T1B

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:32 pm**

War Wagon wrote:rut-roh

Lab Rat has some time on his hands.

Before this is all said and done, someone's going to be springing for a round of Johnny Walker Red, I just know it.

Spring Break. 11 days off. Yep, more time on my hands than usual :D

OK - back to my faith vs. evidence bit...

My faith does not require scientific evidence, rational inferences, etc. ...because THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF FAITH!! Faith is believing in something despite having no logical reason for doing so. I have chosen to believe in the Trinity, Christ's divinity, souls, etc. as a matter of faith.

Science deals only with the natural world, not the supernatural. This is one of the key ideas good science teachers (myself included) hammer into their students from Day One. It is incredibly inappropriate to demand scientific proof for matters of faith - that's not what science is designed to do. Real science cannot deal with issues like life after death, the nature of God and souls, the nature of good and evil. When scientists (including doctors) make statements about those areas, they are misusing the authority folks have invested in them. When scientists speak to those topics, they do so not as men and women of science, but as average Joes and Janes.

Faith, on the other hand, not only requires no scientific proof, but becomes pointless with it. I require no scientific evidence for my religious beliefs because I don't believe that science has any place in religion.

The folks who argue that there MUST be (or IS) life outside of Earth do so without a shred of scientific EVIDENCE.

No amount of projection based on what they see on this planet is EVIDENCE. It may be a hypothesis, but it is not EVIDENCE.

Stating that my colleague's belief in extraterrestrial life is logical because he is merely making an inference based on his observations of this planet is utter logical horseshit. I could say that I can logically prove the existence of God by projecting the observed qualities of humanity (intelligence, will, power). This argument for God's existence, btw, was tried in the 18th century and blown to shit.

Same weakness applies to my colleague's arguing for life on other planets. If he had stated that he had a hypothesis that there is life on other planets, based on his observations here, great. But he didn't. He said that he absolutely BELIEVED that there IS life on other planets, despite not having a shred of evidence. And he's so wrapped up in/blinded by his belief system that he is willing to conflate hypothetical mathematical gobbledygook with "evidence."

Belief based on a lack of evidence = faith.

[this is what happens when I have that second cup of coffee]

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:29 pm**

SunCoastSooner wrote:You know for people that are so quick to complain about their religious rights being infringed upon and attacked (christians in America today) you guys sure are quick to do it to others :?

I'll admit your rights are being infringed upon but from what I have gathered the same occurs when another point of view is expounded upon as well.

Gotta rack this take

As mentioned in another thread, the 3 basic tenents of All religions:

* Ours is the one true God
* If you don't believe in our God, you will fry when you die
* God said to give us your money

everything else is just theater to drive home the point.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:36 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:....you pathetic, hypocritical excuse for a good christian.

What is YOUR definition of a "good Christian," Bushice.....

Me thinks you just drop the word DEAD in there in place of GOOD and we see what you have in mind.

Or........perhaps QUIET.......if you're in a generous mood.

At any rate, I'll not speculate further.

Feel free to answer.

You have my permission.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:42 pm**

The gospels were actually written only 30 years after the resurrection, so many of the thousands that Jesus appeared to after rising from the dead were still living. If the accounts of Jesus coming back to life were bs, people would have called the writers of the gospels out on it. Just a thought.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:59 pm**

KC Scott wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:You know for people that are so quick to complain about their religious rights being infringed upon and attacked (christians in America today) you guys sure are quick to do it to others :?

I'll admit your rights are being infringed upon but from what I have gathered the same occurs when another point of view is expounded upon as well.

Gotta rack this take

As mentioned in another thread, the 3 basic tenents of All religions:

* Ours is the one true God
* If you don't believe in our God, you will fry when you die
* God said to give us your money

everything else is just theater to drive home the point.

Nice stereotype.

...and yes, my eyes are rolling.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:01 pm**

rozy wrote:
KC Scott wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:You know for people that are so quick to complain about their religious rights being infringed upon and attacked (christians in America today) you guys sure are quick to do it to others :?

