This thread is closed
Christian Union
Scroll to see replies
thomasjtl
I don't think it's obviously nonsense to suggest we all inhabit the same externally-justified existance, if i'm understanding what you mean by that correctly. A lot of people like to spout postmodern type views that everyone's views are just as correct as everyone elses, and of course they can believe that if they want to, but i wouldn't say that's an obvious conclusion to come to, and it's not one that i think has much intuitive sense to it.
It's Sartre's argument as to whether god exists or not. One might have the essence of it in one's head but it does not have existence until it is made. Heh, I'm far from being post-modern but what I mean is that an individual belief shouldn't be taken as the justification for everyone else's existence. It's the existentialist argument which seems to have been forgotten or a while in the face of postmodernism: Derrida, Foucault. Ploughing through Being & Nothingness or Kierkegaard's works might bring some interesting insights to the Christians who whilst not willing to evangelise still are consistent with Christian belief that their non-believing friends are going to spend eternity rotting away in the underworld version of Borstal. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we're ever going to get to the situation where all beliefs are equal because as Orwell pointed out, some beliefs are more equal than others. Alas.
oriel historian
Well surely it implicit in the Christian message even if you don't evangelise. You used this argument above so I would have thought it applied to me too!!! 
I think you'll find that I used it under the circumstances of "when you get mad at somebody trying to evangelise, you should remember that this is what they're thinking..." I never once suggested that I agreed. I just find it non-sensical that people get angry when somebody thinks they are trying to save them from eternal damnation.
And whether or not it's implicit sort of depends upon your view of hell. I subscribe to a more purgatorial view point. The point of Total Awareness where you realise that God is real, and all the things you've done in the face of perfect love... to me I can't imagine a more painful experience than that. But in the face of divine love you can still be healed.
thomasjtl
I don't think it's obviously nonsense to suggest we all inhabit the same externally-justified existance, if i'm understanding what you mean by that correctly.
Have to say I agree here. I don't see how everyone can be right. Either we're right, or we're not. Obviously I barely acknowledge the idea that we might not be, but if we're wrong then... well we're wrong. There's no dichotomy where some people live in a world with God and some people don't.
Ahhh the joys of internal Christian politics. Anyway, I could just get rich enough and buy my way out from the Pope.
Oh as for eternal damnation. People get angry because that's STILL shoving your beliefs in their face. Just accept that you've been saved and that's grand. Don't tell the rest of us we're on the highway to Purgatory cos y'know you might be wrong! Anyway ... G&Ds in a couple of weeks?
Oh as for eternal damnation. People get angry because that's STILL shoving your beliefs in their face. Just accept that you've been saved and that's grand. Don't tell the rest of us we're on the highway to Purgatory cos y'know you might be wrong! Anyway ... G&Ds in a couple of weeks?
Firstly, the Pope doesn't absolve for money. Stop being so deluded
Secondly, yes I accept that it can be intrusive and annoying. But it's the fact that people get really ANGRY about somebody e.g. pidging them a copy of the gospel. I don't get angry about unsolicited mail from the Spanish society or the dancers, so why that? When it's invasive I am totally on the side of the people on the receiving end. It just astounds me that it can provoke such a reaction even when it's just friendly.
And thirdly, you seem to have forgotten when my dissertation is due in.
Secondly, yes I accept that it can be intrusive and annoying. But it's the fact that people get really ANGRY about somebody e.g. pidging them a copy of the gospel. I don't get angry about unsolicited mail from the Spanish society or the dancers, so why that? When it's invasive I am totally on the side of the people on the receiving end. It just astounds me that it can provoke such a reaction even when it's just friendly.
And thirdly, you seem to have forgotten when my dissertation is due in.
Bekaboo
Have to say I agree here. I don't see how everyone can be right. Either we're right, or we're not. Obviously I barely acknowledge the idea that we might not be, but if we're wrong then... well we're wrong. There's no dichotomy where some people live in a world with God and some people don't.
Yes, yes there is. The reason being is that humans invented this god and give it life. Thus where some humans don't believe in the said god they are still right in their own beliefs. If we all had to cowtail to Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist patterns of belief then we'd all think the same way. Human beings do not think all the same because we are individuals. My atheist opinion has as much validity as your Anglo-Catholic one, has as much validity as Ariel Sharon's Jewish one. Why? Because we all believe what we want to believe. We give existence to our beliefs, no one else can.
