A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
One source familiar with the Children of God told the yorker that he suspects that the cult is setting up a base in the city. He said: "I haven't met any of the members here in York, but my experience of them elsewhere is that when they're recruiting in an area they are normally attempting to set up a base in the city."
The yorker has so far ascertained that the second group, the International Church of Christ, is using only three or four members to recruit on campus. The recruiters commute from London.
Another of our sources had a two hour meeting with one of the York recruiters. Our source said: "For a group that places such emphasis on the Bible, the recruiter's knowledge of it was overall fairly poor. The people I spoke to had no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, they had had no formal training on exegesis and appeared as though they hadn't come across some of the biblical passages I drew their attention to."
He added: "One person I spoke to appeared as though they weren't even sure of what they believed in themselves."
The York recruiters target York students by quoting specific verses from the Bible which the source says can be "persuasive in themselves".
Concerns have been raised after one of the sources admitted that the groups' conversion methods were specifically made to recruit Christians. The CU could not be contacted before publication, but will release a statement tomorrow afternoon on the yorker.
Adam Chidell:
that ones a bit more interesting than the other one 
. However it can be easily explained.
It is again due to the ambiguity of the word jealousy. There's jealously as in wanting to guard your own possesions which is ok, and there's jealousy as in envy, wanting what is not yours.
I can be jealous in the first sense if somebody else were to take the love of my wife, because we are bound and we belong to each other. However if another man is envious of me because they want my wife, that is wrong, because we belong to each other, she does not belong to him.
God is jealous in the guarding sense when we worship other "gods" or idols because we are his, he made us in the hopes that we would love him as he deserves.
Love is not envious. quoting from NIV 1 corinthians 13:4 the word envy is used, which makes perfect sense.
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud"
again i see no contradiction
I did not mean to suggest that you yourself were indoctrinated just to clarify; just that I believe that fundamentalism (of any nature) offers no room for personal thought. I am not saying that one cannot have 100% belief in god - I myself do - , but the bible was written by men and edited, like any book, by men. Men are not infallible. Approaching the bible critically does not equate to doubting your beliefs in God. Furthermore, I did not state, imply, or assume that your beliefs are unfounded or delusional, or that your beliefs are wrong or invalid because they differ from my own. It is called, having an opinion (shown from my language such as 'in my view'), not insulting someone's intelligence. Neither of our religious views are definitive.
thanks for clarifying. it was your statement that "fundamentalism" (a word i am not keen on) leaves no room for critical or personal thought that i found insulting, as it implied that i believed it blindly and without intelligence.
I look at other theories such as evolution and find they are invalid. At the end of the day complexity does not come from nowhere, the mechanisms of mutations have never been observed to increase complexity, only decrease, nor does it provide a mechanism for life to start in the first place. The theory is constantly being changed to try to account for new facts. The method of creation in the Bible however explains perfectly and has not changed since it was written (except in translation which can be a source of ambiguity).
I agree any substantial text written by man will have errors / inconsistencies with itself and reality, which combined with the complete lack of them in the bible leads me to believe that the Bible was not created by men but is the inspired word of God, and hence truth.
(man made implies errors, therefore no errors implies not man made)
I don't see how such belief is anything other than a reasoned and logical deduction from what i can observe (on the assumption that no inconsistency will be found which is reasonable since its been around for around 2000+ years and none has been found yet).
Or do you mean by personal thought, the freedom to change the bible? It seems to me that this is irrelevent since I am looking for truth, not freedom to adapt it to suit my own desires.
I'm curious which part of my logic you disagree with.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report