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

Originally Posted by fluffballs

Do I believe homosexuality is wrong? Yes, it is written in the Bible.

::edit::

And I agree, anyone who takes the Bible word for word has their eyes closed to the world around them.

really.....?

Originally Posted by Karl Stall

If there was really a God then I think that more people would spell definitely correctly

I never claimed to be perfect, that's umposssable.

Originally Posted by adam

Way to avoid my question asshole.

Adam, my bad, I'm not trying to write you off. I think blurred pretty much nailed it though. It's a moral issue, if you don't believe that there is morality then I have no argument for you. Not exactly sure how to appeal to you, since I've got limit knowledge about you. For the moment lets just call anything that isn't a moral action sin, religion aside. Consential homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone right? So it doesn't exactly fit the argument, is murder wrong, is stealing wrong? So in my moral thinking lust is a sin, it is not a moral action. But do those thoughts in my head actually hurt anyone, they're mine right, no harm, no foul right? I still believe it is a sin. So yes, I believe that homosexual actions are a sin. That doesn't mean I am any better than people how partake in that, I have my own sins, and all sins are equal. Everybody has their own challenges and vices, that doesn't make them any less of a person. Christ hung out with some of the most hated people in society, why, because He loved them and could look past their wicked ways.

That argument may not make any sense to you, and I'm sorry. But it's hard to argue something to you that has it's foundation in something you find to be completely false.

I know that the above statement holds for most of this thread. I'm not bullheaded enough to believe that my philosphical arguments and appeals to the heart are so compelling that they are going to have a real effect on you all. If I want to share God's love with you it's going to be most effective in person and through my actions, and maybe a few words . My motivation for starting the thread was simply to give a christian perspective on Jamie Pierre's ministry, showing that many of us think he's nuts and his methods put us off as well. I was also hoping to hear what you guys think of his actions, and to get more intelligent responses than just " that crazy Christian and his preaching."

But since we've gotten into theology and philosophy and I've made all of you wade through 5 pages of my beliefs and reasonings.....What do you guys believe? Where did the world come from, where did we come from, how do you explain conscious thoughts, emotions, morals, and suffering etc? and most importantly, why?

Several of you have already done this, but maybe elaborate a little more.

Originally Posted by fluffballs

I'll go back to philosophy, which is not my strong point, but for good to exist doesn't evil have to exist? How can you know pleasure without experiencing pain? If we can choose to love God, to 'do right' then don't we also have to have the option of rejecting God and 'doing evil'?

So you're saying God killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in the tsumani to "allow for the pure joy and love that we are able to experience daily." Yep, you've gotta "experience pain" to "know pleasure."

Originally Posted by fluffballs

Altagirl, mature questions/arguments are not going to offend me, a Christian who doesn't question their faith is misguided.
You've hit the most difficult topic of my faith to deal with and to defend. I struggle greatly with what will happen to those who were never given a chance to hear God's message. The famous verse is John 14: 6 Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I can't pick an choose my scripture, and that one is pretty clear that those who do not accept Jesus as their savior are out of luck. So what does this mean in my life. I must do my best to spread the word of God and to show His love, making my best effort to give people a chance to know Him. I don't know what's going to happen, and I must live my life according to the scriptures. I cannot know God's reasons or ways, but it is hard for me to believe that some flat out don't get a chance. There is some hope, 1 John 2:29 "If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of Him." I could interpret that to mean something nice and fuzzy, but I will hold to the fundamental belief that you must give your life to Christ to be saved. I'm sorry that there isn't a better explaination, I wish there was, I wish it were easy. We can't know God's plan or motives, but in every way He is proven to be just and loving.

Typically weak, all-encompassing christian answer to questions that make christians uncomfortable--"we can't know god's plan." Just another way of saying, as altagirl's religious family members did, "that's just the way it is" or "life's unfair." That's why it is impossible to have an honest debate with many die hard christians--they can always trump your argument with the "I cannot know god's reason's or ways" BS. But of course they know god's "reasons and ways" as far as who's allowed into heaven. what a farce.

Originally Posted by fluffballs

We can't know God's plan or motives, but in every way He is proven to be just and loving.

It's absurd statements like this that make me believe that some religious people are more than a little insane. Gimme a frickin break! "in every way" my ass.

Originally Posted by uncle crud

But somehow there remained the nagging notion that what Christians and other deists ascribe to "God" or "Allah" or "Yahweh" or whatever is simply a composite of the best human traits -- love, kindness, thoughtfulness, justice, fairness, peace, respect. Therefore the deity and his teachings are a shorthand to the smarter, or a simple formula to the less clever. This disturbs me as it interposes Man in a way that I think any supreme omniscient deity would not possibly want. So Christianity and I went our separate ways.

I've always wondered why christianity (particularly, the old testament, so I guess this statement goes to Judaism as well) ascribe jealousy, conceit and other 'bad' human traits to god (like commandments 1 through 3). I've always thought that an omniscient being would not really care whether you worshipped him or not - or at least would not care where you spent your sundays, as long as you truly appreciated him (or her) and all that he has done. Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize my desire to be out on sundays enjoying the amazing world that god created instead of inside a building made by a man butchering the harmony of a song that the hymnal says god will appreciate.

Also, someone mentioned earlier how Jesus said that the guys praying out in public were getting their reward by having everyone think they are religious, while the guy who prays sincerely and in private was the one who was really pleasing god. I have long remembered this lesson from sunday school and it always comes to mind when I think of evangelical types, or anyone else who is always talking about their religion. Maybe they are all 100% sincere, but even if they really do all harbor a sincere love of god, I cannot help but think that they are not motivated at least in some part by a desire to have other people say "wow, what a pious guy."