HCD
Dawkins is God, he's just bluffing.
He's certainly got a perpetually strange expression that hovers between smug/patronising and dissatisfied - I was shoulder to shoulder with him for part of my tutor's funeral, and I just wanted to smack him for his "more intelligent than thou" expression.
Bekaboo
Firstly, the Pope doesn't absolve for money. Stop being so deluded
Secondly, yes I accept that it can be intrusive and annoying. But it's the fact that people get really ANGRY about somebody e.g. pidging them a copy of the gospel. I don't get angry about unsolicited mail from the Spanish society or the dancers, so why that? When it's invasive I am totally on the side of the people on the receiving end. It just astounds me that it can provoke such a reaction even when it's just friendly.
And thirdly, you seem to have forgotten when my dissertation is due in.
Secondly, yes I accept that it can be intrusive and annoying. But it's the fact that people get really ANGRY about somebody e.g. pidging them a copy of the gospel. I don't get angry about unsolicited mail from the Spanish society or the dancers, so why that? When it's invasive I am totally on the side of the people on the receiving end. It just astounds me that it can provoke such a reaction even when it's just friendly.
And thirdly, you seem to have forgotten when my dissertation is due in.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the symptoms of an angry Christian!
Look so the pope doesn't absolve for money. Well, the present incumbent doesn't. Think you'll find it's a historical phenomenon nonetheless. I get really angry when I'm pidged a copy of the gospel. I put it in the (recycling) bin because to me its junkmail. The other things say something from the Spanish society might be vaguely interesting with a spanish film night, still ends up in the self-same recycling bin. It's not friendly it's evangelical ideological attempts at brainwashing. Let people make up their own minds. How would you feel if I went around and pidged everyone a copy of the Communist Manifesto? I bet you people in Oxford would be up in arms. Why? Cos it's a silly attempt to shove your individual ideology onto everyone else.---------------
Oh and apparently I did but forgive me for thinking you might wish to say hello.
Bekaboo
I just find it non-sensical that people get angry when somebody thinks they are trying to save them from eternal damnation.
I just find it non-sensical that people get angry when somebody thinks they are trying to save them from eternal damnation.
This doesn't stand up when we consider some people believe that killing you will save you from eternal damnation. We don't say, 'oh this guy's trying to kill us, but it's all because he thinks he's saving us from eternal damnation, so it's irrational for us to get angry!'. For exactly the same reason, when some obnoxious preacher is evangelising we are justified in being annoyed. Even if someone's intentions are good, their actions can still be bad, and if their actions are bad, we are justified in complaining. I consider murder to be a very bad action and pressing ones faith on someone who isn't interested as much less severe, but in both cases annoyance and resistance are justified in spite of so-called benevolent intentions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7131088.stm
As this coincides with the launch of the Vatican-owned airline and flights to Lourdes, I think you could put forward an argument that indulgences do still have an economic element. Well, absolution and plenary indulgence are different things, but you get the idea.
And Bekaboo, may I refer you to Article XXII?
As this coincides with the launch of the Vatican-owned airline and flights to Lourdes, I think you could put forward an argument that indulgences do still have an economic element. Well, absolution and plenary indulgence are different things, but you get the idea.
And Bekaboo, may I refer you to Article XXII?
oriel historian
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the symptoms of an angry Christian!
Angry? Actually no that was said in my calmest, and possibly slightly condescending voice. I find it a bit weird that you look so hard for reasons to spite the church other than that you don't believe God exists. For me that is reason enough, and there's no reason to try to muddy the waters.
I get really angry when I'm pidged a copy of the gospel. I put it in the (recycling) bin because to me its junkmail. The other things say something from the Spanish society might be vaguely interesting with a spanish film night, still ends up in the self-same recycling bin.
My point was just that - that to somebody who cares about neither they should be treated with the same reaction. It goes straight in the trash and matters not. I don't see why it's cause for anger.
Oh and apparently I did but forgive me for thinking you might wish to say hello.
Oh for goodness sake, you know perfectly well what finalists are like when they have their dissertation due in. Right now life = work + music and very little else, not even Mr Bekaboo. We could meet up but I would spend the entire time looking at my watch, which would be rather rude, and you KNOW that.
