The Christian Message - Once for all

[Tweedr01]

What the hell does the Taliban have to do in this conversation? And to answer your unbelievably stupid question. NO.

I believe in my beliefs. It is not my place to shove religion down someone's throat.

My point is that the "servants of God" that run many of the non denominational churches live in mansions and drive cars that no one in their congregation would ever be able to afford.

Is that spreading the word of the Bible, or is it "God for profit"?

The Taliban has a much to do with this thread as the Westboro Baptist Church, which I think we can all agree are about as unChristian (for lack of a better word) as it gets.

You're right, it's not your place to shove it down peoples throats, however as a Christian, it is your place to spread His Word. If you had spent anytime in a church or put your nose in a Bible, you would have known that by now. No Christian can grow in their relationship with Christ by themselves.

How many of these "servants of God" do you know personally that live in mansions and drive cars that no one in their congregation would ever be able to afford in York, PA? How many do you know of in York, PA that are not churches you know personally? How many churches have you attended that actually solicit this kind of message? The truth of the matter is you are self-proclaiming yourself a Christian and are perpetuating a stereotype of a very small minority of those who use the Christian faith as monetary gain. I live in Woodbridge, VA, and my retired Army pastor drives an F-150, as does his son who just enlisted in the Army. They definitely sound like the money grubbing type. Please think before you lump everyone you would call your 'brother in Christ' together with a sterotypical blanket statement.

[rdsknbill]

The Taliban has a much to do with this thread as the Westboro Baptist Church, which I think we can all agree are about as unChristian (for lack of a better word) as it gets.

You're right, it's not your place to shove it down peoples throats, however as a Christian, it is your place to spread His Word. If you had spent anytime in a church or put your nose in a Bible, you would have known that by now. No Christian can grow in their relationship with Christ by themselves.

How many of these "servants of God" do you know personally that live in mansions and drive cars that no one in their congregation would ever be able to afford in York, PA? How many do you know of in York, PA that are not churches you know personally? How many churches have you attended that actually solicit this kind of message? The truth of the matter is you are self-proclaiming yourself a Christian and are perpetuating a stereotype of a very small minority of those who use the Christian faith as monetary gain. I live in Woodbridge, VA, and my retired Army pastor drives an F-150, as does his son who just enlisted in the Army. They definitely sound like the money grubbing type. Please think before you lump everyone you would call your 'brother in Christ' together with a sterotypical blanket statement.

6 in total here in York. I am sure there are more. In the south it is much more prevalent.

BTW, you are showing your judgmental side by stating if "I had spent anytime with my nose in a Bible". To educate you a little, I have read it cover to cover more than once. I have also read the Koran, to try to better understand the Muslim religion. So to quote you again. "Don't lump me in"

BTW, who is the largest land owner in the world? The Roman Catholic Church

[illone]

i don't care what religion you are, don't sell it to me please.

Mormon, muslim, christian.... it's all the same. You might as well try to sell me snake oil.

[Tweedr01]

6 in total here in York. I am sure there are more. In the south it is much more prevalent.

BTW, you are showing your judgmental side by stating if "I had spent anytime with my nose in a Bible". To educate you a little, I have read it cover to cover more than once. I have also read the Koran, to try to better understand the Muslim religion. So to quote you again. "Don't lump me in"

BTW, who is the largest land owner in the world? The Roman Catholic Church

Please name them, anyone can say '6 in total here in York' because it can't be disproven, then again that's because there are no facts to back it up.

So what if I'm showing a judgmental side? Who said I can't judge? I see stupidity placed before me, and if it walks and talks like a duck, I call it a duck. If you had read the Bible cover to cover you wouldn't have been trying to stifle those who are trying to spread His Word. To be able to reach out to those who have never heard it isn't free either, and tithing is explicitly covered in the Bible. Also, back to the beginning of this paragraph, please don't wrongly quote, 'Do not judge, lest ye be judged', I fully believe that's what you were thinking of when you got angry over my 'judgmental side'.

And Koran is spelled Qur'an, if you had read it you would have known that, heck took me 5 seconds on Google to get that.

Good for the Roman Catholics, I'm southern baptist. BTW, can you actually provide factual evidence of this? (Not sarcasm, I really did not know this was true and would like to see the evidence behind this)

[techboy]

Please name them, anyone can say '6 in total here in York' because it can't be disproven, then again that's because there are no facts to back it up.