I'll admit your rights are being infringed upon but from what I have gathered the same occurs when another point of view is expounded upon as well.

Gotta rack this take

As mentioned in another thread, the 3 basic tenents of All religions:

* Ours is the one true God
* If you don't believe in our God, you will fry when you die
* God said to give us your money

everything else is just theater to drive home the point.
Nice stereotype.

...and yes, my eyes are rolling.

So is it false?

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:13 pm**

3 basic tenants

1. Man's sin separates him from God

2. Jesus Christ, given out of God's love for us, is the bridge back to God

3. Believe and receive Jesus Christ

There IS one God, yes.
Rejection of Christ ultimately takes one to hell, yes.
Giving financial offering (10% tithe) is encouraged, not by any means demanded, NO. (This is the the standard in the church that I attend)

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:14 pm**

Seems an odd thread for a FTDC appearance. Hey, FTDC, if you had been at the Sermon on the Mount, and they handed you your loaf and fishes, what kind of sauce would you have dunked it in? Would you have stood there in front of your Lord and Savior, and tossed the wrapper on the ground?

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:28 pm**

rozy wrote:
KC Scott wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:You know for people that are so quick to complain about their religious rights being infringed upon and attacked (christians in America today) you guys sure are quick to do it to others :?

I'll admit your rights are being infringed upon but from what I have gathered the same occurs when another point of view is expounded upon as well.

Gotta rack this take

As mentioned in another thread, the 3 basic tenents of All religions:

* Ours is the one true God
* If you don't believe in our God, you will fry when you die
* God said to give us your money

everything else is just theater to drive home the point.
Nice stereotype.

...and yes, my eyes are rolling.

Sure it's a stereotype and it's absolutely on target.

I don't see you debating any of the points I've made nor do I see you showing any differentiation between any of the faiths regarding these 3 points.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:31 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Seems an odd thread for a FTDC appearance. Hey, FTDC, if you had been at the Sermon on the Mount, and they handed you your loaf and fishes, what kind of sauce would you have dunked it in? Would you have stood there in front of your Lord and Savior, and tossed the wrapper on the ground?

racketh my child

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:33 pm**

KC Scott wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:You know for people that are so quick to complain about their religious rights being infringed upon and attacked (christians in America today) you guys sure are quick to do it to others :?

I'll admit your rights are being infringed upon but from what I have gathered the same occurs when another point of view is expounded upon as well.

Gotta rack this take

As mentioned in another thread, the 3 basic tenents of All religions:

* Ours is the one true God
* If you don't believe in our God, you will fry when you die
* God said to give us your money

everything else is just theater to drive home the point.

Gotta rack both of these takes.

and ask the rest of you why you can't just live and let live - sheesh.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:36 pm**

BSmack wrote:
rozy wrote:
KC Scott wrote:
Gotta rack this take

As mentioned in another thread, the 3 basic tenents of All religions:

* Ours is the one true God
* If you don't believe in our God, you will fry when you die
* God said to give us your money

everything else is just theater to drive home the point.
Nice stereotype.

...and yes, my eyes are rolling.
So is it false?

Context

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:38 pm**

I see a hail of locusts in mvscal's future, maybe you'll get lucky and it'll only rain fire. There's always the Ark getaway vacation if need be.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:44 pm**

God’s anklebiter wrote:
The only problem is that "God" is a dick. Seriously, the guy is a complete asshole.

I'll cheerfully burn in Hell before I ever bend knee to that cocksucker or his fucked up hippy kid.

Nice meltdown. Looks to me like God is seriously up in someone’s head. BODE God.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:46 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote: Hey, FTDC, if you had been at the Sermon on the Mount, and they handed you your loaf and fishes, what kind of sauce would you have dunked it in? Would you have stood there in front of your Lord and Savior, and tossed the wrapper on the ground?

I probably would have dunked the bread in fishroe and chucked the wrapper on the ground and asked Him "is that rackable or a sin?"

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:48 pm**

poptart wrote: Giving financial offering (10% tithe) is encouraged, not by any means demanded, NO. (This is the the standard in the church that I attend)

It's still "Give us the Money", Pop.

