A day after he called the anger against #SalmanRushdie ‘understandable’, Imran Khan said that his words in a UK Publication were taken out of context.

Anger against someone may be "understandable", it doesn't give you the right to physically attack them. Here in the West, there are plenty of people mocking and disrespecting my beliefs (Christianity), it does not give me any right whatsoever to hurt them - and our God is not harmed by their foolish comments, He is the creator of the universe.

Right... But we are not like you... We prefer the Honor of Allah SWT, The Holy Prophet (PBUH), and Quran over each and everything... If someone kills us, we might keep silence... If someone burns us alive we might not speak... If someone insults us, it's okay to some extent...

But when it comes to Allah, The Holy Prophet PBUH, and Quran, then the world must know that we not only speak, but also react whenever we find a chance...

You don't know... We can sacrifice our family, wealth, money, and everything which we own or love, for the sake of protecting the honor of out beloved Allah, The Holy Prophet PBUH and Quran...

Recent incident is the living example... Does the attacker seem to be born at that time when Rushdie wrote that blasphemous book? Big No! That's what you need to know and pass it on to your generations...

Never Blaspheme Islam... Coz it's not freedom of expression, it triggers our aggression...

If we don't show this aggression to the culprits of blasphemy in our lives, our generations do it. Period.

 

Your beliefs do not give you the right to hurt other people. Do you think that Allah is so weak that he can't cope with human words?

And attacking people who insult Allah does not defend him, it doesn't increase respect for him - what it does instead is make more people think negatively of Islam.

 

I would simply it for you in short lines...

In our Quran, Allah says, "I love my humans more than 70 mothers do combined".

Can you bear abuses for your mum or sis? Example, If I say I spent a night with your mother last night... What would be your reaction? Would you let me go or beat me? I bet you would do the second one..If you can't bear abuses for your mum... How can we bear insults and abuses for Allah who loves us more than 70 mothers, how can we tolerate abuses for my beloved Holy Prophet PBUH who used to cry in front of Allah in the nights to save us from hell?

How can we tolerate abuses for our Quran which is not a book merely to us, it's a complete code of life for us...?

 

No, I wouldn't beat you. I'd initially be full of extreme rage, but I wouldn't act to physically hurt you (and note that Rushdie was stabbed repeatedly, not simply slapped). If I were to hurt you, it wouldn't make anything any better for my mother. And I would then reflect on the fact that I'd know that your words (about my mother) would just be stupid lies. Why not reflect on the things you believe to be true about your god, which other people's comments do not change? You and I believe in The One God of Abraham (though we believe some different things about Him). Insults make *no difference at all* to the reality of God, He is always infinitely greater than all of the people who could ever comment on Him and their insulting words are meaningless.

 

Okay, if insulting Islam is freedom of expression, then attempting to kill Rushdie or any other person who commits blasphemy is FREEDOM OF ACTION...

And these actions will be continued until the blasphemous activities are not stopped.

So the point is, the world must join heads to heads to figure out some rule for limiting the freedom of expression... Insulting any religion should not be considered as freedom of expression, else we have FREEDOM OF ACTION too... That's all!

 

"Freedom of action" is not a right (even if it were, it wouldn't make sense that one person exercising freedom of *expression* entitled another to freedom of *action*, they're different things). Freedom of expression means words/images that do not actually harm people (as much as people might feel annoyed by them). Actions, stabbing in this case, cause actual harm. The only way that people are justified in responding to expressions is with more expression - you are free to insult Rushdie.

When you say these actions will be continued until the blasphemy is not stopped, do you mean untill it is stopped? Not at all. Blasphemy will always happen, and the more that Muslims react with violence (I know that many Muslims never would) the more other people will hate Islam (this will lead to unfair discrimination against peaceful Muslims too).

Swing/Conservative voters have “sellers’ remorse” over the ousting of Boris Johnson

It was pretty obvious that a bunch of swing voters don't want BoJo replaced, this isn't news. Many people seemed to have voted for him in part because they like his personality, and some voted Tory last time to "get Brexit done" or because they'd been made to feel scared of Corbyn.

I'm bemused by how many people I've seen commenting that they don't like Labour ATM first and foremost because they think Starmer is *boring*, as though a clown is what we need as a PM and policies or values are less important.

