The Religious Discussion of 2012

[johnnyrodgers20]

WOW, I see many have gone to Clinton's School of dodge and deflect. What are your beliefs? Do you believe in God, any God, any form or fashion? How's that? I think everyone knew what I meant anyway but I will play the word game.

A clarified question gives better answers - seems like you're trying to play victim here. It's not working.

 

Asking 'do you believe in God?' is similar to asking 'do you believe in Jesus?'

 

Do I believe WHAT about Jesus? Do I believe he's the son of God? Do I believe he died for our sins? Do I believe he was just a simple dude preaching his beliefs? Do I believe he actually existed?

 

Your question was open-ended and he asked you to narrow the parameters. I would have done the exact same thing because your question is condescending and, quite frankly, poor unless clarified.

 

 

You guys really need help. Had I asked if you believed in Jesus then you could have ansered all those questions. You could have answered none, just answer what you think about him. I think that is the problem with our society today, you can't answer what you believe you have to be asked such a specific question, I really believe you guys have problems.

 

For example lets try and ask a question like that for me. Do I believe there is no God? I do not need to know any more parameters. Or maybe do I believe there is a God, I can answer that question without all this minutia.

 

Now your just embarassing yourself. I had just about enough of you when you told carlfense hes gonna fry. Wow, so Christian of you. How do you know carlfense is gonna fry? We believe in a MERCIFUL God. Maybe God understands Carlfense a little better than you.

 

And as far as your little emotions at the end of every sentence, they are tiresome. Your gonna fry when you die Your stupid if you don't believe what I believe And yes Im a Red Sox fan, is that a problem?

 

 

Wow, you seem a little tense. I was joking with Carl about frying and if he was truly hurt by that I am sorry Carl. I am sure God understands everything better than me!!

 

Wow, I am a Yankees fan and I thought a little banter on a BBS site is fun. So sorry if I hurt your feelings. So I will say for the record that the Red Sox are a very good team and will be in the hunt for the AL east title. Is there anything else that may have upset you?!!?!!

[johnnyrodgers20]

WOW, I see many have gone to Clinton's School of dodge and deflect. What are your beliefs? Do you believe in God, any God, any form or fashion? How's that? I think everyone knew what I meant anyway but I will play the word game.

A clarified question gives better answers - seems like you're trying to play victim here. It's not working.

 

Asking 'do you believe in God?' is similar to asking 'do you believe in Jesus?'

 

Do I believe WHAT about Jesus? Do I believe he's the son of God? Do I believe he died for our sins? Do I believe he was just a simple dude preaching his beliefs? Do I believe he actually existed?

 

Your question was open-ended and he asked you to narrow the parameters. I would have done the exact same thing because your question is condescending and, quite frankly, poor unless clarified.

 

 

You guys really need help. Had I asked if you believed in Jesus then you could have ansered all those questions. You could have answered none, just answer what you think about him. I think that is the problem with our society today, you can't answer what you believe you have to be asked such a specific question, I really believe you guys have problems.

 

For example lets try and ask a question like that for me. Do I believe there is no God? I do not need to know any more parameters. Or maybe do I believe there is a God, I can answer that question without all this minutia.

There's different interpretations of Jesus, as there are different interpretations of God. You argument doesn't make sense.

 

Then if somewone asks you that question you give your interpretation. If someone asks you if you believe in Jesus and you think he was a great man but not theSon of God you can express that. Do I have to ask if he was wearing sandles or flip flops? Really?

[carlfense]

This thread has turned an odd corner. Many of the very same people who don't want these churches spreading their beliefs now want them to get out and be more giving while spreading their beliefs? Wouldn't it be better for you guys if they just holed up in their mega complexes filled with gold and rubies, rolled around in it and hoarded it all which btw, they gave themselves, then to go out and "spread the word" while being charitable???

 

I'm lost. I can't explain this one.

Wait . . . what? Who has said that they don't want churches to spread their beliefs? I don't want the government to spread church beliefs . . . but I'm all for church outreach and helping the poor.