And Bekaboo, may I refer you to Article XXII?
You may... and I'll tell you that firstly I didn't say it was purgatory, I said it was a bit like purgatory in the hope that people might understand what I meant better. And secondly I'd point out that I'm not RC, and therefore entitled to believe whatever fits best with my experiences of Our Lord.
Well, like i said, i don't think it's nonsense to think that we all live in the same existance, and that for one of us to say there is a God and for another to say there isn't means that one of us is wrong. Ultimately i'm a critical realist- i acknowledge that perceiving something doesn't necessarily make it real, but at the same time feel that there is a thought independant reality that can be perceived and is objectively knowable. I think most people agree that if you see a tree in front of you then unless there's some mirrors and smoke going on, there is a tree in front of you, rather than thinking 'well, i perceive there's a tree in front of me, but it's only there because i've seen it, and it's doesn't exist to someone who hasn't seen it.' I don't know enough about what you're saying to suggest it's without merit, or silly to believe, but i don't think it's an obvious conclusion to come to.
Okay, i'm not sure i see what your point is here, other than that everyone believes their own beliefs are right, otherwise they wouldn't believe in them. Believing in something does not make it right, however- i perfectly happy to say that i believe that Jews are wrong to not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, or that hinduism/islam/atheism is wrong, just as most people within those faiths (or nonfaith if you like) would say about Christianity. This is entirely consistant.
If someone gave me a copy of the communist manifesto i'd probably throw it in the bin/give it back to them, but perhaps if i were bored i might read it. If they waited outside my door and constantly badgered me about it, then yes, i'd get annoyed, but i don't do that with gospels and christianity and I don't know anyone in the OICCU who behaves like that either.
Re questions about how can a loving god allow all this etc.: I believe in a God who created man, who subsequently rejected him and his rule, causing us to be separated. Our disobedience (or 'sin') causes a great barrier between us and God that can't simply be dismissed. Last summer i was working for a Church someplace. One day we were going to conference and were told we would be meeting a man now working for another church in the region who previously was a terrorist in northern ireland before becoming a christian in prison. Now my mother's from belfast and i've seen how the troubles affected her and her family (whether IRA or UDA, they're all as bad as each other, as far as i'm concerned)- i didn't want to be in the same room as this guy- he was the first person i'd encountered who was responsible in part for all the suffering and i wanted nothing to do with him.
It was at this point i truely understood the problem of sin (wrongdoing, disobedience to what God calls us to, whatever you wanna call it)- at it's worst, it disgusts people and they can't stand you in their presence. And this from me, who no doubt does a thousand wrong things each day and bearly notices half of them. Now i don't at all seek to call the minor things we do wrong ourselves at all equivilent to violence, rape or terrorism, not for one minute- i use them purely as examples of actions we can all condemn and would want to distance ourselves from those who committ them. But consider now a perfect God- would it not be unreasonable for him to see even what we would consider minor wrongdoings in the same light- as fundementally corrupted and something he doesn't want in his presence? It all depends whether you believe in objective moral standards, i guess.
How then do we reconcile this with the concept of a loving God, and what hope is there for us dirty sinners, as i've just labelled us? Jesus came and proclaimed a coming judgement and a new way to live and enter into God's presence- one that did not dismiss the problems of our wrong doing but made a way for the sins of those past, present and future to be forgiven, and those turning from their current ways to re-enter the God's presence and be treated as a son. Jesus death on the cross represented a propitiation of our wrongdoings, of God in human form absorbing the wrath he felt against us within himself in order that we may be forgiven.
This is the gospel message and to me is the mark of a loving God, that despite our wrongdoing and rejection of him, he still desires a relationship with us- we are still left with the barrier of us not wanting God, but that is for us to drop. I never said i believed in Hell in the charactertured sense, but here we have the choice of an eternity with God in whom all good things originate, or being cast aside and being outside his kingdom- i know which one i'm gonna choose.
Obviously there's a big step to be made to link philosophical ideas of God and sin with some man dying 2000 years ago, and whether you believe what he said is up to you. What convinces me is how Jesus life and death fufill so many prophesies in the Old Testiment and how willingly Jesus went into the hands of his captors and executors, which then boils down to whether you can trust the Bible as a true account of what happened. Personally, i trust it because it makes sense of the world as i perceive it and don't believe that the authors had anything to gain by fabricating what they wrote.
