Giving Food to Church
Posted on: March 21, 2011 - 10:44pm
Offline
Giving Food to Church
Hey Everyone,
I just signed up, intro is in intro post.... I would really like to get your opinions on a subject thats been bothering me for a few weeks....
If you had canned foods or other non-perishable items would you give them to a church to help feed the hungry or would you go out of your way to find a homeless shelter....
I think I would just give it to the church since it is for a good cause.... Do morals come into play or does Atheism vs Religion come into play? Please I would love to hear your feedback on this matter....
Thanks,
PosingOwl
- Login to post comments
I would through it out into trash.
Hi OP,
As a consistent atheist, you cannot do this. You must think of yourself. You cannot take care of your cute kid in the picture. You must leave your family and do all kinds of immoral acts.
But if you do give food, you are doing it for selfish reasons.
The only person who can give food or charity for good reasons is if you're a Christian. See, it's like what 100% atheist said, throw it away.
Hopefully, while you're on this site, you will become a better atheist and eventually be a deadbeat dad. Once you do this, you've reached atheism heaven.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Are you serious Jean.... I have read some comments on other threads that you have written.... You seem like a lost little puppy that is scared because you lost your way home.... Why must I be a Christian to give away food? How is it selfish if I give it away? Why is it selfish to help out another human? Oh yeah, is it wrong that when I was deployed that we gave food to the children that ran up to us crying for food and water?
And about my kid.... I think you are jealous that I have 2 kids.... Being that you are unable to reproduce, because every woman that you ever approach must have kicked you in the nuts for looking like a total douche bag....
Don't listen to jean, he has become our resident troll, really just a sad little person who thinks to much about how other people are having sex and going to hell type of idiot.
As for your question, it depends really, how much do you know about the church and what it does with the donations, not what you think they do, but what you know they do. I personally help out at a organization with ties to a church, the church collects food to donate to the needy and I know where they hand it out to homeless and they drive a food drive down to areas in central and south america or the US/canada when major distasters hit with food to give to those that need it. Otherwise just give it to a homeless shelter
Hi Owl,
You don't have to be a Christian to give away food, but you must be a Christian if you wish to do it via unselfish reasons. You are a walking ad hominem with legs.
I do hope that you are of God's elect. If you are not, I have sorrow for your future torment in hell. Hopefully your kids will grow up knowing logic so they are God's children. You are a bad example for your kids and I hope they don't grow up hell bound.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
It depends on the amount of effort involved, and the reputation of the church. As long as it feeds the hungry I couldn't care what delusions they may hold. My local superstore has a bin at the entrance that you can put cans into.
I don't like what religion does to people, but it is such a powerful meme of our contemporary society that it takes considerable amount of effort to avoid it completely, effort better invested elsewhere. Besides, most homeless shelters are ran by good 'ole christians.
Jean is a fun extreme theist that we keep around to show newcomers, just don't tap the glass, and don't feed him any food ( * whispers: he thinks he's people ).
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
The thing is, currently I am living in a small town in Germany, about 15km from Nurnberg.... There are 2 churches here and the closet homeless shelter is i think in Nurnberg.... Bavaria is a very Catholic state.... So instead of throwing this food that I bought I figured that giving it away would be a better alternative....My wifes family says alot of good things about the church (there Catholic but never seen them go to church)....
Like I said I would also like to know how others feel about this subject....
Thanks for replying....
Dude, don't like the means get in the way of what is important. The folks that go to the food bank aren't going to hear the word of God, and would probably resent being preached at. Feed those that need it by the means you find at hand.
........I live in a large city [Mississauga near Toronto] I donate to secular food banks. But if I lived in a small town , like the one I grew up in, I would give to a local church. Small towns have fewer choices. It wouldn't bother my atheist conscience to donate through a church.
edit[ ktulu is right, you shouldn't tease the troll; we're not sure if jean has had all it's shots yet and most of us support the SPCA.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I would(and have) donate it to the local food bank. They are a lot more efficient and productive than a church. If there isn't a local food bank and the church is the only thing going as far as helping people eat, I see no problem donating, at leas they're attempting to put their tax exempt status to good use. Hopefully they don't proselytize to the people they're trying to help before giving them food.
ciarin.com
A long time ago in a land far away, I had three children, was going to school and had a part time job. I was eligible for food stamps, I had applied, had visited the food bank, and was waiting on receiving them. (Boy have times changed since then.) My family was at least as poor as I was.
Any hoo, only one box of food from the food bank per family. So no more from there. I had a paycheck coming in a couple of weeks. I had a roof over our heads, rent was paid for the month. There was nada - zilch - nothing to eat.
