ overcoming death the “terrible ways” in which some throughout history have behaved?
Next, he asserts: “You see, at heart, Christianity is a personality cult,” which comes across as sheer opinionated denigration. The Gospels tell us of Christ’s teaching, miracles and mercy, and it is because of the implications that these have for us that we follow Him; not because we croon over His charisma. MacCulloch is presenting his interpretation as fact, whilst withholding from viewers crucial arguments to weigh up so that they might make their own evaluation.
After a brief wander through diverse chapels surrounding the Holy Sepulchre — such as the Coptic, Ethiopian Orthodox and Syriac — he states, “The main character here is not Jesus or the Gospels. It is, in fact, the Church, the institution of Christian faith that has fought its way through history.” But he has not called his series “The History of the Church.” How can he justify trivialising Christ in “The History of Christianity”? This reinforces a fatal misunderstanding that’s ubiquitous in our culture — “Christianity,” perceived as a single amalgam. But in truth, Christ is of paramount importance: He surpasses, and is not defined by, the Church.
Explaining that a Roman siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 prompted the first Christians to flee, MacCulloch asks, “Where would Gentile Christians look now?”, and again presuming his audience to be acquainted with the New Testament, he remarks, “You might think obviously west to Rome, because that’s where Paul had gone. But at the time it would not have seemed obvious at all.” But is this not a false dichotomy? At this point in history, churches had already been established in the cities to which Paul wrote his epistles. Why would devastation in Jerusalem terminate them? And why does MacCulloch ignore them?
“What if you take the other road out of Jerusalem, east? — southeast Turkey. In the first century it was called Edessa… special because its ruler, King Abgar set an important precedent here… by adopting Christianity as the kingdom’s official state religion… For the last 17 centuries, Christianity has been repeatedly linked with the state. So, in the United Kingdom, the monarch is still supreme governor of the Church of England… It all started in the ancient Eastern Christian kingdom of Edessa. And Edessa pioneered… Church music.” Here MacCulloch appears to perpetrate historical fallacy. In his eagerness to ascribe aspects of our culture to the East, he’s making an assertion in which I can’t see the logic. How would the tradition of monarchy being linked to the Church have arrived in Britain given that Christianity was not brought here from the East? Have not many civilisations throughout history joined together rulers and priests? We know full well that a monarch took over the Church in England to take power from the Pope, not because he — I mean, of course, Henry VIII — sought to emulate Edessa.
Church music, also, cannot simply be attributed to Edessa on the basis that it existed there at an early point. The Bible recounts singing praise to God, not least by David, whose songs still play out in our churches. Prior to that, Exodus 15 records the Song of Moses and Miriam; and Judges 5 the Song of Deborah and Barak. Mary’s song in Luke 1:46-55 is one of the most recited passages of the Bible; and Paul apparently recycles early Christian songs, or fragments thereof, in Philippians 2:6-11; 1 Timothy 3:16; Ephesians 5:14; Colossians 1:15-20. In his letter to the Emperor Trajan, Pliny the Younger (A.D. 61 – c. 113) describes how the first Christians “were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God”[1]; Church father Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150–215) is also recorded as having written a hymn.[2]
Thus, MacCulloch’s assertion that, “Latin Gregorian chant, Johann Sebastian Bach, even the tambourines and guitars of the Pentecostals: all come from [Edessa],” seems untenable.
He tells us that, “singing would have been the last thing on the minds of Christians in the western half of the Roman Empire,” owing to the severe persecution by Roman Emperors — but there’s a curious failure to acknowledge the significance of the first Christians’ persistence in singing in spite of their (often physical) torment. If Christ’s resurrection was not known to be fact within the society surrounding the event, would a large following have willingly suffered martyrdom as they did? But MacCulloch has no intention of considering points that support the historicity of the resurrection.
“But then something completely unexpected happened in the West. A new Roman Emperor, Constantine, made Christianity his own.” No mention is made of the accounts of Constantine having been converted by a revelatory dream. Yet again, MacCulloch evades arguments which favour of the historical reality of Christianity. Constantine’s move both to make Christianity an officially sanctioned religion, and to promote it financially, “brought power and wealth [to Christianity],” we are told. This is true; but in the absence of discussion of the reasoning that people had to follow Christ, it makes Christianity sound like an essentially selfish entity.
“But in the East, many Christians were unimpressed… Jesus had told people to abandon wealth, not to ally with the rich and powerful. Remember his joke about a rich man wanting to enter the kingdom of heaven was like a camel trying to get through the eye of a needle?” I’m grateful that, at last, mention is made of Jesus’ words here — the series is seriously sparse on scripture — though I wonder if MacCulloch might be overestimating the extent of the public’s Bible literacy. I suspect that, contrary to the assumption presented by the rhetorical question, some viewers won’t be familiar with the camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. It’s right to chastise prioritising of power over adherence to Christ’s teaching, but MacCulloch’s distinction between East and West is grossly oversimplified. Given that those outside of the Church tend to have generalising presuppositions about Christianity anyway, I wonder if MacCulloch’s narration here might give some the impression that all Western Christians were suddenly primarily interested in power. In reality, each Church will have members with differing ideas. Furthermore, in presenting Christianity merely as being East and West, MacCulloch is at this point overlooking the spread of Christianity into Africa — a place where, in the early centuries of Christianity, it was in some ways at its most vigorous and lively.
He goes on to summarise divisions of belief, as concepts beyond the human mind were debated in the young Christendom. MacCulloch admirably endeavours to explain complex questions — but it’s regrettable that again, the audience is deprived of Biblical exposition. He explains the Arian controversy, followed by the Nicene Creed: “It states that God is equally the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three in one. The Trinity. The Emperor must have breathed a sigh of relief.” Whilst this is true, to present the Trinity primarily as a scheme for imperial unity by the Emperor is unfairly cynical.
MacCulloch next presents the contrasting claims of Nestorius and of Cyril of Alexandria, creatively employing the visual aids of a glass of water and oil — which don’t mix — and a glass of water and wine, which do. Skipping over naming the councils of Constantinople and of Ephesus, he explains that,
“The Council of Chalcedon met… recognised [Christ] in two natures, without confusion, without change… without division, without separation. And that compromise is how the Churches which descend from the Emperor’s Christianity, the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox have understood the mystery of Jesus ever since. But frankly it… left plenty of people unhappy.”
Elucidating that this was the catalyst for schism between East and West, he says, “It was a watershed. Imperial and non-imperial Christianity would never be reconciled.” He’s not wrong, but again this seems somewhat to be an oversimplification with overemphasis on imperialism. In a programme ostenisibly about Christianity, rather than about the Roman Empire, might it not have been more relevant to have briefly mentioned Augustine at this point?
He proceeds to describe “a new Eastern church… the Syriac Orthodox Church… The seminary offers a glimpse of what imperial Western Christianity might have looked like,” and meets Father Fady, who claims that, “the liturgy in the East [is] much richer in symbolism. The way people communicate is not only through words but through gestures,… [through] his body, voice, or tune.” But might the differences in style between Western and Eastern Churches today might not be more attributed to their differing cultural milieux than to Chalcedon? Why endorse the suggestion that the Eastern Church has a monopoly on symbolism, gestures, voice and tune? All of these feature in some Western Churches. In stating that all Western theologians are philosophers, and all Eastern philosophers are poets or icon drawers, Father Fady presses a false dichotomy that goes unchallenged.
Father Fady also argues that, “if you want to read the spirituality of the church, you really need Syriac” — that is to say, a language that is a defining feature of his Church and is related to Christ’s native tongue of Aramaic. Yet surely, whilst understanding of Syriac would certainly be an asset, it can hardly be essential given that the New Testament was not written in Syriac, nor Aramaic? Only if it could be proven that New Testament manuscripts were preceded in date and superseded in reliability by Syriac manuscripts would this claim to superiority be justified. In Acts, disciples are enabled to communicate God’s message through new languages — so might not the Holy Spirit have guided the New Testament’s authors to write God’s word, irrespective of whether that were in the same language which Christ spoke?
MacCulloch proceeds to recount the threat of “a rival new militant faith, Islam… [which] brought huge damage to imperial Christianity. As it travelled west, it wiped out much of the southern provinces of the old Roman Empire [i.e., North Africa].” However, he then goes on to say that on its Eastern front, Christendom’s experience with Islam was “more of an encounter of civilisations,” in which, “in fact, they did deals with local leaders.” His description endeavours to portray harmony, but the ‘deal’ to which he refers, the Pact of Umar, is eerily oppressive; prohibiting the construction of any new churches, or the rebuilding of those which have been destroyed; prohibition of disclosing one’s Christianity in public, trying to convert a Muslim, or trying to prevent a Muslim attempting to convert others to Islam; banning of Palm Sunday and Easter parades, and of hanging crosses on churches. The pact also obliged deference toward Muslims; specific hair styling and attire; and payment of the jizya tax.[3]
Many historians describe Islam’s barbaric expansion.[4] Crucially, Muhammad’s words inspired conflict; such as in the Sahih al-Bukhari hadith 2.24, “I have been ordered by Allah to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s [Messenger]… then [will] they save their lives and property from me.” And in Surah 9:29 of the Qur’an: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” However, MacCulloch simply mentions this in passing, and pursues in detail only amiable aspects, claiming that the two faiths aided each other. He appears to put political correctness before accurate balance. An Imam with whom he meets suggests that Islam’s custom of praying five times daily derives from Christianity, though no evidence is offered for this (and no Bible verses command it).
He gushes praise over his perceived synergy of Islam and Christianity in Syria and Central Asia — but is his characterisation an accurate representation?
He continues, “Christianity is at heart a missionary faith.” I feel frustrated by the absence of any of the Bible verses that underscore this truth. “In the Abbasid Empire, conversion from Islam was forbidden. So the Church of the Middle East decided to spread to the Far East.” In reality, conversion from Islam is banned in many Islamic countries even today, not merely in specific empires. Is MacCulloch again deliberately concealing the severity of “the religion of peace”? Furthermore, there are suggestions that Christianity spread far eastwards prior to the impact of Islam; Arnobius, a Christian apologist who died c. 330 A.D. wrote that, “the deeds can be reckoned up and numbered which have been done in India, among the Seres [a Roman name for China], Persians, and Medes… they have… hastened to give up their fathers’ mode of life, and attach themselves to Christian truth.”[5] Christianity is also known to have spread to India, potentially as early as A.D. 52 via the apostle Thomas, from where several monks took Christianity to China when they traded silk.[6] Thus, though the Church did spread East as MacCulloch asserts, it’s misleading of him to imply that Islam served to help Christianity to grow. He meets with Martin Palmer, who is slated by the review of the programme from the Telegraph, where the writer says that “warning bells sounded, for me, when he wheeled out his first expert — veteran multiculturalist Martin Palmer.” Sadly, he is the first and only expert in this episode — might not the BBC have included at least a second independent historian to offer their interpretation of these first centuries of Christian history? Martin Palmer proudly presents a Buddhist temple, the Daqin Pagoda, which he excitedly describes having discovered to be a past Christian church. His conclusion was based on the direction in which the temple was facing, and the words of an elderly Buddhist nun (presumably through a translator?), but his theory is disputed.[7]
The two of them attempt to explore the pagoda, but are prevented from entering by locals, with whom MacCulloch narrates that he can sympathise, given Western imposition for centuries. But no mention is made of the fact that today in China, it’s Christians who are brutally persecuted.
As he draws his first episode to a close, MacCulloch reflects that “maybe the Christianity we know needs to regain its ancient ability to listen.” It seems ironic in that, today, the Church is not listened to. He’s quite right that the Church should listen; but to what extent is he aware of Churches attempts to do so? Is he conveying the message to non-Christian viewers that they won’t be listened to if they explore churches? Is he alluding to churches’ continuity in teachings on issues such as sexuality, presuming that Christianity ought to prioritise cultural assimilation over adherence to scripture? The five further episodes may help us better to understand whether MacCulloch’s drift away from Christian heritage is attributable to the Church — and perhaps the public’s drift away also.

---

[1] See https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/sing-and-make-melody-to-god-11629579.html.

[2] http://biblicalworship.com/wqotw/2017/1/11/clement-and-the-earliest-christian-hymn

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar

[4] https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm

[5] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, 2.12. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/06312.htm

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_silkworm_eggs_into_the_Byzantine_Empire

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqin_Pagoda

Donations fall as scandal-hit charities lose public trust

The presence of several perverts in a huge organisation is, unfortunately, a statistical likelihood - it doesn't change the fact that money given to Oxfam Great Britain does more than almost any other money spent on anything to reduce human suffering.
   

Alleged Synagogue Shooter Proclaims Christianity, Evangelical Pastors Struggle to Understand | RELEVANT Magazine

We need to clarify to our secular world that many, many people falsely claim to be Christian - but by definition, Christianity is to follow Christ, and evangelicalism, by definition, is to be desperate to tell others the good news (the evangel). If our world hates Christians ourselves, it doesn't matter, but we need to urge people not to ignore Jesus on the basis of those who aren't living as He commanded.

I believe christians are as capable of committing horrible acts as anyone else.

How are you defining Christian?

In this case? A church-going person who believes in Christ. I don't differentiate between "real" christians and "fake" christians. 

Why don't you? Why is someone to be considerd a Christian simply because they enter a certain building often? How do you know whether they believe in Christ? 

Do you sin? Or have you arrived? 

Of course I do. But you said that Christians are "as capable of committing horrible acts as anyone else". In fact being a Christian means genuinely loving and following Jesus, such that you desire to be like Him, and such that you're changed by the Holy Spirit. So although we are far, far from perfect; and we have no right to see ourselves as superior to others, Christians aren't as capable of committing horrible acts. 

Unless you can see a person's heart you can't say they are a Christian or not a Christian. Christians still sin, and sometimes we sin big time. Being a Christian doesn't make you perfect.

As I've said, as Christians we're still far from perfect - but we're not "as capable of horrible acts" once we've begun to desire to emulate Christ, and once we've asked he Holy spirit to fill us.
"By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.…" Matthew 7:16
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:11 

You are not qualified to say someone is a Christian or not based on your judgement of their behavior. Keep in mind too God doesn't judge sin on a sliding scale - a small lie is no different to him than murder or adultery. It's man who grades it. And Christians have been doing horrific things in the name of God for thousands of years. 

So you honestly think that someone in love with Christ, with the Holy Spirit in them, would shoot up a synagogue? Indeed God doesn't judge on a sliding scale, but that doesn't mean that we ourselves are equally capable of doing one thing as doing any thing.
  

Meghan Markle’s secret hospital dash with Harry before giving birth to Royal Baby - her plans for a home birth were wrecked

There are scores of women with no access to any medical help, nor comfortable, clean surroundings, when they give birth - they'd do anything to give birth in a hospital. There are still many deaths in childbirth. Let's worry about those women, Meghan's fine.
  

How rediscovering my faith is helping me cope with a chaotic world

Contrary to atheist rhetoric, faith is not to believe in something for which there's no evidence, it's to trust something about which there cannot be definitive certainty, which is in fact almost everything.
There are scientific and philosophical arguments to conclude that God does, in fact, exist (and separate historical arguments as to whether the resurrection happened), explained by academics with PhDs in endless lectures and articles so that each of us can make up our own minds; yet it's commonplace for people to refer to theism as a fairytale without even looking at the academic debate.
  

Act of Faith? How religious terror has become world's new reality

"Religious" defined how? Human beings do evil things, and claiming that they're fighting for "god" makes them feel nobler about it.
What humans do doesn't, in fact, determine what a "religion" is, and the main "religions" are very, very different from one another. Each person's interpretation of their "religion", as well as the extent to which they actually live by their own wants rather than by the religion they profess to follow, vary endlessly also.
Ultimately, this^ reflects an ignorant oversimplification of "religion"; and RT's hatred of theism, though atheist communist regimes, such as those in Russia's history, have killed many times more people than wars fought (usually falsely) in the name of "religion" (NB, I'm not blaming Russian people, nor communists, just to be clear).
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27

   

Cyclone Fani: what we know

Thankyou. There's never enough coverage of crises in the developing world - it's as though our society thinks that impoverished humans are less precious than those are born into wealthy nations like ours, and that underlying attitude infuriates me endlessly. Just being reminded of tragedies like ^this should make us more appreciative of our comfortable homes, about which we forget to be glad. It's thrilling how much difference we can make when we donate to the charities helping those in the greatest need, and incomparably better value for money than things we buy for ourselves.

  

Trump asks why ‘radical left wing media’ are allowed on Twitter, Facebook

Censoring needs to be on the basis of potential harm, not on which side of the political spectrum a commentator is on.

FB et al are private corporate entities. As long as they don’t break the law, the can whatever they want.

Perhaps they "can", but that doesn't mean that they should. And what if they allow terrorists jihadists, white supremacists or otherwise - to connect with each other to plot and kill, and to encourage other people to do the same? Do you really think that social media platforms should enable deadly content for the sake of free speech?

no censorship....that's why it's free speech.

Obviously, people should in principle be allowed to say what they want and I'm certainly not OK with some of the censorship that's occurred in recent years, but having the right to free speech doesn't necessarily mean that we have the right to spread that speech worldwide via internet platforms if there's genuine danger because of it. Each case has to be sensibly weighed up when there's a serious likelihood of real world consequences - it's pretty disturbing that you're arguing that free speech is more important than the lives lost in terrorist attacks.
  

Minister Rory Stewart defends UK’s £14.5 BILLION foreign aid target after taking on new role

It's still only 0.7% of our GDP, that's tiny. And it makes many, many times more difference per £ than any other spending; helping people in poverty beyond our imagination (and worse than anyone in the UK); whose poverty is the fault of colonisers and corporations from our country - ie, we're rich because they're poor.

If it went where it's needed. But please explain how spending money on museums in china, premier League football club shares for South African nations or statues in India ( a country with a space program ) helps feed the poor in those countries. We pay for vanity projects and administration costs not aid in many cases. When we have people dying on the streets, dying waiting for benefit payments ( 17,000 in 5 years ) and elderly being evicted from closing care homes. Perhaps that trivial amount of money should be spent on those dying, starving and suffering here before we support vanity projects in other nations.

What evidence do you have of those expenditures? If so, then of course they are very, very wrong - but Aid needs to be improved, not reduced. Huge progress has been made in recent years to prevent spending on unnecessary projects. Unfortunately, all government departments spend on things that they shouldn't (far, far larger amounts than in the Aid department). Most Aid is providing the very most essential things that money can - and more improvements, not stopping Aid.

Why it’s so hard to prove that 13 Reasons Why caused an increase in suicide

Is it not slightly patronising to claim that a person's decision to end their lives would be determined by a Netflix show?
We spend both seasons wishing that she could somehow not be dead; I've not been suicidal but I really feel that it would more likely to make people think again about the frustrating tragedy of suicide than to think that suicide looks like a good idea.
And as others have said, correlation obviously does not equate to causation - there are numerous trends that could have contributed to the tragic increase in suicides - adults trying to pin it on a programme seems to ignorantly disregard teenagers' struggles.
    

‘You’ll end up like Sodom and Gomorrah’: American pastor banned from Europe over hate speech

He's not actually Christian, as is the case for many who claim to be, since he's evidently not actually following Christ.

hi ! Which brings the question, what is exactly following Jesus Christ ?

To endeavour to emulate His example and teachings, because of joy and gratitude that He's offered The Way to heaven.

To follow Christ is to follow the Law of His Father which explicitly demonises homosexuality, dont be a hypocrite

God says that people must not have gay sex - simply being of homosexual orientation is not criticised, and in either case, Jesus would never have condoned the way in which this pastor behaves. When a woman caught in sexual sin was brought to Jesus, He prevented her from being stoned, and told her to go and sin no more, so indeed, He didn't accept sexual sin, but He spoke to her humanely, whereas this pastor is clearly just full of un-Christlike hatred.

Oh please I can 100% guarantee you're not a follower of Jesus either because Christian views on LGBT is exactly what Pastor Steven is conveying, hence, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Christian means to follow Christ. I'm not denying Sodom and Gomorrah, but Jesus showed that we should treat others with compassion, never condoning gay sex but always having concern for the people themselves, especially since we are all also sinners in need of forgiveness and help in fleeing sin. 

No true Scotsman fallacy.. many Christians go astray when they take it upon themselves to judge people in God's place yet that does not exclude them from being in the body of Christ. They are repeating what they feel and believe. If they are wrong then that will be revealed, as will all things.

Indeed Christians continually fail to follow Jesus perfectly - but no one who was genuinely trying to could be as abusive as this pastor (I've seen a documentary on him, not only this article). Jesus said, in Luke 6:43, that "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit." referring to peoples' words, ie, a person's words will reflect what's in their hearts.
   

Sadiq Khan responds to Boris Johnson's criticism

But it's not his fault. It's a hugely complex societal issue, and a mayor could never solve it on their own. If a mayor is responsible, it could just as well be BoJo for holding the position for 2 terms and leaving a mess for Sadiq Khan to deal with. In fact, the lives of most people who get caught up in or targeted by knife crime are almost entirely independent of things that the mayor can control. It's a complicated tragedy, and BoJo trying to score points by blaming Khan simply makes him look out of touch.

 

The Aftermath of the Sri Lanka Attacks Continues for South Asia’s Young Minorities

Vice, it's obviously vital that we have concern about all minorities that are under attack - but these attacks were specifically against Christians, are you really just going to minimise that by not even putting it in the title? Surely if attacks had been against another minority group, you'd have made clear that that group is under attack and demanded our sympathy?
Christians in dozens of countries are continually persecuted (no, I'm not referring to privileged Westerners like myself who are mocked for being Christians, I'm referring to scores of people losing their jobs, having their homes bombed, being imprisoned and attacked) - are you ashamed to admit that because you so resent Christianity?

the Bible isn’t history.
Seriously, how do you define history? I mean that, how do you know anything about what happened thousands of years ago? We rely on texts written at the time, and have to consider them in conjunction with other texts and artefacts, as well as examining factors such as how many copies were produced, to determine their credibility.
  

Kanye West hosted a Coachella Easter service featuring $225 sweatshirts

NB numerous Bible verses oppose this^. God wants us not to feel compelled to try to impress with our choice of clothes, and, specifically, to put helping those in need before adorning ourselves.