[Enhance]

This thread has turned an odd corner. Many of the very same people who don't want these churches spreading their beliefs now want them to get out and be more giving while spreading their beliefs? Wouldn't it be better for you guys if they just holed up in their mega complexes filled with gold and rubies, rolled around in it and hoarded it all which btw, they gave themselves, then to go out and "spread the word" while being charitable???

 

I'm lost. I can't explain this one.

I don't think that's what people are saying. People and institutions can give their money without spreading their beliefs or motives. The Buffet Foundation gives millions each year without telling people to invest in Berkshire Hathaway.

[Enhance]

Then if somewone asks you that question you give your interpretation. If someone asks you if you believe in Jesus and you think he was a great man but not theSon of God you can express that. Do I have to ask if he was wearing sandles or flip flops? Really?

I still don't see your issue - you're panning for some justification of a terrible question.

 

The fact that you have to justify an obviously biased, obviously slanted question means that it was a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Said question was asked by a vocally religious person who was obviously looking for whether or not their responder believed in his form of God. So, said responder wanted an understanding of what kind of God his questioner was asking whether he believed in or not.

 

It's completely viable to ask for clarification of the question, but I'm not going to argue about it with you anymore because it's fruitless. Agree to disagree.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Then if somewone asks you that question you give your interpretation. If someone asks you if you believe in Jesus and you think he was a great man but not theSon of God you can express that. Do I have to ask if he was wearing sandles or flip flops? Really?

I still don't see your issue - you're panning for some justification of a terrible question.

 

The fact that you have to justify an obviously biased, obviously slanted question means that it was a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Said question was asked by a vocally religious person who was obviously looking for whether or not their responder believed in his form of God. So, said responder wanted an understanding of what kind of God his questioner was asking whether he believed in or not.

 

That is your assumption

 

It's completely viable to ask for clarification of the question, but I'm not going to argue about it with you anymore because it's fruitless. Agree to disagree.

 

It just seems very silly that you would need all that clarification. If an aethist or a muslim or a Jew asked me if I believed in God I would not need clarification to state what I believe in, pretty simple.

[Enhance]

Then if somewone asks you that question you give your interpretation. If someone asks you if you believe in Jesus and you think he was a great man but not theSon of God you can express that. Do I have to ask if he was wearing sandles or flip flops? Really?

I still don't see your issue - you're panning for some justification of a terrible question.

 

The fact that you have to justify an obviously biased, obviously slanted question means that it was a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Said question was asked by a vocally religious person who was obviously looking for whether or not their responder believed in his form of God. So, said responder wanted an understanding of what kind of God his questioner was asking whether he believed in or not.

 

That is your assumption

 

It's completely viable to ask for clarification of the question, but I'm not going to argue about it with you anymore because it's fruitless. Agree to disagree.

 

It just seems very silly that you would need all that clarification. If an aethist or a muslim or a Jew asked me if I believed in God I would not need clarification to state what I believe in, pretty simple.

Obviously it's an assumption, as it was also an assumption by the person who asked you to clarify your question. I think just about everybody here assumed it was asking if he believed in the Christian form of God, but I will stand corrected if others disagree.

 

You clearly don't agree with the semantics behind his request for clarification, which, I guess, is your right. I still think you're panning for a reason that you've been treated unjustly, by claiming that he's "avoiding" the question. You do realize you created this problem, yes? By going on a crusade against avoidance tactics, you changed the debate from one about believing in God to his averting your question. Why not just clarify your question, regardless if you believe the question deserved it, and then be done with it?

 

'But if he had just answered, then I wouldn't have had to!' Again, I think people interpreted your question as biased, slanted and looking for a specific answer that no, he doesn't believe in YOUR God. If you don't see it that way, I can't make you.

 

That's the only thing silly about this entire discussion right now.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Then if somewone asks you that question you give your interpretation. If someone asks you if you believe in Jesus and you think he was a great man but not theSon of God you can express that. Do I have to ask if he was wearing sandles or flip flops? Really?

I still don't see your issue - you're panning for some justification of a terrible question.