What kind of car does your Pastor drive? How big is his house?

Pretty sweet gig, eh?

Dude, I'm jaded beacuse I see how religion is twisted and used for the purposes of power, control and wealth accumulation.

Religion, in it's purest form served 2 purposes. One was to give hope to the downtrodden; no matter how bad life was (see slaves, Isreal) under the egyptians, they had something to look forward too after life ended. The other purpose was to establish basic laws for society. I don't really have a problem with either of those things, but rather the corruption of power by those who set up the doctrine.

The same holds true today - See Falwell, Robertson, Bakker and Swaggert

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:48 pm**

rozy wrote:
BSmack wrote:
rozy wrote: Nice stereotype.

...and yes, my eyes are rolling.
So is it false?
Context

What context? It is a simple question. Is the stereotype true or false? Is it based on fact or fiction?

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:03 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote: Nice meltdown.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of what constitutes a meltdown.

What I’m struggling with is to not start laughing out loud at the mental picture of you shaking your fist at the sky, and screaming, “Fuck you, you fucking cocksucker, and fuck your fucked up hippy kid.”

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:05 pm**

MTLR wrote: The folks who argue that there MUST be (or IS) life outside of Earth do so without a shred of scientific EVIDENCE.

No amount of projection based on what they see on this planet is EVIDENCE. It may be a hypothesis, but it is not EVIDENCE.

Stating that my colleague's belief in extraterrestrial life is logical because he is merely making an inference based on his observations of this planet is utter logical horseshit.

Not really. Given what we know about physical science and observations of life on this planet, the "life outside of Earth" hypothesis seems reasonable. The mechanism at work is extrapolation, not "faith."

Until they collected that first sample from the moon, scientists could only hypothesize about what was there. Some of those hypotheses were confirmed and others were discarded. But no one was really shocked to find out the moon was not made of cheese.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Lord, my Lord, what has Thou done lately?
-Woody Allen

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:06 pm**

KC Scott wrote:
poptart wrote: Giving financial offering (10% tithe) is encouraged, not by any means demanded, NO. (This is the the standard in the church that I attend)
It's still "Give us the Money", Pop.

What kind of car does your Pastor drive? How big is his house?

Pretty sweet gig, eh?

Dude, I'm jaded beacuse I see how religion is twisted and used for the purposes of power, control and wealth accumulation.

Religion, in it's purest form served 2 purposes. One was to give hope to the downtrodden; no matter how bad life was (see slaves, Isreal) under the egyptians, they had something to look forward too after life ended. The other purpose was to establish basic laws for society. I don't really have a problem with either of those things, but rather the corruption of power by those who set up the doctrine.

The same holds true today - See Falwell, Robertson, Bakker and Swaggert

Random thoughtless musings from an empty, shallow mind.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:06 pm**

RACK! Lock it!

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:11 pm**

But no one was really shocked to find out the moon was not made of cheese.

WHAT?

:x

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:23 pm**

rozy wrote:
KC Scott wrote:
poptart wrote: Giving financial offering (10% tithe) is encouraged, not by any means demanded, NO. (This is the the standard in the church that I attend)
It's still "Give us the Money", Pop.

What kind of car does your Pastor drive? How big is his house?

Pretty sweet gig, eh?

Dude, I'm jaded beacuse I see how religion is twisted and used for the purposes of power, control and wealth accumulation.

Religion, in it's purest form served 2 purposes. One was to give hope to the downtrodden; no matter how bad life was (see slaves, Isreal) under the egyptians, they had something to look forward too after life ended. The other purpose was to establish basic laws for society. I don't really have a problem with either of those things, but rather the corruption of power by those who set up the doctrine.

The same holds true today - See Falwell, Robertson, Bakker and Swaggert

Random thoughtless musings from an empty, shallow mind.

And yet you can't address them.

'Bode Me.

I have a Key too, Rozy

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:27 pm**

KC Scott wrote:

And yet you can't address them.

Sorry if I can think deeper and for myself, thereby seeing no need to lower myself to the level necessary to try and pound common sense into you.