 

Pope appeals for evacuation of migrants from Libyan centers

The Bible makes it clear that God wants us to help refugees.He also says something about obeying the laws of your nation, being honest, not committing murder, etc. but that doesn't seem to matter to the "immigrants" entering our country illegally or the Democrats who are protecting them at the cost of the American citizens!
Why on Earth are you judging all immigrants by the tiny, tiny, tiny proportion (a smaller proportion than the American public) who commit crime?
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."..Believe what you want, live your life accordingly, but leave others to do the same. No wonder religion (and people's intolerance of that of others) is the cause of most of the wars and misery on this planet. How ironic.
How are you defining "religion"? They're extremely different, and how each individual behaves is up to them; if a person enacts war, they might well claim that they are fighting for God because to claim that makes them feel noble, it doesn't actually mean anything about God. If people genuinely followed Jesus, they wouldn't fight.
I’m not judging anyone. I’m stating facts.All they have to do is come in legally and they will be welcome. I lock my doors, how about you?
It's a fact that nearly all migrants are innocent, your statement imagines that all are the same as the tiny few who are criminals.
Locking one's door is a false analogy. We lock our doors to protect our personal possessions, and other people wanting to break in might well have bad intentions; people trying to get into the country aren't going to take anything, and they don't have bad intentions, they simply want an opportunity to earn and buy a decent home and get away from drug gangs.
How, exactly, should they go about applying to come legally? Do you know yourself? How are they supposed to find out if they don't have internet access? What exactly would you do?
I think you would lose if you want to go around quoting Bible verses, there is a lot of war, killing of ALL people, plundering and conquering in the Bible.
The Bible is largely a history book, not an instruction manual all the way through. Jesus's words show us how God actually wants us to act.
 

Is organic food a rip-off?

We can feed a starving child for a month for $6 (with Feed The Hungry USA, obvs there are plenty of similar, awesome charities), so why spend extra on organic when you could instead do something far more exciting with the cost difference by buying cheap and donating?

  

David Lammy shuts down radio caller who questioned if Donald Trump is a racist

He is - but simply dismissing him entirely won't help to reduce racism, it only makes his supporters more angry and more likely to act out racism. You can't change a racist's mind or actions by calling them racist, that only makes them more angry and in turn likely to act horribly to others; you need to dialogue to help them see that they're wrong.
Furthermore, Trump appeals to many voters for reasons completely separate from race, and so to lump everything together as racism can ignore nuances and issues (issues apart from race) that need in depth discussion.
Can we prioritise reducing societal conflict over criticising politicians?

do you remember what happened last time racists were appeased? You don’t fix racism by ignoring it or giving it a platform, you fix it by treating it as what it is: a cancer in our society and doing whatever is possible to get rid of it.
What are you referring to by "last time racists were appeased"? I'm not advocating for appeasing them. I'm saying we need to hate racism - simply spouting hatred of Trump only serves to make his supporters less willing to listen.
  

Embarrassing Gaffes Continue to Show Media’s Ignorance of Religion
Indeed - but we need to do all we can to make sure that we keep Jesus at the forefront of our minds, and seek to actually follow His teachings and example. It's all too easy to fall into tribalism, prioritising opposition to parts of our culture - our priority must be Christ.

 

Are Debates Too Polarizing? | Reasonable Faith

We need to continually aim to speak what and how Jesus would - hard as that might seem in a debate. He avoided arguing, and frequently asked His adversaries questions in response to their questions so that they might think more deeply than our adversaries do when we reactively snap back at them.

  

Franklin Graham to Mayor Pete Buttigieg: Being gay is a sin and shouldn't be 'flaunted' 

No, 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.

being gay or having gay sex is not a sin. Get off the “we all sin” soapbox. You sound just as bigoted as Graham.

What do you think sin actually is?

Sin is to do things - including indulging thoughts - that are opposed to God's guidance. I always find it perplexing that people who've rejected God feel angry when others have the opinion that some of their chosen actions are sin - if you don't believe in/care about God, why be angry about Him not approving of your choices?
"BUT God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."Romans 5:8

The Old Testament only. When Jesus came the Old Testament was effectively replaced with the New. Interesting how evangelicals, in particular, rely on the Old Testament to justify their various bigotries. For example, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality!
How do you know that Jesus never spoke about it? Only a tiny fraction of everything He said is recorded, the fact that there's no record of Him mentioning it doesn't mean it's OK, esp. that He'd have had no reason to discuss it with an audience who already believed it to be wrong.
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
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
Crucially, Jesus loves, and died for, everyone, and it's tragic that this debate endlessly detracts from more important things; Jesus reduces temptations, and offers something imcomparably better than sex.
  

The World Is About to Get Its First Vagina Museum in London globalcitizen.org

Seriously, I follow Global Citizen because I'm concerned beyond words about extreme poverty - why on Earth do you presume that we'll all be pleased about this^? A waste of money and space to detract emphasis from womens' personalities and actions, to focus on genitalia instead.
    

50 Percent of Americans Believe Christians Face Discrimination

Indeed - but we should be incomparably more concerned about others being on course to miss out on eternal life.
Though it sucks, discrimination of Christians in the West is nothing compared to the persecution that some Christians elsewhere in the world experience. And the New Testament tells us that it's an honour. But our hearts should be broken for those around us who haven't accepted Christ's offer

  

Thousands set to protest against Donald Trump's state visit to UK

Some of his attitudes are awful - but plaquards in themselves won't help, they'll only make those who are slightly sympathetic of him more angry unwilling to listen to those who are concerned by him.
Large numbers of people gathered together can actually do things that make a practical difference - £thousands could be raised to help refugees, and those living in unimaginable poverty because they were born into the countries that Trump calls s***holes, if those protesting held a fundraising event (music, food, fairground games, bring and buy, skills auction etc).

  

Conservatives Need to Reclaim Feminism or Pick a New Word

I can't understand why people pour their energy into arguing about the gender pay gap and other feminist issues, when there are far, far more serious injustices in the world. I'm not denying that there is mistreatment of women in our society that's inexcusable and should be addressed - but whilst there are still human beings without clean water, food or shelter; or working 12 hours days in sweatshops, plantations and slavery, why do we not spend our time on tackling these issues?

The bible also commands the stoning of adulterers and those who break the sabbath.
Have you not read that Jesus specifically prevented the stoning of a woman for sexual sin? We follow Jesus (who is God in flesh), not all Old Testament commands are necessarily applicable to all humanity throughout history, they require detailed study.
so you pick and choose the bits you adhere to? What is your criteria?
No, not at all. We have to prioritise what Jesus said, and if there appears to be a conflict between His words and the Old Testament, we look at other words of His, and other words from God, to discern how we should respond. We also have to examine the contexts, and for some passages, relavent literary concepts. Some Old Testament laws were specific to the time and setting in which they were given, just as parents or teachers have certain rules for children in particular scenarios that don't apply to those children forever. Since Jesus is God in flesh, He best demonstrates how we should act, and that He rebuked priests for trying to stone a woman for sexual sin demonstrates that God does not want for that punishment to be enacted now.
Of course, if all this happened now Jesus would be diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Just as well he was around to impress Bronze Age goat herders who were largely illiterate.
Interesting, how have you reached the conclusion that He'd be diagnosed with Schizophrenia?
How much have you studied the condition?
Which of Jesus' words indicate it?
Which of His words do you actually find so objecionable that you want to spend time arguing about Him?
And why do you suppose that numerous onlooker would all have been conviced that they'd seen Him risen from death, so much so that they were willing to die to share the message? What are your thoughts on the work of scholars who espouse the resurrection?
If someone today claimed to be the son of god that would be a possible diagnosis. Resurrection at the time was common place. People had very little medical knowledge and so someone appearing to be dead was in fact still alive. the religious are unable to budge from their position. I would budge if offered compelling evidence. If your beliefs are ridiculous you can expect to be ridiculed.
"The religious are"? How do you know? And how are you defining "religious"? Have you, perhaps, observed some aspects of some people who believe in God, and you're now subconsciously presuming that we're all the same? Can you see that that presumption is fallacious?
I, for one, don't care if you think me ridiculous - you've actually shyed away from answering Chris's question. So I'll try - why are expending your time on a conversation with Christians who you don't know and who you believe that you can learn nothing from? I know how it feels not to want to let someone else think that they've won an argument by not replying to their last comment; but life's too short, there are much more useful and/or enjoyable things to expend finite free hours on than bickering with strangers. The reason that I too often do keep going with threads like this (and I do, so please be aware that I've seen comments like yours innumerable times) is that I believe that Jesus does actually offer eternal life. I don't feel like I do, in the sense that I can't get my head around it and I'm naturally lacking in emotion and spirituality - but as I looked at both sides of the debate in greater and greater detail, I concluded that the resurrection must have happened. So I waste time in conversations like this desperately hoping that someone reading might look again at the historical arguments and choose to accept Jesus' offer of eternal life. I don't want people to miss out, just because they presumed that the resurrection is a laughable myth and never actually got themselves informed.
So, if Jesus would today be diagnosed as mentally ill, what's actually your point? As comical a question as that might seem, think about the logical error here - that Jesus would today be diagnosed as mentally ill doesn't tell us whether or not He actually rose from the dead. Of course, the idea that He dud sounds ridiculous, hence the potential diagnosis today, but in fact we need to examine the arguments around the resurrection themselves. Have you?
TLDR. Please show me evidence for any of your claims and I’ll be happy to change my mind.
TLWW? Too long, why write? Seriously, if you won't read the paragraph above, what's the point in spending typing out the arguments for Christianity if you won't read what we write?
And have you not heard about Google? Apologies for being condescending, but in all seriousness, there are plenty of scholars (published authors with PhDs) who present these arguments far better than I could in lectures and articles online. Why would you not at least start by perusing some of those? Obviously, there's plenty on the internet, by Christians, fake Christians and others, that's utterly naff, but there are plenty of resources that you're evidently ignoring.
faith which has been responsible for untold suffering over the millennia.
I’m an atheist and yet I manage to be kind, compassionate, empathetic and humane. In fact so do the vast majority of atheists. They account for less then 1% of the prison population. The religious zealots of the world are considerably less humanitarian. I’m sorry you can’t cope with a little robust dialogue. It doesn’t define me! Grow up and understand that feelings sometimes get hurt.
Since you've been talking about evidence, so I'm compelled to ask, what evidence do we have that you "manage to be kind, compassionate, empathetic and humane"? Your attitude in this conversation doesn't suggest much kindness. I'm teasing, slightly, I'm really not having my "feelings hurt" - but my point is that you're expecting us to simply believe something for which we have no evidence, whilst you mock us for another belief that you presume, without investigating, to be without evidence.
How have you reached the conclusion that our faith has "been responsible for untold suffering over the millennia"? We have nothing to do with individuals who've enacted the violence to which you refer. We follow Jesus - even if they did, it would be a fallacy to attribute all of their actions to their following Christ, but in fact their actions (violence) demonstrate that they aren't following Christ, regardless of what they say. Anyone can call themselves anything, it doesn't mean that they are that thing, it certainly, certainly doesn't define what that thing (to follow Christ) actually is. Atheist regimes have in fact killed many times more people than so-called religious wars - because human beings can be evil, and it's perfectly understandable that some people who enact evil would claim to be serving God, because it might make them seem (to their contemporaries) or feel more noble.
Why make a decision about Jesus Himself, why let your response to Him by determined by other people? Here's a starting point in explaining the rationale for our conclusions (and there's far more on the site that's worth looking at) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
untold suffering - how about the holocaust? Hitler said he was doing 'the lord's work' (quote from mein kampf). Atheist regimes have also done similar - Stalinist Russia for instance but crucially, not in the name of atheism. What about the child abuse perpetrated and condoned by the catholic church?
Why would I make a decision about Jesus when there's no evidence to suggest that he existed, let alone that he was divine. [links to video of Hemant M. trying to rebut fine tuning with the pudd;e analogy]
Apologies that this sounds argumentative, but which part of what I've said did you not understand? (seriously, I'm not feeling or intending to be condescending) Firstly, Hitler could (in the sense of being able to, not in the sense that I don't mind write whatever he wanted, that doesn't mean that he actually was doing the Lord's work; and it really, really doesn't mean that God is at all OK with what Hitler ws doing. Can you see not the logical error you're making? I could claim to be a supporter of you, should you then be judged by my actions? Secondly, what is the point of this conversation? I've explained why I'm here - and this is my page - but why are you? I don't mean that in a hostile sense, I'm genuinely curious. You asked about why we believe in God, I shared a hyperlink as instructed and instead of actually responding to it (which I wasn't asking you to do, we should have just ended the conversation there) you've simply shared a link to a pop-Youtuber. Did you actually watch the clip that I shared, or just look at "Fine tuning" and presume that your linked clip overrules it? Because you've not actually responded to the clip I shared itself - what do YOU actually think? I mean that, why not address the clip yourself, at least a little?
Since you haven't, I'm not sure why I should bother responding to the clip you shared. But still, the argument that Helmant makes, which I am of course familiar with, is essentially ignorance of science. How do you suppose that serious scientists who research professionally would respond to entire universe being compared to a hole? An analogy doesn't necessarily prove what you want it to - the universe is not a hole in the ground, and that actually matters.
The universe is a mind bogglingly complex system of energy and matter, and our existence relies on numerous parameters beings precisely correct - to argue, as he does, that if something were slightly different about the universe, life might have developed differently, is to ignore the complexities of countless physical and biological systems. If something is altered, it has consequences for other things, and a functioning system of living organisms could not exist. If the molecules in a mass of water position themselves differently, it impacts nothing. And it would not happen anyway, it's nonsense.
The molecules of water would not sit as they actually do were it not for the parameters that the fine tuning argument originally discusses. They position themselves as they do because of physical and chemical laws within the universe, whilst the fine tuning argument is highlighting supposedly happenstance factors of the universe bringing about those laws, having been brought about by, in your view, nothing at all. But I'm not explaining this well, there are plenty of other people who have addressed the puddle analogy, for example, https://crossexamined.org/mistaken-objections-seek.../
Anyhoo, biology is far more interesting than physics. I can't get my head around the idea of God, but I started to feel that God might actually exist whilst studying biology. Try this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gsa58Rm8Sk
My issue is not with god or Jesus because they don’t exist. My issue is with people who do bad things in their name. That is the fault of religion. 

But how do you define religion? I don't care what you think about religion, I was never arguing for religion, I argue for Jesus. You observed what I'd written, which in this case was specifically about how helping humans in need is more important than religious buildings, and decided to argue about Hitler. Where's the logic there? Evidently, though you say that you don't have an issue with God, clearly you deem the actions of human beings as part of your reasoning for not being open to finding out about Him. And whether or not you believe God to exist, it's still illogical to base your understanding of Him on the actions of people who claim to follow Him and then do the opposite of what He commands. If a bunch of thugs in Loch Ness monster merchandise mugged me, I wouldn't think of the Loch Ness monster as associated with violence, attributing a negative value to the concept of the fictional Loch Ness monster, because the Loch Ness monster hasn't actually supported mugging. if there were many historical documents about the Loch Ness monster, and they repeatedly stated that Nessie had spoken against mugging, I'd be even more amused if the muggers claimed to be her followers. If Harry Potter fans mug me, I won't think that Harry Potter is an evil character, only the words or actions of Hary Potter in the original texts about him would lead me to think of him as an unkind/violent character. And because I believe that he, and the Loch Ness monster, do not exist, I would waste time arguing about them with some of their other fans. You criticise the use of analogy and then use 2 yourself! Yuh, did you actually read what I wrote? I didn't say that we shouldn't use analogies, I said that analogies don't necessarily work. Besides, the analogies that I made were superfluous, I'd already written my point, which you've still not replied to, whereas you've not written anything, you've only shard a video clip that relies on a flawed analogy. What do you yourself actually think of the video I posted in the first place? What do you think of the lecture? Why are still wasting time here? I genuinely care about you as a human being, I don't want to have conversations that become so bitter. The analogy is sound because it recontextualises the nature of the universe and our place in it. It encourages to see things from a less egocentric point of view. I don't really have time to watch a 90 minute video but I'll say this: our inability to understand existence is not proof of the divine. But you've overlooked my criticism of the puddle analogy. His presumption of an egocentric view is unfounded, and inaccurate for some of us, and you've simply restated his presumption, which I didn't even mention in my naff attempt at a rebuttal, rather than addressing the rebuttal itself, and you've still not commented on the original fine tuning clip. Have you actually watched it? Did you try the article about Mistaken Objections to it? When did I say that our inability to understand existence IS proof of the divine? Are you not treating our inability to understand God as proof of atheism? I did watch the video - rather than typing out a protracted response and simply replied with a video which does it for me. Richard Dawkins also does this in more depth in The god delusion. The point that theists usually get to is to say that because we can't explain the origin of life god must have done it. I assume that's where the video was going. Atheism needs no proof - it is just a lack of belief in god. You assume that's where the video was going? So you didn't watch it? Have you read any of the critiques of The God Delusion? There have been many publications on its logical errors. Agnosticism is the term for simply not believing in God - atheism is to believe that God does not exist, even though none of us has experienced enough of the universe to have any certainty that it's not simply the case that our experience if Him, so far, is what's lacking, rather than His existence (ie, how do you know that there's not a God somewhere that you've simply not encountered yet?). And atheism entails belief that the universe came about of its own intuition, and that everything within it, and within the biological world, as well as the existence of consciousness, came about entirely by chance. I couldn't continue to believe that as I learnt more about the complexity and interdependence of planetary and biological systems (esp. at the molecular level). Once again, nothing you’ve said constitutes proof of the supernatural. How would you define proof of the supernatural? God is not comprised of the matter and energy of which the universe is comprised, so we cannot have "proof" of Him in the sense you seem to demand it. We can deduce His existence from the impossibility of the universe and biological world having come about by chance, and countless experiences of Him by people seeking Jesus add weight to the argument. So if you use god to explain the universe you’re left with the bigger problem of having to explain the existence of god! Why? The universe demonstrates design, indicating a designer, the designer Himself was not created. And seriously, why are we still wasting time on this? I'm afraid I'm verging on terminating this thread, not at all because I want to seem bitter, but simply because this is terrible waste of time, particularly since you're still ignoring most of what I write. You've not actually addressed the Fine Tuning clip yourself; nor my response to the puddle analogy; nor the article on objections to fine tunig; nor lecture on biochemistry; nor the explanation as to why disregard of Jesus in any part on account of human violence is fallacious; northe questions about whether you've bothered to look at the arguments for Christianity, or rebuttals to Dawkins, yourself. Obviously, one doesn't need to respond to everything in a debate, but I can't help but feel that I should terminate this now and get on with other things. God bless

How are you defining "religion"? Indeed there are institutions that wrongly obsess over unimportant things; but science makes clear that what people do with their genitalia does have numerous implications. And most people who believe in God are also interested in science, which examines the detail of what God brought into existence.
Because the creator of the universe, including human beings, if He exists, will better understand optimal choices regarding genitalia than our hormone controlled brains, people who believe in God have a reason to consider His advice on the matter.
Note also that the secrets of the universe, ie high level physics, is highly speculative, and different scholars have faith in different concepts.
Can Bob fly his cock into outer space or not? Please note that using his cock has different implications.
If Bob is an astronaut and is still attached to it, then yes, he probably can; if not, then he probably can't There's no evidence that God is bothered either way.
Well, the "creator of the universe" has apparently taken a stand on the matter, including stoning to death women who have sex without being married and condemning to death those who masturbate. And if "most people who believe in God are also interested in science" I wonder how they respond to scientific indications that their God is a myth.  
Where does God say that masturbating condemns people to death?
Are you unfamiliar with the account of Jesus preventing a woman being stoned to death for sexual sin? What exactly are the "scientific indications that God is a myth"?
 they might be interested in science but studies show that they lack the ability to differentiate fact from fiction because they were brought up listening to bullshit stories (Noah, Jesus, Talking donkeys, Nephilim, shekels in fish, to name a few). Not being able to differentiate fact from fiction is why we have anti-vax, flat earthers, anti-5gers, anti-nuclear folks, again the list goes on. If they really understood science, they would reject all fiction except as entertainment.
 I don't think it's that simple - here in the UK, I know many Christians, but none are anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers; the 2 anti-vaxxers I do know aren't Christians. Obviously that's anecdotal, but I think that there's a cultural component that you're overlooking in your seeming presumption of corelation-causation. And no one should be a Christian simply because of their upbringing (nor should they be an atheist simply because of their upbringing) - we each need to look at arguments on both sides of the debate to reach our own conclusions.
Wow, Grace. This is much more than can be covered in a Facebook post. There are volumes of science books that cover these issues. I suggest that you might read some of them. As far as masturbation goes, the Bible nowhere explicitly states that masturbation is a sin, but there is no question that the actions that usually lead to masturbation are sinful. Masturbation is nearly always the result of lustful thoughts, inappropriate sexual stimulation, and/or pornography. The Old Testament condemns women who have sex without marriage or who are not virgins when they marry. I know that modern Christians tend to brush aside the Old Testament pointing to the New Testament as the final word of God. But why would God, in his holy book, proclaim all of this stuff and then, in the New Testament, proclaim different things? What did he do? Change his mind? And science, if you step back for a moment from religious doctrine and study it with an open mind, is in direct conflict with the majority of things presented in the Bible. You said, in your initial post, that God, "if he exists" will better understand optimal choices regarding genitalia than our hormone controlled brains. OK, if God exists, did he not create our "hormone controlled brains?" And did he not also create psychopaths, mental illness, The Holocaust, kids with cancer, and all of the evil that exists within the world? I realize that I'm not going to convince you to abandon your religious beliefs. Just as you are not going to persuade me to abandon my belief in science and evidence. But I would encourage you to take a step back from your religious doctrine, (if you are confident in your beliefs then this will not be intimidating) and explore the science and the evidence that explains our universe. As a former Christian, churchgoer, choir member, a church deacon, and church governing board member, it was careful, and unbiased study of the Bible and religion that finally led me to my current Atheistic views. We could debate this forever, and I am going to choose not to. I will just end by encouraging you to peruse some actual science, and casting a critical eye on everything that you have thus far been indoctrinated to believe.
On what basis do you presume that I'm indoctrinated exactly?
Indeed, this is all too much for one ror Facebook post, and I need to get on with work, but I need to comment at least that the New Testament does indeed overrule the OT on laws such as that mentioned, not because God "changed His mind", but because specific rules were given in the OT as needed for that time and setting. That's perfectly reasonable - the army, for example, migt enforce different rules on its troops when they're overseas from when they'training in barracks near home; parents will give different rules to their kids at different points in their lives, etc. Jesus in God in flesh, therefore His teachings are our primary source of guidance - inc. not stoning people for sexual sin.
And yes God created our brains; but if He exists, there may counteractive forces (Satan) as well as our own freewill contributing to our doing things the are opposed to His design. Asking Him for strength to overcome temptation leads to a depth of relationship wirh Him and of joy that are greater than simply being robots would be.
I do peruse actual science, I'm studying for degree in biomedical sciences and read more science besides because it interests me, but I know that I need to keep digging deeper.
I need to stop this, but anyhoo, thankyou for being far more polite than most people who criticise me. Have a nice week 