The Tories' strongest hope ATM is in how they've managed to divert attention from their utter uselessness in running the country towards culture war issues. Some voters could end up voting against their own interests because they're worried about things the Right has disingenuously and erroneously labelled "woke", and the longer the Tories remain in power the more the average person will be affected by #CostOfGreedCrisis whilst public services whither away.

 

When Even the Stairs are Bossing Us About, it'sTime We Rebelled

 LOL why? Are you not able to evaluate guidance and make your own decisions? It's quite right for advice to be given to minimise various problems, there's no need to get stubborn about it. Advice doesn't cause you any harm, why be offended? This headline sounds like the thinking of a bolshy small child.LOL why? Are you not able to evaluate guidance and make your own decisions? It's quite right for advice to be given to minimise various problems, there's no need to get stubborn about it. Advice doesn't cause you any harm, why be offended? This headline sounds like the thinking of a bolshy small child.

 

"Africa has been held back by taking on British religion"

Note that Christianity did not come from Britain originally. It began in the Middle East and spread here via the Roma empire. It existed earlier in other parts of Africa.

But to follow Jesus is a decision for each person. Every person in the world should work out their own beliefs. But it is likely that many people who call themselves Christians, even some who are priests, are actually not, because their actions show that they are not trying to follow Christ. Before Christianity existed and still today around the world, it can be a human tendency to claim to be religious as a way of making oneself feel better whilst indulging one's greed and selfishness. If the leaders of my country had truly been following Jesus, they would not have carried out the evils of colonialism.

 

Hard-left academics "plotted gender ID witch hunt" on colleagues

"Left" is not a useful word here. Issues of gender are very, very different from issues of wealth distribution or "the means of production being owned by the workers". What proportion of, for instance, Corbyn and his fans' time is spent on redefining "woman"? 

I agree but the left have embraced this nonsense.

"the Left" as defined how? Ultimately it doesn't matter all that much in itself, in that debates need to be had on their own issues rather than on the basis of who supports which stances. But each individual has their own set of views. "The Left" could potentially refer to the half of the population that's further Left than the other half, but only a tiny minority refer to the ideas described here^.

If you use Twitter (which is arguably on average more Left of centre than Right) you'll see that people are arguing about trans/gender constantly - and there are plenty opposing the movement who are on the Left. For instance, many feminists are very angry, as are some LGB people, about the redefining of woman/man/male/female etc.

The very Left wing pages/outlets and figures I follow barely ever mention this debate. They're spending their time criticising the Tories; arguing that things would be better ATM if Corbyn had won; calling for renationalisation; supporting efforts to fight climate change; and occasionally discussing Israel/Palestine. 

 

when someone says something counter-revolutionary, not only are they out, but anyone who supported them or failed to denounce them is out too. That is Stalinism.

 

 "Left vs Right" in politics is terminology that originated in pre-revolution France, where supporters of the king sat on his right whilst those who wanted *wealth and power to be more equally distributed* sat on his left. What you've described is a type of totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is not specifically Left nor Right. That Stalin purported to be on the Left doesn't mean that he's in any way representative of those who actually want wealth/power to be more equally distributed, and for *workers to own the means of production*

(Of course, the billionaire-owned Torygraph doesn't want wealth distribution to be less unjust, so it uses things like this in an attempt to manipulate voters.)

 

Democrats think abortion will carry them to election wins. But they might fail to mobilize: Black voters.

Amazing how many people here are choosing to use the word "enslaving".

Explain how stealing 9 months and perhaps another 18 years is not enslavement by your religion. 

What does "my religion" have to do with this? Enslavement is forced work and the loss of freedom - and historically has included unfathomable brutality. To use the word to refer to pregnancy is plainly disregarding the horror faced by the ancestors of African Americans discussed here. 

You do not have science, so you have a weak religion belief. It is called "Labor" because it is work. Carrying a fetus for 9 months is work. In some cases it is brutal. It is slavery, no matter what excuses you pretend. Rapists and the incestuous love the new Christian Fundamentalist States of America's new court-created law. Control and cruelty are the purposes. 