Red Cross wouldn't help because they only help the homeless. Most churches wouldn't help because we weren't members. Catholic Charities helped. How many people? What ages? How long? You do have a job and a regular paycheck starting up? What do you like to eat? And two old guys showed up with hamburger, spaghetti, fresh milk, cereal, coffee, vegetables, bread. Plenty to feed us all until the paycheck arrived.
When I can, I give to Catholic Charities.
Here in the sort of large city of Portland, OR, we have lots of food drives - at the store, bags left at the mailbox or on our porch. But I have lived in a small town where the choice to help feed people was one church or another - and it was the Catholic church I donated to.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Fuck Jean. He's a fucking douche, and a wannabe 'warrior'. He runs around with his bible waving his finger at people threatening them by proxy. He doesn't have the balls you do, to actually put your life on the line, when you have 2 young kids, and fight to get all of humanity's collective heads out of their ass.
Don't wind him up.
Stop....
That's just stupid.
But, here's what I think is vital to take in consideration...
Give to a 'secular' food bank.
The reason?
Hidden agendas.
A 'non church' based organization won't discriminate, and they won't badger people who are down on their luck with judgments, sermons and proselytizing, like other 'help' organizations like AA.
That's why.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Ok, now I'm certain Jean is a poe. He almost copied what DarkMatter2525 says in some of his vids. And what we like to say, too, that we eat babies and stuff.
Anyway, I agree with redneF. I, too, think that christian charity has a hidden agenda. In our church we organize darting tournaments (we don't have a lot of homeless people around), and we use it to talk to people about faith in a relaxed environment. So they won't be alert, and are influenced more easily.
I still don't know why churches don't have to pay taxes... All the money they get is spend on proselytizing or making sure people don't use condoms... Or to hire lawyers to defend rapists... Or something
I'm jealous of your 2 kids: being wrapped securely in those strong, loving arms of yours; and spanked when they're naughty. Oh my, the lucky dears; I'd love to call you daddy.
As for your question in the OP: I go out of my way to support secular charities, but as Ciarin said, if there's no alternative I will go with the religious charity rather than none at all.
There was an interesting article last year in the Guardian about how religious humanitarian organizations are often evangelizing weapons. That's why I look for secular charities.
Here's a chunk of that article:
LINK
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough."
That's an interesting claim. Could you explain for me what you mean? There's a dear.
(Not that people being 'selfishly charitable' really matters as long as people in need are being helped, of course.)
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough."
I am always intrigued when Christians talk about doing things for unselfish reasons when the sole purpose of the religion is to rack up points to get themselves into heaven...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
You don't rack up points for heaven. Heaven is a free give via grace through faith. It's not a grocery store. Ironically, on this atheist site, one does rack up points for who knows what reason.
The reason why atheists are selfish, is because they never think outside themselves. Via Romans 3:10-12, the things you do is for your conscience to either feel better (Romans 2:15) or to win a date.
Hey OP, Roman Catholicism is a pagan "church." I would not go to a pagan "church." The Witch would fit in at a Roman Catholic Church. In fact, one of my friends was very high in the occult via the gnostic church. He was on level 8 via the cabala of the tree of life. He also was a Mormon and an Old Catholic Priest during this time. He was a vampire. (Not Hollywood kind, come on).
He is now a Christian for many years now. When I try to blog on the Occult forums, they immediately kick me off. Why is that? I'll tell you why. The dark can't handle the light.
My point, if you want to be pagan, be a Roman Catholic (or Old Catholic), if you want to follow Christ, read His Word (Romans 12:1-2).
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Cite your peer reviewed source for this claim.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hi Red,
Here are my sources:
Jeremiah 17:3
Isaiah 64:6
Romans 3:10-12
etc. Would you like more. Oh, you dont' accept this type of source? That's because you are absurd. LOL.
Hey Red, since I completely embarrassed you in those last 2 debates, would you like to have another debate? I'll take the total burden, and you can scrutinize me. That last one was so easy, I thought you might like to try again since you were destroyed. (LOL). I'm doing this as a service for you.
Funny Stuff.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Just as I thought.
A bunch of hearsay...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Your sense of embarrassment must be broken, Jean. redneF schooled you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
And then you woke up. LOL.
Red never heard of any of the leading 20th century atheists.
He never heard of any other definition.
He did not give a universal for his defintion, but a particular, making him not even able to get off the ground.
And then just repeated himself over and over again.
And since he has the burden of proof regarding atheism itself and did not meet that burden, he lost.
But of course an atheist isn't going to admit that. LOL.
If he want's a 3rd chance to redeem himself, I'm here.
