Sunday 11 September 2022

It feels peculiar seeing ongoing fawning over the Royals, whilst reading about the unimaginable horror of the Biafra crisis and other aspects of colonialism. So, so much sadness for one person's death, yet many millions of human beings were oppressed, tortured and killed largely without recognition by our media and political establishment.

On Twitter when the Queen died, there were countless people celebrating. I think that they're ignorant of the reality that she didn't have power to issue instruction (just as, several weeks ago, Meghan fans were ignorantly laughing that William has an environmental initiative - The Earthshot Prize - whilst our waterways are full of sewage, as though he has control over UK environmental legislation and water infrastructure).
The evils of colonialism can't be attributed to one now deceased woman, they have been the result of barbaric selfishness and racism in the hearts of many politicians and generals. But I need to learn more about this history - and the powers that be in our country should be working far harder to address the enduring ripple effects.
The Royal family has ridiculous wealth largely because of injustices that were carried out before they (the current members and the Queen) were born. As Westerns, most of us - including those Americans joining in celebrating the death of the Queen - though paupers as compared to the Royal family, are wealthy as compared to many people elsewhere in our world, in no small part because of these injustices.
 
A few clarifications - I truly hope that God comforts the relatives of the Queen who are grieving.
And so far as I've been able to discern, she was generally a caring person, I'm grateful for her various positive attributes whilst feeling that the extent of reverence for a monarch (any monarch) is odd.
I'm also very conscious that, whilst some are exuding misplaced vitriol, many people around the world have other views. A certain television personality has responded to the malicious comments by attacking a whole group. He is illogical to do so.
 
Whilst much of the public has at some point said "God save the Queen", I believe that she was saved whilst much of the public is not. That is to say, I believe that she accepted Jesus' offer of salvation - offered to everyone - whilst most Brits haven't.
If only more people knew that The King - Jesus - offers each of us something greater than any monarchy's riches.

This is decent piece from The Independent RE the reality that the Queen was not responsible for the atrocities - but the atrocities enacted by our country's leaders (and armies, and corporations) over centuries are so indescribably abhorrent and overlooked here in Britain. People blaming the Queen are incorrect (yet incorrect people are entitled to express their feelings), but it's also incorrect that the passing of one person has quite so much attention and mourning as it does (would she - anecdotally fairly humble as a person - even have wanted quite so many people crying and piling up flowers?) whilst the deaths of so many othes have had so little. 
Apparently a piece from the NYT was (wrongly, I suspect) heavily criticised by monarchists for drawing attention to the empire, and even that piece pointed out the Queen had disagreements with politicians about oppressive foreign policy. The victims of the British empire deserve to be mourned too - we've heard many times in recent days about how the monarchy represents "history", and how this passing is "a historic event", but so much history is overlooked.
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/voices-mocking-queen-death-isn-182932365.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9sLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALSxYGBb-zQ2rtPGCmaqD92ExmTFFeT_2mcjfrQS8eNoIYsjk6wKt47PaWaN4l3BB-qMxGHkoTaSNA9i1viWoMbwSenf6Li1Cv75xAz5sCHnFM3gzwyfwVe33tBunu3msLHHiA0l7WbxS-SJy2Shv4dm_HPAvhCg6VEce66TX9jR&utm

 

Leftist co-host at The View Sunny Hostin, a multi-millionaire who brags about her Martha's Vineyard vacations, is demanding reparations

As someone generally on the Left (that is, regarding wealth, state services, race and the environment - not issues relating to sex), things like this make me so angry.

I believe that countries like mine (the UK) and the US should be paying to help those affected by the lasting effects of colonialism today - but that's those people in our world in severe poverty, not rich Western individuals who happen to have ancestors that were exploited.
There are people parts of East Africa right now, for instance, literally starving to death - how dare a multi-millionaire claim that it's they themselves who should receive funds?
It was enslaved people who were horrifically, barbarically exploited - often to death - not her^, it seems outrageous to insinuate that she should now be compensated for *their* suffering.
"Reparations" seems such an odd word - nothing done today can *repair* the horrors of history, history happened. But we *should* be acting to address current injustice and suffering.

 

"If you need the threat of hell to be a good person, then you're just a bad person on a leash"

This^ is a serious strawman.