If you don't think there are plenty of people that exploit Christianity for profit, you're blind. It's not really relevant to the truth of the belief system itself, but you're looking pretty silly here.

And Koran is spelled Qur'an, if you had read it you would have known that, heck took me 5 seconds on Google to get that.

The original word is in Arabic. Transliterations often have multiple spellings, such as Hannukah (or Channukah, or...).

Calm down. You're not coming off too well, and if you're as concerned about witnessing as you claim to be, that's a real factor.

[illone]

For the record the FEDERAL government is the largest landowner in the US.

:thumbsup:

Edit, noticed you said WORLD. US Govt is #3 in the world. According to a quick web search Queen Elizabeth is #1:ols:

[rdsknbill]

Thank you Tech. I really didn't want to continue with him

[Tweedr01]

If you don't think there are plenty of people that exploit Christianity for profit, you're blind. It's not really relevant to the truth of the belief system itself, but you're looking pretty silly here.

You know I respect alot of what you say, but if you can just bypass his stereotype of organized religion I don't know what to say to you. No kidding there are people out there out to get you, and they will do it by any means possible, be it politics, online scams, and religion. Does this mean the majority of organized religion is out to prove they are better than you and take all your money?

I'm not really sure how you can defend someone who has no idea what they are talking about and pulls numbers and facts that he just made up while he was typing.

[Tweedr01]

Thank you Tech. I really didn't want to continue with him

Is that because you had absolutely no answer for any of the questions I asked? I wouldn't either if I were you.

[Tweedr01]

For the record the FEDERAL government is the largest landowner in the US.

:thumbsup:

Edit, noticed you said WORLD. US Govt is #3 in the world. According to a quick web search Queen Elizabeth is #1:ols:

Not trying to drag you into our nice little debate:laugh:, but thanks for the stats, I really wasn't sure.

[techboy]

You know I respect alot of what you say, but if you can just bypass his stereotype of organized religion I don't know what to say to you.

His comments were mostly opinion, if severely overstated (and yes, he is wrong about the Catholic Church being the largest landowner in the world).

Your comments, on the other hand, were combative and erroneous.

I don't respond to everything I disagree with, especially if it's silly or shallow (there are a couple of gems in this thread). I pick and choose.

Your comments happened to cross my threshold, mostly because you are portraying yourself as an evangelical Christian, and when you do that, you're being held to a higher standard by others (and you should be holding yourself to one as well).

Does this mean the majority of organized religion is out to prove they are better than you and take all your money?

No, organized religion is a net positive, with all the churches and charities and hospitals. The bad apples get too much press.

You will find, though, that debating this point is a useless waste of time, and will inevitably end up in a senseless back and forth where you end up trying to tally up Mother Theresa vs. the Inquisition.

Given that the truth of a proposition is entirely irrelevant to the actions of its supposed adherents, I find it's better to just avoid the discussion entirely.

[techboy]

i don't care what religion you are, don't sell it to me please.

Mormon, muslim, christian.... it's all the same. You might as well try to sell me snake oil.

The interesting thing about this post is that nobody forced you to click on this thread. The topic is clearly marked with a descriptive title, and if you didn't want to have it sold to you, you didn't have to come into the store.

On the other hand, you have now at least twice tried to tell people that they shouldn't believe in the message in which they must have been interested in some way, since they opened the thread.

Just who is selling something here?

[rdsknbill]

Is that because you had absolutely no answer for any of the questions I asked? I wouldn't either if I were you.

NO, It's just that I refuse to argue with a kid that is trying to will his opinion on me. You have your opinion and I have mine.

I NEVER said that all organized religion is evil and money grubbing. I have unfortunately come across it alot in my life.

[Tweedr01]

His comments were mostly opinion, if severely overstated (and yes, he is wrong about the Catholic Church being the largest landowner in the world).

Your comments, on the other hand, were combative and erroneous.

I don't respond to everything I disagree with, especially if it's silly or shallow (there are a couple of gems in this thread). I pick and choose.

Your comments happened to cross my threshold, mostly because you are portraying yourself as an evangelical Christian, and when you do that, you're being held to a higher standard by others (and you should be holding yourself to one as well).

