Paying people to come to church?

[Sonic-Youth]

As if paying people to come to church doesn't seem odd enough, a mininster at an all black church wants to pay white people to come and worship.

That's a bit weird. They should just save that money for a tv commercial.

[TheShrike]

I'd love to be paid to go to church!!!
Hell, it'd be like taking thursdays and saturdays off! You could catch up on your sleep and everything!

[JMHX]

At 8/2/03 06:55 PM, TheShrike wrote: I'd love to be paid to go to church!!!
Hell, it'd be like taking thursdays and saturdays off! You could catch up on your sleep and everything!

I'm with you, Shrike. Let's get some gospel in our honkey bodies.

[phantasm93]

At 8/2/03 06:55 PM, TheShrike wrote: I'd love to be paid to go to church!!!
Hell, it'd be like taking thursdays and saturdays off! You could catch up on your sleep and everything!

It would make me want to back. Besides, if my method of worshipping looks like I'm sleeping, it's simply because I'm deep in meditation. Yeah, that's the one.

[PreacherJ]

Ahh, I vividly remember my days of church-going. As an ex-catholic, I can proudly say that MY priest paid us to come to church.

Wait...

But it was in candy... and it was only for the little boys...

Awww, fuck.

*Blocks out memory*

[RoyBatty]

At 8/4/03 03:16 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Ahh, I vividly remember my days of church-going. As an ex-catholic, I can proudly say that MY priest paid us to come to church.

Wait...

But it was in candy... and it was only for the little boys...

Awww, fuck.

*Blocks out memory*

Hahaha.

[n0g0d]

hell yeah i would accept money to learn about god, it might even give me even more ammunition for my website's atheist views and for a profit!

[misterx2000]

I wouldn't getting paid as well, I've been meaning to start going to Church even though I'm not officially Christian.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/4/03 09:17 AM, n0g0d wrote: hell yeah i would accept money to learn about god, it might even give me even more ammunition for my website's atheist views and for a profit!

You won't learn shit about Christianity from going to church other than brainwashing schemes. You want to learn about the Christianity, read the bible. You'd probably convert though since it's all about war, oppression, submission of women, and murdering gays. *rolls eyes*

[Ravens-Grin]

My ideas on christianity......(just read my sig)

Maybe the Vatican should give out refunds.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/5/03 09:15 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: My ideas on christianity......(just read my sig)

*rolls eyes* Hitler was a Christian. And the Catholic church sponsored him, and most considered him to be the Holy Roman Emperor of his time period. The only real beef with him is his strong support of Luther.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/5/03 09:39 PM, RoyBatty wrote: The only real beef with him is his strong support of Luther.

The only real beef the Vatican had with him, not me. Thought I'd clarify because I said that wrong. I have endless amounts of beef with that piece of shit.

[BWS]

At 8/4/03 02:39 PM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/4/03 09:17 AM, n0g0d wrote:

You won't learn shit about Christianity from going to church other than brainwashing schemes. You want to learn about the Christianity, read the bible.

Churchs arent all like that. There are very few, compared to the total, that are actually out to "brainwash" you. It boils down to faith, and that is an internal choice that is made by the individual, not vice versa. You go to church to understand the applications of the teachings within whatever you may be reading.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/5/03 11:19 PM, BWS wrote: Churchs arent all like that. There are very few, compared to the total, that are actually out to "brainwash" you. It boils down to faith, and that is an internal choice that is made by the individual, not vice versa. You go to church to understand the applications of the teachings within whatever you may be reading.