'Bode Me.

Straight from the Spray and SG book of self-proclaimed scoreboard. Color me not shocked.

I have a Key too, Rozy

Cool. Got any PMs you want to make public?

hook, line, sinker

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:29 pm**

RACK the unlock.

Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is...

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:32 pm**

mvscal reminds me of the Mole from South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:32 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:[The folks who argue that there MUST be (or IS) life outside of Earth do so without a shred of scientific EVIDENCE.

No amount of projection based on what they see on this planet is EVIDENCE. It may be a hypothesis, but it is not EVIDENCE.

Stating that my colleague's belief in extraterrestrial life is logical because he is merely making an inference based on his observations of this planet is utter logical horseshit. I could say that I can logically prove the existence of God by projecting the observed qualities of humanity (intelligence, will, power). This argument for God's existence, btw, was tried in the 18th century and blown to shit.

Like I said yesterday...you clearly have no understanding of what makes up a sound, or cogent, logical argument.

Again, your scientist in question is making a hypothesis BASED ON EVIDENCE. The evidence, in this case, is the observations of the life on this planet AND, the observations about the physical makeup of other planets AND the observations that there ARE other planets in other solar systems AND that they are numerous.

Your argument of project observed qualities of humanity is bullshit BEACUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING THING to project them on.

Can you really be this dense?

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:35 pm**

rozy wrote: Sorry if I can think deeper and for myself, thereby seeing no need to lower myself to the level necessary to try and pound common sense into you.

Straight from the "I don't need to debate what I cannot win" handbook

Straight from the Spray and SG book of self-proclaimed scoreboard. Color me not shocked.

Proceeded only by the "I'll get the last post in and lock the thread" chapter.
Color you Yellow - a nice pastel shade.

Cool. Got any PMs you want to make public?

Got any smack you'd like to make public?

hook, line, sinker

A right hook to your self inflated melon - Check
A Line drive right off the softball you delivered - Check
Watching your point hit bottom faster than a lead sinker - Check

That about covers it.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:41 pm**

KC Scott wrote:
rozy wrote: Sorry if I can think deeper and for myself, thereby seeing no need to lower myself to the level necessary to try and pound common sense into you.
Straight from the "I don't need to debate what I cannot win" handbook

Straight from the Spray and SG book of self-proclaimed scoreboard. Color me not shocked.
Proceeded only by the "I'll get the last post in and lock the thread" chapter.
Color you Yellow - a nice pastel shade.

Cool. Got any PMs you want to make public?
Got any smack you'd like to make public?

hook, line, sinker
A right hook to your self inflated melon - Check
A Line drive right off the softball you delivered - Check
Watching your point hit bottom faster than a lead sinker - Check

That about covers it.

I'm playing you like a fiddle and you have no idea how. Priceless.

And no, I am not going to post the PMs that forecasted this. It's a matter of personal respect.

Falwell, Robertson, Saggert, and Bakker speak for the whole, eh?

random musings from an extremely shallow mind...

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:54 pm**

rozy wrote:
I'm playing you like a fiddle and you have no idea how. Priceless.

Wow.... Geee... I'm impressed

Let's see if I got this right, you jump into a thread with a shot at me, I smack you silly, you do the last word thingy before slapping a padlock on the thread, I unlock it and pummel you some more and then you say your playing me.

Yea dude, that makes perfect sense

And no, I am not going to post the PMs that forecasted this. It's a matter of personal respect.

Heh heh - Hilarious dude. Someone "forecasted" you and I would be trading smack in a religion thread. Send that Nostradomus a cookie and please feel free to share.

Falwell, Robertson, Saggert, and Bakker speak for the whole, eh?

Didn't say that.

Just threw them up as examples to make my point.

random musings from an extremely shallow mind...

And yet you still don't have one reply to my original contention that all religions share the same common denominators.

That's a great set of debate skills you got going there, dude.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:05 pm**

KC Scott wrote: I have a Key too, Rozy

MOD ABUSE! MOD ABUSE!