Seriously, with all due respect, what are you on about? When did I mention religion or oppose science? Again, refering to pregnancy as "enslavement" disregards the horror that actually enslaved people have endured. It's a biological process resulting from sex, not the imposition of selfish evil by "fellow man" that the slave trade was. 

[Assertions of believing that the Earth is 6000 years old,and of supporting human sacrifice] 

Jesus gave Himself, He was not "sacrificed by God". Why exactly do you find Him taking on the punishment we deserve so objectionable? And again, why are you bringing it up here? (Also no, Christianity doesn't teach that the planet is 6000 years old) 

count the “begats” and it clearly dates the planet and omits the dinosaurs. I find lies objectionable and the Bible is full of them, mixed with some old Jewish wisdom but riddled with falsehoods and fables.

"Begat" does not mean that they literally fathered them, it can refer to later descendants - but it's also not the case that Adam is considered the beginning point of the Earth, the word translated "day" in the beginning of Genesis does not refer to 24 hour periods. There are varying understandings of Genesis amongst Christians, but it's widely accepted that the creation account is not precisely literal, it reflects poetic styles from the time of writing.

The message that human beings are loved and are all offered forgiveness is abusive? Really? (And personally I'm very aware that I'm seriously flawed, I've never felt feel "abused" by that being acknowledged)

 

 

Another hosepipe ban looks set to be introduced...

Water companies have been making an atrocious mess. But that doesn't change the fact that we, the public, also need to be sensible. We are not entitled to hoses nor green gardens. A chunk of humanity doesn't even have water to drink, we should think about the more often and remember how fortunate we are.

surely if we pay for it we should be entitled to it? We're not in a 3rd world country!

No. You having money doesn't mean that you are entitled or that what you want to buy is available and accessible. And the fact that we're lucky enough to be born into a rich country (made rich largely by the exploration of others, as much as this wasn't our choice) doesn't mean that we deserve more than other human beings - we should be worrying about human beings who don't have drinking water, not brown lawns.

we live on an island we're surrounded by the stuff! Have a look how many millions of gallons are leaked through thr water company pipes. Your statement makes zero sense. You're basically saying we should pay for something we're not entitled to and thd water companies can get filthy rich without providing it. My local company is called Anglian water for a reason lol

I already blamed water companies. And that we're surrounded by water doesn't mean that it can be magicked into your garden nor that it's even the same thing - sea water is not rain water, it's full of salt and other impurities.

We pay for water, not limitless water. We have taps, flushing loos, showers - those are what we get for our water bills and what we need, not hoses.

Also, the headline is about my area's water company not yours, so why are you complaining?

The storytellers facing violent threats: what’s going on with drag queens in libraries?

Why is The Times supporting Drag Queen Story hour? Why do people want to be in drag to read to children?

Because kids enjoy it... Unlike the religious bs you spout online

What BS exactly? You use "unlike" as though what one writes in social media should be entertaining children. Though for the record, plenty of children are interested in God, as much as you might hate that. Personally, when I was a kid I somewhat enjoyed Sunday school and Christian kids books/videos - though I didn't believe until I was much older, and I didn't enjoy watching drag (nor pantomime dames) - that's just my experience, but I'm not sure what you're basing your generalisation on (?)

Kids tend to live and let live... People can be unique and different. The protesters would have caused fear.

That comment, linguistically, implies that children are not people.

No you're just mentally ill. We've established this many times now Gracie....Kids don't have hate that adults do! People like you indoctrinated into religious mythology and spreading hate

"no you're just mentally ill. We've established this many times now" is such a hilarious attempt to make yourself feel superior without looking at the discussion. Telling other people that they're mentally ill essentially demonstrates that you have no arguments, and imaging you've "established" this is too funny. You could only have "established" that someone is "mentally ill" if your qualified - and even if they are, it doesn't prove that their comments are incorrect. If you're so cognitively superior as you seem to think you are, you'll be able to address what they've actually written rather than making immature Ad Hominems.