 

The fact that you have to justify an obviously biased, obviously slanted question means that it was a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Said question was asked by a vocally religious person who was obviously looking for whether or not their responder believed in his form of God. So, said responder wanted an understanding of what kind of God his questioner was asking whether he believed in or not.

 

That is your assumption

 

It's completely viable to ask for clarification of the question, but I'm not going to argue about it with you anymore because it's fruitless. Agree to disagree.

 

It just seems very silly that you would need all that clarification. If an aethist or a muslim or a Jew asked me if I believed in God I would not need clarification to state what I believe in, pretty simple.

Obviously it's an assumption, as it was also an assumption by the person who asked you to clarify your question. I think just about everybody here assumed it was asking if he believed in the Christian form of God, but I will stand corrected if others disagree.

 

You clearly don't agree with the semantics behind his request for clarification, which, I guess, is your right. I still think you're panning for a reason that you've been treated unjustly, by claiming that he's "avoiding" the question. You do realize you created this problem, yes? By going on a crusade against avoidance tactics, you changed the debate from one about believing in God to his averting your question. Why not just clarify your question, regardless if you believe the question deserved it, and then be done with it?

 

Unjustly, (frustrated maybe) no that is funny I don't think it is unjust or I am a victim, I think it is ridiculous that grown men can't tell someone what they think about a simple question. People like Carl have obviously asked biased questions that doesn't mean I shrink from them. I answer them as I truly believe, if you're afraid you will be tripped up with your true feelings maybe its time to revisit what you truly believe.

 

'But if he had just answered, then I wouldn't have had to!' Again, I think people interpreted your question as biased, slanted and looking for a specific answer that no, he doesn't believe in YOUR God. If you don't see it that way, I can't make you.

 

That's the only thing silly about this entire discussion right now.

 

Why don't you just ask the question you feel should be asked and how, that way there will be an end to this discussion?

[JJ Husker]

Interesting post on reddit today-

 

The part of the bible rich republicans don't like to read. Matthew 19:21-24

 

21 Jesus answered,“If you want to be perfect,go,sell your possessions and give to the poor,and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come,follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this,he went away sad,because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples,“Truly I tell you,it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

24 Again I tell you,it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

 

I imagine rich democrats don't like reading that one either. Of course there is probably much less chance a democrat would have cause to read the Bible.

 

 

 

I don't know? Just feeling ornery today, must be the springlike weather.

Just going to go for the deflection?

 

The rich lefties are more apt to support and behave like the lessons Jesus preaches than the rich righties who tend to blame the poor for everything.

 

If you really look at the policies of Dems vs GOP and then line them up with that Jesus preaches which side do you think lines up closer to the Christian ideals? Love thy neighbor, help the poor, and care for/heal the sick were always at the forefront of Jesus' activities.

You're sure free to feel that way but, at the risk of looking totally ridiculus, you might want to temper some of your unfounded and unproven bias and prejudice. I always figured a persons charitable giving had a lot more to do with the person than with their political affiliation. I really don't know what others give to charity but I do know one "rich righty" that gives plenty and I am fairly confident, more than most.

 

IMO, there is a huge difference between personal charitable giving and government mandated wealth redistribution. I thought part of the lefts problem with Christians and religion in general was keeping it out of our government. You want to complain about that but at the same time brag about how the lefts policies line up better with Christian ideals. Seems you are just another partisan player that wants to have your cake and eat it too. I enjoy giving to charities of my own choosing but I despise it when the government demands it of me and decides how it will be spent (wasted). How about we leave the Christian principles and WWJD out of government and at the personal level where it belongs. It's pretty darn easy to commandeer other peoples money, spend some of it on worthy causes that helps garner votes for you, and then try to claim the higher moral ground. That game doesn't work with me.

 

And while we're on the subject of the Catholic church hording wealth that could be put to better use feeding and housing the poor, can someone name some organizations that do more in that regard than the Catholic church? Seems a little counterproductive to me to hold the Catholic churches feet to the fire for something they do a much better job of than most. Look at what they do on the local level rather than just focusing on some of the excesses of Vatican City and you will see a different picture.