None of the atheists I know were brought up atheist... but they might have been brought up secular. Since atheist is one specific belief (no - god) it can’t be a form of upbringing... Also I think you’re having trouble understanding why I mentioned anti vax/flat earthers. They are extreme examples of people rejecting science. 
Yikes, no I didn't "hear “correlation doesn’t mean causation” one time and run with it". Why, epecially after I've highlighted that our cultural settings are different, are you so presumptuous about me? Also, obviously, it's a logical fallacy to suggest that the gullibility of some people brought up in Christian households means that God does not exist.
[Deleted Comment]
"no evidence"? Yuh; how do you know exactly? How much have you investigated?
And how exactly is what you refer to, in the UK, alarming? What harm is being done by those things, exactly? What "collective worship" is actually going on? When were you yourself last in school? What do you think is being said to children that's concerning you?I didn't say that "indoctrinating" was OK, I'm asking you what is actually happening that's harmful. What exactly doyou think children are being taught?
Children simply aren't being indoctrinated, they're being taught some simple values of caring for others etc. And your list of things inthe Bible that you resent demonstrate that you've not studied it, only pulled parts out of context - for example, the incest is in not instructed by God, like many things in the Old Testament, it's recorded because that's what many of the texts are about, they're not simply instructions. 
[Deleted Comment]
And RE "condemning homosexuals to death", Jesus, God in flesh and thus our ultimate guide, specifically prevented someone from being executed for their sexual sin. Obviously, the Bible also commands us against genocide, murder and depravity, and humanity tends to engage in those without the influence of Christianity - our society would be far, far more barbaric than it is had it not been influenced by Christianity.How do you define "immoral" if we're all merely amalgamations of atoms?
Asking "Name some "evidence" of your God that isn't also "evidence" of any other God past or present" seems odd - there's evidence suggesting that there is a creator, that's the fundamental point.
However, more specifically, Yaweh demonstrated Himself through prophecies and miracles, but most importantly, through Jesus' resurrection (which, obviously, needs more investigation than this thread allows - I recommend Who Moved The Stone).
[Deleted Comment]
I'm well aware that Christmas and Easter traditions include traditions of pagan festivals because of the time of year at which each takes place, that doesn't in any way disprove the events (Jesus' birth and death), and it's a complete non sequitter.
Which part ofthe concept I outlined is so dfficult for you? That the Old Testament is primarily a record of history, and requires detailed contextual examination; and it's Jesus who tells us how to live?
How do you know that "there's no evidence"? Your comments make clear that you've not actually looked. (ie, if you had investigated and simply disagreed, you wouldn't be arguing so bluntly).
Seriously, what is the point in this conversation? Why are you wasting time arguing when you're only telling me I'm wrong with no reasoning or addressing what I've actually written? I could answer your pointsin more detail, but I really have better things to do than this, I'm sorry that you don't.
Have a nice night, seriously.
[Deleted Comment]
Wow, you honestly think I spend time on my knees in front of statues? You really don't understand Christianity at all, do you? For the record, "burnings, hangings" etc, were not genuine Christianity, they were examples of people claiming to be Christian as an attempt to appear noble whilst they acted on their human blood lust - they weren't following Christ.
Do you really not have anything better to do than this? Part of me feels compelled to respond, because I believe that this topic actually matters, but since you just believe that I'm deluded, why are you spending time arguing with me when you could do something more useful and or enjoyable?
It's no accident that religions are called 'faiths'. Faith is a belief in a supposition even without valid evidence. If you are happy in your faith and it gives you some kind of comfort then that's good for you. Be content that there are many others who do not buy into the myths. They are equally happy in their beliefs. Morality, empathy and the ability to live a good and productive life in society has Nothing, nil, nada, zilch to do with religion.
No, faith is believing in something of which you can't be conclusively certain, usually because there's no way in which it could ever be perfectly, indisputably proven. It applies to almost everything. For example, we have faith that we can trust certain people. We have have faith in our own brains' abilities. Atheists have faith that there is no God - and, by implication, they also have faith that the universe, the biological world (despite its extreme complexity and interdependence) and conciousness came into existence on its own.
You have faith that our society would have the values of concern for others that it has if Christianity had never been part of it, despite that fact that other civilisations were barbaric, especially by comparison to Jesus' commands.

There is no god
How exactly do you "know"? What do you think of the academic arguments for His existence?
whose existence?
Should I take that as a no? You know that I mean God's existence.
You are, of course, entitled to comment, but what's the point in arguing with other peoples' comments, especially if you don't care enough about the issue to look at the arguments?
you're mentioning god, but not telling me which one. Surely you know there are hundreds, if not thousands. There are thousands of religions and no one can prove the existence of a god or gods. I was raised as a christian and spent the majority of my adult life as one as well. I can tell you the god of the bible is an misogynistic, patriarchal, abortionist, who codified slavery and rape. It's right there in the bible and anyone who ignores it is cherrypicking.
The God who created the universe.
Created the universe 6,000 years ago?
It's not cherrypicking to study the Bible instead of grabbing verses out of context as you're doing. (Or perhaps you've grabbed them off one of the websites where angry atheists try reassure each other). Do you want to go through all of the verses to which you're referring, or will I just be wasting my time? It's 5am and I think I ought to finally get some sleep, I get the impression that you aren't willing to consider opinions you don't like anyway. Goodness, do you honestly think that the Bible tells us that universe is 6000 years old? That's called Young Earth Creationism, and a very small minority view among Christians because it's not in the Bible at all. I think you may have somehow been led into a rather inaccurate understanding of Christianity....
Bible was written/redacted by Peter who kinda created money-property- pedophils system of Catholic church. But now it's about historical building not some mythical creature.
The fact that perverts have falsely called themselves Christians and opportunistically used the institution if the Church to do evil doesn't change the facts of what happened and was recorded by Jesus' witnesses.
if your Jesus is so f great, why he's such a looser?
He took our sin upon Himself, thus He was brutally killed.
You see problem with your Jesus that he knew he will be resurrected on Third day, so he goes with his plan of public exhibitionism without really loosing anything.
Without losing anyting? The point wasn't simply that His life would end, the point was that He experienced the unfathomable torture of all of humanity's sin being poured upon Himself, as well as the torment living His life knowing that would happen
I don't even know where to begin but the, "god made the world & everything in it, is the Lord of Heaven & Earth & does not live in temples made by human hands",... that comment contradicts itself for a start, if god "made the world & everything in it" then HE made the hands that made the temples he won't live in because apparently he was very outdoorsy and if he is powerful enough to do all that crap it says he did in the buybull, because lets be honest that was some impressive power he had, then surely he was powerful enough to stop these lavish buildings from being built in the first place, no fires needed, no wrath, no firefighters lives being put at risk etc and most importantly he would have been powerful enough to stop the abuse & rape of countless children around the globe that suffered at the hands of the men & women that supposedly used jesus as an excuse to do evil. If the jesus of the bible is so almighty where is he when bad things happen
So what if "he was powerful enough to stop these lavish buildings from being built in the first place"? He often leaves human beings to do as they choose, because He's given us free will. This lifetime is momentary compared to the eternity we'll spend with Him if we choose, during which there'll be no desire to build temples and no suffering.
God uses suffering for good if we let Him, though I know that sounds dismissive and I don't mean it to.
Since God knows what's going on in other peoples' minds, and will go on in the future, He may well have reasons for things that we don't (yet) know about, just as parent might not always do what their toddler wants because they know better than their toddler does as to what's best for them (for all of us, the gap between our knowledge and God's is even greater than that between a toddler and their parent).
Personally, I only became a Christian because I was forced (by teachers and doctors) to stay home from school when I had anorexia, and the illness has kept me at home much of the time since - being at home, I ended up using time to examine the case made by academics who believe in God and in Jesus' resurrection. Had I never had anorexia, I might have a decent career, but I wouldn't feel fulfilled in the way that I do knowing God.
There are countless examples of people who've had far more serious struggles than me, and are in fact full of joy in their relationships with God. Have you checked out Nick Vujicic?
   

Conservatives Need to Reclaim Feminism or Pick a New Word

I can't understand why people pour their energy into arguing about the gender pay gap and other feminist issues, when there are far, far more serious injustices in the world. I'm not denying that there is mistreatment of women in our society that's inexcusable and should be addressed - but whilst there are still human beings without clean water, food or shelter; or working 12 hours days in sweatshops, plantations and slavery, why do we not spend our time on tackling these issues?

  

Funeral for Journalist Lyra McKee

Religion has killed more people than anything....anything in this worldContrary to various commets here, this has nothing to do with religion. The IRA are fighting about nationalism.
Idkthis...I don't know much at all. But what I do know is that a lot of shit don't make sense... Religion There a 2 issues here - the situation in Ireland, and "religion". The situation in Ireland today is about nationalism, tribal identity, ans anger about the past. "Religion" is an overly broad term that everyone uses in different ways. It's a bit like hating politics, and blaming politics for everything: religion, like politics, includes completely opposing ideas and entirely differing practices, so it's not logical to simply lump it all together.

Many people, throughout history, have believed that they can use religion to earn their way to paradise, and/or have used it to try to feel pride or to appear noble in the eyes of others. Jesus spent much of His time pointing out that this was mistaken. The people who've acted in violent ways, even if they've claimed to be Christian, have by definition not been following Christ, who repeatedly commanded us to be peaceful. And He taught that He makes The Way to paradise available - to EVERYONE - we don't earn it. The Bible also says that true religion is to help the poor.
  

Mixed Up: 'Being mixed without a white parent is even more challenging'

But how can you know when you've not been in any other skin/family? I realise that I'm privileged and have no right to dismiss another person's experience, which I'm not, I simply suspect that trying to compete (ie. "EVEN harder") is unhelpful, and that those darker skin might in fact experience more racism
  

Sri Lanka and the global war on Christians

Indeed - but we who are privileged enough to be relatively safe mustn't appear to have developed a victim mentality (ie, a victim mentality is clearly what many non Christians, particularly across the pond, where content is created that feeds my generation and the next, believe we have). The persecution in some less developed countries is unfathomable - yet I've seen laughter at articles in the last week about Christian persecution, in part because non Christians are unaware of the violence, but also because Western Christians sometimes moan slightly too much.
Because we know that Christ offers each human eternal life, we must feel primarily concerned about our neighbours ignoring Him and missing out, incomparably more than (being concerned about) being personally insulted.

Genocide has been used as a weapon of war by Christians for centuries. What they sow they now shall reap, it appears

Someone who enacts genocide is by definition not Christian, regardless of what they call themselves. Christian means little Christ, that is to emulate Him, because you are so grateful to Him that you in fact desire to live as He taught us to.
Anyone can call themselves anything, it doesn't mean that they are that thing, it certainly, certainly doesn't define what that thing (to follow Christ) actually is. Atheist regimes have in fact killed many times more people than so-called religious wars - because human beings can be evil, and it's perfectly understandable that some people who enact evil would claim to be serving God, because it might make them seem (to their contemporaries) or feel more noble.
And what do you think that the people in Sri Lanka have to with the violence to which you're referring? If a murderer has a favourite football team, should that team be judged because of the murderer's actions - and would it be "reaping what was sown" if some one went a killed innocent people who happen to support the same team?

Really? How are they defining "far right"? Surely, by definition, far right Americans would, if anything, be less concerned following the attack, given that almost none of the victims were white? <This< is seriously unintelligent baiting by the WP.
The far right are deluded in thinking that they're Christian, because the actual definition of Christian is "little Christ", ie, to emulate Him, and the far right ignore His commands and example by not trying to love their neighbours.
The WP, and other media, should stop feeding that delusion and encouraging the left to hate Christians.
   

Amazon sells books promoting anorexia as lifestyle choice

It's a choice until it isn't - it messes up your brain and you become unable to eat again even when you genuinely intend to.
   

Taurus Is the Unbearably Stubborn Hedonist of the Zodiac

No, I'm really not. And I still don't get why anyone believes any of this.
    

Can Black Evangelicals Save the Whole Movement?

Don't define "Evangelical", nor "Christian" by the people who claim those labels. Anyone can call themselves anything, and they will if it makes them feel noble - then many non-Christians avoid Christianity, or evangelical Churches, because of the actions of people who don't fit those terms at all, rather than considering whether they want to find out about Christ.
Christian, by definition, means "little Christ" - ie, to emulate Him; Evangelical, by definition, means to desire to tell others the Good News (that Christ offers everyone forgiveness and eternal life). Don't let hypocrites deter you from investigating Jesus.
81% of evangelicals voted for Trump. He embodies their message of white nationalism.

I'm well familiar with the 81% figure - but white nationalism is antithetical to the Gospel. From what I've seen, many evangelicals who voted for Trump did so because they couldn't bear to vote for Clinton given her support for late term abortion. Perhaps you're OK with late term abortion, but in the minds of many, it demonstrates real evil that they felt compelled to vote against. I saw many evangelical ministers around the election, and since, condemning some of Trump's attitudes, but for many people, the notion of voting for a president who supports the option to kill premature babies was out of the question. I'm not saying that it was right to vote for Trump, only that it shouldn't be presumed that white nationalism was the driving factor for a majority of voters.
Crucially, as I said, what a person calls themselves is relatively insignificant - what matters is what Christ said and did.
Yeah, abortion is what evangelicals hide behind to try to appear moral. But when you look at abortion statistics, those most evangelical states are having them just as often. Meanwhile they're fine with putting brown children in cages.
You're still ignoring my point - anyone can call themselves evangelical, but if they genuinely don't care about children in cages, they evidently don't have God in their hearts. How have you concluded that evangelicals are "hiding behind" the issue of abortion? Why presume that we people aren't actually concerned about things like this? https://thebridgehead.ca/.../this-photo-of-a.../...
Keep in mind also that each person who calls themselves an evangelical is an individual - if 2 people call themselves evangelicals, and one has an abortion, it doesn't mean that the other is a hypocrite. Rather, the first may be calling themselves an evangelical because it's just a comfortable label that they grew up with,the other might be genuinely distressed by what they perceive as murder.
As Nancy Sky rightly said, Jesus died to offer each person, regardless of background, eternal life - that sounds like nonsense before one's investigated the academic case for the historical events in question, but it's worth fiding out about, rather than expending so much time as we all do arguing about politics. https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection
Whatever you think of people who callthemselves Christians, know always that Jesus taught that the most important thing after loving God is to love others.
   

Crowds pay tribute to Notre Dame on Easter Sunday following blaze

Buildings don't need tributes. Today is a day of remembering that Christ willingly died in our place, and the extent of the deification of the cathedral that's been demonstrated this week is disturbing.

  

Black Churches Are As Sacred As Notre Dame

Indeed - what's really bothering me is that a $billion will be spent on restoring ND whilst there's currently such horrific suffering in Africa because of Western inflicted poverty; Idai (and other natural disasters) and civil war. It's grossly unChristian to spend so much on one building given how much that money could do in evangelising to and helping suffering human beings.
   

The Burning of Notre Dame

Monumental kudos to the firefighters at #NotreDame. Obviously, the fire is tragic, but at the same time, I worry that the grandeur of Cathedrals can distract from Jesus - He walked around teaching and helping people outdoors, and never endorsed lavish buildings.
Obviously, I'm not saying that this fire isn't sad, but I really, really wish that it weren't the case that stupendous amounts of money will be spent on trying to rebuild. Far, far too much has been spent on extravagant Church buildings rather than ministry, inc. helping those in poverty, which the Bible actually does command repeatedly. It's grotesque that people will now donate £millions to this because they feel sentimental about it as a historical building, whilst there are people in Africa who've lost everything because of cyclone Idai and Boko Haram; and in the middle East because of war.
Acts 17:24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands."
Micah 6:8 "and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn in 2 - destruction of a part of the place of worship to make the point that everyone can draw close to God, not only those who are able to participate in a grandious institution.

Bloody hell, you moaning, negative, sad sacks! Have you got people telling you how to spend your money?Are you this negative all the time? Why can you not just praise the man for wanting to restore such beauty and and history? The church gives comfort to millions who visit and draws people to France for just that, boosting the economy. He does an awful lot of good for a lot of charities. More than you moaners realise! Learn to be nice always instead of turning every positive into a negative because of your I'll educated beliefs. Be happy!

What's the point of history, which is about and thought about by humans, if one leaves humans to die of preventable, agonising poverty? What you're saying is that the nostalgia that we privileged Westerners can feel by having Notre Dame restored to exactly how it was is more important than alleviating the agony of starving humans who've had the misfortune of being born elsewhere. That mentality suggests a lack of both logic, and of desire to follow Jesus.
Why is it "their money"? Because they've been stupendously lucky. People working in sweatshops and plantations will have done more hard work in their lives, but multimillionaires have the money they do because they've had opportunities to profit from the systems of colonialism and greed that have made our nations wealthy at the expense of others.
Comments in recent days have made abundantly clear that people prize buildings over God, so I do wonder if extravagant Cathedrals like this shouldn't have been built in the first place. You say that the Cathedral brings comfort to people, but I've not seen any comments suggesting that Cathedrals have brought anyone from agnosticism to knowing God; so for non believers, it's just history, and we believers can experience God's comfort without a Cathedral. We should be worshipping God in simple buildings and using Church offering money to tell the world the Gospel and to help those in need.
We must not question the motives of others, or what they give to. We need to sort out priorities first. How much did I spend on the bathroom renovation, that holiday abroad, that new car, or even that smart new hair do, compared with what I gave to the poor and needy. Jesus said something about a plank in our own eye.....
Indeed, but I don't spend any money on travel nor my hair (other than budget price shampoo/conditioner - I also haven't spent on renovations, though I don't own the house so I won't claim that's relevant) - I honestly don't understand why people do.
who cares about africa 🙄 if your that bothered go live there and help them yourself
Why should people in Africa be cared about less than you?
I don't go since, given my health issues, I wouldn't be much use. More importantly, I don't know the languages or culture, and were I to simply turn up as a random white person, I'd likely just be mugged and then ignored (which is, if course, not to say that African people in general are muggers, only that any society has a few, and for those few, I'd be a prime target).
It's more effective for me to give the money that it would cost for me to get there, and more besides, to charities like Compassion, Tearfund, Feed the Hungry and Samaritan's Purse, who've formed partnerships with local Christians and trained missionaries.
Then, because of the donations (from money I can only earn by being here), more people who speak the local languages and understand the culture can spend their time ministering to those in need; and the donations also pay for Bibles, food and more.
Im not asking people to care about me i control my own destiny but like you said all africans are muggers at least you are being honest so stop chatting crap and be honest who cares about africa not me and not you 
Honest? I do care. A lot. But that's not the point. African people are every bit as human as you are. No, you don't control your own destiny, you use products made by other people, bought with moey paid to you by other people. What would do if you were born into a slum? What would you do if your home and source of income and food were destroyed by a cyclone? THEY are poor because of the injustices that have made US rich.
And how the frack have you reached the nonsensical conclusion that "all africans are muggers"?
There's no contemporary evidence that Jesus existed, merely the book that claims he's God. That's like claiming a Batman comic is evidence of Batman. Hell, most of that evidence wasn't written until over 200 years after he was supposed to have existed anyway and even that was adapted.
Why on Earth do you think that "most of that evidence wasn't written until over 200 years after he was supposed to have existed anyway"? Seriously, that's plainly wrong, historians date the Gospel accounts to 30-60 years after Jesus' death, and some of the epistles are believed to be earlier. And there is evidence from outside of the Bible, who's told you that there isn't? No, this is nothing like "a Batman comic is evidence of Batman" - it's a compilation of historical accounts and letters. Batman was written to make money via entertainment - the New Testament writers were persecuted to death for their message, but they spread it because it mattered.
I see that your "mental crutch" is to cling to what you've heard and would like to believe, and not even read a newspaper article for fear that you might not like it.
But seriously, apologies for sounding so argumentative, I'm having a stressful night. I need to get back to other things now, enjoy your Thursday
Does the Bible not say When Jesus was condemned for having expensive oil poured over his head " There will always be The Poor"
As probably one of the most visited Cathedrals on this occasion I feel it is right to Restore His House which is there for all to visit and whose works of art and the labour were given To Glorify ????
But Yes I agree one can question the inequality in the World and ask oneself why !
Jesus told His apostles that they would always have the poor with them, but not always have Him. He was making the point that Mary's expenditure on perfume for His feet was a unique situation, as He wouldn't be physically present for long. He wasn't in any way condoning us today spending stupendous amounts on cathederals whilst innocent people are in physical agony for lack of food and water.
It strikes me that the more you give to the needy the more needy they become, look at our own neer do wells who wont work, cant work, been educated to avoid word, aided by the welfare system. Think there is a little flaw in your thinking.
How exactly does that "strike you"? Have you looked at data from developing countries? I wasn't talking about people born in wealthy countries (like ours) who receive benefits - though why do you think that they've " been educated to avoid word" (I presume that you mean work, not word)? A small minority of people are lazy, and our society encourages everyone to think that we deserve to have what we want easily - but most people on benefits have other, complex reasons, most of all that right now it's almost impossible to get work without experience, and experience can't be gained without work. I was referring to people in poverty in places where people work horrendously hard growing their own crops, or in factories and plantations, because they have no other options - yet still can barely survive. Nations like ours have become wealthy through colonialism and corporate theft (eg https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...) that's made developing nations poor.
As we donate to charities providing clean water (so that people don't need to spend hours walking for water, still contracting water bourne diseases); training and education, we enable people to look after themselves, their families and their communities.
One woman I met had been a sponsored child - before she was sponsored, she and her 3 siblings had to sleep on one mattress in their mud hut, with animals walking in at night (and once chewing her hair off, apparently). Being sponsored meant that her parents were less strained, since she was being fed and had extra food, mattresses and other supplies for her family. The education that she received because of sponsorship enabled her to earn money when she was older, with which she supported her family, and ultimately, all of her siblings went to university as well as her. Though only she'd been sponsored, the effect transformed multiple lives. The charity, Compassion UK, enables any of us to sponsor a child for £25 per month - how many of us would spend that on a takeaway, several coffee shop trips, or a beauty treatment?
If you do look at data, you'll see that, contrary to your presumption, aid has been dramatically reducing need - it's thrilling :) For example, https://www.vox.com/.../global-poverty-health-crime...
Europes cathedrals are far more important than people in far off lands. It is quite right that the money be spent restoring a grand symbol of the genius of European man.
Frack, why? Why on Earth do you think that our opportunity to walk around old buildings is more important than other humans' access to food and water?
Why is it "right" for the money to be spent on that, when that money has mostly ultimately been taken from those "far off lands" through colonialism and this https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor... ? Genius of European man? What anti-scientific racist rhetoric has been fed to you to lead you to think that human beings of European ancestry are superior? We've built more because we've been stealing resources from the rest of the world for centuries, were you honestly unaware of that?
what god is that then ?
Set aside the historical traditions of religion for a moment (they take a lot if separate, nuanced discussion, plenty is false or is allegory) God is first and foremost the creator of the universe (and biological world, which I personally find more interesting) and science is to examine that creation is ever greater detail. As science has progressed, it's found more and more detail and interdependent specificity that demonstrate that the universe and biological world couldn't have come about by chance (in addition, if course, to the fact that the universe couldn't have created itself, obviously). 