Why does "God's word" need mortal guidance to understand? Is God not powerful enough to inspire texts that could be construed by anyone? People go to church to see other people who are strong in their faith, because it reassures them that they are on the right path, regardless of their history. The general attitude of a church combined with selective teachings, and don't tell me they sit in church (other than maybe the Knights of the KKK church) and go through Deuteronomy and address the genocide to the general congregation. They address the nice cheesy meaningless cliche verses, that were all stolen from other religions, common sense, and old philosophies. The main reason is not to teach these values, but to convince people who know these values are good to buy into the rest of the shit. Once you have a firm adherence for the religion due to it's teachings of things you know are moral, you read further in, and find things that are immoral, and think they are right or turn a blind eye, because you equate them to the same source as the other morals you "learned" from the bible.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."-- Carey Goldberg

[BWS]

At 8/5/03 11:58 PM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/5/03 11:19 PM, BWS wrote: Churchs arent all like that. There are very few, compared to the total, that are actually out to "brainwash" you. It boils down to faith, and that is an internal choice that is made by the individual, not vice versa. You go to church to understand the applications of the teachings within whatever you may be reading.

Why does "God's word" need mortal guidance to understand? Is God not powerful enough to inspire texts that could be construed by anyone? People go to church to see other people who are strong in their faith, because it reassures them that they are on the right path, regardless of their history. The general attitude of a church combined with selective teachings, and don't tell me they sit in church (other than maybe the Knights of the KKK church) and go through Deuteronomy and address the genocide to the general congregation. They address the nice cheesy meaningless cliche verses, that were all stolen from other religions, common sense, and old philosophies. The main reason is not to teach these values, but to convince people who know these values are good to buy into the rest of the shit. Once you have a firm adherence for the religion due to it's teachings of things you know are moral, you read further in, and find things that are immoral, and think they are right or turn a blind eye, because you equate them to the same source as the other morals you "learned" from the bible.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."-- Carey Goldberg

Look, its an internal perspective and therefore is relative to the individual at hand. The general teachings of religions are in fact basic fundamental aspects of philosophical views on moral and ethics; I agree with you on that. However, a church serves the purpose of relating these general teaching in a way that is relavent to modern problems. Im not going to try and persuade you because like I said, its a personal choice to have faith in a religion.

Your quote is illogical and this is why:
Good people doing evil things is not due to religion; its due to the fact that in order for an action to be deemed evil, it must be percieved by another as so. Religion is irrelevant because of this.

Im not about to start or continue a debate on this because this is one topic that I choose not to debate.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/6/03 12:40 AM, BWS wrote: Your quote is illogical and this is why:
Good people doing evil things is not due to religion; its due to the fact that in order for an action to be deemed evil, it must be percieved by another as so. Religion is irrelevant because of this.

Im not about to start or continue a debate on this because this is one topic that I choose not to debate.

If you don't want to debate, then don't try to refute my points. And yes the idea behind that quote is very true. Nothing can get people to turn a blind eye to how something is evil like religion. For instance, look at the witchhunts. Not all of those people that burned witches were evil people. Most of them thought they were doing good. They thought they were obeying the word of the god that told them all this moral shit, and that same god that taught them how to be good, wants witches dead. So a couple evil pricks decided to use it as a means of getting rid of people of other religions, and the rest of the congregation joined in because the bible backed it up. That's good people doing evil actions because of religion. It blurs their sense of morality.

[BWS]

Well, one thing I will say is that the Bible says nothing of the sort. It doesnt teach hate; Im not sure how you got that. It may have went against their views, being religious, but their solution wasnt derived from the Bible.

About the quote, I should explain myself a bit more, but im lazy and so I wont. Its an existential topic and would require more typing than I feel like doing.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/6/03 02:09 AM, BWS wrote: Well, one thing I will say is that the Bible says nothing of the sort. It doesnt teach hate; Im not sure how you got that. It may have went against their views, being religious, but their solution wasnt derived from the Bible.

The bible doesn't teach hate? Just because they elaborated on methods of killing them doesn't mean that the order to kill didn't come from the bible. And some witches were stoned and not burnt. Same basic principle, and same scripturs quoted.

[Leviticus 20:27] A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

[Exodus 22:18] Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

So of course this must be teaching you to love witches, in Deuteronomy it calls them an abomination as well, which of course a word that oozes love.

[JMHX]

So basically, you'd be going to church with the intent of reaping a profit and not really allowing the Lord into you. Of course, you could always turn a profit by letting some priest into you. That only works if you're an underaged boy, though.

[BWS]

At 8/6/03 02:36 AM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/6/03 02:09 AM, BWS wrote:
[Leviticus 20:27] A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

[Exodus 22:18] Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

So of course this must be teaching you to love witches, in Deuteronomy it calls them an abomination as well, which of course a word that oozes love.

You are trying to back up your point with a misunderstood portion of the Bible. This pertains to the outcome of non-beleivers. Quotes and passages in the Bible are written in such a way that they will cpature issues without regard to time. You see, this quote is being taken litterally be you, and this proves a point of mine to be true. Going to church teaches the meaning behind the scriptures; your interpretation is wrong.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/6/03 08:56 PM, BWS wrote: You are trying to back up your point with a misunderstood portion of the Bible. This pertains to the outcome of non-beleivers. Quotes and passages in the Bible are written in such a way that they will cpature issues without regard to time. You see, this quote is being taken litterally be you, and this proves a point of mine to be true. Going to church teaches the meaning behind the scriptures; your interpretation is wrong.

Misunderstood portion of the bible? My interpretation is wrong? Do you think the author meant to say "stone them with stones" jokingly? Is murder a parable? If you read the book it gives the death penalty for numerous different "crimes". What makes you think that a book of law that states that the punishment for breaking the law is death is NOT literal? Why would you make the jump that the author didn't intend for his statements to be followed? In deciding if a verse is to interpreted literally, you must look at the intents of the author. The first five books of the bible are the Torah (the books of law), and as such are meant to be taken very literally. What would make you believe otherwise? If the church (who doesn't know any better than me, most priests are less learned on the subject than I am) interprets it as not being literal, then they are ignoring the intent of the author (which was to bring law to the people, not a joke, or a parable, LAW). So if they interpret it wrong, and then they brainwash people with the wrong interpretation, they are the ones being misleading and dishonest. Not me. Try again.

[BWS]

At 8/6/03 09:20 PM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/6/03 08:56 PM, BWS wrote:

If the church (who doesn't know any better than me, most priests are less learned on the subject than I am) interprets it as not being literal, then they are ignoring the intent of the author (which was to bring law to the people, not a joke, or a parable, LAW). So if they interpret it wrong, and then they brainwash people with the wrong interpretation, they are the ones being misleading and dishonest. Not me. Try again.

Read it within the context bro. Also, if you think you know more than priests about this subject, youre either lying or delusional; unless you have a Masters or Doctoral Degree of Theology, which I highly doubt. And by the way, this is why I dont like to debate this topic because people start throwing out smartass comments in addition to their reply.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/6/03 10:18 PM, BWS wrote: Read it within the context bro.

I am, the context those laws are in is one that includes a large list of crimes and punishments. They are meant to be literal. You read it within the context. I've read the bible front to back four times, and read mountains of material on the subject.

Also, if you think you know more than priests about this subject, youre either lying or delusional; unless you have a Masters or Doctoral Degree of Theology, which I highly doubt.

So you're saying that without someone to dictate to me I can't learn anything? You can't learn anything on your own? You have to be spoonfed? Did it ever occur to you that I have access to the same materials and resources as they do? I can read for myself thank you, I don't need to be babied and led in my research. I've been studying the subject for over 17 years, that's longer than most theologists ever go to school for it. I mean I guess Bill Gates doesn't know anything about computers since he dropped out of college right? Stop being so trained by society.

And by the way, this is why I dont like to debate this topic because people start throwing out smartass comments in addition to their reply.

Too bad, more to come. Stop belittling me by pretending I'm ignorant and making base assumptions, then maybe you won't get the side comments.

[BWS]

At 8/6/03 10:41 PM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/6/03 10:18 PM, BWS wrote: Read it within the context bro.

I am, the context those laws are in is one that includes a large list of crimes and punishments. They are meant to be literal. You read it within the context. I've read the bible front to back four times, and read mountains of material on the subject.

Good for you, but just because youve read it doesnt automatically mean that all your interpretations are correct. Also, it isnt all literal; ex: Leviticus 20:9 (does that mean that if I swear at my dad I will have blood on me?).

Also, if you think you know more than priests about this subject, youre either lying or delusional; unless you have a Masters or Doctoral Degree of Theology, which I highly doubt.

So you're saying that without someone to dictate to me I can't learn anything? You can't learn anything on your own? You have to be spoonfed? Did it ever occur to you that I have access to the same materials and resources as they do? I can read for myself thank you, I don't need to be babied and led in my research. I've been studying the subject for over 17 years, that's longer than most theologists ever go to school for it. I mean I guess Bill Gates doesn't know anything about computers since he dropped out of college right? Stop being so trained by society.

First of all, dont come at me with shit like this. Of course you can read and understand things on your own; youre supposed to, so you dont get an award for it. I really dont care what youve read; I still think that my point is right given that the VAST majority of churchs teach something that is in conflict with your views. Im sure youll come back with another "spoonfed" remark for this in your defense, but really, think about that for a sec. If you dont like their views, fine.
Also, dont even try and compare a formal education to being "spoonfed".

And by the way, this is why I dont like to debate this topic because people start throwing out smartass comments in addition to their reply.

Too bad, more to come. Stop belittling me by pretending I'm ignorant and making base assumptions, then maybe you won't get the side comments.

Im not belittling you, and I never said you were ignorant, so dont assume that I feel this way; youre the one getting upset and immature about the issue (All I said was that your interprtation is wrong). I dont appriciate your smart remarks, and if you want to have a civilized debate then I will too, otherwise its not worth it in my opinion.
By the way, I dont claim to have all the answers on this subject. Also, dont assume that Im just some ignorant kid, because im not ( I think that I may be right by telling you not to assume that because it seems that you might be getting that impression due to the way youve choose to respond).

[Magna]

At 8/5/03 09:39 PM, RoyBatty wrote:
*rolls eyes* Hitler was a Christian. And the Catholic church sponsored him, and most considered him to be the Holy Roman Emperor of his time period. The only real beef with him is his strong support of Luther.

I apologize for not reading every post. I'd like to comment and put my own two cents in.

I read most of a book called 'Hitlers Pope', its a very interesting story about Hitler, the Holocaust and Hitlers relationship with the catholic church.

Its very facinating and i suggest you check it out (its not written by a Jehovah's Witness, if you wondered).

Also, being payed to go to church is a great incentive, but... i think it's a gimick. Its like a religous publicity stunt. Some people will start complaining that they didn't get paid as much as someone else or some crap... or, they just won't pay attention to the sermon and fall asleep or some shit...

its a stunt.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/7/03 12:24 AM, BWS wrote: Good for you, but just because youve read it doesnt automatically mean that all your interpretations are correct. Also, it isnt all literal; ex: Leviticus 20:9 (does that mean that if I swear at my dad I will have blood on me?).

There is a big difference between the term "literal interpretation" and you not understanding what phrases mean. Oh wait I said mean, I must be implying you are not very nice to me! And if you lived in those time periods, yes your blood would be upon you literally. This phrase always follows a command of death, and the blood (basically like the phrase being caught red handed, the blood is on your own hands essentially) is upon you. Basically this equates the guilt with the blood, although the blood is generally literally there, there is symbolism behind that blood. This is of course something anyone who knows anything about Old English would understand. Or anyone who can bother reading the numerous of "in context" references to the same phrase that explain it further (especially by the author of Leviticus, reputedly Moses).

[Leviticus 20:11] And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Leviticus 20:12] And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

[Leviticus 20:13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Leviticus 20:16] And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Leviticus 20:27] A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

[Leviticus 20:9] For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

[Ezekiel 18:13] Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

So you see you don't need anyone to translate scripture for you, you just need to follow through on your reading and read the entire context. And preferably read entire books instead of jumping around.

First of all, dont come at me with shit like this. Of course you can read and understand things on your own; youre supposed to, so you dont get an award for it.

Then why does it take school to make one an expert?

I really dont care what youve read; I still think that my point is right given that the VAST majority of churchs teach something that is in conflict with your views.

Because if they did teach my views, or even the scriptures I talk about, they would never be able to pull people into the faith. And they would lose any members of their church to logic and reason. Coming from me (a non clergyman), a lot of Christians have gotten enough out of those scriptures to rethink their faith, coming from a clergyman, there would be no excuses for holding onto it.

Im sure youll come back with another "spoonfed" remark for this in your defense, but really, think about that for a sec. If you dont like their views, fine.

I don't.

Also, dont even try and compare a formal education to being "spoonfed".

Why not? Don't pretend that because my education isn't "formal" I don't know what I'm talking about. Do you think it's possible that after spending all that money and time on college, most people who do go into bible studies as Christians are far too biased to think clearly? After being in an environment surrounded by people who hold onto their faith stubbornly, do you think it's easy to pull away from it just because you found some problems? They make excuses so they can reassure themselves that their lives aren't wasted, that doesn't make them more credible or give them a more unbiased (and thus scholarly) perspective.

Im not belittling you, and I never said you were ignorant, so dont assume that I feel this way; youre the one getting upset and immature about the issue (All I said was that your interprtation is wrong).

There are two ways to come up with an incorrect interpretation (not that you are really in a position to judge my interpretation as wrong anyway): ignorance to the facts, or malice. So either you are accusing me of being ignorant or malicious. I'm neither. Hence why I detest being treated like I am.

I dont appriciate your smart remarks, and if you want to have a civilized debate then I will too, otherwise its not worth it in my opinion.

You don't find it condescending of you to flat out declare that my interpretation is wrong and that everything I know about the bible from years of research is wrong based on your vast experience in this field? Wouldn't you get a little defensive if someone made claims that "there is nothing like that in the bible" when you know there is? And then when you give them the evidence, they claim you don't know what you are talking about, or don't know how to read it, or whatever bs excuses you will make to avoid admitting that I proved my point.

By the way, I dont claim to have all the answers on this subject. Also, dont assume that Im just some ignorant kid, because im not ( I think that I may be right by telling you not to assume that because it seems that you might be getting that impression due to the way youve choose to respond).

I get the impression that you are ignorant (not a kid, I don't judge anyone based on age) based on your claims that things are not there when they are (as I quoted), and your claims that my interpretation is wrong (when it's not and even if it was, you aren't a bible scholar and are admittedly ignorant on the field and in no position to declare my interpretation as inaccurate).

[RoyBatty]

At 8/7/03 12:46 AM, Magna wrote: I read most of a book called 'Hitlers Pope', its a very interesting story about Hitler, the Holocaust and Hitlers relationship with the catholic church.

I started reading it awhile ago, I haven't finished it yet, but I'll get to it. I've read numerous other books on Hitler, the time period, and Hitler's relationship with various churches. (Especially on Hitler's religious views, like the writings of Chamberlain)

Its very facinating and i suggest you check it out (its not written by a Jehovah's Witness, if you wondered).

I know it's written by John Cornwell, a Catholic.

[BWS]

Ill get back with ya tommorow because I only have a minute. One thing though: Im ignorant huh? I won an All American Scholar Award.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/7/03 02:36 AM, BWS wrote: Ill get back with ya tommorow because I only have a minute. One thing though: Im ignorant huh? I won an All American Scholar Award.

Was it an American Scholar Award for religious study? Ignorance is a topic by topic basis, and everyone is ignorant in some field, you are ignorant in this one. I (who has taken years and years of study to learn about it) am not.