No, organized religion is a net positive, with all the churches and charities and hospitals. The bad apples get too much press.

You will find, though, that debating this point is a useless waste of time, and will inevitably end up in a senseless back and forth where you end up trying to tally up Mother Theresa vs. the Inquisition.

Given that the truth of a proposition is entirely irrelevant to the actions of its supposed adherents, I find it's better to just avoid the discussion entirely.

Thank you for the explanation, and I agree 100%, sometimes I do get carried away. Whenever someone badmouths in this manner it just gets under my skin, especially when they claim to share my faith. I'll probably learn to not respond to shenanigans like these in time. I just hate to have the last thing someone hears about Christianity is that they are all out to get you, when that can be said about any organization, there are always nuts out there, and the majority of Christians are not like this at all. Again, thanks for the explanation, it's no wonder people have lots of respect for you on this board.

[rdsknbill]

Is that because you had absolutely no answer for any of the questions I asked? I wouldn't either if I were you.

[Zguy28]

IS there a reason that the OP felt he had to "resurrect" a thread that was started 4 friggin years ago? I think most opinions were covered back then, or did you feel that you had to beat our newer members over the head with your message?

You know, the Great Commission? Missio Dei? All that uncomfortable stuff Jesus taught.

I understand that you are religious, and I respect that.

No you don't.

My problem is with organized religion. The kind of religion that preaches that if you don't give us at least 10% of your money, you will go to hell. The kind of religion that breeds the type of people that feel that because they spend an hour every Sunday in church, they have the right to impose their beliefs and opinions on others. Or breeds the most unbelievably judgmental friggin people that walk the planet.

Then take it up with them like Martin Luther.

Meanwhile, save the huffing and puffing, get rid of your pride, and get on God's side.

"You are either for me or against me" Jesus said.

Question for you. Do you support the Westboro Baptist Church? Simple answer, yes or no?

Simple answer: NO.

[Tweedr01]

You know, the Great Commission? Missio Dei? All that uncomfortable stuff Jesus taught.

No you don't.

Then take it up with them like Martin Luther.

Meanwhile, save the huffing and puffing, get rid of your pride, and get on God's side.

"You are either for me or against me" Jesus said.

Simple answer: NO.

Lol, if this was facebook I would like this post, you answered much better than I did!

[rdsknbill]

Simple answer: NO.

NO? why not? After all, they are ordained Baptist ministers. According to them, and the law of the land, they have the right to "peacefully demonstrate" They read the same bible that you and I read. What makes them so bad? Oh yea. That's right

[chipwhich]

You're locked into your thinking as a 21st century westerner, and not thinking about this in the appropriate cultural or time context.

In the 21st century my daughters cannot serve as a priest in the Catholic church. Not thinking as a westerner here. Just thinking as a father with daughters.

[chipwhich]

Truth is not determined by vote.

Truth is also not determined by one mans belief, or by 1/3rd of the worlds population by belief.

Truth is determined by empirical facts.

Belief tends to be determined by location.

So the fact that you are in the U.S. means your belief system is probably geared towards Christianity.

If you were in Nigeria it would probably be geared more towards Islam.

If you were in China, it would definitely be a cultural thing.

So spouting Christianity in China might be frowned upon, in US, probably praised.

Maybe in a remote African village all major religions are laughed upon.

So out of 3/3'rds of the world, someone got it wrong, someone got it right, or maybe...maybe a belief in a greater being has more to do with a greater being, and not some regions writings of the "correct" belief, but rather a general belief that is all encompassing.

Because I can assure you, throughout time, as long as history is documented in any way, shape or form, there were some nuts out there. Crazy writings and "beliefs".

Logically speaking, if the new testament were the right "belief" system, the historical scholars in Israel would all be Christian. But they aren't.

Just tossing out stuff as the Devils advocate.

[techboy]

Truth is also not determined by one mans belief, or by 1/3rd of the worlds population by belief.

That's true. The truth of a proposition, as I said, is determined by its correspondence with reality.

That's why all the stuff about belief being based on geography (which is not necessarily even true) is totally irrelevant. Since we agree on this, I hope you can stop bringing it up.