CITIZENS ARREST, CITIZENS ARREST!

BARNEY MADE A U-TURN!

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:07 pm**

Smacking me silly, eh?

So when can I expect you to post some more PMs and really put the nail in my coffin?

Oh, and no, noone forecasted you and I would be trading smack anywhere.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:34 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:My faith does not require scientific evidence, rational inferences, etc. ...because THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF FAITH!! Faith is believing in something despite having no logical reason for doing so. I have chosen to believe in the Trinity, Christ's divinity, souls, etc. as a matter of faith.

Ok but - In the face of all that you know, all of the inconsistencies surrounding the whole Christ as the son of God Concept, and taking into account that since that time there has not been one single event that could ultimately prove This God and this Christ are the one true deities over all of the others out there claiming the same, how can your logical mind over come all of it and simply rest on acceptance?

And puhlease don't just say "Because I have Faith"

Science deals only with the natural world, not the supernatural. This is one of the key ideas good science teachers (myself included) hammer into their students from Day One. It is incredibly inappropriate to demand scientific proof for matters of faith - that's not what science is designed to do. Real science cannot deal with issues like life after death, the nature of God and souls, the nature of good and evil. When scientists (including doctors) make statements about those areas, they are misusing the authority folks have invested in them. When scientists speak to those topics, they do so not as men and women of science, but as average Joes and Janes.

I'm not talking about those issues. I'm talking about the factual evidence that casts so much doubt on accepted depiction of the events surrounding Christs death and resurrection. Faith allows those who merely want to believe to ignore the flaws, but that does not make them go away, nor does it make the belief real.

Faith, on the other hand, not only requires no scientific proof, but becomes pointless with it. I require no scientific evidence for my religious beliefs because I don't believe that science has any place in religion.

How about this. It is clear that Jesus came from a large family, several relatives were disciples, and there is also evidence that Mary Magdalene, painted up as a ho in the bible, was actually either his wife or GF, and that they possibly had a child together. This info was all either suppressed by those in power or minimized in order to keep Jesus as singularly pure in spirit as possible, so that from the viewpoint of others he represented The son of God uniquely, with no descendents. None of this is based on the science of the supernatural, but on the study by multiple scholars of the times.
If you were faced with facts not science that moved Jesus farther away from his position as a deity, would that change how you feel, or would you continue to believe?

The folks who argue that there MUST be (or IS) life outside of Earth do so without a shred of scientific EVIDENCE.

No amount of projection based on what they see on this planet is EVIDENCE. It may be a hypothesis, but it is not EVIDENCE.

Agreed somewhat. We can only hypothesize on life to our level on complexity elsewhere simply because no planets like this have been located so far to the extent we can study them. However there is strong evidence that the basic building blocks of carbon based life exist on Mars, but at the present time the planet is too inhospitable to support it.

Stating that my colleague's belief in extraterrestrial life is logical because he is merely making an inference based on his observations of this planet is utter logical horseshit. I could say that I can logically prove the existence of God by projecting the observed qualities of humanity (intelligence, will, power). This argument for God's existence, btw, was tried in the 18th century and blown to shit.

Don't you think that, given a billion chances the odds are excellent that one other planet exists that is like this, and also that if you have the same naturally occurring elements in place, life would form? Doesn't Science support that aspect of it?

As far as I know, nothing supports rising from the dead.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:34 pm**

rozy wrote: So when can I expect you to post some more PMs and really put the nail in my coffin?

You really seem to be obsessing on this subject, dude.
PM me a stupid meltdown and I'll be glad to put it up for all to see.

Oh, and no, noone forecasted you and I would be trading smack anywhere.

Just wasting space then?:

And no, I am not going to post the PMs that forecasted this. It's a matter of personal respect.

BTW - Have you hit your emoticon limit for the day yet?

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:39 pm**

KC Scott wrote:You really seem to be obsessing on this subject, dude.
PM me a stupid meltdown and I'll be glad to put it up for all to see.

Obsessing? Far be it from me to expect a certain measure of respect for and confidence in someone entrusted with a postition of authority.