Now this is either the best news you've ever heard, or it is deeply offensive to you. If i've offended you, i apologise and hope you understand that wasn't my intention. I'm not sure i've got much left to say on this matter, only that I of course welcome any questions about christian beliefs (pm if you like, and i'll do my best to answer), and in true OICCU fashion, extend a warm invitation to all of you to our 'Amazing Grace' events coming up in the next week or two (see www.grace08.com or talk to your CU reps ( i can tell you who they are if you want - you'll make their day if you talk to them before they get a chance to talk to you!)
Yes, yes there is. The reason being is that humans invented this god and give it life. Thus where some humans don't believe in the said god they are still right in their own beliefs. If we all had to cowtail to Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist patterns of belief then we'd all think the same way. Human beings do not think all the same because we are individuals. My atheist opinion has as much validity as your Anglo-Catholic one, has as much validity as Ariel Sharon's Jewish one. Why? Because we all believe what we want to believe. We give existence to our beliefs, no one else can.
If someone gave me a copy of the communist manifesto i'd probably throw it in the bin/give it back to them, but perhaps if i were bored i might read it. If they waited outside my door and constantly badgered me about it, then yes, i'd get annoyed, but i don't do that with gospels and christianity and I don't know anyone in the OICCU who behaves like that either.
Re questions about how can a loving god allow all this etc.: I believe in a God who created man, who subsequently rejected him and his rule, causing us to be separated. Our disobedience (or 'sin') causes a great barrier between us and God that can't simply be dismissed. Last summer i was working for a Church someplace. One day we were going to conference and were told we would be meeting a man now working for another church in the region who previously was a terrorist in northern ireland before becoming a christian in prison. Now my mother's from belfast and i've seen how the troubles affected her and her family (whether IRA or UDA, they're all as bad as each other, as far as i'm concerned)- i didn't want to be in the same room as this guy- he was the first person i'd encountered who was responsible in part for all the suffering and i wanted nothing to do with him.
It was at this point i truely understood the problem of sin (wrongdoing, disobedience to what God calls us to, whatever you wanna call it)- at it's worst, it disgusts people and they can't stand you in their presence. And this from me, who no doubt does a thousand wrong things each day and bearly notices half of them. Now i don't at all seek to call the minor things we do wrong ourselves at all equivilent to violence, rape or terrorism, not for one minute- i use them purely as examples of actions we can all condemn and would want to distance ourselves from those who committ them. But consider now a perfect God- would it not be unreasonable for him to see even what we would consider minor wrongdoings in the same light- as fundementally corrupted and something he doesn't want in his presence? It all depends whether you believe in objective moral standards, i guess.
How then do we reconcile this with the concept of a loving God, and what hope is there for us dirty sinners, as i've just labelled us? Jesus came and proclaimed a coming judgement and a new way to live and enter into God's presence- one that did not dismiss the problems of our wrong doing but made a way for the sins of those past, present and future to be forgiven, and those turning from their current ways to re-enter the God's presence and be treated as a son. Jesus death on the cross represented a propitiation of our wrongdoings, of God in human form absorbing the wrath he felt against us within himself in order that we may be forgiven.
This is the gospel message and to me is the mark of a loving God, that despite our wrongdoing and rejection of him, he still desires a relationship with us- we are still left with the barrier of us not wanting God, but that is for us to drop. I never said i believed in Hell in the charactertured sense, but here we have the choice of an eternity with God in whom all good things originate, or being cast aside and being outside his kingdom- i know which one i'm gonna choose.
Obviously there's a big step to be made to link philosophical ideas of God and sin with some man dying 2000 years ago, and whether you believe what he said is up to you. What convinces me is how Jesus life and death fufill so many prophesies in the Old Testiment and how willingly Jesus went into the hands of his captors and executors, which then boils down to whether you can trust the Bible as a true account of what happened. Personally, i trust it because it makes sense of the world as i perceive it and don't believe that the authors had anything to gain by fabricating what they wrote.