[The Dude]

And while we're on the subject of the Catholic church hording wealth that could be put to better use feeding and housing the poor, can someone name some organizations that do more in that regard than the Catholic church?

The United States government?

[carlfense]

And while we're on the subject of the Catholic church hording wealth that could be put to better use feeding and housing the poor, can someone name some organizations that do more in that regard than the Catholic church?

Would that be the 62% of funding that is provided to Catholic charities by the government? Like The Dude said . . . the US government does far more of that the Catholic Church.

 

Seems a little counterproductive to me to hold the Catholic churches feet to the fire for something they do a much better job of than most.

Can you back that up?

 

Look at what they do on the local level rather than just focusing on some of the excesses of Vatican City and you will see a different picture.

I was specifically talking about the local level both in the previous thread and in this one. For example, the new Catholic church in Fremont, NE and additions toSVdP at 144th and Maple in Omaha.

[carlfense]

How about we leave the Christian principles and WWJD out of government and at the personal level where it belongs.

I wonder what percentage of Christians would agree with you on that?

 

Do you apply that same thinking to government spreading religious messages? If so, we are in agreement.

[Ratt Mhule]

And while we're on the subject of the Catholic church hording wealth that could be put to better use feeding and housing the poor, can someone name some organizations that do more in that regard than the Catholic church?

Would that be the 62% of funding that is provided to Catholic charities by the government? Like The Dude said . . . the US government does far more of that the Catholic Church.

 

Seems a little counterproductive to me to hold the Catholic churches feet to the fire for something they do a much better job of than most.

Can you back that up?

 

Look at what they do on the local level rather than just focusing on some of the excesses of Vatican City and you will see a different picture.

I was specifically talking about the local level both in the previous thread and in this one. For example, the new Catholic church in Fremont, NE and additions toSVdP at 144th and Maple in Omaha.

 

Did they renovate the church or the school?

[carlfense]

And while we're on the subject of the Catholic church hording wealth that could be put to better use feeding and housing the poor, can someone name some organizations that do more in that regard than the Catholic church?

Would that be the 62% of funding that is provided to Catholic charities by the government? Like The Dude said . . . the US government does far more of that the Catholic Church.

 

Seems a little counterproductive to me to hold the Catholic churches feet to the fire for something they do a much better job of than most.

Can you back that up?

 

Look at what they do on the local level rather than just focusing on some of the excesses of Vatican City and you will see a different picture.

I was specifically talking about the local level both in the previous thread and in this one. For example, the new Catholic church in Fremont, NE and additions toSVdP at 144th and Maple in Omaha.

 

Did they renovate the church or the school?

I don't recall exactly. I was in a wedding there last summer and that's what sparked the initial discussion. I think there might have been a multi-use gymnasium involved?

 

Basically, my questions weren't about worship space or gymnasium space. They are about the opulence of those spaces. Were I Catholic I'd like to see my money going to helping people/outreach/feeding the hungry instead of ridiculous hand carved imported hardwood pews and Italian marble.

 

The event coordinator lady for the church proceeded to brag to the wedding party about how the church in Fremont is even nicer. Very odd. Very off-putting.

[Ratt Mhule]

I don't recall exactly. I was in a wedding there last summer and that's what sparked the initial discussion. I think there might have been a multi-use gymnasium involved?

 

Basically, my questions weren't about worship space or gymnasium space. They are about the opulence of those spaces. Were I Catholic I'd like to see my money going to helping people/outreach/feeding the hungry instead of ridiculous hand carved imported hardwood pews and Italian marble.

 

The event coordinator lady for the church proceeded to brag to the wedding party about how the church in Fremont is even nicer. Very odd. Very off-putting.

 

If things are getting old in the church, I have no problem renovating them. I don't think it needs to be all gold plated or marble, but if things are falling apart, they need to be replaced.

 

I remember at St. Wenceslaus, they spent money to make the parking lot bigger and get new air conditioning system. I have absolutely no problems with them spending money to renovate things in the schools for the students. I would think you would want your children's schools looking nice, also. It makes the learning environment more conducive if the students are comfortable.