Funny Stuff.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Undefeated Champion against All Atheists
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Hypocrite much?
Never mind...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
What does knowing anything about other atheists have to do with being an atheist, which is a non belief in any god(s)?
One doesnt have to know any other atheist to be an atheist, hell I didn't know any famous atheists when i was growing up, and really only in the last 10 years have I learned about other atheists, even then it didn't change my perspective, I was already an atheist to begin with. I have never believed in a god(s) of any sorts.
Even worse again you ignore all of your errors in logic and understanding of what you have posted and claim victory, of course it is hollow victory, ignorant people like you love to claim victory even though you were defeated even before you began.
No matter how you put it the bible has errors and is not a book of truth, god is not axiomatic no matter how you try to spin it, you lose jean, keep on claiming victory all you like, but you were defeated long time ago.
Hi Latin,
You again don't understand.
It's not about knowing other atheists. It's the issue of definition. If one cannot justify their definition of their worldview universally speaking, then they cannot know their own worldview.
This is what Rednef didn't understand. Probably because of that loud music in the back of his head.
For a person to say they're an atheist, they cannot simply say whatever they "FEEL." This is irrational since feelings are not objective.
Thus, if two competting definitions for the same worldview are at hand (more then two), then it is up to the one claiming the worldview to logically justify which one is correct so that they being their argument justifying their position.
Why is this important.
In logic, one must ALWAYS define their terms. If the terms cannot be defined via the rules of definition, and if one cannot demonstrate why the other definitions are wrong (one doesn't even know of other definitions), then they are like a boy in a boat rowing with one oar. Around and around we go Chuck.
Since Rednef neglected to define his terms objectively via absolute definition, and since he did not demonstate the error in the other definitions of his same worldview, then he never started the debate, couldn't begin, and failed.
In debate, this is logic 101.
Of course you're going to say I lost because I am your enemy and you wouldn't know the truth if it did a combination upper cut, jab, jab knee to the groin at you.
The Bible does not have errors IN THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. Since we do not have the original autographs, we must do textual criticism. This is one of the axioms of Christianity.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
1. By your form of Christianity, it's a gift you have no idea if you are going to get.
2. If you're not trying to kiss the Holy Arse to get into heaven why are you here trying so hard?
3. Why would I need to read the words of Paul to understand Jesus?
4. Do you help people in tangible ways, Jean? Or is this your substitute for being useful?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
You are like a boy throwing rocks at the traffic below the bridge. When you are confronted about your rock throwing, you cry and run home to mommy.
I will help you. I'll give it one last shot. If you continue to be absurd, then I am not able to respond to your irrationality rationally.
1) There's only one kind of Chrisitanity, and that's the true kind. The others are fake. Since I am trained in logic, philosophy and theology, and have studied the Bible, I reflect the Christianity as found in the Bible. To say otherwise is an ad hominem
2) This is ad hominem abusive. We don't choose God, God chooses us. Once He does, we're His for good (Hebrews 13:5).
3) Because Paul was commissioned to the Gentiles (Nations) and Jesus was specifically sent for the Israel. Jesus revealed to Paul regarding the Mystery (Ephesians 3:9) and the Body of Christ. Thus salvation was offered to the nations.
4) Absurdity, incoherent.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
1. And all Christians no matter their theology claim to have the "true" kind of Christianity.
2. I'm just trying to find answers. Your theology doesn't care about evangelism because the elect and damned are already known to God and it can't be changed. If I accepted God and was pre4destined to be damned it would have been a wasted effort. so again, why are you here if it is not for a selfish reason?
3 You only have Paul's word on that. I'm surprised you want to put that much trust in a pagan.
4. In other words - No you don't give a damn about people. Thanks. A refreshing burst of honesty from you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
What part of 'neutral' do you have trouble grasping?
I don't have a rigid or static 'worldview'. Nor does anyone I know. Mine is 'fluid'. So, is everyone else's I know.
The burden is on you to prove that I have a 'specific' absolutely dichotomy based worldview (which is a logical fallacy to begin with), which I say is impossible, because that would require that I be 'polarized' in 1 of only 2 positions.
Which is a false dichotomy. There are 3 positions, not 2, as you erroneously assert.
1- Positive
2- Negative
3- Neutral
You are no 'professor', Sherlock Copperfield.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hi JCG,
1) That's right and a fair thing to say. Nobody (well, most people) claims to believe in something they think is wrong. That goes for you and your denomination of atheism.
Though I've studied Biblical Greek since the age of 15. Studied textual criticism. I specifically studied MS 012 and 020 in relation to the coptic texts.