Your comment contrasted "kids" with "people", therefore implying, at a linguistic level at least, that these are 2 distinct, separate groups. That's all I wrote. How exactly am I "spreading hate"?

you support religion, religion spreads hate. Ergo you spread hate. Glad to have been of help

How are you defining religion exactly?

you think there’s a magical sky-fairy called God who created man, despite the clear scientific evidence of evolution. That’d be a starting point for “religion”

It seems that you've misunderstood Christianity (for one thing, many Christians believe in evolution), but how exactly would your definition equate to "spreading hate"?

if magical sky fairy created man in the garden of Eden, and all that guff, how can you also believe in evolution. Sounds like some very confused people to me.

With all due respect, why exactly is that you think you're informed about Christianity? I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, but you've made it clear that you're not at all acquainted with the thing you're judging.

I went to a church school for years, I was forced to go to church for years. I was force fed all the stories for years. Luckily I was able to see past it and moved away from it as soon as I could. So believe me, it’s informed.

I was taken to Church and attended Church school, those things don't by any means necessarily provide good insight. I'm genuinely surprised that you were unaware that many Christians believe in evolution. Have you read writings or listened to lectures by Christian academics? Again, how does your description translate to hate?

 I agree, religion is bad. Repent. Turn away from religion. Get your own thoughts.

Sorry, you've still not defined religion(?) What point are you trying to make exactly? Why do you think I don't "have my own thoughts"?

that’s ok. I don’t have to do what you say. But anyway … religion is believing in some “higher power” … some named entity that you think made the world or rules the afterlife or whatever. And you don’t allow yourself to deviate from what that “religion” (or cults as we call them) thinks, because it’s “un-Christian”.

Again I'm wondering what exactly you're basing your presumptions about me, or other Christians, on(?)

Why would believing in a creator mean that we don't "have our own thoughts"?

Consider too that most people believe in some ideology/worldview/rules about life even if they don't believe in a creator. And some of the most fundamental views that we take forgranted as normal in Western society are derived from Christianity, which held very different tenets to prior Western cultures.

Crucially, Christ taught us to love others. We may not *agree* with their views or actions, but that is not in itself "hateful" as you've stated previously - however, there are of course plenty of people who've called themselves Christians whilst harbouring unloving attitudes, and they are failing to follow Christ's teachings when they do so - the problem is not Christianity, the problem is that human beings can be hateful, or instinctively dislike the unfamiliar.

 

Jessica Alba has criticised Marvel for its lack of diversity, claiming the flicks are "still quite caucasian" since her day as Susan Storm in 2005's Fantastic Four.She told Glamour that, "it's still quite… more of the same." 

Why are so many celebrities so much keener to say things like this than to use their platforms and wealth to help the (non-white, as it happens) people in our world's greatest need? There are, for instance, millions of people starving in parts of East Africa right now, could she help raise awareness of their plight? Or is she, whilst implying that others are racist, only concerned about people living in her own part of the world?  

People starving in western countries too! Demons love to Target Africa the continent instead of pinpointing a small region/villages in one of the 54 countries which you people love to highlight to milk you devils for money 💰 

Sorry, are you calling me a demon/devil on the basis of me being white? You can if you want, but why have you? And I'm well aware that Africa is hugely diverse. I specifically stated that there's currently famine in *parts of East Africa*, not all of East Africa let alone the whole continent. Naming more specific regions/villages wouldn't help, because most people here don't have detailed knowledge of the geography of other continents. But you seem to be lumping all white people together by using words like "demon", so perhaps you should stop doing that whilst you're demanding greater specificity(?) And I'm aware that there are people in need in Western countries, but there's not starvation in the same way that there is in famine zones. At least we have benefits, food banks and lots of local charities, which many people are very aware of and keen to give to - there are people elsewhere who don't have those and are literally dying of starvation. I really care about them, why does that bother you? I mentioned people outside of the West because of the OP - Jessica Alba is claiming that people of colour are overlooked by Marvel (this could be a legitimate comment, only the Marvel films starring POC listed in this comments section suggest she's mistaken). I'm concerned that people of colour in our world are overlooked, in the sense that many people of colour outside of the West are disadvantaged by long term ripple effects of colonialism that made the West rich, yet in the West they're largely ignored (in contrast to responses to the war in Ukraine, or events in the US).

 

 

 

 

Many issues here, but for one thing, the Bible is a compilation of ancient texts, it doesn't make sense to judge the entire Bible by the attitudes you infer from the Pentateuch

It's all Bullshit, & nothing Jesus really taught or said is in that book! The high elites of the church back then didn't want him spouting out the truths & had him put to death! The new Testament was written decades after Jesus past by men whom put their own spin to the tales, to make themselves look grand! Jesus would have never wanted a religion named after him, especially when Christianity doesn't preach anything about what he was trying to teach!

"the high elites of the church put Him to death"? With all due respect, that makes no sense. And no, the Gospels don't make the authorities, nor the apostles, "look grand". What are you basing your assertions on exactly? What is it that you think Jesus taught but was covered up?

Jesus himself in the Bible states he was angry at the Church & threw over the table of money. The Jewish church leaders asked the Romans to kill him, as they saw him as a threat! The Romans really didn't care about Jesus, as he was not a threat to them, but did it to keep peace in that part of the land where he lived. Read the many books that unfortunately never made it into the Book, you might get a different perspective, but then all those books were written by men & men only! Oh except one book, Mary Magdalene's book.

So the Bible tells us about Jesus turning over tables in the temple and you're angry with the Bible for hiding that He turned over tables in the temple?

It was the religious authorities who wanted rid of Jesus, and conspired to have Him killed - they, and those with whom Jesus got angry, were NOT the Church, why do you think that they were? They were Jewish (though obviously not representative of Jewish people, nor even, according to Jesus, of the Jewish faith). The Church didn't yet exist, because the Church is the followers (or claimed followers) of Jesus. Eventually, people joined the Church community whilst not actually seeking to follow Jesus (and this is super obvious in the US today) - but in the immediate period after His ministry, there was extreme persecution for followers, and this has continued in some parts of the world.

I am not talking about the Christian Church, it was the heads of the Jewish Temple that asked the Romans to kill him, as they saw him as a rebel & trouble maker, & that is why the Romans agreed to kill him! If you read the Lost books, the so called Forgotten books, you will get a different version to whats in the Bible, then you can make your own conclusions. I am not angry what Jesus said or did, he is one of the few Great Master Teachers sent here to help us & he was against the establishments of his times, & I admire him! The Lost books speak of his lost yrs from a teenager until he started teaching his knowledge in his early 30's, which the Bible neglects to do!

"Christian Church"? The Church is Christian, or people pretending to be Christian (though in modern times, some cults and spiritualists also use the word) - the word was not used for Jewish believers/religious authorities. That's semantics, but what's erroneous is that you've been lumping together 2 separate groups/movements. You've blamed the Church for killing Jesus and consider this a reason for deeming the Bible BS, but the people who wrote the Bible were not the people who brought about Jesus' death. And the Bible clearly *does* critique the religious authorities of the time (who were Jewish though, again, this does not mean that the rest of the Jewish community/Jewish people today are in any way to blame, which *should* be obvious); it's also critical about the early Churches and apostles - it is *not* written to make religious leaders/elites sound good as you've suggested.

Though the earliest discovered copies of the Gospels were written a few decades after Jesus, Paul's letters - attesting to The Gospel - are earlier, and the texts are dated far closer to the events than other ancient texts are. Most people did not read/write, but their culture had specific skills in oral communication. Christianity did not have links to power for a long time after Jesus - so the New Testament was not written to make people "look grand". It seems as though you're imagining powerful, politically affiliated, potentially corrupt Church leaders of later centuries - but the early Church was a collection of powerless followers who were heavily persecuted.

Were it the case that the Bible had been written by elites to make themselves look grand, it wouldn't have all of the warnings against false profits and greed that it does. The message of the New Testament is that salvation is only through Jesus - not paying/sucking up to any elites; people are equal in importance before God; and we MUST help the poor. Of course, plenty of power hungry individuals over the centuries and today have taken advantage of others by misrepresenting Jesus' message (and this has been a phenomenon across history - the Bible documents Jesus telling off religious elites for failing to truly follow God's commands - the OT - because they didn't care about the poor).

 

Call on the UK Government to champion stronger health systems around the world. Protect children before, during and after future crises. #FuturesAtRisk

Fascinating how many of the comments here are about UK issues. Why are we so incapable of thinking about people elsewhere in our world, in the very greatest need?

because now it's us in that situation.