Just wasting space then?:

I don't need to use in your dome smack. I am perfectly comfortable watching this display without resorting to juvenile TOT-like tactics, SG-wannabe.

BTW - Have you hit your emoticon limit for the day yet?

Are you counting? Sweet list of priorities you got there, Skippy.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:49 pm**

Mike wrote: Real science cannot deal with issues like life after death, the nature of God and souls, the nature of good and evil.

Don't tell these guys. One of these days they're going to get a ghost on camera eating a sandwich.

http://www.researchwebcam.com/

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:30 pm**

rozy wrote:
Obsessing? Far be it from me to expect a certain measure of respect for and confidence in someone entrusted with a postition of authority.

So you want to critique Mod styles?

Great, I'll play.

First we'll address the PM issue - or lack thereof.

Nothing in the "Mod guidlines" says we can't or won't post contents of PMs addressed to us.
I've said in my posts before that anything in PM is fair game on the boards,
As long as it doesn't violate any of the board rules.

In this particular case I put a funny lilttle melt in our fourm for the amusement of us. Matter O' fact you posted twice to the thread agreeing with the reason the PM Melt was sent in the first place - Posting a link with no take that got sent to the shitter.
I didn't see you objecting to the PM in there, but in your desparate attempt to have some sort of shot at me now you bring the issue onto Main Street.
BTW - does this mean you've never posted a PM in Open fourm?
Guess we could always take a survey, but I'm pretty sure I'd know the answer.
Guess that would make kind of a hippocrite, huh?

So now let's take a look at your Mod technique, shall we?

I've said multiple times, both in our fourm and here on Main Street, that anytime a Mod moves a thread to the shitter, locks a thread or deletes anything the Mod that does it should post to it.
This is a show of personnal responsability and eliminates the favoritism / Bias card that gets thrown at this board on a regular basis. The rest of the Mods on Main have started doing it. Your take on that subject has been "fuck 'em" and you continue to move and lock without owning up to your actions.
That's kinda bitch in my book, but to each his own.

You've also taken shots at me and the other Main street Mods when we tried to address / explain to the board membership what constitiutes a decent post - or what kind of posts get moved or flushed and why.
Your take was once again "fuck 'em - they don't deserve an explanation".
I disagree.

The idea behind this place was to put all the boards back together,
And I don't see you letting go of some of your old vendettas.
I don't know you, and all I can judge by is what I've seen happen here.

Wanna critique some more?

I don't need to use in your dome smack. I am perfectly comfortable watching this display without resorting to juvenile TOT-like tactics, SG-wannabe.

Too bad you still haven't managed to write anything of substance or any kind of support for your arguement.

You turned this thread in this direction beacuse you didn't have the ammo to defend your position on the religion take.

Still thinking that was a good idea, Cowboy?

Are you counting?.

[/quote]

Yea, I guess I am counting.

Emoticons are often used by those not able to communicate their points through words.

No wonder your up to 20+ emoticons in your posts to me so far.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:33 pm**

CHA-CHING!!!

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:50 pm**

KC Scott wrote: It's still "Give us the Money", Pop.

What kind of car does your Pastor drive? How big is his house?

Pretty sweet gig, eh?

Our pastor lives with his wife and 2 kids in an apartment.

Drove a (church-paid) Nissan Sentra for a couple of years when he first came here. He now drives a Toyota Camry. Movin' on up.

Hey, our church is not that way you paint it AT ALL, Scott.

Believe me, I DO get your points. The reality is that that brand of "Christianity" is all around us. TV evangelists........largely a group of shysters. This is part of the image that people have of Christians, and it ain't real good.

I suggest you to look at Christ, look at the Gospel, NOT at Christians. They tend to dissapoint, human that they are......as YOU are, btw.

Further, look at the 3 REAL tenants (which I posted) of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about.

THAT is what our church is focussed on.

Money....? pffft......

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:02 pm**

mvscal wrote:
poptart wrote:Money....? pffft......
Pfffft? Been to the Vatican? Nice place.

The Vatican is HQ, it's like the Pentagon.

T1B

Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?