Logically speaking, if the new testament were the right "belief" system, the historical scholars in Israel would all be Christian.

That's ridiculous.

I challenge you to find any topic, anywhere, from any time period, that 100% of historians agree on. This "logic" would toss out about 99.9% of recorded history.

Besides, we just agreed that truth is not determined by vote (not even by historians). Don't go off the reservation now.

Just tossing out stuff as the Devils advocate.

Too easy.

[chipwhich]

That's true. The truth of a proposition, as I said, is determined by its correspondence with reality.

But your reality is another mans fallacy? I am not sure your point. Too easy. :cool:

That's why all the stuff about belief being based on geography (which is not necessarily even true) is totally irrelevant. Since we agree on this, I hope you can stop bringing it up.

You are implying religion has nothing to do with upbringing or location? Please. If it was based on simply reality, more than 2/3rds of the population would agree with you. But lets not talk about that.

That's ridiculous.

I challenge you to find any topic, anywhere, from any time period, that 100% of historians agree on. This "logic" would toss out about 99.9% of recorded history.

Besides, we just agreed that truth is not determined by vote (not even by historians). Don't go off the reservation now.

Well aren't you making my point? :evilg:

Your premise is 99.9% of recorded history is illogical based on historians, but your "belief" is logical.

Too easy.

Exactly.

[techboy]

I am not sure your point.

My point is simply that the truth of a proposition is determined solely by its correspondence with reality, not by who holds to it, or how many, or how smart they are.

You are implying religion has nothing to do with upbringing or location?

No, I am outright stating that truth is not dependent upon the number of adherents (to say otherwise is to commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum), or why they came to hold it (to suggest otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy).

This particular argument commits the genetic fallacy because even if it was true that area of upbringing was the only factor in a person's belief, that would have precisely zero bearing upon whether or not that belief is true.

It's irrelevant to this discussion.

As it happens, you're also simplifying things far too much, as there are many examples of people that were raised in one religion (or no religion at all) only to switch to something different (or to no religion at all).

Please. If it was based on simply reality, more than 2/3rds of the population would agree with you.

Argumentum ad populum again.

Well aren't you making my point? :evilg:

You'd have to have one first.

Your premise is 99.9% of recorded history is illogical based on historians, but your "belief" is logical.

Try to keep up here. I was simply pointing out the natural conclusion of your "logic". The fact that you think it's so ridiculous as to be laughable too just shows you how silly your point was.

[techboy]

If it was based on simply reality, more than 2/3rds of the population would agree with you.

I just wanted to come back to this quickly, because as fallacious as this is (again, argumentum ad populum), even worse is that your arguments contradict each other!

This, as far as I can tell, is the belief you adhere to:

So out of 3/3'rds of the world, someone got it wrong, someone got it right, or maybe...maybe a belief in a greater being has more to do with a greater being, and not some regions writings of the "correct" belief, but rather a general belief that is all encompassing.

Except that roughly 74% of the world adheres to a specific religious belief with writings (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism) (source), which means that at most only 26% agree with you (and that includes the atheists ), far short of the "2/3 minimum belief ratio" necessary for an idea to be true.

So, by your own reasoning, your own beliefs are wrong.

[chipwhich]

My point is simply that the truth of a proposition is determined solely by its correspondence with reality, not by who holds to it, or how many, or how smart they are.

So what is the reality? In Jim Jones camp it was Kool Aid. In your camp it's based on how many years ago reality was determined.

No, I am outright stating that truth is not dependent upon the number of adherents (to say otherwise is to commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum), or why they came to hold it (to suggest otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy).

So your decision is based on wikipedia??????

This particular argument commits the genetic fallacy because even if it was true that area of upbringing was the only factor in a person's belief, that would have precisely zero bearing upon whether or not that belief is true.

Or whether or not it is false. Your point?

It's irrelevant to this discussion.

As it happens, you're also simplifying things far too much, as there are many examples of people that were raised in one religion (or no religion at all) only to switch to something different (or to no religion at all).

Argumentum ad populum again.

You are right. So switching means nothing.

You'd have to have one first.

OK

Try to keep up here. I was simply pointing out the natural conclusion of your "logic". The fact that you think it's so ridiculous as to be laughable too just shows you how silly your point was.

Empirical facts are your friend.