No, we really aren't. Many people outside of Western world could only dream of the healthcare access we have, even with its serious shortcomings.

I hear you but there are some in desperate situations with things like their housing and finances who really do need help first and foremost and they don't get it xx

What do you mind by "first and foremost"?

before we start worrying about other countries problems. The money is there to tend to everyones needs and it's those in power who are withholding it and it leads to unfair distribution

Why "before"?

stop it now. I have answered your questions adequately and you are now being silly.

No you haven't, I'm genuinely wondering about your rationale. People in poorer countries have far less health care than we do, and each £ can make far more impact to them than it can here, I don't understand why you think they shouldn't be helped until everything is sorted here.

 

Think of it like this Grace. Would you prefer to spend your money on your family or give it all to the homeless people who are in greatest need. Britain and the British are family so spend money at home looking after our family first before spending it on countries whose principle occupation is producing babies to starve and suffer.Britain gave foreign aid to help people in Zimbabwe only Robert Mugabe spent it on a fleet of expensive cars for himself properties in Europe and at home and filled his personal Swiss bank account with funds meant for the countries poor. STOP FOREIGN AID AND SPEND IT ON DOMESTIC AID AND REPATRIATION OF FOREIGNERS.

Do you have evidence for that? Or, more importantly, that that reptesents how Aid is spent now? Some Aid is not spent well (WHICH IS TRUE OF GOV SPENDING IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS), the solution is to improve it, not cut it.

RE your earlier question, obviously I DO spend many times more on helping people in developing countries than on gifts for my family members, and I put a lot of time into finding gifts that my family members would like/have asked for on sale om charities. "Britain and the British are family" is nonsense, why would I care more about people I don't know in Britain than about people elsewhere? We love our families because we know them and have close relationships with them, there's no reason to put people we don't know in Britain before people elsewhere who are in greater need.

Saying STOP FOREIGN AID AND SPEND IT ON DOMESTIC AID AND REPATRIATION OF FOREIGNERS is irrational. Foreign Aid is less than 0.5% of our GDP, and can help people in far greater need than people here (including people who would be overjoyed to have access to food banks), and each £ can make many times more impact (such as buying many times more meals) in impoverished countries than it can here.

Our country is one of the richest in the world, because it's been taking from other countries for centuries and STILL TAKES MANY TIMES MORE THAN IS GIVEN IN AID https://gfintegrity.org/.../new-report-on-unrecorded.../ but certain rich and powerful figures have enabled the inequity of wealth distribution within the country to grow whilst duping people like you into blaming "foreigners"

 

 

 

 

Her ancestry is irrelevant, but it's quite funny that she thinks her husband's German ancestry somehow renders them innocent of crimes against humanity.

Ultimately, people alive today are not responsible at all for what other people did in the past - but because we benefit from the resulting ongoing injustice, we have a responsibility to support progress and to give to those who are most disadvantaged in our world. And as human beings, we should be utterly horrified by the evils of the slave trade, not seeking to be ignorant.

I find it baffling how some people think that they're "being made to feel guilty" - you're not guilty of enslavement itself so why feel guilty? Is it because your conscience is nagging at you for enjoying a privileged wealthy lifestyle, such as believing "your vacation" is a sacred entitlement, whilst there are people elsewhere in our world in extreme poverty?

 

Sandi Toksvig accuses Justin Welby of ‘risking lives’ with gay marriage stance

Sorry, but why does she think she knows about this? Her letter demonstrates that she's really not informed about the theological arguments in this debate. And frankly, it seems disrespectful to those who attempt suicide to suggest that it could be avoided if only Welby would announce support for certain sexual relationships.

Welby has, rightly, made clear that those who choose to follow Jesus are welcomed members of the Church irrespective of their sexual orientation. And whilst there may be instances of some Church leaders being genuinely unkind - therefore unChristlike - to some people because of their sexuality, this is not at all the same as Welby refusing to change the Church's definition of marriage.

Christianity is about Christ, who offers anyone who turns to Him, eternal life.

Christianity is proven mythology 

"Proven" how exactly?

probably the same way you can prove eternal life, or the resurrection.