I know a little Hebrew but I'm rusty.
I have a 10,000 volume library devoted to Christianity. So I'm not some Christian working at Pizza Hut. So while you're right, one can always go to the text and see if one is wrong, or right.
2) This is a common complaint that is absurd. As Spurgeon said, if the elect had a yellow strip down their back, I would only preach to the yellow striped folk. Since this is not the case, I preach to all (see Acts 13:48 for example). Those who God chooses will be saved.
Thus I evangelize because I'm commaned to. Also, evangelism can also be used to convict not only convert. Some of the best evangelists were Calvinist (George Whitefield, John Edwards, Spurgeon, Green, Gill, etc.).
3). LOL. Paul was a pagan, then became a Christian. Have you ever read the book of Acts? And all Scripture is profitable, not just Pauls (II Tim 3:16-17) and does not contradict the rest. So your statement is an ad hominem.
4) This statement may have been abducted by aliens and after the aliens did experimentation, the question was then sent. This is incoherent.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
3)
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
To OP:
Not under any circumstances would I support a church in any way for any reason. They use a captive audience to proselytize.
I do give to two local food pantries for all kinds of people in need, not just the homeless.
The Emptiness of Theology
-- Richard Dawkins
Well thanks for all the responses so far....
Was talking to a neighbor and they told me that the church hardly takes anything and when they do its like 1 or 2 times a year.... He also told me that there is a place down the street that takes them for low income families.... Guess I will be heading there in the morning....
This thread really took off in all direction.... Guess I will fit fine on this site....
Unfortunately, it would never work out.... You would fall head over heels for me and I would eventually have to break your heart....
If anyone travels to Bavaria hit me up and I will show you to all the hot spots....
Hi Poison,
I'm heading that way, that would be fun. We'll go get a beer.
You did say if anybody.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Do you mean by 'atheists never think outside themselves,' that atheists never think about anyone other than themselves? You don't genuinely believe that do you, you daft thing?
I don't see how helping others because our conscience tells us it's the right thing to do and it makes us feel better makes us any different to a Christian. The Christians I know are charitable for the same reason I am: they genuinely care about people and are sensitive to the plight of others. Whilst it's true that most (if not all) of us feel good from helping others, it's ridiculous to claim that this makes our charitable acts selfish ones. Selfishness is caring only about ourselves.
You didn't explain how being a Christian means you 'do it' for unselfish reasons, dear. Care to explain what exactly you mean by that?
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough."
Hi Gay Guy,
Being a Christian means that you do good works FROM being rescued from hell. Thus it is with good motiviation as a way to worship and thank God.
You do know that your place in hell will be hotter then most. Being a fag is repundant to soceity and to God. You are fility, dirty, and disgusting.
I speak out of respect.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
If you believe based on what the Bible says, then to be consistent you would have to be a Lemarckian, based on the story in Genesis 30 about how Jacob bred a strong flock for himself. The story tells how Jacob placed weaker female goats in front of branches when they mated to produce striped offspring, and stronger females out in the open to produce plain offspring, so that the striped offspring that would go to Laban would be the weak animals; this Lemarckian idea is evidentially wrong, dear. It's wrong by the same criteria you use to trust the reliability of the medicine you swallow to relieve your headache.
Such inconsistency betrays a lack of integrity in your belief system, dear.
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough."
I think I've figured out Jean Jean.
He experienced a 'glory hole' trauma
, and he's never recovered from the PTS...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Well, that's patently a selfish motivation, you foolish thing. Your motivation to help people is simply an attempt to thank God for doing you a favour. It's a repayment.
Me, I'm helping people who have never helped me and will probably never be in a position to help me. Therefore I'm not gaining anything from helping them other than how it makes me feel. That makes me a better, more altruistic person than you in Jesus's eyes. I'm a better Christian than you.
My place is always hotter than most, love.
Oh my, you don't know the half of it, dear.
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough."
Hi Gay Guy,
And If I wanted to be consistent, I need to have a flat roof and put a gate around my roof via the levetical law. Because you are so gay, your intellect is oozing out unto the floor.
II Tim 2:15 says we need to rightly divide. That was before the law. The Old Testament was examples for us today (II Corinthians 6).
It has to do with directives and directions.
If you are making a point about trying to justify that fact that you are disgusting fag, then read Romand 1:18-25. Here we see fags being like dogs and very evil. We also see homosexual references throughout the New Testament.