Hell is separation from God (and thus from goodness) for those who choose to reject Him. There are disagreements amongst theologians about what that entails, personally I'm an annihilationist (see, for example, RethinkingHell). Clearly, during history, some Churches have sought to scare people into obedience by describing hell as suffering forever, I reckon that Jesus actually suggests that those who choose not to be with God cease to exist, after justice.
Christianity means believing that Jesus offers eternal life to anyone who chooses to truly turn to Him and accept His taking of our deserved punishment. I know that seems a nonsensical concept, I couldn't adequately explain here all that I read about the historical accounts that convinced me that He actually rose and thus proved His claims (so I know I sound like an idiot). Because we are overjoyed by what He has done for us, we *want* to follow His guidance, and the Holy Spirit gradually changes us to be more selfless etc than we were. So we don't behave better to earn something/avoid something, we *can't* earn forgiveness through good behaviour. Instead we accept the offer of forgiveness and then behave better become we develop a desire to. As absurd as Christianity must seem, this is the experience that I and many others have had - as I've chosen to follow God I've felt a desire to be less angry, more caring etc, and my life and actions have been influenced. I'm certainly not thinking about hell.
Obviously, there are scores of people, especially in the US, who call themselves Christians for tribal reasons but demonstrate that they aren't actually seeking to follow Jesus.
And of course, most people who have some urge (to varying extents) to do good things without believing in God - I think of this as being partly because everyone is made in God's image, but it could be described as being for evolutionary reasons.

 

Tony Perkins, who has made a career railing against LGBT people—including saying that God sends natural disasters to punish them—had his house destroyed by a natural disaster.

As a Christian I'm furious with the people who *call themselves* Christians (calling oneself something doesn't necessarily mean that one is that thing, like Trump calling himself a genius) yet won't take climate change seriously. God tells us repeatedly to love our neighbours and care about the poor - and it's the world's poorest who are suffering most from climate change.

 

The hot Twitter take that the British Empire was an unalloyed evil

I'm finding it so odd - I absolutely despise the evil done by my country's empire (and don't support the monarchy), but it wasn't Liz who did it. People seem to not understand that our monarchy doesn't make the decisions. Though it's also the case that our country spends a daft amount of time discussing the Royals and too little time talking about the people in our world affected by the ripple effects of colonialism today.

 

Nana Konadu Agyeman-Rawlings first met Queen Elizabeth as a 14-year-old schoolgirl and then later as Ghana's first lady.

Stockholm syndrome at the finest!!! At least the Europeans gave you European Jesus!!!🤣

Jesus was Middle Eastern (and thus brown, not white). I'm sorry that some people from my part of the world have suggested otherwise (though there is art from many different cultures depicting Him as the ethnicity of the artist, I think people do this to relate to Him)

 

This is [the Queen's] legacy, the scar's she left in all our hearts today.
Over 5 million innocent Bịafra men ,women & children lives cut short, murdered in a cold blood without any remorse. But she lived her own life to the fullest.
Those children she cut down their lives are still fresh in our minds like yesterday because the bondage in which she put us through all this, we're still suffering till today.
 
I'm infuriated and disgusted by the things that some people from my country have done in yours. I desperately wish that my government would give more money to help where help is needed (as directed by people in the formerly colonised countries of course). But I'm pretty sure that Liz (though I'm not in support of our monarchy) was not responsible - army generals and certain politicians are. She has not had power to make the decisions (unlike monarchs we had centuries ago).

Akanu Ibiam Denounced Queen Elizabeth's Knighthood Over Her Involvement in Biafra Genocide
In August 1967, the former Governor of old Eastern Region, Dr. Akanu Ibiam from Uwana in Ebonyi state, returned his knighthood (KBE) to Queen Elizabeth II, in protest against UK's involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra Civil War.
He also in protest, renounced his English name "Francis" for the same purpose.
In his statement, "I can't be a Queen's knight and watch the same kingdom be killing my people in Biafra," he said.

I don't doubt that utter, indescribable evil was done - but here in Britain the monarch is just decorative (including handing out medals like knighthoods). Things are referred to as "her majesty's", such as HMRC (which stands for Her Majesty'sRevenue and Customs, it's the government department in charge of tax etc) or HMP (which stands for Her Majesty's Prisons); and many more, but she doesn't actually get to decide what's done. Politicians and members of the army are to blame for the evil done in colonialism (though, centuries ago, monarchs *did* make some of these decisions).
Here in Briain, many people have said that the Honours System (that is knighthoods etc) should change the words it uses - the E in KBE etc stands for empire because of history, but Britain hasn't had an empire for ages (I wish my country never had).
Many people have rejected Honours Medals offered to them because of their hatred of the empire, and I respect the decision that they and Dr. Akanu Ibiam have made a lot. Though 2 people of African heritage who I know myself decided to accept their medals because they felt showing pride in their personal achievements was important for their families, they felt like it didn't mean condoning the empire, so there are different feelings.
What I want desperately is for those affected by severe poverty today (because of ripple effects of colonialism) to be enabled to free themselves from that poverty - I think that there are political and corporate systems that need to change for the suffering to stop, the Queen dying doesn't help anything.