nothing to do with an old book written in Bronze Age Palestine but with cultural heritage. History and the preservation of such beautiful buildings does matter, whether religious or not. Keep your silly quotes to yourself.
How can it have "nothing to do" with the Bible, when the Cathederal would never have been there without it?
Why would I "Keep my silly quotes to myself" when we all qrite our opinions on social media? Why do you care?
How much do you know about that "old book"? It's actually a compilation of 66 texts, varying hugely in style and purpose - and how can you know that it's unimportant if you don't know about it?
people can spend their money how they want.  
Developing nations are grossly impoverished by comparison to our nations because of centuries of exploitation and theft, by our ancestors and by modern day corporations - so we've been born into an economy where we benefit from what's made other people suffer, thus the wealth of the billionaire donating is not simply "their money", these billionaires have that money because people born into relative wealth (we who live in the world's richest countries) because of injustice (colonialism, and this - https://www.facebook.com/lists/1473379266042760#) have bought from their companies. They've not endured as much toil as many farmers in developing countries, or labourers in factories, who have to work painful hours providing things that we buy.
Obviously, they can do what they want with the money they've been lucky enough to end up with. I'm just expressing an opinon, that's what we all do here.
Why is this an either/or situation? False dichotomy.
It's how money works. If you have $X, you cannot spend those $X on a lavish building and also spend the $X on shelter and clean water for those who've just had absolutely everything destroyed by a cyclone or war. I, and God, would argue that it should spent on the latter.
Money doesn't exist on its own - that money to rebuild pays wages to workers so that they can live.
Of course - but why would these donors, and the government, want to employ builders to recreate the complex designs of a cathederal rather than to build homes and hospitals? And are the builders who'll be hired actually struggling to make a living currently? Certainly, they won't be in need remotely like that of the victims of the cyclone and wars. The French economy, like ours, has vast wealth that's the result of taking from other nations, it's logical to send this smidgen of it back. And surely a chunk of the money spent on the restoration will ultimately be paid to very wealthy consultants?
Apologies if I seem argumentative!
It goes beyond religion though, specially nowadays where science superseded it mostly. Cathedrals are, above all, house of arts - architecture, paintings, sculptures, music with dynamics that a studio can only dream of, reverberation. Lots of them in countries like Germany, for example, are used more as concert houses for classical/baroque music rather anything else. If you've never attended an organ concert in one of them, you definitely should.
Science has superseded what? God created the universe, science enables us to understand that creation in greater detail; to presume that science and belief in God are in conflict is to misunderstand God, science, or both. There's an organ at my Church, organ music is OK - but experiencing God is far better.
there is no proof of your sky fairy, science is always provable. Wake up it's the 21st century, we don't need a god now to be the answer to questions that couldn't be answered, in todays enlightened times we can now either answer those questions with science, or say we don't know. God is obsolete.
Really? I've never come across anyone with that opinion before...
Sorry, excuse my sarcasm. What's led you yourself to the conclusion that God's "made up"? Have you looked at the work of academics who explain arguments in support of His existence?
Your opinion is completely wrong. You have the spirit of Judas in you. The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. We do plenty to feed, house, and educate the poor. What utter nonsense
How exactly is what I've written evidence of "Judas' spirit"? I'm well aware that the Catholic Church does some awesome charity work. And I never suggested that the Catholic Church should be destroyed, I was only saying that most of the money that is going to be spent on trying to make the Cathedral how it was, should instead be spent on providing Bibles and essential needs (clean water, shelter, food, education) for those trapped (through no fault of their own) in daily physical agony because of poverty and war.
This is Ireland dear. You lose all credibility the moment you start talking about God's. You become offensive when you start quoting passages from books written by Jewish/Muslim deluded old men 2000 years ago.
No, not all Irish people are atheists. Why do you yourself think that mentioning God means that I've "lost credibility"? Why on Earth do you think that the Bible was written partially by Muslims? Why do you deem it "offensive" to quote a Jew?
why those in other countries why not sort our own country first
Because our country has an NHS, welfare state (albeit very flawed, I know), school for everyone, homeless shelters, soup kitchens and food banks - all of which I know need more support, but people in hit by the cyclone, Boko Haram and war could only dream of these things.
they could start by helping themselves !
How exactly? What would you do if you were born into a slum; stunted as you grew up by malnutrition; forced to spend hours each day collecting water; lacking access to healthcare or government support; and stuck without any opportunities for a career?
How much of you wages do you donate I'm guessing nothing
LOL, why do you "guess nothing"? Christopher Stephens I'm studying and job seeking, so I have limited income, but yes of course I have sponsor children, additional direct debits to charities and make additional donations.
  

Paloma Faith: I don't see what's wrong with a boy wearing a dress

It's not wrong in itself, what is wrong is nurturing the suggestion that he's actually "a girl born in the wrong body" who needs hormone injections and surgery. Kids should be supported to feel happy with who they are, not told that they should one day transition.

  

Jacob Rees-Mogg said anti-Islamic comments have no place in society. So everyone made the same point

NB, opposition to Islam, the ideology, is not necessarily the same as bullying of human beings who are Muslim. The former may be OK, the latter is not.

  

Why Having a Pop-Up Church for Good Friday Is Brilliant - No preaching. No altar call. No liturgy, church building, no judgment, guilt, or fear.

No preaching? God is worth talking about, why would it be good not to preach? And no jdgement? God is just, so of course there's judgement, why lie that there isn't? What's thrilling, is that Jesus offers to take the judgement for us. We urgently need to tell our world - if we lovd others, how could we not?

I guess I'm not clear where we're called to be judgemental towards the unbeliever. The scriptures actually say opposite (we are not to judge people outside the church...just judge those INSIDE the church. Evangelicalism has moved towards switching those two things but it's entirely unbiblical). As for preaching, there is not real standard for what MUST happen within corporate worship. Perhaps the song will speak to someone. Perhaps a hug or a loving word of encouragement will turn someone towards Christ. Remember, God draws people to repentance through His kindness. Does preaching work at times? Absolutely. Does harsh truth? You bet. Is it necessary or even most often the best way? Not according to the New Testament scriptures.

I'm certainly not advocating that we be judgemental towards unbelivers, I'm saying that we should explain that judgement exists, for the sake of justice, and that everyone is offered forgiveness instead because Christ has taken that judgement.
The caption to this article suggests that there's merit in avoiding the mentioning judgement, and if we do avoid it we deny listeners from hearing the Gospel.
I'm well aware that we MUST always seek to emulate Christ; that the precise words used in each context must be carefully selected to avoid wrongly giving the impression of judgementalism; and that not every setting will allow for the whole Gospel message to be given, I was simply reacting to the caption that seemed concerning.

I’m not sure how judgement fits in with unconditional love.....I’m not sure why so many Christians feel that they need to “teach” others how to live the right ( or their) way when we are all made in God’s image and God “dwells in us” The church, and therefore many Christians have, for too long, made it their job to tell others how to live. The greatest commandment is love. Unconditional, affirming and all consuming sacrificial love - just like God loves me.

"not sure how judgement fits in with unconditional love"? This will sound very argumentative, and I don't mean it to, but what Bible have you been reading? How are you defining "judgement", and "unconditional love"? I never said that WE should judge others or tell them "how to live the right way" - the Bible tells us that it's God's place to judge, and tells us about how God wants us to live.
We shouldn't, as the caption above suggests, mislead people into thinking that there is no potential judgement - and it's BECAUSE of God's love that we are offered forgiveness, though judgement is due.
We should love people unconditionally, but also look to God's word, and encourage others to look to God's word, about how to live. The fact that humans are made in God's image doesn't mean that all human actions are right and shoud be affirmed, that's perfectly evident from the mistakes and evil of human history (to clarify, that is, of course, not to equivocate evil and, for example, nonBiblical sexual actions).
Indeed, some Churches and Christians (or people wrongly calling themselves Christians) have been wrongly judgemental - but we aren't loving others if we pretend that we don't all need forgiveness and Christ's sacrifice to save us from God's righteous judgement.
   

Library cancels ‘Glitter Hole’ drag story hour, mainstream blames parents’ ‘homophobia’

Is the slang term Glory Hole (from which the name Glitter Hole is obviously derived) used on your side of the pond, or is it just here (in Britain)?
Obviously, this is utterly sickening. We need to address this nonsensical accusation of homophobia - actual bullying of LGBT people obviously needs to be addressed, and we need to make clear that we don't endorse the mistreatment that's been carried out against them by some; but there's no logic whatsoever in pretending that doing so requires endorsement of an organisation whose name and logo are entirely about sex. We'd be just as outraged if the allusions were to straight sex.

  
As the Sri Lanka attacks show, Christians worldwide face serious persecution

Adorable headline

Why exactly? Seriously, how much have you looked into this? There are Christians in parts of the world being ostracised from their communities (and water sources, work etc), and physically attacked, as well as Churches being bombed, and the media doesn't bother to cover it. Indeed, we in the West are almost always safe, so don't think that we're complaining on behalf of ourselves; for you to simply disregard this^ suggests that you're making seriously inaccurate presumptions. Try looking at Open Doors UK & Ireland; Barnabas Fund and Christian Solidarity.
The world is large.

So? And what evidence do you have of persecution victims being an insignificantly small proportion of the populations they're in? Would you say the same if it were an ethnic group of sexuality that we were talking about?
    

Sri Lanka attacks: Eight British nationals among the hundreds dead

Why the frack are people laughing at this? Seriously, I'm curious, what is it that people think about Christians and or Sri Lankans that makes them laugh at their slaughter?

More examples of how lovely religion is

What's your point, Anthony? People can be evil, and have frequently claimed to be fighting for God, since doing so made them feel noble, but each "religion" is different, and each individual makes their own choices.
The people who were gathered in the Churches where the massacre happened were there to celebrate Jesus, who offers each person eternal life (heaven) though we don't deserve it; and Jesus repeatedly taught that we must love others, even our enemies, and avoid violence. It's the opposite of the ideology driving terrorists (and it was clearly not in the minds of people who have called themselves Christians and then engaged in war and bullying - anyone can call themselves what they want, it doesn't mean that they are).
  

'Good Christian' parents who tortured and abused children given life sentences - Premier

Stop this Premier, seriously. The wider world constantly allows mussuse of the word Christian, but you know full well that it is, by definition, to follow Christ. These parents were therefore, evidently not Christian. Quotation marks don't suffice, you need to stop propagating this dangerous falsehood that contributes to many, many people never exploring genuine Christianity.

  

'The most effective tool for sharing the gospel, is your home!' by Rosaria Butterfield. | Solas

Indeed, but she should be aware, we don't all have homes. I, and many others of my generation, live with parents because there's no way we can afford not to - and I'm not complaining, I'm stupendously lucky to have such awesome parents, but it does mean that we can't necessarily do whatever we want hospitality wise.
  

Steve Clifford leaving Evangelical Alliance after a decade at the helm

It makes me so, so upset that the word evangelical has become a slur to refer to Trump supporters and those for whom pride in claiming to call oneself Christian means more than Christ.
  

The far-right is trying to make crucifixes mandatory across Italy

The cross is about Jesus sacrificing Himself, for our sin. It is the complete opposite of a symbol of pride.
   

Why you’ll never be colour blind

The amygdala (part of the brain) can naturally cause us to feel more comfortable around people like ourselves - so we have a serious responsibility to challenge our instinctive biases.
   

There are officially too many damn video streaming services

Seriously, we're extremely privileged, stop moaning. Watch some world news and contemplate how stupendously lucky you are; then pick one subscription, cancel others and you can use the money saved to sponsor a child
  

Crowds pay tribute to Notre Dame on Easter Sunday following blaze

Buildings don't need tributes. Today is a day of remembering that Christ willingly died in our place, and the extent of the deification of the cathedral that's been demonstrated this week is disturbing.
   

Death sentence for abortion? The hypocrisy of US pro-lifers is plain to see

Obviously that's grossly insane - but it's fallacious to use this as an argument for keeping abortion legal. The headline is also is distortion of reality - ie, it's a bill, not a law, but even if it were a law, it wouldn't by any means necessarily be enforced. Here in the UK, the law says that abortion is technically only legal when 2 doctors agree that it's necessary for the woman's life, yet everyone knows that a woman will be able to have an abortion purely because she wants one. Judges aren't going to sentence women to execution for having abortions, even if the bill passed - and I am NOT supporting the bill, I'm just sick of misleading headlines being used like this.
Note that an abortion is already a death sentence for a tiny human who's had no choice in the matter at all.

The only argument you need for keeping abortion legal is that it's the woman's body and she has the fucking right to decide what to do with it. Body autonomy is not negotiable!

No, it's partially the woman's body, for 9 months. because she made a choice (rape, Alex Nelson, only accounts for 1% of abortions, I'm not talking about those cases). It's the entire body and life of the tiny human that gets aborted - if there's bodily autonomy, destroying someone else's is wrong. But there are other arguments - abortion can be very harmful to the woman as well.

Sorry, but no. I don't care when you consider a fetus is an independent being; as long as it can't sustain itself outside the woman it's still her choice to terminate if she sees fit. Y'all acting like women go around choosing to get pregnant and then have abortions like it's a good time. I can assure you they're all heartbroken during the process, because they're not monsters and it wasn't an easy decision. No one has the right to take that decision away. How is the bodily autonomy of a fetus more important than a pregnant woman's? 

I didn't say that "the bodily autonomy of a fetus more important than a pregnant woman's", but the woman has already made a choice, and it's the foetus that stands to die.
Of course you don't care what I think, this is Facebook where we can comment on articles. All I did was to type to release my frustration, you don't have to agree, nor waste both our time arguing.

 

What does the fresh extension mean for Brexit?

I really, really, really don't care. People in Southern Africa have had their homes and livelihoods destroyed by a cyclone; people in other parts of Africa are having their lives destroyed by Ebola, Boko Haram and the exploitation our corporations are responsible for; people in Yemen have had their homes bombed and are now starving because of weapons we sold to Saudi Arabia; people in parts of Asia are suffering in sweatshops and plantations to provide things we buy and throw away, etc, etc.
Brexit or lack thereof is tedious trivia compared to what some people are going through. If only some of our politicians could put some of their time into addressing serious human suffering.

there is suffering in the UK as well. Have you been to Croydon?

we have serious human suffering going on in the U.K. believe it or not ,we already send millions in aid around the world !

You seem seriously unaware of what I'm talking about. Of course, far more should be done to help the UK's poorest people; but at least there's a benefits system, even if flawed; we have an NHS, schools and police that benefit everyone; there are shelters and food banks, which obviously, I wish no one was forced to use - but they're all things that people in the countries I mentioned can only dream of.
Right now, the cyclone victims don't even have clean water and are on the verge of contracting cholera; they're so starved that they're forced to fight over rice, and they've lost everything, including loved ones.

we send millions to some of the country’s you are talking about , it is down to the corrupt governments in those places to make sure the aid gets to the people !
I am NOT seriously unaware of what you are talking about .....I have relatives in Venezuela so you do not need to preach to me about what we should be doing .As I said ,we have people who need help in the U.K. and all the money and the bleeding hearts in the world will not solve the problems abroad whilst they are being fleeced by their own governments 

We give 0.7% of our GDP, why on Earth do you think that that would be enough to resolve things? Meanwhile, our corporations are taking even more than that - https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
And if their governments are corrupt, why should we leave the people to starve, as though it's their fault that their politicians are unfair? Also, it's colonialism, including by our ancestors, that led to the corrupt governmets of developing countries.

And corrupt governments don't allow aid or siphon off the money granted to the country allegedly to help the most needy. All the bleeding heart heal the world stuff just doesn't cut through reality. Also the UK is not nursemaid to the rest of the world. What about the other African countries helping their own countries? Where's the middle eastern countries helping theirs ? Why should all this be on the UK shoulders? Fed up of it all when there are so many problems in our country - sort these out first before pandering to others.

If a government is corrupt, that doesn't mean that aid can't reach the people.
Indeed, the Middle Eastern countries that have wealth should help their neighbours - but if they don't, it's not the fault of the innocent starving people. Compared to the people of Yemen, we live in extreme luxury, spending loads on things that we don't need whilst they starve to death - and weapons sales that have added to our economy are largely responsible.
Africa's been left poverty stricken by nations like ours having brutally robbed it of its natural resources, and its people robbed of land by our multinational corporations. Today, multinationals use corruption to take many, many times money from developing countries than we give in aid.
We have an NHS; school for everyone; warm, dry, comfortable, furnished homes; clean water on tap; electricity, broadband and endless entertainment via technology; all the food we could want, and so much more. How can you possibly think that we shouldn't help people whose homes have been destroyed and who are in physical agony for lack of food and water?

Let me give you a for instance about the corrupt governments in other country’s .......Venezuela has gone days without electricity , water , food ,medicines etc .....it was sent by the US amongst other places and was confiscated at the border by the government ,the people are starving and dieing so what’s your answer to that Grace Dalton

What's happening in Venezuela is awful, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't help other countries which can be reached by Aid. Also, I never said that there shouldn't be more done for the least well off people in this country; I said the opposite, that far more should be done to help them. But they're poor because the wealth of our nation is stupidly unfairly distributed, not because of Foreign Aid, which, as I said, is a measly 0.7% of our GDP.

 

Sadiq Khan backs LGBT+ education in response to Parkfield protests

Why put time into teaching kids about same sex relationships in the hope that doing so will reduce bullying, rather than instead using that time teaching children never to bully for any reason? I didn't know about homosexuality until the very end of primary school - but I, like most of us, wouldn't dream of bullying an LGBT person. We need to teach kids that all human beings are equally precious and all deserve respect. 

You can do both surely

Then why are kids still bullying other kids,for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with sexuality? Obviously, some children will always treat others horribly, but it makes more sense to spend limited school time on addressing bullying as a whole.

  

Sorry but Fleabag's priest is an exploitative muppet

What you might not get (or not fully grasp, having not experienced it), is that a person's relationship with God can be a hugely meaningful part of their lives. He could feel joy in knowing God, and also a responsibility to serve a congregation. The issue is the Catholic Church forcing priests to be single - it's not Biblical.
  

Will I Always Get the Desires of My Heart?

Surely "Will I always get the desires of my heart?" is a somewhat moot question, in that we don't necessarily know what we want; and that the desires of our hearts change (ie, perhaps what we get will not be what we want at the time, and later we'll be glad that we received it)
   

This Political Party Believes Meditation and Vegetarianism Will Solve India’s Problems - Vice

I feel like you're mocking them, but you, Vice, are no more rational, given your relentless horoscopes.
  

Bacon prices set to rise ‘because of African swine fever outbreak’

If we can't get bacon as cheaply, or at all, it's absolutely trivial by comparison to the concern we should have for impoverished people in Africa who could suffer because of this. We can easily just buy other meat - for some people in Africa, this could mean losing their source of protein and or income entirely.
   

A quarter of young Japanese are virgins

Good for them. Contrary to the messages our sex obsessed culture brainwashes us with, sex isn't actually necessary to enjoy life. And if more people delayed until they were married, they'd suffer less emotionally, and avoid STIs and accidental pregnancies. Corporations that profit from selling sex-related products and splashing sex across our screens have misled people into doing things that ultimately reduce long term wellbeing.

Sex obsessed culture? Your comment highlights your opinion and personal attitude to the issue, not more. How are you going to marry someone if you never have never had sex with him/her? Copying traditional outdated social models where sex before marriage was a taboo is not the answer.

Highlights my own opinion? Isn't discussing our own opinions what we're all doing here? And what do you mean by "How are you going to marry someone if you never have never had sex with him/her"? Are you imagining people being married and still not having sex with each other, or are you saying that people couldn't get married if they'd not had sex first? If the latter, then why?
And how exactly is not having sex before marriage "outdated"? Just because something was normal in the past and isn't now, doesn't mean that it's wrong.

japanese are going to die out due to not having sex. I think being sex obsessed is actually a good thing in this case.

Almost all people here who are young and sexually active are preventing that sex from leading to babies - to increase its birth rate, a society needs families to each have more children (not that kids born to single mums aren't equally awesome, obviously - but statistically, they are more likely to have a tough time).

 

Paying $695 for flip-flops with heels is natural selection 

Meanwhile, some equally deserving human beings in developing countries have no shoes at all.
We can provide 2 pairs of shoes for those in the greatest need for just £18, which many of us would spend on a takeaway.
The cost of these flip flops could provide shoes for 50 people. https://www.goodgifts.org/2-pairs-of-shoes-1.html

 

Toddler Brandishing Play-Doh Pocketknife Apprehended By UK Police

I'm confused - why are you (in the US) joking about what's going on here? Here in London, there's nothing funny about the knife crime problem - and this^ is incredibly hurtful to the families of knife crime victims, and the many worried that their teenagers could become victims.

not laughing at the crime itself.
Laughing at your totalitarian government. The idea that a government is so controlling that it decides whether or not you get to own cutlery is amusing to us.

The government hasn't decided whether people can own cutlery, what are you talking about? 

seems your gun regulations did not fix your hoodlum problem

 -So it doesn't come here? We have guns. No one brings a knife to a gun fight... But you wouldn't know that because you gave them up...
We didn't. That's why we're under American rule and not British rule and why you'll be under Muslim rule.
Of course gun regulations alone don't eliminate crime, why would they? If we didn't have them, we could have mass school shootings like you do. The knife crime issue is complicated, and related to gangs and drug dealers forcing teenagers into conflict, with more innocent people still becoming victims. It's not because we don't have guns.

it’s mocking the idea that banning a type of weapon will greatly reduce murder rates instead of focusing on the mental aspect of why the crimes are committed in the first place.

-Gun laws prevent exactly zero criminals from acquiring guns.

-you will never eliminate the tools with which people will do evil. You can't outlaw rocks. Trying to take away the tools is extremely ineffective. But it provides a great source of comedic material so please, do carry on.

-The real joke here is the UK itself, and its soft-handed treatment of the most vile criminal scum imaginable.

-apparently pocket knives, steak knives, kitchen knives and butter knives are now too dangerous for the public to have access to there. Sharp sticks next.

-I think the joke is believing that totalitarianism will solve it. - Grace Dalton is trolling, surely...
-it completely baffles me how anyone can seriously consider passing laws against kitchen cutlery. Blame the criminal not the knife. I have a drawer full of razors sharp knives. Not one of them has ever committed a single crime, ever.
-I agree this article was a little too far. They should have made one making fun of the acid attacks in London.
Because in America, we still have free speech and can make fun of England whenever we want. Nobody cares if you dont like it. Nobody owes you an explanation. But ill give you one free of charge:
-Your govts totalitarion denial of basic rights is not designed to keep you safe. Its designed to subdue and control you and you're too dumb to realise it. You cant ban and legislate crime away. There is science behind this. The root cause of most violent crime is the poverty/addiction cycle. Everyone knows this, but you keep making more and dumber restrictive laws. You are rubes. You are getting played. 
-Man, I'm so glad we broke up with you.
-Once most of the knives are seized, watch for Mayor Khan’s Imam to call for the Knife Intifada in the UK to advance toward Sharia Law.
-I guess bombings and truck/van mass killings are better than a mass shooting?Personally I’d take a shooting over a bombing.
-people make fun of it because the gun rights supporters here have routinely said that if we banned guns, the next thing politician would come for is knives. They laughed at us... Now we laugh because of the stupidity the left espouses and how accurate our predictions of their stupidity is
-”I live like a slave, but your opinion on basic human rights hurts my extraordinarily weak feelings, so curtail some of your individual freedom so I look less foolish.” -An Idiot Named Grace-
-When you keep voting in people who do not vett the Muslims who are coming into your country from areas that are known for being "radical" Muslims, you can expect that kind of violence.
-If only you had guns to defend yourselves.
-I honestly can’t tell if this person is trolling or serious
-You banned cutlery
-We in the U.S. are well aware of your stabbings, as well as car attacks, acid attacks, etc. Knives aren't your real problem. Open borders are.
-because it’s hilarious
-it is hilarious because you fools conflate safety with less freedom. Enjoy the slow rot of your once great empire at the hand of your own demise.
Wow. How did you all end up so unpleasant?
And you seem to be seriously misinformed - but then. if you're getting your news from sites with names like "Professional Troublemaker", I shouldn't be surprised.
Cutlery is not banned, why on Earth do you think that? The knives that have been banned are zombie knives - please Google those if you don't kow what they are and tell me why one Earth you think anyone should have them.
I've already said that the knife crime issue is complex and relates to gang culture amongst other things, so why are so many of you accusing me of blaming the items themselves? The reality is, that if a teenager feels nervous because of gangs in their local area, or want to seem tough to their peers, and they decide to buy a knife to carry, it's more likely that someone - including that teenager themselves or someone entirely innocent, will end up injured or dead than if they can't easily buy a knife. And if guns were legal, far, far more people would end up dead. Obviously criminals will still ignore laws, and obviously, some people will always find other ways of inflicting injury, but the fatality rate will be lessened if fewer people are carrying knives and end up using them in a moment of panic and adrenaline. It's the Left who are fervently arguing that the problems are more deep-rooted than knives themselves, and who are campaigning for more youth clubs and mental health services.
Ultimately, this is obviously about you feeling tragically attached to guns. It's simultaneously funny and sad - you think that we're oppressed and living under a totalitarian government because we don't own killing machines. There are many, many things that people here disagree about - but no one is seriously arguing for us to be allowed guns. You're like addicts, terrified that someone will take away from you the thing that you're addicted to, whilst you're in fact the more imprisoned one, trapped by your addiction and unaware that things would actually be better if you were free of it.
Also, for the record, we are not being over run by Muslims. Some of your media has seriously conned you on this topic. I am personally concerned about Islam itself - but the vast majority of Muslims are not following, or are not even aware of, the dangerous aspects of Islam. And in reality, many Muslims have virtues that society could do with more of. Sadiq Khan, for example, got my vote because he worked hard, coming from an underprivileged background, and has a stable family, whilst his (white) opponent had everything in life handed to him, and had cheated on his wife. Of course, 1 example proves nothing, but you're seriously mistaken thinking that Khan and Muslims are destroying Britain.
 ....yeah...it kinda is. You lie about not having a crime problem and one of our political parties use you as a guide for their agenda so they can drag us to EU standards calling it "progressive." It funny...sad.
When did I say that we don't have a crime problem? Every nation has a crime problem because every nation has human beings. What "EU standards" are the Democrats trying to enforce? And why are you moaning at a Brit about the EU?
Because knives don't kill people, roving packs of Bengali kids do. At least that is what I was told when I was in London 15+ years ago. We were told by our guide not to mess with the kids/teens on the street, he said they might look 95 pounds soaking wet after a full meal, but he said many of them were in gangs and all carried knives. Politically incorrect. but that was what one Londoner told us.
Why would you "mess with" anyone? What does being Bengali have to do with this? Seriously, I follow the news, I can't remember any of the crimin\ls we see images of being Bengali. And I've already said, it's not just the items that a responsible- but if fewer potential attackers had knives with them, there would be fewer tragedies.
you're entire data collection for criminal statistics is where the English and Europians lie. To call those tactics "skewing" is an understatement If you want to play the "I as an individual never said that" fine....but it's your government that does.
"if [I] want to play" - what? I'm not "playing" anything, I'm not responsible for what my government says. I didn't even vote for them. Why on Earth are you arguing with me about what politicians who happen to be in the same country as me have done?
But also, how on Earth do you know that my, or the UK government's data is wrong? Seriously, it's bizarre that you have certainty that you know better than another nation's government about what's going on in that nation when you're thousands of miles away.
 

Google 'avoided paying £1.5bn in tax' that could have paid for 60,000 nurses or 50,000 Police Constables or 50,000 firefighters. 

Obviously not the point, but why are nurses being paid less than firefighters and police officers? Nurses have to do a lot of unpaid overtime and courses/training days (for new medications and procedures).

 

At Cosmopolitan Magazine, Data Is the New Sex

Does that mean that the magazine will stop incessantly printing articles about sex? That would be awesome.

  

Easter not mentioned on '80 per cent of chocolate egg boxes' - Premier

What actually matters is that the vast majority of Brits believe Christ's offer of salvation (or, stupefyingly, Christ Himself) to be fictional. We urgently need to make people aware of the historical case for the resurrection. https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection

The historical case for magic space wizardry is a non-starter.
You're proving my point. Why not look at the writings of Christian academics about the resurrection?
What you’re saying is the vast majority of Brits are thoughtful and intelligent and understand that the story of a resurrection isn’t unique to Christianity. It exists in cultures that predate Christianity by thousands of years.
That's (the idea that Jesus' life is fabricated from other myths) a common conspriracy theory, and easily disproven. Try this, for example, https://jwwartick.com/2012/06/04/parallelomania/
LOL! Oh, my sides!!
Precisely. You don't want to believe in God, so you assume that anyone who does is stupid, even though some have numerous PhDs. If their writings/lectures were all nonsense, you'd be willing to look at them and point out how they're wrong, but you'd rather just laugh and ignore because you don't want to have to examine your current faith.
Did you look at the hyperlink I posted in response to your claim that the resurrection is derived from other cultures' myths? There are plenty of other articles I could have added, I could write out myself why your idea is mistaken, but I'd just be wasting my time, since you aren't going to read anything you don't want to agree with,are you?
A PhD in theology is a like Seinfeld: About nothing.
According to who? Why is your opinion on Academia superior to the universities that from which people obtain theology qualifications? And when did I say that the PhDs I'm referring to are in theology? My favourite Christian writers are PhDs in philosophy, mathematics and astrophysics.
 

PM updates on Brexit

I really, really don't care. What can we do to help the cyclone victims in southern Africa? Or the Yemeni people starving to death because of a war fought with weapons you've sold?
Can we use Brexit to address the grotesque injustices in trade that leave those who provide our cocoa, coffee, tea, sugar, clothes, technology etc in tortuous poverty?
  

Mozambique's Beira buckles from the brunt of Cyclone Idai

Our media almost ignores Africa. It's as though some people think that people with the darkest skin, in the poorest countries are less human. It's horrifying.
Yet what's thrilling, is that when we donate to charities working with the world's very poorest people, it makes many times more of a difference than anything we can spend our money on here. For example, Feed The Hungry UK (obvs. one of many awesome organisations working in the crisis area) can provide food for a family for a month for £15. Many people will have spent that amount, or far more, on a takeaway or booze tonight - I wish that more people were aware of the incomparably more exciting ways that we can spend. Why doesn't the media discuss it more?
  

Campaigners rejoice as Fleabag leads church to temptation

The Bible urges us to be pure - ie, not to sleep around; but the concept of priests remaining single and celibate is an invention of a Pope, it's not from God. There's specifically a suggestion in the New Testament that, unless a person is truly happy and comfortable with lifelong celibacy, each should be married and have a respectful, generous intimate relationship with their spouse.
"But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:2-5
  

Ohio has a new strategy to defund Planned Parenthood—and other states may follow its lead - Bernie Sander

If Clinton weren't so supportive of abortion, Trump wouldn't have won. How serious are you about helping the poor, if you're going to continue letting this^ issue stand in your way?

   

America’s Leaders Need Sex Ed

Indeed - but so do the many people who state that a foetus is "just a clump of cells"

we’re all just clumps of cells. Don’t fool yourself about an invisible man in the sky making you special.

Yup - so if we're each clumps of cells, why is calling a foetus a clump of cells considered by those who do so to prove that it's fine to kill them? And note the word *just* - we are comprised of cells, but we're not "just clumps", we have unique genomes that determine the development of cellular structures; cell networks; tissues and organ systems - and we have brain function and consciousness.
When did I mention an invisible man in the sky? You seem to be mocking what you presume I believe, whilst not at all understanding what I actually do believe.

The question is, whose clump of cells? If it isn't yours, BUTT. OUT.

A murder victim isn't anyone else's clump of cells, so should we butt out then? What do you mean by butt out, given that all I'm doing is typing, I'm not actually stopping anyone from doing anything?

Describe a fetus however you want, it’s not a person, and even if it is, its existence is entirely dependent on whoever carries it, not you, please mind your business and find a real issue to be upset about.

So how do we define a "person"? And why does dependency determine that killing is OK? We're all dependent on other people to farm our food, and on the living things (inc plants) that we eat to survive - more straightforwardly, babies and severely handicapped, ill, injured and elderly people are dependent. Crucially, the person on whom the foetus is dependent made the choice that brought about that dependency(other than in cases of rape, obviously, but these account for literally only 1% or abortions, according to PP's own research).
But I should shut up, because though this is a "real issue", there are others that I ought to be focussing on - I'm heartbrokn by severe poverty in developing countries, and need to stop wasting time discussing other things.

first of all: Yawn. Secondly, are you a gun control advocate? Or perhaps volunteering to help the current influx of immigrants from Central America?? Didn’t think so.

What? I live in London, England. I follow news outlets from around the world, because I want to be better informed (also, US culture feeds right into ours, since so, so many websites/vloggers/films/tv programs etc that people here consume are from the US).
So I can't volunteer with migrants from South/Central America, I wish I could. Gun control? I'm baffled that people (other than farmers or soldiers) have guns at all. If it were up to me, they'd all be got rid off ASAP.

  

Fiona Bruce says a BBC boss told her 'she didn't need a pay rise because of boyfriend's salary'

Ridiculous, obviously - but in fact, she wouldn't have needed a payrise because she's already earning several times what the average Brit earns, and hundreds of times what some women - those who pick our tea, sew our clothes, harvest our fruit etc - earn. Why is our culture so obsessed with things like this^ and unconcerned the human beings earning so little that they have to live in slums?

Whilst one child cry’s in hunger such as this poor mite in the Yemen, I cannot get animated about bloody Brexit

Thankyou so much for saying this. I'm so, so, so sick of our nation obsessing over comparative trivia whilst there's serious suffering elsewhere in our world.
My generation, who've grown up fully aware of severe global poverty, and who would claim to be concerned about social justice, are passionately fighting against Brexit (and plastic entangling sea life - which is obviously bad, but insignificant compared to this^), and marching in the streets because of it, whilst almost ignoring the most severe human agony.

    

Why White People Shouldn’t Impose Their Feelings Into Conversations on Race

Most of the time, that's true, but you also don't help anything by disregarding peoples' feelings - and headlines like this help nothing, but will push some white people towards racism.

"Yeah, but...(inserts feelings)..." And, uh, if this article pushes somebody towards racism guess what. They were already racist. In other words, this headline might make a racist feel like expressing their racism.

Yuh, and people of colour suffer more when more people express racism, so why are you implying that this is a good thing?
If a white person "imposes their feelings", you can point out if/how those feelings are unjustified - if you simply tell people shut up because they're white you aren't helping anything, you're just being racist.

Why should black people have to constantly point out white people whining?

I never said that they have to do anything.

yeah, nah. First of all those racist White people have been expressing their racism all along in a million ways. We've been talking about that for years. So called non racist Whites like you have been saying "Shhhhhh" for years.
You don't seem to realize that they use emotions as a tactic to shut down debate. We can't allow that.
Believe me. Blacks have endured the bullshit of racist Whites for years. We will handle it.
You need to spend more time tone policing your White racist brothers and sisters and less time trying to prove the articles on this site right.

"So called non racist Whites like you" are you implying that all white people are racist? Or that I'm racist? (NB, I'm not moaning if you are as some people do, I'm just trying understand what you're saying).
What do you mean about me needing to "tone police my white racist brothers and sisters"? You've just said that you "will handle" racist BS (I never suggested you should have to) so why are you then telling me police peoples' tone? And why would I be able to police what other people say? Why would anyone change their tone because I ask them to? Who are my "brothers and sisters"? Other white people aren't my brothers and sisters, we're all individuals with entirely varying views. I'm not connected to people on the basis of having similarly low levels of melanin.

I don't know if you are racist or not. I was drawing a parallel between you and the people that you said would become more racist if they saw a headline on social media. You might or might not be racist. I have no skin in that game. I guarantee a racist White person will listen to you or any other White person before they listen to a person of color. And yeah. You are here trying to tell us to tip toe around the feelings of White people. That is tone policing. Take that energy elsewhere.
Yes. Black people will shoulder the weight of White racism. But its White people who need to use their energy and influence to put an end to it.
Or you could sit here debating with Blacks about how we should be more accommodating to racist when they manipulate the dialogue with emotional outbursts.
Which is kind of what you're doing now. 

I'm definitely not "trying to tell us to tip toe around the feelings of White people". If white people whine, you're in no way obliged to "tip toe"/pay them attention. I'm not asking you to be accomodating. All I was saying was that the headline, that white people should shut up about their feelings, is mistaken. And indeed, unfortunately a racist white person might be even less likely to listen to a person of colour than to me, but they still won't take seriously what I say if I suggest that that they change their tone.

perhaps you don't realize this, but you are demonstrating the point of the article by continuing to center your feelings about the headline in this discussion.

What have I said that's about my feelings?

Pretty much everything you've said has been about white people feelings, Grace, and you're white. Unless you're an emotionless robot and you're pearl clutching by proxy, you're talking aboit your feelings.

I am an emotionless robot, I have Aspergers (not to speak for others with Aspergers, obviously). You've not answered my question - which words or phrases in what I've written are about emotion? Raymond, how am I being defensive? You're essentially saying that I should just shut up entirely because I'm white, which is fine, but you're not going to tackle racism by telling people to shut up.

Black people aren't being racist. We don't have the power to do that. We can be prejudiced, not racist. Still, prejudice assumes we have no memory, history, or legacy to judge against, and that's just not true. Even the so-called good white people have had selfish aims often.... you are holding yourself up to not be a racist while having the symptoms of a racist.
To put it succinctly, if you aren't talking about reparations or true systemic reform as a white person to black people, nothing else you are talking about matters. It'll just be lip service or self-serving, like a distraction, which is maybe your intent all along to maintain the status quo or protect your own racial feelings.
Whites are not all individuals. That is a common ploy. What I mean is, whites act as a group when it's convenient and they act as individuals when it's convenient. When there are BAD whites that surface, then you claim that that person has nothing to do with you or your culture. Meanwhile, 'mainstream whiteness' will accuse black people of being inferior, not on an individual basis, but as a group. You thinking you are an individual is something that comes out of white supremacy itself. It's a response that is expected to pretend there is a meritocracy here... that you never got anywhere by anybody else's hand, that you are where you are of your own volition, that your attitudes are bohemian and nuanced, that you aren't the average, mediocre rube who just wants to bother somebody for no reason at all. It's a defense mechanism to keep you racially innocent. You are very much connected to other whites as a group. It's what confers benefits of this system upon you. You weren't a slaveowner, but I guarantee you that you share their group dynamic in having some power over somebody else. If you lied about a black man raping you tonight, that person could end of dead just based on a word. Just a word. No action, no evidence, doesn't even have to be an actual black man who exists - they'll pick up any warm body they find or 'suspect' to hold us accountable. All because you make a claim.[etc]
I suspect that much of our misunderstanding is bourne of me living in London, where, though I'm aware things are far from perfect, there's far less racial tension than in the US, so I'm failing to appreciate the issue of racism not only because of being white, but also because I've not lived amidst the tension that exists elsewhere (again, I'm certainly not claiming that there's no racism here, nor that Londoners are otherwise superior, obviously). What I do observe far more, is the abhorrent disregard that many people have for those in developing countries, and I spend much of my time on social media desperately trying to make people think again - but it's blooming hard, people often cling to their opinions even more strongly when they're challenged, so telling people to change their tone or shut up about their feelings is only going to make those people less willing to listen.
"You absolutely were by telling us to not tell them to shut up" - can you see how bizarre this conversation has become? You're scolding me because you think I'm telling some people not to tell other people not to verbalise their feelings. Is that a quadruple negative? I don't know about where you are, but here (in the UK), an endlessly lauded value is freedom of speech - I disagree with some instances of this, I don't think autonomy trumps the safety of others if the speech that a person wants to be free to have incites harm, but discussing feelings usually won't do so.
In fact, I didn't say that you shouldn't tell them to shut up, I firmly believe that you're entitled to do that, I was only commenting that I think it won't help the cause and in some situations will make things worse.
And as I said right at the beginning, I agree that in general, we should shut up. I was only ever querying part of the title, not the article's message as a whole.
[Essay]
Why do you assume that me writing a brief comment on an article means that I have unlimited time? More to the point, why would I spend time on this? I'm not helping anything. I spend most of my time on Facebook trying to make comments that encourage people to consider giving to those in developing countries, and to have more compassion for migrants. Why spend time here being criticised by someone who's angry with presumptions they've made about me? Eg, "I know that your expectations for behavior do not apply evenly across the board" how do you know? You've only read a few sentences from me, and you're imagining me to be like other people you've encountered, even though we're in different cultures. I didn't tell you to "be nice about racism", I don't care about white people finding things "palatable", I only care about unnecessarily moving some people a millimeter in the wrong direction along the racism continuum (not that those people have any excuse, obviously), and I'm bemused as to why you're so keen to argue about that.
  

3 Ways That Calling God 'Mother' Transforms Us

He calls Himself our Father, Jesus calls Him father. To call Him mother because it makes you feel better is wrong. We need to dig deeper into understanding Him, not call Him what we want to think of Him as.

 

‘We never want to return to the days of Section 28’: these are the faith organisations supporting same-sex education in schools

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" . [etc]

So what? By all means, don't have gay sex if you don't want to. But keep your proselytising away from here please.

How are you defining proselytising? This is Facebook, we all comment on things, and I commented in relation to this article. I'm not expecting anyone to do as I say, as with any commet online, it's discussion.

Your special book is meaningless. No magic sky daddy exists smh

have you misunderstood my original comment? Leviticus makes clear that gay sex is sin, and Paul reaffirms this later (in contrast with many Levitical laws) - but Jesus, as I wrote,saved a woman from being stoned for sexual sin, and told her to go and sin no more. All of us have sinned, even if never seually, and Jesus offers each of us forgiveness if we turn to Him. He made clear that we should treat others with compassion and love - so we shouldn't support sex that God has warned against, but to be Christian (countless people have misused that word) means being loving to people themselves whatever they've done. 

Your special book is meaningless. No magic sky daddy exists smh

I never mentioned a sky daddy. Obviously, I encounter that phrase all the time - but it demonstrates that you've misunderstood what I mean by God. The "special book" has sold many more copies, and had far more influence, than any other book in history - but it's extremely complex (in particular, it's not a straightforward book, it's a compilation of 66 texts with entirely varied contexts and purposes) and has often been misused. I'm not expecting you to believe it - but this article is about people who supposedly already do. And I wonder, how much have you looked at the academic arguments for God's existence, and for the historicity of the Bible?
Sod this I'm going on grindr to hook up. Stupid fake bible ya nonsense jesus and your imaginary god
Why do you think that the Bible is fake, that Jesus is nonsense or that God is imaginary?
[Deleted Comment]
Not exactly - firstly, I'm well aware that there are many people sharing those traits with you; secondly, "grinding my gears" suggests that I'm annoyed or angry, which I'm not at all. I believe that God is awesome and it seems heartbreaking that people ignore Him, so I'm saddened/concerned for you (huge apologies that that sounds patronising, I'm struggling to find better words); but that's a very different emotion to anger.
Gay people, animals etc. have always been in existence whereas the guy in the sky was invented. Education needs to focus on giving a good grounding for life, nothing more, and definitely not on religious mumbo jumbo.
Obviously, I see this dogma repared endlessly - that God was made up - but why exactly do you believe that?
BTW, I wasn't suggesting anything about "religious mumbo jumbo" being taught, and everyone needs to reach their own conclusions based on the evidence. However, teaching kids about how God has told us to live, to care for others, avoid violence, eschew materialism etc, is no bad thing. 
I know many christians think that's progressive Christian thinking (my father believes this) but to classify love between consenting adults as sinful isn't progressive at all. The Bible was written 2000 years ago when what was the norm in same sex relationships was not consentual love. Study what it meant in Roman and Greek times. Plus sodom and gomorrah is more to do with the whole wanting to gang rape visitors. That isn't the same as a loving same sex relationship. Lgbt people aren't fans of gang rape and abuse either. I grew up in the church, I'm gay and I'm still undoing the harm done by this type of thinking.A friendly reminder that the bible wasn't too keen on priests being married either but protestant priests were happy to reevaluate that belief. Don't condemn others to a life of celibacy unless you think you would endure the same applied to you and who you consentually love.
I absolutely don't deem Sodom and Gomorrah as a reason, I'm well aware that that was about rape. The Bible doesn't oppose married priests - the Catholic Church instituted this centuries later, wrongly, but Paul earlier wrote that it would be ideal for people to be single, yet since most people would be overcome with lust, it was right for people to get married.
I'm not condemning anyone, just commenting, having looked at this topic extensively - including the argument about relationships being different in Greek and Roman culture, in fact the words used the Bible don't refer to those relationships, but specifically refer to same sex sex. And I do - live celibate. But I can't stress enough, I'm not judging, just commenting (ie, I don't feel judgmental/negatively towards people, I'm only commenting on an action).
As I said, I'm a sinner in need of God's forgiveness and help; and He loves everyone, even whilst He calls us to stop certain actions.
Oh where in the Bible does it explicity say Gay sex is a sin? ... Its says "love thy neighbour" not stone them to death because they are different to you...
Have you misunderstood my original comment? Leviticus makes clear that gay sex is sin, and Paul reaffirms this later (in contrast with many Levitical laws) - but Jesus, as I wrote, saved a woman from being stoned for sexual sin, and told her to go and sin no more. All of us have sinned, even if never sexually, and Jesus offers each of us forgiveness if we turn to Him. He made clear that we should treat others with compassion and love - so we shouldn't support sex that God has warned against, but to be Christian (countless people have misused that word) means being loving to people themselves whatever they've done.
 

What the Purity Culture Generation Is Building in Its Place

I'm in the UK, so although I've tried to find out about "purity culture", I'm somewhat out of the loop. From where I'm standing, this headline looks concerning - in itself, purity is obviously something that God calls us to. If some people have used it as an excuse to be unloving to others, we need to each draw closer to God and know that His forgiveness is what matters, not others' opinions; we shouldn't rebel to such an extent that we demonise purity itself and pretend that premarital sex is morally virtuous. Seeing Nadia Boltz Webber with her vagina sculpture made of melted purity rings was sickening. Jesus offers each of us salvation when we turn to Him from things that we shouldn't have been doing (obviously I'm not just referring to sex) and we should be ever marvelling at that truth, rather than trying to counter the judgementalism of others by celebrating things that God has advised against.
  

Oxfam betrayed its values by sexually exploiting quake victims, says new head

Some individuals within Oxfam did; but it's an enormous organisation saving scores of lives. That so many want to stop donating because the actions of several staff who aren't even part of Oxfam anymore is gross cruelty to the world's poorest people.
Having said that, there are many awesome organisations doing the same work, so one could give to one of those instead, but Oxfam charity shops (inc via their website) are the best place to buy anything - it's utterly thrilling how much of a difference our money can make
 

ISIS bride Shamima Begum: "I do regret having children in the caliphate"

I'm not denying that what she did was beyond awful - but people laughing at her misery and that tiny children died is gross.

   

Cholera outbreak after cyclone in Mozambique is now a killer

Our media almost ignores Africa. It's as though some people think that people with the darkest skin, in the poorest countries are less human. It's horrifying.
Yet what's thrilling, is that when we donate to charities working with the world's very poorest people, it makes many times more of a difference than anything we can spend our money on here. For example, Feed The Hungry UK (obvs. one of many awesome organisations working in the crisis area) can provide food for a family for a month for £15. Many people will have spent that amount, or far more, on a takeaway or booze tonight - I wish that more people were aware of the incomparably more exciting ways that we can spend.

 

Maddie McCann cops want another £300k for search after £12m funding runs out

I really, really don't mean to sound unsympathetic - but I can't stop thinking about how the children dying simply from lack of clean water or adequate food are in fact no less human and precious than Maddie; thousands of them could have been saved from a slow and painful death with the money that's been spent on this investigation.
We ourselves, though we haven't £millions can save a child by, for example, sponsoring for the cost equivalent of one takeaway per month - that's thrilling, and we should focus on that rather than constantly being shown sad articles about Maddie.

  

Conversion is not your mission, pope tells Catholics in Morocco

Jesus offers eternal life - why would the Pope not want Muslims to be offered that?
*NB, I am, of course, not at all condoning forced "conversions", only that people are presented with information to make their own choices.
  

Advertisers warned to respect Christians at Easter

As a Christian, it does indeed frustrate me when companies mock so repulsively, but I try not to think about it - what actually matters though, is that most people never seriously examine the historical case for the resurrection. We'll all die some day, and eternal life is being offered to each person by the one who defeated death, but most people presume it to be fictional without actually looking into it themselves. https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection

the reason people don’t seriously examine the resurrection is precisely because there is no historical evidence it ever happened.

You're proving my point. You're making presumptions having not looked.

So basically if we dont agree with you, we are proving your point? Right-ee-o

No, the comments simply presume that there are no arguments for the resurrection, demonstrating that people haven't looked. It might be that someone has lookedat the topic and queries the arguments for the resurrection such that they believe it didn't happen, but the above comments don't address any part of the topic, they simply mock it.

not at all.. I went to Roman Catholic convent schools my whole childhood and researched over a number of years after.
No actual conclusive evidence whatsoever. Seeing as Christianity was established a few hundred years after the event and was mostly designed as a control mechanism to galvanise fractured peoples and other religious groups of the time.
It’s mostly conjecture and speculation. No actual evidence of Jesus Christ himself, no evidence of crucifixion or the resurrection.
It’s why it’s called faith as you don’t need evidence to believe it.
I’m honestly not trolling you, but you are insinuating the bible as fact when in fact it’s a lot of bits and pieces (mostly unsubstantiated) put together 100’s of years after and then translated (badly) depending on the needs of the church at the time, to create the book that you read now.
I certainly don't simply presume the Bible to be fact. From what I've heard of convents, they build up resentment and don't seriously explore apologetics. How/where did you research? How can you be certain that "no evidence exists whatsoever"? What if you've just not encountered it yet?
Why do you think that Christiaity was established centuries after the events?
If you think I'm deluded, wy waste time with this thread?
Which story in the bible is the correct one? They all disagree about what happened so which one is correct? If the bible is supposed to be the perfect word of God why can't it get its most important story straight?

Which disagreements are you specifically referring to? BTW, I honestly don't have time for an endless discussion, as interesting as this is.
How long was jesus "dead", how many people were at his tomb and when, where was the rock that sealed the tomb and many other contradictory stories. You'd know about them if you'd actually read your bible
You think I don't read the Bible? Why?
The Gospels tell us about the same accounts from different perspectives - were the events all an elaborate lie, those propagating it would likely have put forward identical false testimonies, so I'm not sure why you think that the Gospels not being identical means that the events didn't happen. The differences are the minor differences in use of language that we'd expect when different people recount events. So, for example, you asked how many people were at the tomb, but there's no reason to presume that each Gospel writer intended their list to be exhaustive. So Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary (James' mother), & Salome, Matthew mentions just the Marys and John mentions just Mary Magdalene - because different people describe things in differing detail depending on what they deem relevant.
Jesus was crucified on Friday and found to have risen very early on Sunday, obviously, the Gospels don't disagree about that, nor about the stone having been rolled away..
I’ve been to the church of the nativity in Bethlehem and seen the manger/cave where He was born, I’ve touched the empty tomb at the church of resurrection, I’ve been to the Olive Garden where He was betrayed and I’ve walked the stations of the cross, I’ve also been blessed by the Pope on a separate occasion, and I’ve still not heard one convincing argument to believe in the bible other than the 10 commandments basically being a guide to not being a dickhead. I have a faith but the bible is pretty much full of fanciful tales designed to control the (at the time) uneducated masses.
Why would visiting those sites, or being blessed by the Pope, in any way mean that your understanding of the history would be all that there is? Apologies if that sounded rude.
Why do you think that the Bible's events were designed to control people? How would the resurrection narrative, (and Jesus' words that belief in Him - NOT actions nor money - is what determines eternal life) control people?
    

Paula White: the pastor who helps Trump hear 'what God has to say'

Prosperity "gospel", for those unfamiliar with it, is not Gospel at all. If he exists, Satan is behind it.
And God is very, very angry about some of Trump's stances, given that He urges us throughout the Bible to care for the poor and for migrants (as well as, obviously, to be humble, honest, and to avoid lust.
    

100 Ways to Better Support Muslim Women

I'm really not sure these "100 Ways to Better Support...." articles help anything - people keen to support minorities can use their common sense and empathy without needing a list; people who aren't keen to support minorities will just be made to feel more resentful (esp. when you start telling people how to spend their time and money). Discrimination needs to be addressed, but I honestly don't think that these lists of instructions are going to help.

 
Jussie Smollett: why were the charges dropped and what happens next?

I'm seriously worried that this mess will make some people more unsympathetic and distrusting when they hear about genuine acts of discrimination.

 

Church and state divided: Ireland must learn from Britain's Catholic experience

There needs to be a distinction made between institutions and beliefs. Actual Christianity, by definition, is to love and want to emulate Jesus - and throughout history, people have called themselves Christians to appear noble whilst not actually following Jesus at all. Church abuse scandals demonstrate this taken to the extreme, with entangled power hierarchies and corruption. There needs, obviously, to be drastic action to counter abuse - but it's not logical to reject Jesus because of the actions of perverted human beings.
   

Sex. Religion. Death. Conical bras. Madonna’s ‘Like A Prayer’ and Blond Ambition Tour at 30

It's nothing to do with "religion", she was just appropriating and mocking Church, entirely ignoring the concept of what prayer actually is.
    

That 'Fleabag' Confessional Scene Was About Much More Than the Show Itself

I know that most people reading this think that the idea of God is laughable - but He does provide help in dealing with the questions of despair she asks. (Of course, that in itself is not a reason to believe in Him - there are reasons to actually conclude that his existence is true). The scene was a tragic irony - hinging on traditions of Catholicism that are outside of Jesus' teaching.

>According to what source? Having seen you post blatant falsehoods before, I reckon that this is a hoax. And the KKK ISN'T related to Christianity, because even if bigots claim to be Christians, actual Christianity, by definition, is to follow Christ, who made it perfectly clear that behaviour and attitudes like those of the KKK are abominable. No one could be committed to living for Him, and behave as the KKK do.

good use of the No True Scottsman fallacy.
But a fallacy nonetheless.
They are Christian.

I encounter this constantly. No, it's not the NTS fallacy. The point of the NTS is that one assumes that all of those of a certain unchosen identity will make certain choices. In reality, being Scottish is not a choice or belief system, so it's a fallacy to presume that it would determine choices about other things or actions. Being a Christian is entirely different fro being of any given heritage, it means, by definition, that a person has chosen to follow Christ. This WILL impact future decisions and behaviours.

according to you? In the Bible killing is condoned if is by mandate, also is permited in cases of apostasy, if a woman it's not a virgin, if a person plant two different seeds on the same field, if a brother don't want to marry the widow, if someone work on the Sabat, if someone is blasphemous. Also slavery is also acceptable by biblical standards so is treating a person according to the place they are born and I can keep mentioning stuff that says in the bible.

Have you entirely ignored what I said? Christianity is to follow Christ. The Old Testament has commands given to specific people, at a specific time, for complex reasons, which I honestly don't have time to go into detail about right now, I have work to do, and there are plenty of articles that do explain those odd commands if you're willing to read (and BTW, those commands don't include killing for apostasy, you seem to be thinking of Islam). God showed us how He actually wants us to live in Jesus.

Something funny you guys are saying is that the New Testament null the old Testament when Jesus itself call to respect the law. More over in many ocations in the New Testament talk about obeying the old law.

"YOU guys still killing in the name of God today"? No, I'm not, what evidence have you that anyone on this thread is? "Witch Trials, the Inquisition, Invasions, pillaging, the crusades, the Holocaust" were NOT today, and as we've said, were carried out by people who weren't actually following Christ. Attacks on minorities also, go against what Jesus taught, so what point are you trying to make?
  

This Philosopher Says We Should Replace Religion with Socialism

But how do you define "religion"? It's endlessly varied. Throughout history, people have claimed to be following religion whilst simply acting out their greed, since claiming to be religious might make them appear more noble to those around them. But "What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine religion is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering and to keep oneself from being corrupted by the world." (James 1:27).
If people genuinely tried to live by Jesus' teachings and example (which is what Christianity actually is, it isn't simply to re-enact anything recorded in the Bible), society would be massively improved. And research repeatedly finds that people who follow God have greater life satisfaction.
But more to the point - has this philosopher, or others reading, looked at the rationale of academic Christians for actually concluding the Gospel to be true? What if Jesus actually is offering something beyond this lifetime?

 

A God Problem Does the idea of a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God actually make sense?  

Why start there? Why would you expect to make sense, with your human mind, of the creator of ll matter, including the atoms of which your mind is comprised? Why not start by looking at the rationale of academic Christians for actually concluding the Gospel to be true?

  

UK porn BLOCK: Two in five viewers plan to use a VPN to get around age checks

The porn industry has a seriously detrimental impact on peoples' lives. Sexual assault is becoming rapidly more common because some people feel that what they see on screen is normal- including children http://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-fuels-child-on-child.../
Some porn performers have been trafficked into the industry, and or are grossly abused within it. Girls are increasingly pressured by boyfriends into sex acts that they're uncomfortable with, as well as being made to feel that their bodies are inadequate. People addicted to porn can have their lives and relationships ruined. The industry does too much harm to be worth defending. There are more than enough other things to watch.
  

Heartbreak and desperation: Mozambican families deal with cyclone's aftermath

Indeed - yet there's been remarkably little coverage, as though some people think that people in developing countries are less human. It's horrifying.
Yet what's thrilling, is that when we donate to charities working with the world's very poorest people, it makes many times more of a difference than anything we can spend our money on here. For example, Feed The Hungry UK (obvs. one of many awesome organisations working in the crisis area) can provide food for a family for a month for £15. Many people will have spent that amount, or far more, on a takeaway or booze tonight - I wish that more people were aware of the incomparably more exciting ways that we can spend.

 

Why aren’t children protesting against poverty?

I have felt so, so strongly for ages that its bizarre that my fellow young lefties are incomparably more energised about environmentalism than about the world's very poorest and most oppressed human beings. I'm not unconcerned about the planet, but what actually matters is ending human suffering, yet no one's marching about that.

why has God made the world so horrible, do you think? What’s his plan?
Have you asked Him? Don't we have free will?
Ultimately, His plan is that those who want to will spend eternity with Him. It will make the horrible things of this world seem momentary, and those horrible things will be gone.
Evidently, when there are no horrible things, human beings are more inclined to ignore, reject God, so that we out ourselves on course to miss out on that awesome-beyond-words potential future, and the existence of things that some would consider horrible sometimes results in good things, by all sorts of means. For example, a disability might be considered horrible, yet many of those who have them bring a unique joy to others and the greatest bonds to their families. Many "horrible" events draw people closer together, creating friend and family relationships that are more wonderful than a problem-free life would be. Consider Sliding Doors - fiction, but it illustrates well that what seems to us to be horrible could in fact be necessary for some better outcome, even though we never realise it.
A toddler will think it horrible when they have a needle stuck into them, their parent knows that it's a vaccination that's entirely necessary - God is incomparably more knowledgable than we are, so whilst a parent can know of reasons a toddler doesn't, God can know of reasons that we don't.
 

Joey Essex 'pinches himself every day' in mansion with Jacuzzi

So why not exchange for something smaller and give the difference to those who've just had their homes destroyed by the cyclone?

why should he? He lost his mum as a child, has learning disabilities and many celebs richer than him. Its his money he can do with it wat he wants.

I respect him himself, I'd comment the same about any super rich individual. Being rich is primarily down to luck, and it's painfully unfair that some people are so stupendously lucky whilst other people - who are innocent and have in fact done far, far more hard work (such as long days of farming in Africa) have to suffer beyond anything we can imagine from hunger, grief, cholera etc. It's thrilling how much of a difference we can make to the lives of the most disadvantaged people - providing homes for dozens of people who've just had theirs swept away by the cyclone would be incomparably more exciting than having lots of spare rooms.
But the rest of us are very wealthy compared to the Global average, even if far, far less wealthy than celebrities, simply because we happen to have born into the UK where almost everyone has a warm, dry home, television, our choice of food and clothes, state provision of healthcare/education/police - and so much more. We have the privilege of seriously helping others who, for example, are starving but can be fed by us giving around £5 per month.

 

Horrified parents discover that drag queens gave lessons to their children at undisclosed LGBT fair

Surely many people can't afford to "pull their kids out of public school"? And how will there be hope of effective voices against ^this among the forthcoming generation if they're entirely segregated from their peers? Surely parents should talk with their children about why these^ things are wrong, so that they grow up well equipped to stand firm in our messy world?
  

When White Nationalist Christians Redefined Their Neighbors

Why do you refer to people as Christians when they're clearly not trying to live for Christ? Christian means little Christ, clearly these people aren't in love with and trying to emulate Christ, therefore they are not Christian. Anyone can refer to themselves as anything, it doesn't mean that they necessarily are, and that we should endorse their erroneous missuse of a word. Trump calls himself a genius, but I doubt that you'd call him a genius - so why simply agree to the self declaration of these^ people^?

The epithet "Christian" was created by people in Antioch to refer to those who talked about the "Anointed One" (Christos). It's only used 3 times in the New Testament. Those in the New Testament Church, "The Way," called themselves disciples and saints instead.

Where are you getting the idea that the word refers to - potentially uncommitted - people who merely talk about Jesus? Acts19:26 "The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch"
It was a term of mockery, I'm well aware that they called themselves followers of The Way and saints; why would they not use for themselves a name that's inspiring rather than one that was derisory at the time?

Look up the logical fallacy "No True Scotsman"

I encounter this constantly. No, it's not the NTS fallacy. The point of the NTS is that one assumes that all of those of a certain unchosen identity will make certain choices. In reality, being Scottish is not a choice or belief system, so it's a fallacy to presume that it would determine choices about other things or actions. Being a Christian is entirely different fro being of any given heritage, it means, by definition, that a person has chosen to follow Christ. This WILL impact future decisions and behaviours.

  

Tusk: ‘Lots of space’ in hell for British MPs who vote against Brexit deal 

NB, contrary to popular misconception, the Bible doesn't say that people in hell will suffer there for eternity - its flames are eternal, not its inhabitants. Fire destroys. And the Bible makes clear that EVERYONE is offered forgiveness, ie not to end up in hell; it's a place for those who choose to reject God's offer of eternal life.
It seems odd to me that whilst the most well known verse, John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." implies that it's only those who choose to be with Christ who'll exist eternally, yet many people assume that hell is "eternal conscious torment" as though God would continue to sustain the existence of people purely to hurt them. But it's a bigger topic - http://rethinkinghell.com/ is interesting.
Crucially, "The Lord.. is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)

 

Tate Galleries Will Refuse Sackler Money Because of Opioid Links

As a Londoner, I'm sickened that money is being spent on galleries when there are so many people living - and dying - on the streets ATM.
    

Women Get 'Death Grip Syndrome' Too, and It Sucks

But contrary to VICE's tragic delusion, we don't actually need to masturbate nor have sex. You spend most of your time trying to convince everyone that they urgently need something which in fact will cause a lot of people pain.
   

Dear Cosmopolitan: Your evil sexual advice is destroying countless girls

Indeed, Cosmo is a scourge on society. Although just throwing them away won't help - kids also need to be very gently told that the reason not to read Cosmo is that it's evil and that it hurts people. If kids just things taken away from them in a harsh manner and without explanation, they'll just seek out more vices and learn to hide them better.

 

Porn Stars Reveal the Secret to Massive Cum Shots

VICE, why are you so desperate that you feel compelled to recycle and repost utter trash like this again and again?
This^ was vile the first time you posted it, and posting it repeatedly doesn't make it any better. If for some reason, we wanted to read about the most disgusting aspects of sex imaginable, we'd be on porn sites, but you *sometimes*produce excellent journalism - why not stick to the latter?
You have a thrilling platform to discuss serious issues - like the disaster in Africa that's affecting millions of people - which don't get enough coverage from our mainstream media which seems to care little about the world's most disadvantaged people. Raising awareness can inspire us to support charities that are even saving lives, as well as to be more grateful for what we have. Yet here you are, yet again, posting about ejaculation.
  

There’s a reason leftists throw more violent temper tantrums

More violent than what? The right have perpetuated more violence, not least in Charlottesville, and in Christchurch. But I'm well aware that most on the right have nothing to do with those extremists and their actions, in turn it can't be presumed that "the left" is just one amalgam. We need to carefully address each issue if we're going to make progress in reducing support for abortion etc.

not so. What about the 150 Christians murdered by muslims in Nigeria in the last week. Just because the media chose to ignore it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

one cannot underestimate the number of people who have been slaughtered since the seventh century in the name of Allah.

Yikes I'm not denying the grotesque persecution of Christians under Muslim regimes, but that's an entirely separate issue. Those Muslims aren't following the ideology of Leftism at all - the fact that, in our nations, the Left urges more tolerance of Muslims than the right does, does not in any way mean that Muslims in other parts of the world are following the principles of the Left. The same Muslims who attack Christians also attack gay people.
The world is not simply divided into Left and Right, and Jesus clearly calls us to employ principles from both sides - to respect God's design (for relationships and sexuality) but also to care about the poor and help the disadvantaged.
We should be fuming about the violence of Islamic extremists, whether it's against Christians of gay people - but recognise that most people who are Muslim are simply misled and deserve our compassion. We should be standing up for God's design - but not lumping together all co-patriots on "the left" as though they were the same.

left socialism is not christianity and never will be! And is destroying true freedom!

When did I say that socialism is Christianity? It goes without saying that it isn't, the fact that you did say it makes me wonder - what do you think that Christianity is? Ie, you stating that it isn't socialism suggests that you consider Christianity to be a comparable political ideology, which it isn't.
  

Sam Smith comes out as non-binary

We're all just ourselves. If we have XX chromosomes, we're female, if we have XY chromosomes, we are male, and that's simply what female/woman and male/man mean - no one is "in the wrong body" because whether a person is male or female, they're unique and not obliged to adhere to stereotypes.
  

What are the 48 questions that Kate McCann didn't answer?

I really, really don't want to seem uncaring to her parents - but thousands of children die each day because they lack clean water and food. The money spent on Maddy would save thousands of lives how is it OK to spend it on a single child who probably won't be found?

Are all you complaining for the sake of it? They have lost their child, please give them compassion .

I do have compassion for thm, I'd not say this to them if I met them, I'm just expressing opinion here. It isn't them that I'm crticising, I'm blaming those who decided that so much money should be allocated to this case, since £ are so limited.

Because its British money to find a British child. Not funding with a shelf life, so idiots like you can send it off to the third world

Why is it idiotic to care about human beings who are living, and dying, in unimaginable suffering because they weren't privileged enough to be born in a wealthy country? Why do we deserve so much more than them? Much of our nation's wealth is the result of centuries of exploitation of other nations, which is still going on - see; https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
How can you think that it's logical to let thousands die because money that would have saved them is spent on an investigation for just one person?

If your child was missing and you had there resources...would you turn it down to save kids from lack of fresh water????

I'm not a parent, but even if I were, I can't imagine putting the vague possibility (it seems stupidly unlikely after all these years) of finding my child over the lives of thousands of children. But that's not the point, I'm not blaming the parents for the amount spent, I'm blaming those within the police force that have made the decisions - presumably they like to just keep working on the same case.

if your speaking for the likes of africa THEN NO the money shouldnt be given to them AFRICA is a bloidy rich country. Let them deal with their own ffs!! Why not take their government to thr world cpurts due to genocide of their people? Nope lets just fling then millions!! Take care of our own. Perhaps that the attitude the african goverment need to adapt ans stop looking for handouts

A rich country? It isn't even a country, it's a continent. Rich by what statistics? In Sub Saharan Africa, 40% of people live below the poverty line - ie, on less than £1.43 per day - (though this is down from 60% below the poverty line several decades ago, since aid and the ingenuity of African people has enabled progress). Africa was rich with natural resources - and for centuries nations like ours have thus been grossly exploiting it. And check this out - https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...
Indeed, there are many corrupt leaders in Africa - we should have concern for the populace there, it's not their fault that they've been born under the rule of tyrants. It was the colonialism that nations like ours imposed which led to developing countries having corrupt leaders (such as by paying the nastiest individuals in Africa to entrap and enslave other Africans; and by leaving the people so desperate that they later fell for the lies selfish politicians). And when many people grow up malnourished and forced to miss school to carry water/gather crops/be married as teenagers - or can't afford/access school - how are enough of them to acquire the ability to remove and replace their corrupt politicians? Does our government do things that you disagree with? Should you be deemed responsible, in the way that you've just held impoverished people responsible for the actions of their governments?

my question for the third world country all that money that we raise every year wheres it going how many years a have we been donated when is the clean water coming i 1960s been adverts for them poor people

A huge difference has been made, the fact that poverty's not resolved yet doesn't mean that here's not been exciting progress. Given that the amount we give is such a tiny, tiny proportion of national income (Foreign Aid is 0.7% GDP - and our corporations take far more than this from developing countries), it's not surprising that impoverished nations have not yet been lifted from poverty entirely, but the data shows that there's been significant change- http://www.theguardian.com/.../what-millennium...
   

The 15 Most Beautiful Royals in the World

There's more than enough in the media trying to make us feel ugly, thankyou - why are you showing us this^?
What actually matters is whether they're using their extreme privilege to do positive things for the most disadvantaged people.
  

The Western Erasure of African Tragedy

Here in the UK, there's been tonnes of coverage of the NZ attack (obviously, that was an abhorrent tragedy that should have some coverage) and almost no coverage of the cyclone on Mozambique which has killed around 20x as many people, and left 10x more homeless. It's always like this - we ignore Africa, and it infuriates me. It's as though our media bosses just don't believe that African people are as human as others, which is sickening beyond words. It's particularly tragic because Africa's poverty is the fault of our nations; and because if we donate to well run charities in Africa, we can make far, far, far more difference $for$ than we can in our own countries.
  

Comic Relief donations plummet by £8m

It's horrendous. Why should the world's poorest people, lacking healthcare; living in slums etc miss out on potential donations because of an MP's race baiting?
Having said that, I donate to charities working in developing countries themselves, rather than Comic Relief: Red Nose Day since it splits it's funds between the UK and the 3d world, and I'd rather that all of my donations go to the world's very most disadvantaged people. And £ for £, far, far more of a difference can be made when we give to charities working in the poorest parts of the world- it's utterly thrilling how much each donation can do

India isn’t a third world country any more. It seems all our outsourced business sits there - so many people here out of work because it’s cheaper to set call centres up in India. We are fast becoming the country that will need aid soon.

There are many people in India in poverty far worse than anyone here, and it's those people who charities help. And consider this - https://www.aljazeera.com/.../britain-stole-45-trillion...

I said to an indian ,oh indias a poor country and he said to me no its not ,its a very rich country but its got poorer people just like you have in uk , the problem is corruption and lack of education caused by the corruption , india even said they do not need nor want uk money

India doesn't want or need UK money? India is a nation of billions of people, each have their own needs and wants. There are some who desperately do need and want some assistance, such as healthcare; clean water pumps and toilets; education and training so that they can support themselves and their families fully. 

charity begins at home

"charity begins at home" - why? I hear it all the time, but it's not a statement of fact, or a logical argument, it's a slogan people use to try to avoid admitting that they think of people like them as far more important than those of other races. Why not do as much as possible to reduce suffering? That means helping the people whose agony is most severe; helping the people with fewest opportunities; and helping the people for whom, £ for £, donations make the most difference. Indeed, far, far more should be done to help the homeless here - but in war torn and developing countries, people could only dream of access to food banks; shelters; job centres; welfare state benefits and the NHS. And we can make a huge difference - educating a child in a developing country, for example, costs roughly 1/10th of what educating a child costs here. For the amount that many of us would spend on a meal out, tools or a goat (to milk) could be provided to make a family in one of the poorest parts of the world far more able to support themselves. Just £4 can feed a starving child for a month. Why would we not?
Consider also, that our home country is far, far wealthier than most because of centuries of exploitation and injustice, which is ongoing. https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor...

I am not saying countries that need assistance should not have it - I am, however, saying is too much of our business is outsourced to India. House and feed the homeless & hungry here, help the families below the poverty level in the U.K. - why are so many children going to school without breakfast, why is their main meal a school lunch, why are elderly people on state pensions of £141 per week.cant keep pouring money into other countries

"pouring money into other countries"? Foreign Aid is 0.7% of our GDP, it's essentially nothing compared to what's spent on benefits, pensions and the NHS. And it's spent on individuals in far greater need than people here.

 

A Guide to Muffing: The Hidden Way to Finger Trans Women broadly.vice.com

Seriously, why does Vice feel the need not only to post this, but to repost it endlessly? And why use a stockphoto that is clearly inaccurate? What proportion of the public do you suppose this^ information applies to? Are you in fact exploiting trans people for the curiosity of readers?
   

Preview: Cynthia McFadden reports from the Central African Republic

Thankyou for posting this. We all too easily forget how incredibly fortunate we are, and that there's suffering beyond anything we can imagine in nations left ravaged by the coloinialism and multinational corruption that's made our nations wealthy.
Thrillingly, when we donate to the charities that are able to reach these people, an astonishing difference can made, buying far, far more per $ than our money can at home. 

How bout some birth control!!!!

From where, exactly? We're immensely privileged, living in societies where everyone accesses information about contraception; can easily buy contraception; can make our own decisions about sex (unlike some women in other cultures); and can have confidence that children will survive (whereas the world's poorest people may feel inclined to have more children since they know that they might otherwise be left without any that survive to adulthood).
   

I froze my eggs to have family but archaic laws mean I'll lose my only chance

Archaic? Are you not concerned that ignoring guidelines about egg storage time could lead to DNA damage that means that your child suffers?
It would be so, so, so wonderful if more people were willing to adopt the children already in need of homes.
  

Justin Welby accused of bowing to 'homophobia' for banning gay bishop's husband from summit

The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - thus, since a couple choosing to marry suggests that their relationship is sexual, it's logical for bishops not to endorse it.
However, it is grossly unChristlike to actually mistreat any individual. Action is distinct from orientation (ie, the Bible says nothing about simply having gay orientation); and either way, the Bible makes it clear that Christians have a duty to care for others. 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 compassionate to everyone, urging everyone to fight the sin in their lives (which God helps us with), and recognising that we're sinners too.

The Old Testament has citations agaist against women and bad eating habits — good grief. Nothing about homosexuality in The Gospels. And only thing related to sex was the women caught in adultry — and Christ‘s reaction to that was “do NOT judge”. Read up.

You think I'm unaware of those points? I've researched this topic extensively and had this conversation countless times. I'll keep on "reading up", but I have already read many times before. (sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound so argumentative!)
When/how exactly did I say that I'm judging?
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.../
"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
"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

 

Mosque terror suspect 'toured historic battle sites in Europe'

He's not Christian. Christ taught repeatedly that we must love others and be peaceful.

he is a Christian..

what about crusade

No, he isn't. A Christian, by definition, is someone who is dedicated to Christ. Christ continually avoided violence, and commanded us to be peaceful, even to love our enemies. Any one can claim to be anything, it doesn't mean that they are. North Korea calls itself a "Democratic republic" - but is it democratic? Plenty of people claim to be things that they'd like to be seen as, but it's meaningless if they don't adhere to the definition of what they claim to be.

As much as you would want us to believe that Christians are moral people, incapable of atrocities history proves otherwise. You don't get to define Christianity for us. We already know. Christ went into the temple, overturned the furniture and drove out the worshippers. That's an act of terrorism without the blood.

I didn't say that Christians are moral people. BTW, how do you yourself define "moral"?
It's not me thinking that I "get to define Christianity", to love and follow Christ is literally what it means, and is how it originated. Why should people calling themselves Christians whilst not following Jesus get to redefine it? If I call myself a chocoholic yet eat no chocolate, would you judge chocolate by my actions simply because I called myself a chocoholic?
Christ offers each person eternal life - that's more significant than the actions false Christians, so why ignore Him on the basis of them? Yikes, you consider Jesus turning over the tables in the temple to be terrorism? Why? It is the only time that Jesus is recorded acting angrily, and it was with very good reason - He was furious that traders were using the temple to con people. Some traders wee deliberately stealing from worshippers, and some were exploiting worshippers who believed that they were obliged to buy animals to sacrifice to God. He didn't hurt anyone by turning over the tables, He didn't even slap the traders as one might well be tempted to, He was simply acting out of His concern for impoverished and exploited Israelites.

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters. Keep it up Garce.

Those are Paul's words to people living at a time where those concepts were the norm anyway; where "slave" meant employee more than what we think of as slaves; and where there was a serious risk of conflict and persecution, such that it would have been genuinely dangerous for those he's talking to rebel. And the hope that they had because of Christ gave them enough to hope to persevere. 

The Crusaders were Christian too ,butchering their way through the ME

Have you ignored what I'd already written? Jesus taught us to be peaceful. Those who went on Crusades and were violent were either seriously mistaken in thinking that they were serving God; or were only claiming to be fighting for God because it made them feel and appear (to their communities) noble whilst they indulged their lust for power. Jesus taught us to love our enemies.

You sound like the muslims who keep saying that Islam is the religion of peace. Now the religion of love has learnt from the religion of peace. I guess we are all screwed.

How exactly do I "sound like" them? My point is that Jesus commanded compassion, and lived a life of peace, unlike Muhammed*.
*Though obviously, the fact that Muhammed was violent doesn't mean that Muslims are, the vast majority are an asset to our society.
  

Facebook launches AI tool to remove "revenge porn"

Though I am certainly not in any way condoning revenge porn, might it not be advisable for people to stop taking nude pictures of themselves in the first place?

some women have great pride with nudes

Pride comes before a fall. I really, really am not blaming women who have their pics shared by people who shouldn't, but I bet that women who experience that wish that they'd never taken the pictures. Also, plenty of women will feel compelled to take nudes because it's become normal, and because some guys will pressure them into it. Our culture's attitudes tosex are seriously messed up.
  

What's wrong with Comic Relief?

We shouldn't use the extreme wealth of celebrities as a reason not to share our wealth with those in severe poverty. I'm so frustrated with our media attacking Comic Relief simply for involving famous people, when the organisation does serious good. I won't give to Comic Relief, but not because of the celebrities, rather because only half of its expenditure is developing countries, and because it's so much more exciting to give to charities that share the Gospel as well as helping physical needs. I love how much difference charities like Samaritan's Purse, Tearfund, Compassion, Feed the Hungry, The Leprosy Mission etc make when we donate to them.
  

Christian MPs defend Brexit delay

I'm not a remainer, but it amazes me that people are so emotional about this. How is being in the EU harming our lives such that there's now fury that we've not left yet? Living in the UK makes us some of the most privileged people on Earth - much of humanity could only dream of the state services, standards of living and opportunities that we have - why moan? Why are we not instead angry about poverty, here on account of government mismanagement, and even more so in developing countries? Why are we not instead arguing for fairer trade and help for the most disadvantaged?
As Christians, we know that there are more important things than even the biggest political issues. Being free from the EU is utterly trivial when we have freedom in Christ.

Slavery that's what it is. I tell the EU let God's people go.

No, it blooming well isn't. Why would you say that? Are you uninformed about genuine slavery, during the slave trade and in human trafficking industries today? People have been brutally snatched from their homes and families, and forced to do excruciating work with the threat of being beaten and raped. How can you possibly compare that to being in the EU?
   

Georgia and Tennessee GOP Lawmakers Approve 'Heartbeat' Abortion Bans -Bernie Sanders "Whether to get an abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor—not a decision for extremist politicians."

Presumably you wouldn't claim that "Whether to kill a newborn is a decision between a woman and her doctor—not a decision for extremist politicians"? I'm aware that it's an immensely complex topic, but to simply insist that it's up to the woman and her doctor as though it's equivalent to having a cyst removed ignores the biological reality that there is another human being involved, and you won't win over pro-life voters - and if you want to win, you need to pick up voters beyond your existing fan base. Given how close Dem.s and Republicans are across the US, I really think that if a Democrat ran for president without passionately pushing abortion, they might well win over enough swing voters to take the presidency - it seems seriously tragic that your desperately needed policies on Medicare, welfare etc might be missed out on because of your fevour for abortion.

Anxiously waiting to see where this straw man leads...

But the foetus isn't straw, it actually is a human (yes, obviously I'm well familiar with the strawman concept, but I hope you see my point)

Abortions are never performed on viable fetuses in the US. They are always removed via C-section when the mothers health is in danger. If they were, you might have some kind of point here, but they Where did you read that? Abortion clinics themselves explain that foetuses are removed with instruments up the cervix - not by C section - for any reason.are not.

It is a human non-person, which is the real defining characteristic for why it does not have the same rights as a human person. It makes no sense to me why a heartbeat should be more relevant than distinctly human brain function, which occurs in the late or early 3rd trimester. The center of what makes a person a person is the mind, not the heart.

How are you defining a person? Why is it OK to kill a human if they don't fit your definition of a person?
I agree, brain function is important, but this begins around week 7, not the end of 2nd timester.http://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=i&s1=on&s14=on...
Last year, an igNobel award was won for research that observed how the facial expressions of16 week foetuses changed in response to music - why do yo think that brain function is absent before week27?

A fetus isn’t a newborn either. 

I didn't say that it was. My point was that, like a newborn, it is a tiny human being, it's simply grown less. A literal straw man, by comparison, is not biologically similar to a human at all.

China official says West using Christianity to 'subvert' power

Or, rather, Chinese politicians want to inhibit Christianity because they want citizens to deify the government, and to lack the hope that Christianity offers, in case it would make them less easy to control.
Christianity is not a Western invention, we all know full well that it began in the Middle East and its true definition is to follow Christ, whose teachings and lifestyle were strongly opposed to numerous aspects of Western culture. If individuals in China conclude that the case for His defeat of death is credible; and/or experience His presence, no government officials nor Western institutions have any right to prevent or profit from them.

The goverment has done more for the citizens than christianity. China is a serious country, unlike their rat eating ressurrection performing BRICS brother.

No, entrepreneurship has done a lot for China, allowing it to flourish following governments previously forcing misery on the nation. Christianity gives people incomparably more hope and inner peace than money; and commands people to love others and avoid greed, violence and dishonesty, thus benefitting society more than any government can.

those people dont need that imaginary, fairytale stuff. they already are a well functioning people, christianity like in Africa and elsewhere it reaches, it will divide the people and bring about behaviour like that of SA.
"imaginary, fairytale" - people say this about Christianity all the time, but how do you know exactly? How much have you looked at the work of academics (professors of science and philosophy) who've concluded that God exists?

yes there's a lot. European school of thought scholars.
my question to you is, how old is the religion? and why should a people with a history more than 5000 yrs look to christianity that is as I said "imagiary" than their reality?

You've not answered my question - how do you know that Christianity is imaginary? Have you looked at the arguments supporting it?
Age doesn't determine truth - until a few centuries ago, it wasn't known that the Earth is a sphere that orbits the sun, that doesn't mean that it's not true

do research on the ' council of Nicea ', that's the birth of your religion.
fact is, no real History have records of Jesus. go look.
second, Christianity is watered down African religion stolen from Kemet's ancient history. look that up. I need you to ask question that matters Grace, If you wanna know whats imaginary? Adam and Eve, Noah, Tower of Babel, Abram to Abraham story, The Exodus. ... the list goes on until we reach the tale of Jesus.
lets focus on true History.
my questiona as clear as day... what is a Jew? how is a Jew different from an Israeli? and who are the Hebrew people?
my questions are based on the fact you ignore that Religion has always been used as a weapon, and as it could be in this case.
Another thing I know about christianity is that it does not promote peace at all. It came to Africa, after that our people now call our ancient spiritual systems and practices "demonic and satanic" and the bible is always their point of reference. thus christianity always requires you to a tool brain. We are talking modern politics yes, we are talking race yes.

Christianity DOES promote peace - because it literally means to follow Christ. Plenty of people with selfish or power hungry instincts have claimed to be Christian whilst mistreating others, since labelling themselves as followers of God makes them feel noble. Those people don't change the fact that Christ taught us to love others and to be peacemkers.

What do you mean when you write " whats imaginary? Adam and Eve, Noah, Tower of Babel, Abram to Abraham story, The Exodus. ... the list goes on until we reach the tale of Jesus"? Are you claiming that they're all imaginary? Why do you think that? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly.../historical-jesus

please try finding history from neigbouring places where they say Jesus walked in those days. if you ever get to please have a good read. I doubt there is, lest it be propaganda.
another thing, how does the bible promote peace by telling us not be yoked with unbelievers? or when it says woman brought about the fall of man and along brought death? peace? that if you preach to a person and they dont "repent" you dust your feet at their doorway in passing judgement for rejecting "Christ"? stop playing Grace.. the christian faith is based on a book called the bible. if you read that books you will realize there's nothing peaceful. there some good quotes yes but no liberty at all

What "history from neigbouring places" are you referring to? Are you saying that I shouldn't believe in Jesus unless He's written about in historical texts from adjacent nations at the time He walked the Earth? There aren't preserved, accessible detailed historical records from every place at that point in history - do you have corroborating historical accounts from neighbouring nations for all of the history that you believe? Why would all of the texts about Jesus be wrong, especially given that those who followed Him suffered for doing so? Historians just don't seriously doubt whether Jesus lived. https://www.theguardian.com/.../what-is-the-historical... The New Testament is, compared to other historical texts, remarkably reliable http://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...

When you say "the christian faith is based on a book called the bible." are you presuming that I haven't read the Bible? Obviously I've been through all of it, multiple times. And it's extremely complex, particularly since it was written to people with very differnt pre-existing norms to us. Commanding us not to be yoked with unbelievers means not being bound to them, it doesn't mean that we should argue with them, let alone fight. Jesus makes it clear that we must love others. The Bible isn't blaming women for death, you're taking a verse of Paul's out of context. Why do you think that the verse about shaking dust from one's sandals implies conflict

lol. . im sorry Grace. I can tell you are a real person of Faith.
now do me a favour, get back to my first 2 comments. argue that. There never was someone called Jesus. never. Its not a complex book, its mostly foklore and myth. im not clueless on it, I read the book for years. I know what im talking about. until you learn world history and current events you will remain believing the world started with Adam and Eve and stay unable to understand human race and ethnicity. you will never understand why all invaders and emperialists served religion to the people they oppress, you will never understand why women was sidelined by the bible in general, you will never stop reffering to "god" as a 'HE' and not she.. simply because you chose to be naive and gullible. And why do you exclude the old testament from a being a reliable source of information compared to the New? the very same book promoted rape, slavery, genocide, separation and intolerance. Please Grace. .. educate yourself on religion. be critical in thinking, ask questions. ... yes like when Adam and Eve were formed, were they Black people or what?

Why do you think thar I don't investigate world news and history?
How have you concluded that I'm gullible when you don't know how I've reached my conclusions, or even, it would seem, what they are? That you keep on bringing up Adam and Eve when I never mentioned them demonstrates your stawmanning - you're arguing against the thoughts that you've imagined I have, and not engaged what I actually wrote. Telling someone that they're gullible doesn't prove that they're wrong and you're right, it simply suggests that you don't have any arguments to make.

No, the Bible does not promote rape, slavery etc, though looking in detail at the verses that you've misinterpreted to reach those conclusions would take more time than I think is worth sending since I've already wasted so much time on this thread, and I think you're not willing to take anything I write seriously. Briefly, some verses regulate slavery since it was deeply ingrained in society, and entirely different from what we think of as slavery today, more akin to employment - God's commands regarding "slavery" were fr more compassionate than would have been typical in that setting, but simply commanding that all "slaves"be released at that point would have meant that masters simply ignored God's commands altogether. https://www.zachariastrust.org/does-the-bible-condone...