Do elaborate. Events can have evidence or witness testimonies, how has Christianity been "proven" mythology in "the same way" as the resurrection or eternal life?

how do you think you can prove eternal life or the resurrection? If Jesus was born again , why did he not share how to do this with the rest of humanity, then we would have no death or is he/she just selfish and far too important. 

He rose from death, He wasn't born again. He made possible eternal life, ie heaven, which is far better than life on Earth - He didn't come to bring about an end to biological reality and a population crisis.

I only came to believe in the resurrection myself after reading books by academics on reasons for concluding that it was an actual historical event, I'm not going to be able to convince you here. If you're genuinely interested you could with articles like https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection/the-resurrection ; https://www.reasonablefaith.org/.../the-resurrection-of... ; or books like Who Moved The Stone, and weigh up the issue for yourself.

But still, you've not explained what proof you have that Christianity is mythology.

absolutely not, because its all rubbish. There was no population crisis 2000 years ago, why did he/she choose eternal life in a mythical place, why not here on earth? How did he manage to come back to life when we cannot manage it with all the medical advances we have today?

How exactly do you think that you know something you haven't read is "all rubbish"?

Why do you think it'd be better for people to all live on Earth forever than to have the offer of heaven? (And the fact that there wasn't a population crisis 2000 years ago isn't relevant, there'd rapidly have been massive issues if everyone just stayed alive on Earth indefinitely)

The world isn't 6000 years old. No 35ft tall Ashem and Chav (aka Adam and Eve). Nur (Noah) his ark of impossibility.

The same science that gave you the device in your hand, proved your version of the thousands of versions of fairytalesnl to be impossible. But I understand, you're mentally ill and need a sky daddy. I have interacted with you bs before. 

Why do you think we believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? Who said that Adam was 35ft tall? What specifically about Noah are you referring to?

Crucially, why are you presuming that Genesis is all literal? Scholars believe that its early chapters reflect poetic traditions of the culture at the time (in contrast to some other parts of the Bible which have linguistic styles/markers of historical records). But also, what is your presumption of absolute naturalism based on exactly?

 

yeah what would Sandi Toksvig know about being gay eh? 

It's not about being gay. It's about God's word and how the Church should act.

I think she summarised God’s word quite well in her letter

Unless I missed something, she ignored the scriptures about sex/marriage, she seemed to think that prohibition of homosexual practice is based on Sodom and Gomorrah. She also has misunderstood the concept of sin and the Gospel, plainly the most important thing in *God's word*. She's also entirely misrepresented what's been said at Lambeth and by Welby. https://thurible.net/2022/08/04/fact-checking-sandi-toksvig/

when a non-believer doesn’t fully understand Christianity we have to ask why? Whose fault is that? When an unbeliever thinks Christianity is closed minded, bigoted and hateful, we have to ask why? Whose fault is that?

Perhaps rather than criticising Toksvigs lack of perfect theology you should be breaking your heart that this is how the world sees us, and by extension sees Jesus because of our witness. I know I am!

If I remember the letter rightly, I’m pretty sure that Sandi said that love was the most important thing for us, if you’re saying she’s wrong, and that actually sin is the most important thing for us then all I can say to that is to reiterate my point that she reflects Jesus better than some Christians

The most important thing is the love that Jesus shows in making possible salvation from sin - not sexual love.

I don't know "whose fault" it is, I don't know her personally. I don't doubt that plenty of "Christians" have behaved in unChristlike ways that have failed to show the compassion He demonstrated, and that is obviously beyond unacceptable - but it seems very likely that she's also chosen not to read up on the theological debate she's chosen to comment on. I wasn't "criticising her lack of theology" in itself. But, from a position of having chosen to avoid Christianity and scripture, she presumes she has a better understanding than Welby.

It is obviously the epitome of tragic that many people have been turned off from Christianity for reasons like this, and we need, more than anything, to find ways to get the Gospel across to them. I also don't think that matters like this should be presumed to be the only reason a person chooses to reject God (and they are, obviously, entitled to their decision) - and we need ultimately to get across to people not only that they are loved by God, but also that His love surpasses the importance of things in this world (including sex)