 

[The Queen} looted our resources and our people

When did *Elizabeth II* invade? The colonising happened before she was Queen, and as Queen she's not had actual decision making power, it's politicians who make decisions.
The colonising of Africa is more outrageous than I have words for, and I believe that the rich within my country, including the Royal family, should be made to pay substantial amounts to support the development of things needed in parts of Africa (I am aware that the continent is huge and endlessly varied) - but I'm pretty sure that Liz was not responsible.

 

The death of #QueenElizabethII has reignited the demand to bring back the #Kohinoor diamond to India

I agree that things like this should be returned - though I reckon it's important that it benefits that it benefits the people of the country it was taken from, not simply given to a leader to enjoy, and that it's not a cause of conflict. But I'm finding it super odd seeing countless people on Twitter blaming the Queen for all the evil done under the empire - long before she was Queen. There was so, so much indescribable horror in colonialism - but those who carried it out (and any leaders *at the time* who sanctioned it) are to blame, the Queen took the throne when most of it was ending, and unlike monarchs centuries ago, she did not have political power.

 

The British monarchy is a vestige of tyranny, a grand monument to hierarchy and plunder.

I think it's outrageous that the monarchy has so much wealth (but this is also true if other members of the super rich), and most of it should be given to help the poorest people in the commonwealth. But it's also the case that Lizzie had better qualities than many of our politicians, and she somehow made some people smile on occasion.

 

Texas church issues apology for unauthorised ‘Christian’ Hamilton - The production changed lyrics, added a ‘repentance’ scene and was followed by a sermon saying God would save people who ‘struggle with homosexuality’.

And they just keep on shoving their twisted “Christian “ fundamentalist hatred at every opportunity, yet they feel  prosecuted”.

How did they demonstrate *hatred*?

You mean other than by suggesting homosexuals need "saving" and by violating copyright?

I agree that they shouldn't have used someone else's IP, but it's theft, not hatred. And why do you think that saying people need saving is *hatred*? (NB, Christianity says that we all need saving).

NB, Christianity says it's not up to us to judge but to God alone and we should care about our own saving rather than point with fingers at others.

Apologies if this sounds argumentative, but what do you mean by "judge"? Is having an opinion judging? Is stating what the Bible says judging? Again, where is the "hate" exactly?
Note that the Bible also advises us to judge all things. I am, of course, well aware of the verse you've referred to about not judging *people*, and that there are plenty who call themselves Christians whilst failing to attempt to emulate Christ (instead harbouring disdain). But simply believing or stating God's guidance RE sex does not necessarily mean that a person is holding onto judgemental or hateful feelings towards *people* (Jesus' prohibition of judgement is about people), the person could simply disagree with the *thing* (sexual activity that's contrary to God's guidance).
But it's absolutely the case that we should not spend time thinking about other people's actions and should be very, very conscious of own sin. It's absolutely awful that some so called Christians seem to obsess about sexuality (though I suspect this is in part because of its prominence in our culture) rather than focusing on the Gospel. But mainstream media outlets don't necessarily give us a good picture of whether this is what's happening, because they tend to ignore all the other things said by a Church and just quote a non progressive statement about sex.
We believe that Jesus died because we *all* sin and need (and are offered) salvation through Him, but this is too often overlooked by both some "Christians" and MSM reporting on them.
  
Telling people that they need to change who they are because of a nonsensical adherence to a book written by men about their imaginary friend is hatred

No, hatred is an intense dislike of a person. Sharing what one believes to be guidance - RE actions, not people themselves - of a loving and wise creator does not mean hating people. If a child urged their sibling to avoid something that they believed their parent had prohibited, it wouldn't mean that they hate the sibling. Theists believe that, as a parent understands things far better than children and gives guidance that sometimes seems unfathomable to their children, God understands things better than we do - and, like a parent loves their children, God loves humanity. Of course, if you aren't aware of (or disagree with) the reasoning that people have to believe in God, all this seems daft and you're obviously entirely entitled to that view and to ignoring the guidance - other people's views that you think are daft don't stop you doing what you choose.

There are people who wrongly *call themselves* Christian whilst in fact not trying at all to follow Jesus and His command to love others (that is people themselves - we can love our neighbour even if we don't support all of their actions) but not everyone with a traditional understanding of Biblical teaching on sex falls into that group.
What I personally find frustrating (not that I expect anyone to care what I find frustrating, of course) is that sex always becomes the focus. I can't remember actually hearing it discussed in a Church service - and the message of Christianity is that we *all* need, and are offered, salvation through Jesus. *I* need to change - though not in any sexual sense - and I don't feel at all "hated" hearing that.