Seriously, why do you think that Jesus never existed? Even non-Christian historians don't doubt that He existed. I'm well aware that there are a few conspiracy theorists who claim that He didn't - because doing so enables them to sell books, there are conspiracy theories about everything these days. But their hypothesis have been thoroughly refuted. Qualified, credible scholars agree that He existed - which part of the articles to which I linked, above - do you disagree? https://www.probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from.../

please study African history. you will understand why I reject your religion or any other for that matter. you keep bringing the bible up as the only source you have for questions i'd love to ask, therefore it becomes hard to have you see things from an African point of view.
do you know, for me to tell my sons that some white man named Jesus died for him would be the most evil thing i'd do. it was only around the 1600 when the letter "J" was created in the English language.. the very same language which became the first transilation from "hebrew" and other early dialects to english...Being King James Version of the Bible. however, the religion self claim to have been around (meaning Jesus' history) over 1,400 years at the time the letter J was created. let that sink in. I can confidently say yes, you did not do any proper research. historians that are non-christian, can they prove his existence except through the 'good' book and its propaganda armrests? Now, the next time you want to comment your 2cents worth, stop posting these internet links to follow.. refer me to a book I can look into. read."do research on the ' council of Nicea ', that's the birth of your religion.
fact is, no real History have records of Jesus. go look.
second, Christianity is watered down African religion stolen from Kemet's ancient history. look that up. I need you to ask question that matters Grace, If you wanna know whats imaginary? Adam and Eve, Noah, Tower of Babel, Abram to Abraham story, The Exodus. ... the list goes on until we reach the tale of Jesus." remember I wrote this here above? you shoud've taken my suggestion seriously.
We really need to stop this conversation, we're clearly not going to understand each other. I will research African history further, though I'm not sure why it would lead you to "reject any religion"- whether or not Christianity (or Islam, or something else) is true is not determined by the history of either of our homelands. I'm aware that people calling themselves Christians, from my country, did indescribably evil things in Africa, and their actions make me FURIOUS - but they weren't actually adhering to Christianity at all, because Christianity is to follow Christ, who repeatedly taught us to love others. The letter J did not begin when the King James Bible was written, though I'm well aware that its use in Christ's name was not original. His name was, obviously, in a Hebrew language, and the King James Bible simply translated His name into a variation that's easier for English speakers to pronounce, it doesn't mean that He didn't exist, there's nothing that I need to allow to "sink in". Christians today are well familiar with calling Him Yeshua too.
When I asked about what's imaginary, I wasn't disregarding what you'd written, I absolutely take you seriously, I was simply unclear what you meant. I wasn't sure if you meant that you believe all of those individuals to be imaginary, since Jesus is so undisputed by historians. I certainly wasn't only relying on "the good book" or Christian historians, and some of the links that I added explained this - why do you refuse to look at them? Why do you think that we should only get information from books and not the internet? I'm well aware that there's some nonsense (that's incorrect) on the internet, but there are also books with errors, and there's plenty on the internet that's of the highest standard of accuracy. Genuine information, from academics in all fields, is put onto the internet, so that we can all access it; whereas information in books can only be accessed by those who can get hold of each book. Most sites reference books anyway, so they're no less accurate than books, and they're making information available. I'm not expecting you to simply believe the articles that I linked to, we all need to weigh up everything we read/hear to determine what's most likely to be true - how can you know that someone else is wrong, as you think I am, if you refuse to even look at a few articles?
And yes, I am well familiar with the council of Nicea, but the Gospels, and other documents about Jesus are known by historians to have been written long before it.
Anyhoo, I'm really sorry if I've seemed disrespectful or argumentative, because I certainly do respect you and have only been trying to understand what you believe. I'll research African history and traditional beliefs to try to understand better, I hope that one day you'll look at some of the historical evidence for Christ. And PS, you mentioned that "to tell my sons that some white man named Jesus died for him would be the most evil thing i'd do" - which is tragic, because the amount of melanin in a person's skin doesn't determine how human a person is, those of us who are white are part of humanity as you are - but I never said that Jesus is white. He was brown, He came from the middle East - illustrations which have shown Him as white have been lazy.
Have an awesome day :)
 

What Happens to London’s Food Scene After Brexit?

I'm confused as to why most of my fellow Londoners are firmly anti Brexit, for reasons including that we currently import food from the EU - surely we need to stop shipping so much around the globe if we want to reduce the fuel usage that's destroying it? We should be producing our own ingredients, particularly using new schemes like rooftop gardens and underground hydroponics, as well as getting better at reducing food waste.
There are people beyond the EU struggling to feed their families, and/or working unimaginable hours for stupidly little pay to produce things that we consume - I desperately wish that our politicians would focus on tackling Global problems and on making trade fair. Brexit is unimportant by comparison.
  

Child, nine, who decided to be a girl aged seven now lives as a female full-time
This is tragic. Studies repeatedly show the vast majority of young people who question their gender are happy with their actual sex if they're not encouraged to embrace an identity as the opposite sex/gender. By supporting children to transition, we're doing them serious harm; they'll end up enduring endless medical intervention (not helping the struggling NHS, BTW) and have a massively increased risk of mental health problems and suicide. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145
They are of immeasurable value to God, so much that gender is irrelevant. We each have our own interests, style and skills. Some of us have XX chromosomes, some of us have XY chromosomes (and a very, very few have another combination) - the former are female, the latter are male; that's biology. It doesn't matter - in that each human is equally and immeasurably valuable and must feel no obligation to conform to stereotypes. And if a person isn't happy with the genitals they're born with, it's understandable; all genitals are disgusting. Fortunately, they don't actually impact what we do in life, so people should be helped to overcome that anxiety and encouraged to focus on other things.
  

"I'm African-American, a liberal and a gun owner and yet I detest the Second Amendment," writes Marcus from Tampa on the essay, "The Black Gun Owner Next Door."
My sympathies from here in Britain. When I heard Trump say that we have "unbelievably strict gun laws" I found it hilarious. Obviously, guns are no laughing matter, but it was extremely funny that he deemed odd what is to us entirely normal and rational. I desperately hope that future presidents address the issue. (and apologies if I sound patronising, I wasn't meaning to!)
How do you feel about knives, acid, and bleach these days. I hear they're banning knives now across the pond, and you can no longer even buy kitchen knives in London. Any thoughts on that to share with us?
There are many times more murders by gun in the US than by knife here (per 100 000). And whilst, obviously, every death is utterly tragic, much knife crime relates to gang warfare - there's not the same possibility for a neo Neazi or psychopath to grab a weapon from a store that can kill dozens of people in a public place. But indeed, human beings can be evil whichever nation they're in.
 

What International Women’s Day gets wrong

The gap in living standards and opportunities between us (women) and men is nothing compared to the gap between us as Britons and people in developing countries, yet there are endless campaigns and virtue signaling about feminism whilst people seem not to care that there are still human beings without even clean water.
  

Beyoncé Is Raising Blue Ivy, Rumi, and Sir Free of Gender Stereotypes

This should be pretty obvious. We should deny that a girl is a girl and a boy s a boy, we should let them be the versions of girls and boys that they want to be.
  

Randy priest who had orgies let back into church after 'spending a year with the poor'

But he's demonstrated that, whilst a priest, he was in fact not committed to God at all - spending time with the poor os awesome, but only if it's certain that he's genuinely desperate to live for God should he be a priest.
  

Pete Davidson shocked 'SNL' when he compared R. Kelly to the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church is comprised of hundreds of millions of individuals, almost all of those individuals are not sex abusers.
It astonishes me that so many people are only interested in unChristian things done by people falsely calling themselves Christians, and never bother to actually investigate Christ - who commanded us to love others and who offers you something greater than anything in this world.

But if they cover for and enable the ones that are ...?

Indeed, those who've covered for abusers are obviously also evil - but still, this will only be a small minority of all Catholics. Part of the issue is that those with evil intent push hardest to climb ladders of power, and power itself corrupts, so some of the most senior Catholics enacted or enabled the abuse.
What's illogical is that many people consider this messed up institution to be a reason to ignore Jesus, though abuse is antithetical what He practiced and taught.  

it happens in all denominations....and they cover up there misdeeds also..

But who is "they" exactly? Are you presuming that members and staff in every Church are aware of all the actions of all of the staff in every other Church of their denomination?
Still, all of this is missing my point...
If I owned a string of restaurants and was covering little kids being molested in the bathroom and it became public, would you still come for my $.99 breakfasts and help keep me afloat?
No, but you've just said that you were covering the abuse - most individuals within the Catholic Church won't have been aware of the actions of other individuals in other Churches - why would they be? If you were a branch manager of one restaurant, or a waiter, cleaner or customer at one, how would you know of all the actions of branch managers at other restaurants in the chain?
"... this will only be a small minority of Catholics. Part of the issue that those with evil intent push hardest to climb ladders of power, and power itself corrupts ..."The problem is that a religion/faith has room for this kind of behavior to be allowed if not actually ENABLED.
Small minority? ASSUMING that's true, the power structure, chain of accountability, or whatever doesn't include law enforcement. I don't care how much good the church CLAIMS it does, there should be no excuse for a lack of proper oversight and circumventing the law and accountability. Period.
How do you define "religion/faith"? People who abuse others are not following Christ, therefore they aren't adhering to what Christianity actually is by definition, they're charlatans taking advantage of an opportunity to have power and influence.
I think that institution is a mess - but my point is that the institution itself is unimportant by comparison to Christ, yet continually people reject Christon the basis of an institution that falsely misappropriates His name.
If I owned a string of restaurants and was covering little kids being molested in the bathroom and it became public, would you still come for my $.99 breakfasts and help keep me afloat?
No, but you've just said that you were covering the abuse - most individuals within the Catholic Church won't have been aware of the actions of other individuals in other Churches - why would they be? If you were a branch manager of one restaurant, or a waiter, cleaner or customer at one, how would you know of all the actions of branch managers at other restaurants in the chain?
[Deleted Comment]
I'm not willing to throw innocent children under a bus - what exactly did I say that indicates that? Nor am I being a rape apologist. It goes without saying that the abusers should be very, very severely punished (personally, I reckon that sex abusers should be castrated). My point was that it makes no sense to presume that all Catholics would have known about actions happening out of their site.
Do you know what's going on in all of the branches and buildings/offices of the organisation you work for/study in? Why presume that every Catholic knows what every other Catholic is doing?
Most of us have seen Leaving Neverland now - family members actually were just walls away from the use, continually in contact with the abuser and victims - yet didn't know that sex abuse was happening. Why presume that Catholics in separate locations when abuse was happening and who don't personally know the victims or abusers would know about the abuse?
I am most certainly not saying that the figures who were aware should be excused. Nor am I at all in favour of the structure of the institution, nor its theology.
All of this is missing my original point, which you seem to have ignored - that the institution of the Catholic Church - or any other Church - is a group of human beings, flawed as we all are. It's not logical to ignore Christ Himself on the basis of people who simply claim to be His representatives, whilst not actually following Him - yet many people in our society do just that.
   

‘Anti-gay’ Facebook post by Felix Ngole sparks battle over free speech

Anti gay how exactly? 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.

 [Deleted Comment]

I never said that gay couldn't have companions, only that the Bible says that people shouldn't have gay sex. Sex isn't at all necessary for human happiness.

 [Deleted Comment]

I didn't say that I could decide what other people do, I was only commenting.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make with your table analogy - but a gay person is not somehow a lesser person in God's eyes than a straight person. Crucially, God loves each person beyond measure; and can provide joy to peoples' lives that far exceeds that of sex.

 [Deleted Comment]

God guiding humanity to avoid certain behaviours does not determine how loved and valued they are - His telling people to have gay sex doesn't mean that "
They have been deemed not worthy",. but that the action is something He's warned against, because He knows - better than we ever could - what's best for human beings, and He wants what's best for each human He's created.
"why do gay people have the ability to have sex then?" That a person has the body parts and a desire to do something doesn't mean that God should will them to do it or that it should be done - we all the potential and temptations to do things that we shouldn't.
Seriously though, we should stop debating - because all of this is meaningless compared to Christ Himself. Christianity (ie the root of the subject word in the above headline) is supposed to be about following Him, yet the media can almost only be bothered to discuss it when sex is involved. If a person has done things, sexually or otherwise, that God prohibits, Jesus still loves that person and offers them more than anything in this world if they choose to turn to Him.
 

Here Are the Remnants of a 20th Century Human Zoo

Why the frack are there laughter reactions to this?

I often wish the FB laugh reaction had never come to be. It’s always there when it shouldn’t be, and I’m petrified that I’ll someday accidentally be that person who uses it inappropriately.

It's opened my eyes to how inhumane and racist so many of my fellow millennials and Britons are. Yesterday, for example, Shamima Begum's (British teenager who ran off to join ISIS) baby died, and I've seen laughter reactions everywhere. There are frequently a lot of laughter reactions on news stories about race. It's seriously depressing.
she has no regret at all and is unapologetic. How does that make you feel ? Yes laughing at this is sick. But poor example
All I was saying is that laughing at a baby dying is sick, not that I agree with Shamima Begum's right to be here (though I don't think that she should be left in Syria, that's not fair on Syrians, she should be here in prison).
 

Revealed: Qatar’s secret $880m World Cup payments to Fifa

And there was me thinking that all the money in professional football is legitimate, deserved and well spent.

 

Man, 25, had first Botox injection at 19 and now no part of face is untouched

Meanwhile, many people around the world can't access surgery that they genuinely need, nor other healthcare.
   

The Biggest Consequence of Trump’s New Abortion Rule Won’t Be for Abortion

theatlantic.com

There's no logic in that - if abortion facilities are where women access other healthcare such that your assertion could have some accuracy, the funds saved by cutting funding of those facilities should be used to develop new clinics. Using money to provide contraception rather than abortion will be far, far more cost effective and safe.

Abortion is perfectly safe. And perfectly legal.

According to who? I'm in London - here, abortion clinics have to call for an ambulance 466 per year (obviously, there'll also be many further women injured only less severely or immediately - and there have been deaths).
There's also evidence that abortion harms mental health later on (though gathering data on this is obviously difficult, since few people will report feelings of painful regret) https://www.cambridge.org/.../E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BE...
And it's not "perfectly legal" - laws regarding abortion are different in different states and are changing back and forth. Most abortion laws, including ours here in the UK, state that a woman should only have an abortion if it's necessary for her health - but statistics show that nearly all abortions actually happen because the woman simply didn't want a baby. Even if something's legal, that doesn't prove that it's OK. In SauiArabia, it's been illegal until last year for women to drive. Hitler legislated for mass murder - that it was brought into their law didn't make it any less evil.
NB - abortion is also unsafe for the tiny human involved.
Wouldn't it be awesome if the money currently being spent on abortion could instead be spent on contraception and other - life saving - healthcare?

I ride an ambulance. 466 calls per year for all those people is absolutely nothing, especially given that many of those calls are precautionary only. Childbirth and pregnancy are infinitely more dangerous. These are known facts. It is also a known fact that the majority of women DO NOT suffer emotional trauma post abortion. This has been thoroughly studied. You just don't happen to like the results. Abortion is not only to save a life. If birth control fails, it is what one does when they do not wish to be pregnant. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and no one is obligated to donate their body for 9+ months against their will. A fetus is NOT a baby. It is a potential life we are not obligated to bring to fruition simple because it exists. Keep your hitler nonsense out of it. The majority of us blatantly disagree with you.Abortion is not taxpayer funded. And no, the money spent on it SHOULD be spent on it. And WILL be spent on it.

A "known fact that the majority of women DO NOT suffer emotional trauma post abortion" according to who? As I said, most people won't report something that they regret, feel upset about and want to forget, so it wouldn't be surprising if some studies suggested no trauma, yet there IS evidence that trauma can result, as highlighted in the METAANALYSIS from Cambridge that I linked to.
According to who is there "absolutely nothing wrong with" it?
It IS a human life. I wouldn't bother arguing about embryos, but by the stage that it has pain sensation and brainwaves, how can it be OK?
You say "if birth control fails" - though I was only making the point, in response to the earlier comment that abortion is "perfectly legal", that the law is being bent in most cases because it says that abortion should only happen when necessary for the mother's health - but nearly half of abortions happen when contraception wasn't even being used. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/.../abortion/abreasons.html
There's the option to not have sex; and the option to bring immeasurable joy to a couple desperate for a baby by arranging adoption.

The laws in the US made abortion legal in ALL circumstances. That was the intent. It is the same in many other countries. You're insinuating something that was never existed. There is an entire movement called Shout Your Abortion, where women are actively destigmatizing abortion, and talking about how they were NOT traumatized by them. They were shamed by others, and trauma was inferred where none existed. You are grossly exaggerating something to justify your desired outcome. There is NOTHING to be traumatized about in abortion. Unless you had to abort an actual baby for medical reasons, there was no tragedy. That's what you don't get. When you reject the propaganda, and recognize the simple scientific fact that there is no baby and no murder, there is ZERO to regret.

Is that what your law says, that abortion is definitively allowed for any reason? Either way, as I said, your argument that abortion is "perfectly legal" presumes that my original comment was about what's legal, when in fact I'm primarily concerned about what's right, especially given that the law varies so much. If it's illegal to do something in one place and legal in another, it can't be presumed to be morally fine, more discussion is needed.
I'm well aware of the shout your abortion campaign, what's your point? Are you claiming that anecdotal claims overrride the findings of metaanalysis? It's the former that's propoganda, the latter that's science.
You mention that it would be tragic to abort an "actual baby" which I find bizarre - what exactly is an "actual baby" that could be aborted tragically, by contrast to the not-actual-babies that are usually the targets of abortion? 

Yes, that is what our law says. It is also what the law says in many countries. Google could have told you that. It could have also told you that there have been many studies which already disprove your one lone metaanalysis supposition that you keep clinging to. Shout your Abortion is far from anecdotal. You simply cannot accept the notion that thousands of women are out there publically announcing they have no regrets. NONE. They are happy. They got EXACTLY what they wanted.  An embryo and a fetus are not babies. Nor are they "tiny humans". They are potential humans who become babies if the women in whose body they inhabit chooses to allow it. That's it. Her choice, 100% of the time. Consent to sex is NEVER consent to pregnancy, and it never will be. Nor is it up to you to tell someone to "close their legs". Sex is an option for anyone: whether they wish to become a parent or not. A woman isn't a baby generator for adopters. Let them hire someone who wants to be pregnant. There are still laws all over the place outlawing all but the missionary position during sex. The existence of those laws does not mean having sex in another position isn't "morally fine". You're ridiculous. I've heard enough nonsense for one day. I encourage everyone reading your drivel to make a donation to Planned Parenthood in your name. I just did. Congratulations. You inspired me to donate $20.

No, Google doesn't tell me that, and you've not offered any evidence. There are plenty of long articles about abortion legislation, so I'll get reading those, but there aren't straight forward answers from Google. My point is that it's not "perfectly legal" as you suggest - the legislation is extremely complex and varied, and crucially doesn't determine whether or not something is OK.
You claim that the meta-analysis has been disproven, but again provided no evidence - and that you mention "many studies" suggests that you might not know what a meta-analysis is.
I didn't say that a foetus is a baby - though I'm still intrigued that you earlier mentioned an "actual baby" which could be aborted, and have ignored my question about what you mean by that. But yes, a foetus is a tiny human, by definition - what makes you think otherwise?
Why am I ridiculous because you've suddenly brought up sex positions? You've finally acknowledged my earlier point - that whether something is legal and whether something is moral are different issues, yet your original criticism was that "abortion is perfectly legal".

You're ridiculous because you equate an inconsistency of laws as proof of moral ambiguity, instead of merely jurisdictional nonsense.

I "equate an inconsistency of laws as proof of moral ambiguity"? No, I didn't, I questioned your assumption that some laws prove moral certainty.

the problem is that the people who lobby for outlawing abortion and defunding PP are also the same people who work to prevent sex education and basic human biology in schools as well as slashing the funding for WIC and other programs that help feed and provide health care for mothers and their children. So if your intention is to harm poor people and more importantly poor woman and their families then these barbaric policy changes make perfect sense.

Yes, that's a good observation, though an overgeneralisation - I for one am in favour of defunding abortion and PP but of ensuring sex ed and, most importantly, more help for those most disadvantaged. We need to consider each issue on its own arguments, rather than lumping everything into merely left vs right as this article does.

not an over generalization at all. Many men, particularly religious men have no problem with women being second class citizens and are pursuing public policy that would bring this about. Step one, go after organizations that provide services to the poor and disenfranchised. Step two, once poor and disenfranchised women are in crisis declare that they don't have the capacity to make their own health care choices without supervision so they are stripped of their civil rights "for the safety of the children". The really terrifying thing is seeing the number of women who will enthusiasticly throw other women under the bus.

Of course it's an over generalisation. Each person has their own beliefs and motives, and you're simply presuming that everyone who wants to cut abortion provision has the same thoughts.
What evidence do you have that all pro-liers want to make women second class citizens? Has it not occurred to you that many pro-lifers are in fact driven by rage at the destruction of tiny humans? You might not care that tiny humans are being destroyed; or might plainly deny it (though it's very obvious from a scientific standpoint), but you know full well that this is what pro-lifers believe - yet you're claiming that their motivation is what you say it is. 

I don't need to look any further than their words and actions to determine their intent. If so-called pro-life men really cared about those little lives then they would back WIC and other programs that feed those children once they are here. They would also back organizations that help women manage their health care like PP. They also wouldn't make jokes about keep women barefoot and pregnant and other such tropes. Bottom line, I will never have to carry a child to term so I don't have a dog in this fight but I am a man and have witnessed first hand much of the deplorable behavior we are capable of. If you want to give men power over you and your reproductive system go right ahead. No one will stop you but it's not something I would ever do. It's not something I would inflict on any person. I pray that you never have to live in a world where you are force by court order to carry a child to term but it looks like that's where we are going. Don't say nobody warned you. There is a good reason why there are no laws regulating men's reproductive health.
You're trying to make this conversation about certain political figures, but I never mentioned them. I vehemently disagree with opposition to social programmes that help the poor and to forcing women into pregnancy. Not all pro-lifers fit the characiture you're describing.
PS - I won't be forced carry a child to term as you mention, since A) I've had anorexia since puberty and consequently don't menstruate and B) I don't have sex. If, hypothetically, I were to become fertile, and was raped and then pregnant, I'd absolutely carry it to term. Right now, my life is implicated by the eating disorder such that I can barely look after myself - but I hope that in the future I can do more to help children whose parents have abandoned them (ATM, I'll just keep sponsoring kids).