You need Jesus. Stop being a fag, and obey Jesus by living your life for Him.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
I have no problem donating food to a church if I know they will give it to those in need without requiring them to listen to their babble. When I was in College the Catholic Church had a dinner every week for the students. I went their with my girlfriend at her insistence and they cooked pretty good food. It became a weekly thing and they didn't preach at all, so I didn't talk religion. It wasn't until I decided to marry my girlfriend and she wanted to be married in that church that they found out I was an atheist.
If I were you I would show up while they have their food shelf open. If they are actively trying to convert people who aren't interested, I would look elsewhere, if they are simply being charitable with no expectations, I wouldn't hesitate to help them out.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Who is this Gay Guy? As if that would mean anything at all.
The Emptiness of Theology
-- Richard Dawkins
Sorry but the old "that was the old testatment" defence doesn't work for you here since this isn't about morally right and wrong behaviour; it's about a claim the Bible makes about how reality works. The people who wrote Genesis 30 clearly believed that the different markings on animals came about through a process known today as Lemarckism. We know today that Lemarckism is a false idea. Therefore Gen 30 is making a scientifically false claim.
Either you accept this patently false claim made by the Bible to remain consistent in trusting the Bible as a source of knowledge about the world, or you reject it;, and if you do reject the claim made in Gen 30, then you need to explain what your criteria is for accepting some parts of the Bible as true and other parts as false. Failure to do so identifies you as a cherry picking Christian who relies on established scientific facts as more authoritative than what the Bible says. And in which case, you paint yourself into the corner of having to agree that the Bible carries no weight as a source in the manner you used it in your first reply to Red in this thread.
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough."
Hey Gay Guy,
I have a question. Most people eat cereal by adding milk. When you eat your cereal, instead of adding milk, do you add sperm from various other fags that you've slept with.
I mean why not, you eat sperm anyway. Put it in your honey bunches of oats that way you can get your daily amount in upon rising.
Regarding your absurd question. The commandments for the New Testament Church is seen in Paul's epistles. Since it is not there, then you are making a logical fallacy from silence.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Calvinist who only believes about a third of the Bible? You really don't know anything do you?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Not as a rule, no.
I drink wine too, but I don't pour that on my cornflakes in the morning. ::shrug::
You daft thing.
Oh don't worry, dear; I get my morning portion before I even get to the kitchen.
Not at all. I'm using the Bible the way you did earlier with Red; the way Paul did too: he referenced numerous stories from Genesis as if they are historical fact. Do you believe that what Genesis says about the world is true? If you do, then you're committed to being a Lamarckist, and gives us yet another reason to laugh at you. If you don't, then you need to explain your criteria for rejecting certain claims made by scripture. If the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge, we need to know how you can determine where it is correct and where it is incorrect. If you use science to do this then you're deeming science as more authoritative than the Bible (which would be a step in the right direction, you silly thing.)
Once again: I'm not referring to the Mosaic law and the rituals of the priesthood and what have you, the requirements of which are said to have been done away with in Christ.
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough."
Good luck on getting Jean to admit that one of the many obviously false claims the "Holy" Babble makes is false. I've been pestering him on quite a few of them for a while, like the claims that bats are fowl (Lev. 11:13-19), rabbits chew cud (Lev. 11:6), or that a tree, even in a dream, could be tall enough to see from the whole world, which would depend on a flat earth (Dan. 4:20). He still has yet to answer, since he knows these are obviously wrong, which would mean that his bully club handbook is wrong and that his belief in them shows a extreme gullibility on the verge of childhood naivete. He just won't admit it because he seeks justification for spewing passive-aggressive threats at everyone who won't accept his filthy tyrannical cult's ideology as fact. He's a fascist thug who's afraid of actual reality because it contradicts his schizophrenic hallucinations and makes it that much harder to deny that he needs medication.
I've gotten used to Jean's "LOLgic" and it really is good for a few laughs, if your willing to laugh at the ramblings of a crazy person. If you're not, avoid threads that he oozes his way into like the plague of burning stupid that they are.
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
I try to ignore him. Occasionally, it isn't possible - I like your LOLgic. Very clever.
And I love White Swallow's avatar - very classy.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Hi CJ,
Exhibit E. = An atheist liking a fag avatar.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
It was before science too. Now, we have test tube babies.
I gave to a sperm bank when I was in my 20's after a serious motorcycle accident. What a great way to make sure my genes would get passed on, if I never lived to make a baby personally.
Are those euphemisms for being a sexually repressed and dysfunctional bigot?
You learn something new everyday!
If you are making a point about trying to justify that fact that you are disgusting fag, then read Romand 1:18-25. Here we see fags being like dogs and very evil. We also see homosexual references throughout the New Testament.
Don't knock it till you try it.
Who's being ignorant now, Jean Jean?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris