Thread: Jamie Pierre's Cliff Hucking Ministry - A Christian's Perspective

Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable

Just wanted to take this opportunity to say "I heart Christians" - real Christains though, not the new ones who equate gathering wealth with being good in god's eyes.
Real Christians are about love and caring for all, not about greed and punishing and limiting others.

Equating wealth with the idea that God looks favorably on you is by no means a new idea. The Puritans used this idea to develop their economic decisions, primarily at the end of the Reformation. They were searching for a way to spiritually define themselves outside of the confines of the Roman Catholic church. This fundamentally altered these people’s confidence in their salvation and their capacity to comfort themselves in the knowledge that God was looking upon them favorably. As a result, a medium was needed to provide an affirmation of their salvation. As the Christians of the time put a strong emphasis on the value of hard work, the natural progression of their confirmation in their faith was to be rewarded for their dedicated work ethic and their strong devotion to their religion. Therefore, they saw earthly rewards as a sign of approval from God. Consequently, Christians saw themselves to be required by their religion to pursue their particular occupation fervently. This led to a more passionate pursuit of economic gain. In the past, many sects had believed that questing for worldly wealth was in itself a sin and to avoided in exchange for humility and servitude. However, with this post-Reformation development in Christian thinking, the accumulation of wealth was not considered sinful.

In many of the stricter denominations, namely Calvinism, the use of this newfound wealth was severely limited. It was sinful to use this economic gain for the pursuit of pleasure, so it became necessary to seek alternate avenues of utilizing this wealth. Additionally, giving to the poor was not acceptable because, as logic would dictate, if the accumulation of wealth indicated divine approval, then the opposite would be true of those in need. This line of thinking ordered that poor people were in their predicament because of poor standing in the eyes of God, and were therefore unworthy of receiving gifts from those more “spiritual”. This financial quandary of where to reallocate acquired wealth was solved through the investment of the money.

Sorry for the lengthy response, but I am amazed that people think that the justification of accumulating wealth in the name of God is a new thing. It's been built into this religion for a long time, and continues to gain momentum as the avenues of making money through Christianity increase.

side note: for those that are actually interested in this topic, namely incredulous Christians, I recommend reading The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

Christianity is about loving all individuals-except homo sexuals.

i like fluffballs style, different angle on the whole belief system of christianity, in different i mean different than the mass media consumption of christianity. Its a tough crowd here, blind belief is a tough pill to swallow, no matter how sugar coated. Interesting with your BS background and noting science take on facts. Little bit of left and right brain then. Honestly, the bible is a little too "whisper down the lane" for me, and taking literal meaning of something that is translated that many times is just mindboggling.

Everyone is entitled to thier beliefs, but you are treading in dangerous waters on this board with this subject-matter. Most of us try to stick to the tride and true;

belief in Ullr


over the shoulder blower cold smoke


burning skis does in fact bring good luck
the fattest skis imaginable


100+ day seasons
500" sesonal accumulations



DIN 35 race stock binders (cranked all the way up of course)
helicopters and jet fuel ascents


spread the stoke
share the karma
down with the fartbags

refocus yourself on these items and your faith will be renewed. Live a long happy fullfilling life, go big, ski fast take chances, steer away from fat women.

Adam, do I have the wrong impression or are you intentionally trying to offend the Christian members of the forum?

If you love Jesus, technically, you would be a homosexual, according to Adam's logic.

No, what I meant was christians are all about love and what not, unless your gay, in which case you can't even have basic legal rights.

Originally Posted by fluffballs

Can you imagine life without those feelings, no love, hate, joy, comfort, anger, sadness? What would we be?

Spock.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by rideit

That is an arrogant human assumption, my friend. You have no way of proving or disproving that statement...it shouln not be involved here.

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

yeah maybe i can explain the idea that totalitarianism removes free will from society a bit better. I'm not refering to those who institute totalitarianism. I am talking about the victims. the victim's free will disappears. after a few generations, free will wouldn't even be an idea. cults are a good example. have you ever met someone in a cult? they have no free will at all. in fact some need to be 'deprogramed' in order to once again function (muchless demonstrate freewill) outside of the cult.

on the second point, i would say that yes there is a necessity for those emotions in our biology. all of those emotions cause actual changes in our physiology. lets take anger as an example. anger triggers the adrenal glands, enabling people to act with greater strength in the face of a perceived danger. love is much the same. love is also protective emotion. think about your children. if you didn't love them, then they would be SOL on developing the skills necessary to ensure their own life. if you didn't love them, you wouldn't protect them from outside threats. it would be difficult for our species to survive without these emotions.
Animals also demonstrate many of the same emotions. it would be difficult to say that a dog doesn't feel companionship, love, anger, embarassment, ect. As species, we develop these emotions to the degree necessary for our survival. a single cell organism doesn't need to feel emotion for survival, its threats aren't that complex. do animals demonstrate these pathways? they certainly could but they are different and we may not even recognize or have the ability to isolate them.
i'm playing a bit of devils advocate here but i find this exchange interesting.

-aaron

I'll start with animals, you are right, I do not personally have the capacity to prove or disprove this statement. Yet this is true of 95% of my argument so far, I never said it didn't require faith. I love animals, and I had a dog who was my best friend for 14 years. Animals absolutely have personalities, needs and desires. However, they simply do not posses the emotions that we do. How do I explain a dog knowing its owner and 'caring' for that owner? Basic instinct, who feeds the dog, who provides shelter, who scratches her, who entertains her? The owner, of course the animal desires to be with this person, out of need. This is why some dogs go through anxiety attacks when left at home, they don't know where their provider has gone. If you kill a dogs owner, the dog will go to the body, but when it figures out that the owner can no longer provide for her, she will move on. An animal will not dwell over the death of a 'loved one' as a human will, they will simply care for their own personal needs.


Your statements on free will still don't convience me. If you substittuted Freedom for free will above, then I would agree. You can oppress a person to no end, but they will still have the capacity to make choices if you grant them freedom. Sure they might be "institutionalized" as in The Shawshank Redemption, but they have the ability to make their own choices, though they may be skewed due to their past. Just because one man takes away another's freedom does not mean he strips that man of his will.

Originally Posted by adam

No, what I meant was christians are all about love and what not, unless your gay, in which case you can't even have basic legal rights.

Do I believe homosexuality is wrong? Yes, it is written in the Bible. But I also believe that lust is wrong, and I fall into that temptation daily. How then could I say that I am any better than a homosexual? I am not, we are equally sinful. Though I certainly believe that I should not be stripped of my legal rights because I fall short of the glory of God, and neither should a homosexual. In this way I believe that gay couples should be allowed to have the legal rights of marriage. I do however believe that marriage is a sacred communion between a man and a woman before God. In this way I cannot condone homosexual marriages, but I can also not deny homosexual couples their legal rights. I'm ok with legal unions, give people their rights.

Originally Posted by Crinkle

i like fluffballs style, different angle on the whole belief system of christianity, in different i mean different than the mass media consumption of christianity. Its a tough crowd here, blind belief is a tough pill to swallow, no matter how sugar coated. Interesting with your BS background and noting science take on facts. Little bit of left and right brain then. Honestly, the bible is a little too "whisper down the lane" for me, and taking literal meaning of something that is translated that many times is just mindboggling.

Thanks Crinkle, I appreciate that. And I agree, anyone who takes the Bible word for word has their eyes closed to the world around them. Much of the Bible is stories, yet all of these stories have a source, and a historical background. Job is the exception, scholars still debate whether or not a man named Job ever lived the life described in the Bible. With that said, there are many historical facts in the Bible, to deny that a man named Jesus walked this earth and created controversy in the Roman Empire around 2000 years ago is foolish. He may have been a liar, He may have been crazy, or He may just have been who He said He was, but He existed. Then I'd say look at His teachings, if you can find a flaw in them I will be amazed, preaching pure love is hard to argue with. So say He was a liar or crazy, and His disciples thought they would doctor His teachings to make them perfect, to make it all work. What did they have to gain? Fame and wealth, no sir, the early followers of Jesus were persecuted, murdered, tortured, cruxified, beheaded, outcast, and lost everything. And for what, a lie?

So you could compare theses sufferings for God with a terrorist strapping a bomb to themselves and sacrificing themselves in the name of their god. (I do not believe this is a truth in Islam). Couple of differences, the obvious, taking out innocent lives rather than simple being murdered for your beliefs. Secondly, these suicide bombers are years removed from Muhammad, rather than the disciples who knew an lived with Jesus. (Again, apologizes to Islam, it is a shame that it is associated with terrorism because of a few radicals). So if you knew Jesus was full of it, why then would you stick your own neck out on the line after He was dead and 'gone'? You could argue that the disciples were brainwashed like cult members, and were willing to do anything. But think about it, Jesus, their leader, is humiliated, crucified, dead and gone. Looks like the JC team lost this one, some Son of God, He couldnt even save Himself. But then Jesus rises from the dead, He comes back, He wins, He is victorious, He has triumphed over death. Turns out He wasn't crazy, everything the disciples had been taught was truth. They then went out to tell everybody the good news no matter what the cost, because they wanted to share God's love and salvation, and they know that no matter what pain they must endure on this earth, they will be with God in the end.

As far as gathering riches, definitely not a new idea. Matthew 19:23-24 "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Jesus isn's talking so much about living a humble life as He is demonstrating God's grace. At the time, a rich man was seen as the most righteous as he 'had obviously been blessed by God for his good works.' But Jesus is saying, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for this man that you all see as holy and right before the Lord to get into heaven on his own accord. The rich man in all his glory can never reach God. Instead it is by God's grace (Jesus' sacrifice) that this man may be in the presence of the Lord.

I'm not trying to preach, simply trying to dispell some rumors that surround Christianity.

P.S. Thanks for the picture stoke

Originally Posted by fluffballs

As far as gathering riches, definitely not a new idea. Matthew 19:23-24 "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Jesus isn's talking so much about living a humble life as He is demonstrating God's grace. At the time, a rich man was seen as the most righteous as he 'had obviously been blessed by God for his good works.' But Jesus is saying, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for this man that you all see as holy and right before the Lord to get into heaven on his own accord. The rich man in all his glory can never reach God. Instead it is by God's grace (Jesus' sacrifice) that this man may be in the presence of the Lord.



P.S. Thanks for the picture stoke

Don't discount the fact that early Christianity (and all religions, really) are sales pitches, fundamentally. There have always been more poor people than rich people, so declarations of this nature would naturally appeal to a broader base, and would be an 'inclusive' element for the poor...marketing 101.

Originally Posted by Core Shot

JP is pretty nutty.
But having seen his segment again just last night, I take his Jesus statements not to mean that God is protecting him, but that God gives him the strength and confidence in life and in death to take risks of life that others see as nutty. I recall his statements are more to the effect of witnessing for Jesus than showing that Jesus is protecting him.

That's what I recall from his footage from last year.

But the big problem is that he's not witnessing for anyone but Jamie Pierre.

See, there would have to be an actual Jesus Christ, Son of God, empowering and protecting Jamie Pierre in order for the "witnessing for Jesus" claim to be true.

Being a witness for Jesus Christ includes behaving in a way that reflects the principles set forth in the New Testament and ascribed to Jesus. It doesn't mean doing someting nutso and bragging that it happened because of Jesus.

))))))))))****((((((((((((((

To Fluffballs --

Why are you proselytizing? Do you think that it is your duty to do so?

I challenge your interpretation of the New Testament. You use it conveniently, in a manner that suits your view of what you think God and Jesus are about. In truth there is little difference among all the major deity-based religions and Christianity is no different from Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. Where they differ is in how humans tend to manipulate the basic lessons for their own ends -- be it charlatans like Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or John Ashcroft, or lame proselytizers who come into skiing discussion forums to try to convert the heathen.

Uncle Crud, I am no Christian, or a believer of any organized faith, but I do have to say that your statement was remarkably well put.

Originally Posted by rideit

Don't discount the fact that early Christianity (and all religions, really) are sales pitches, fundamentally. There have always been more poor people than rich people, so declarations of this nature would naturally appeal to a broader base, and would be an 'inclusive' element for the poor...marketing 101.

I'm with you on the sales pitch, there has to be an appeal. However, I think you misinterpretted what I wrote, but maybe not. The rich man should have the easiest time getting into heaven, he is seen as the most righteous by society. But Jesus is saying that even for that man getting into heaven is impossible. If it is impossible for the 'most righteous' citizen, how much harder than for the poor who society tells is 'less righteous'. This then creates the need for God, the need for His grace, otherwise we can never build ourselves up to His level. I suppose this is the great equalizer that both rich and poor can be saved if they except God's grace. So I see your point, the poor now have the same chance, but it is not the point of the verse, I just thought I'd reemphasize that.

thanks, rideit. the air's a bit smarter and a bit thicker with brainpower in here than over at mtbr.com in Forum 88. probably only a matter of time before "sandan" brings his fecally smeared power fist over here to give me an e-punch in the throat.

Hah...I only use F88 as an entertaining way to goad Frank Booth. Odd forum, that one.

Originally Posted by uncle crud

That's what I recall from his footage from last year.

But the big problem is that he's not witnessing for anyone but Jamie Pierre.

See, there would have to be an actual Jesus Christ, Son of God, empowering and protecting Jamie Pierre in order for the "witnessing for Jesus" claim to be true.

Being a witness for Jesus Christ includes behaving in a way that reflects the principles set forth in the New Testament and ascribed to Jesus. It doesn't mean doing someting nutso and bragging that it happened because of Jesus.

))))))))))****((((((((((((((

To Fluffballs --

Why are you proselytizing? Do you think that it is your duty to do so?

I challenge your interpretation of the New Testament. You use it conveniently, in a manner that suits your view of what you think God and Jesus are about. In truth there is little difference among all the major deity-based religions and Christianity is no different from Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. Where they differ is in how humans tend to manipulate the basic lessons for their own ends -- be it charlatans like Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or John Ashcroft, or lame proselytizers who come into skiing discussion forums to try to convert the heathen.

I agree with your first statement, it was what motivated me to start this thread. I had to look up proselytizing......Wasn't my intention to try to convert anyone, but people brought up questions and I'm doing my best to answer them. I do believe that Christians are called to spread the word of God, am I doing that here, I suppose, but I prefer to show God's love through my actions and discuss His grace in person.

I'm interested as to why you say I use the New Testament at my convenience. As a protestant I hold the Bible to be the word of God, it is what I base my faith and life off of. I do not believe it is to be manipulated and used as one pleases, you cannot simply take what you like and leave the rest. You either believe it all or nothing at all. If I have misquoted or misparaphrased any form of scripture please tell me and I will review and revise it immediately. I'm trying to portray the most widely held views of Christians today, sure we might disagree over trival matters, but hopefully I am presenting the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.

As far as all diety-based religions being the same. Yes they all preach love, and helping others. But I challenge you to look deeper at the theology. You cannot deny that the concept of Grace is only present in one.

Originally Posted by fluffballs

As a protestant I hold the Bible to be the word of God, it is what I base my faith and life off of. I do not believe it is to be manipulated and used as one pleases, you cannot simply take what you like and leave the rest. You either believe it all or nothing at all. .

methinks you really ought to bone up on your Milton and Calvin.

THOSE were some steezy protestants. Talk about a 250 foot cliff being brave, compared to what those boys did in the face of Catholicism, it is nothing.

Originally Posted by fluffballs

I certainly wouldn't assume that because you are a deist that you too must be sleeping with your slaves.

Now who's being naive?

Isn't that one of the principle right of a slave owner? Most of whom were protestant, coincidentally?

Funny how there were very, very few Jewish slave owners...simply can't imagine why. It would be mildly Ironic during the Seder, however. I guess they do have palestinian cleaning ladies...

Fluffballs, "grace" is present in all religions. The only difference is what the religion in question calls the notion that Christianity references as "God's grace."

I don't need to look any more deeply into Christianity. I examined it quite deeply over the course of the years 1999-2001 as an adult with a very open mind, and I also studied it much earlier than that, as a student at a Jesuit college, where we had to take 6 credits of theological studies. I'm fairly proficient at reading comprehension and have discussed the New Testament's statements with many Christians from all points on the spectrum of Christianity.

But I thank you for the invitation.

And I stand by how I characterized your view of the New Testament, at least within the confines of how you have referenced its text and its general lessons so far in this thread.

Paging Two Planker!!!

Originally Posted by rideit

Isn't that one of the principle right of a slave owner? Most of whom were protestant, coincidentally?

Funny how there were very, very few Jewish slave owners...simply can't imagine why. It would be mildly Ironic during the Seder, however. I guess they do have palestinian cleaning ladies...

Let my people go, DAMMIT!

Let my people COME!

Oh...whoops, I thought I was in 'the padded room'...my bad!

Originally Posted by fluffballs

I'm interested as to why you say I use the New Testament at my convenience. As a protestant I hold the Bible to be the word of God, it is what I base my faith and life off of. I do not believe it is to be manipulated and used as one pleases, you cannot simply take what you like and leave the rest. You either believe it all or nothing at all.

I'm only posting because I find it interesting that my ultra-conservative religious family members have said nearly that same statment word for word as an excuse to hate homosexuals, and even more broadly anyone who interprets anything differently than they do, including other Christians such as yourself who would allow homosexuals equal rights for marriage, etc.

FWIW - I think you make a lot of sense with the way you see things on this particular topic. I just find it interesting that other people reading and quoting the same scriptures come up with a totally different stance and use the same exact argument.

Regardless, good for you standing up for your beliefs and stimulating an at least mostly rational discussion. Which is the best we can ask for around here!

Originally Posted by uncle crud

Fluffballs, "grace" is present in all religions. The only difference is what the religion in question calls the notion that Christianity references as "God's grace."

I don't need to look any more deeply into Christianity. I examined it quite deeply over the course of the years 1999-2001 as an adult with a very open mind, and I also studied it much earlier than that, as a student at a Jesuit college, where we had to take 6 credits of theological studies. I'm fairly proficient at reading comprehension and have discussed the New Testament's statements with many Christians from all points on the spectrum of Christianity.

But I thank you for the invitation.

And I stand by how I characterized your view of the New Testament, at least within the confines of how you have referenced its text and its general lessons so far in this thread.

I figured you must have some experience with Christianity, where did you go to school?

Perhaps I'm closed minded, but to me the only grace is 'God's grace'. In what other religion does God come to the people for salvation. My understanding is that in every other religion the individual must work to get to God.

Just questions, as I don't claim to know it all. Where is grace in Hinduism? Isn't your cast determined by your actions in the previous life through Karma? You mess up, you pay the price, you do well, you advance (a very simplified overview). I don't see where forgiveness falls into that equation.

Judaism is essentially the same, uphold the law and you will go to Heaven. Of course the law was impossible to uphold, thus the need for a savior.

I don't want to pick at other religions, I have a lot respect for people of all faiths. For the most part we all hope to show God's love to one another. However, I do believe that there is only one way to the Father.

Regarding my manipulating of scripture, that's a big deal to me. If I have truly done it I want to be shown where and how to correct my mistake. I was trying to tread lightly, but my hope is that I didn't sugarcoat any of the basic principles to make Christianity sound more appealing.

987654321