Now this is either the best news you've ever heard, or it is deeply offensive to you. If i've offended you, i apologise and hope you understand that wasn't my intention. I'm not sure i've got much left to say on this matter, only that I of course welcome any questions about christian beliefs (pm if you like, and i'll do my best to answer), and in true OICCU fashion, extend a warm invitation to all of you to our 'Amazing Grace' events coming up in the next week or two (see www.grace08.com or talk to your CU reps ( i can tell you who they are if you want - you'll make their day if you talk to them before they get a chance to talk to you!)
thomasjtl
Obviously there's a big step to be made to link philosophical ideas of God and sin with some man dying 2000 years ago, and whether you believe what he said is up to you. What convinces me is how Jesus life and death fufill so many prophesies in the Old Testiment and how willingly Jesus went into the hands of his captors and executors, which then boils down to whether you can trust the Bible as a true account of what happened. Personally, i trust it because it makes sense of the world as i perceive it and don't believe that the authors had anything to gain by fabricating what they wrote.
Now this is either the best news you've ever heard, or it is deeply offensive to you. If i've offended you, i apologise and hope you understand that wasn't my intention.
Obviously there's a big step to be made to link philosophical ideas of God and sin with some man dying 2000 years ago, and whether you believe what he said is up to you. What convinces me is how Jesus life and death fufill so many prophesies in the Old Testiment and how willingly Jesus went into the hands of his captors and executors, which then boils down to whether you can trust the Bible as a true account of what happened. Personally, i trust it because it makes sense of the world as i perceive it and don't believe that the authors had anything to gain by fabricating what they wrote.
Now this is either the best news you've ever heard, or it is deeply offensive to you. If i've offended you, i apologise and hope you understand that wasn't my intention.
It's neither, I'm afraid. The assumption that Bible = true is just too much of a leap of faith. The fact that the justification rests on this fundamental idea undermines the rest of your post. If you were writing the New Testament, and were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, wouldn't you want to convince others by making Him "fufill so many prophesies in the Old Testiment"?
HCD
It's neither, I'm afraid. The assumption that Bible = true is just too much of a leap of faith. The fact that the justification rests on this fundamental idea undermines the rest of your post. If you were writing the New Testament, and were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, wouldn't you want to convince others by making Him "fufill so many prophesies in the Old Testiment"?
Exactly. Thomas just illustrated my point about Christians saying they have "looked at the evidence" which for them is so compelling it must be true. What evidence? How does prophesy in the Old Testament = truth. Just because it is ancient does not mean it plays more of a role as a moral authority than other things might.
NB if you study the NT you'll also see that some of the gospels (esp. Matthew) have been deliberately made to fit OT prophesies, eg Jesus is described as entering Jerusalem on "a donkey and a colt" ie in Greek meaning at the same time sitting on both. However this is simply the Gospel author's mistaken interpretation of the OT prophesy in Hebrew saying the Messiah would ride "a donkey and a colt" in the sense of 'A donkey (this donkey being a colt)'. There are many other examples of the gospels being written to deliberately show Jesus fulfilling OT prophesy (even if this rends them somewhat nonsensical...).
Well, as i said, this all boils down as to whether we can treat the bible accounts as accurate- i believe them because i feel they make sense of the world as i perceive it, and don't see any reason for the authors to fabricate what they wrote. This debate has gone on for too long to be settled by a few students on an internet forum.
thomasjtl
Well, as i said, this all boils down as to whether we can treat the bible accounts as accurate- i believe them because i feel they make sense of the world as i perceive it, and don't see any reason for the authors to fabricate what they wrote. This debate has gone on for too long to be settled by a few students on an internet forum.
NEVER! 
heliotrope
this is the thing. like, i know its in your religion that you have to try and convert others, but that is part of the fundamental flaw of your religion, of any religion. its part of your religion to have to try and convert people because the people who wrote the bible/decided the doctrine realised they needed members for their religion, and so made it necessary to 'spread the gospel'. its just like all the other rules: they were written by people for practical reasons. the bible doesn't tell you what god said. it tells you what some guy you have no reason to believe claims god to have said.
honestly, i don't understand how anyone who actively follows an organised religion can be at oxford. in my opinion, if you're willing to entirely base how you live your life on what a book says some said some other guy said that god told him, that suggests a hopeless gullibility and lack of proper textual scepticism. these two things are bad for academic study.
honestly, i don't understand how anyone who actively follows an organised religion can be at oxford. in my opinion, if you're willing to entirely base how you live your life on what a book says some said some other guy said that god told him, that suggests a hopeless gullibility and lack of proper textual scepticism. these two things are bad for academic study.
Thankyou, someone else who thinks like me!! I honestly cannot understand how intelligent people believe this rubbish. If I told you there was a fairy floating around the earth and then wrote a book about it, without giving you further evidence, would you believe me?
dancingqueen
Thankyou, someone else who thinks like me!! I honestly cannot understand how intelligent people believe this rubbish. If I told you there was a fairy floating around the earth and then wrote a book about it, without giving you further evidence, would you believe me?
You'd have to write the book about it a couple of thousand years ago, though, to give it authenticity.
If I told you there was a fairy floating around the earth and then wrote a book about it, without giving you further evidence, would you believe me?
No. But the point is that Christians do believe they have evidence: and not just in the form of the bible. I only know one practicing Christian who has not had some kind of religious experience during which he or she converted from a "cultural Christian" to a practicing one. As I've said before, either I'm insane (and hear voices) or God is real.
Related discussions
- Churches in Durham
- Has anyone joined a Christian society in uni?
- Winchester University/ Winchester university Dietetics and nutrition
- Do you have a favourite canal?
- Could Someone Mark My Essay Please? - Constructive Criticism OCR RS Alevel
- St Johns..Religious college?
- Is this stalking?
- Are there countries where you can get married without having to sign documents?
- UCAS Clearing 2023 FAQ and Help Megathread
- Got a Ucas or results related question? Ask a Clearing and Applications Advisor here
- Cardiff or Stirling?
- Do you celebrate Halloween?
- How to Structure a 'D' Question for GCSE (Religious Studies)?
- Eduqas A-level Religious Studies 1 (A120UA0-1-A120UF0-1) & 2 (A120U20-1) [Exam Chat]
- GAY friendly universities
- Worried about starting university?
- List of possible questions for OCR RS A level with the Christianity option.
- Religion
- 2022 HKUSTSUCCC Local Mission Trip - It’s time.
- Which Uni is best for Ms in Data Science
Trending
- Oxford Interview Notification
- 2024 Oxford New College Interview Invites
- Human Sciences Oxford applicants 2023-2024
- Fine Art at the Ruskin Oxford 2024
- Oxford PPE Interviews for 2024 entry
- Mat 2023
- Hat 2023
- Oxford Economics and Management Interview 2024
- Oxford language applicants - 2024 entry
- Oxford maths interview
- TSA Section 1 2023 / Oxford E&M (2024 entry) thread
- Extra MAT 2023
- Oxford Interviews 2024 History of Art
- Oxford University Law Interview Shortlisting
- Oxford Chemistry interview questions
- John Locke Essay Competition 2023
- Oxford interviews 2023
- When will I hear back from Oxford about interviews?
- do colleges send all interview invites on the same day?
- Oxford history written work
Latest
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- University of Oxford 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Official Thread
- Official: University of Nottingham A100 2024 Entry Applicant thread
- PwC Audit 2024 Programme
- Will a masters help employability and make up for my a levels
- PWC graduate programs 2024
- how to catch up with 3 weeks of a levels
- Medicine Interview Discussion 2024 Entry
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Civil Service Surge and Rapid response team
- gcse art help
- New Thread Experience Feedback - Official Thread
- For those applying for Graphic Design, Illustration, Vis Com courses
- Alevel biology and chemistry help
- edexcel langauge paper 1
- Do you need to get married and have kids
- Music GCSE 12 Marker
- Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 Thread
- Sixth form personal statement
- additional maths content in A level maths textbooks?
- Monarchists vs Republicans
- CleverFrog? ThrivingFrog's A-Level Diary!
- Last Person To Post Here Wins (Part 54)
- material science and applying to oxford
- Santander CIB Graduate Scheme 2024
- Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant thread
- Warwick PPE 2024 applicants
- PhD The Early Process, Application and Interview advice
- Is it even worth going to Bulgaria?
- Have I met these offer conditions
- Shell Graduate Scheme 2024
- Dwp 571 workcoach Derbyshire Council
- The Official Essex Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entry
- Climbing the ladder and tips for survival EO DWP
- Trinity College London Cert TESOL not on UCAS tariff list
- Muslim Prayer Room at Cambridge University
- The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- 2024 Pharmacy applicants mega-thread
- Official Edge Hill University Applicant Thread for 2024