Originally Posted by rideit

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!
Why would god, as the 'creator', get off the hook...

In all things, there is reponsibility. Including god's fuck ups.

Because that responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of Adam and all the descendants in his bloodline. This is not a western concept so it is sometimes very difficult for us to wrap our western brains around it. Adam received the curse for his actions, therefore all of his descendants suffer under it.

Another example of this, which can be found in the Christian bible as well as the Torah, is the sons of Noah. Noah cursed one of his sons and the curse was for his descendants to forever be slaves to the descendants of his two brothers.

The concept doesn't fit too well with western values, so it is conveniently ignored much of the time. but it is a well established concept that can explain how the world can exist as it does and still have been created by a loving and just God.

Originally Posted by Dside11-11

11th Commandment: Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

I thought the 11th commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Flash Thy Beaver."





Maybe I was thinking of something else...

Originally Posted by skiski

Also, someone mentioned earlier how Jesus said that the guys praying out in public were getting their reward by having everyone think they are religious, while the guy who prays sincerely and in private was the one who was really pleasing god. I have long remembered this lesson from sunday school and it always comes to mind when I think of evangelical types, or anyone else who is always talking about their religion. Maybe they are all 100% sincere, but even if they really do all harbor a sincere love of god, I cannot help but think that they are not motivated at least in some part by a desire to have other people say "wow, what a pious guy."

That was a good question. I think the quick answer that will probably pop up here would be that whether or not it makes sense to do it, Christ said "go and make disciples of all men".

On a separate note. I have a mormon friend that I recently asked if it was hard to do the 2 year mission required by the church. His response was that it was good for him to really have 2 years where "junk" was filtered from his life and it really taught him discipline. I'm not mormon but just like with military, I'm a little jealous of the self-discipline that brings through those years.

Sorry to sidetrack, but the evangelizing comment from Skiski made me think of that.

MeatPuppet,

I understand that angle, but it still makes no sense. The only one who should be paying for Adam's transgressions is Adam. Not those of us who come hundreds of generations later.

The angle you describe is the one that assumes all humans are full of sin and prone to badness and need God's grace to achieve goodness, and that the only way to get God's grace is to do what some human who calls him or herself an authority on God's word tells us we should do.

The Bible doesn't say what you say it says. Rather, some "expert" has interpreted it that way.

And there, again, lies the problem that rideit stated so well a ways up this thread -- if there is a God and he has a divine scriptural formula for us to follow, then we should be able to follow it without reference to man-made text or man-made interpretation of that man-made text. Either way you layer in at least one level of problematic and generally wrong interpretation.

It all seems a tail-chasing dog to me.

)))))))))) ??? (((((((((((

Magnoe, I think your prediction will be upheld, but it still doesn't really answer the question to my satisfaction. A fair and plausible interpretation of the command to be "fishers of men" is one that is read consistently with what skiski stated (and you quoted) -- to lead by example, not by proselytizing, not by public displays of stated piousness, not by proclamation that one has "the way" and that others must follow that one or lose "the way" eternally.

Blurred Elevens had it best when posting that the problem is man being interposed between God and the hearer of God's message. If I were a deist that's the road I'd follow.

^^^^^^^ Is that you, Gonzostrike??

Anyone here read "Religion and the Plurality of Faith" by R. Audi?

Originally Posted by Magnoe

Is that you, Gonzostrike??

Uh oh...things must be slow in Montana today!

Originally Posted by rideit

Uh oh...things must be slow in Montana today!

You got that right.

Magnoe, what is a "gonzostrike"?

Originally Posted by skiski

Also, someone mentioned earlier how Jesus said that the guys praying out in public were getting their reward by having everyone think they are religious, while the guy who prays sincerely and in private was the one who was really pleasing god. I have long remembered this lesson from sunday school and it always comes to mind when I think of evangelical types, or anyone else who is always talking about their religion. Maybe they are all 100% sincere, but even if they really do all harbor a sincere love of god, I cannot help but think that they are not motivated at least in some part by a desire to have other people say "wow, what a pious guy."

Hopefully that's not how I've come across. Maybe its because I'm a Christian but I tend to see that verse as other believers showing off to other believers. But I'm with you that overpowering evangelism is negative. If someone doesn't want to hear it, you cannot force it upon them. But if someone truly believes the Bible, can you blame them for feeling compelled to share it?

Originally Posted by fluffballs

If someone doesn't want to hear it, you cannot force it upon them. But if someone truly believes the Bible, can you blame them for feeling compelled to share it?

There is a group in London (and Rome) than truly believe in group masturbation..(I am not making this up) can you blame them for feeling compelled to host very large, public masturbation group sessions?

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

The concept doesn't fit too well with western values, so it is conveniently ignored much of the time. but it is a well established concept that can explain how the world can exist as it does and still have been created by a loving and just God.

Kind, loving, punitive, and hard assed.

Originally Posted by uncle crud

I understand that angle, but it still makes no sense. The only one who should be paying for Adam's transgressions is Adam...

...According to Western values. These are not the values of the culture that existed in the Middle East when the Old Testament was written. "The sins of the father are passed on to the son." There are multiple examples of this happening in the OT. Whole families being executed for sins the father committed. The fallout of the battle of Ai comes to mind.

Here in the West we have recreated God in our own image, to reflect our cultural values. All this talk of love and kindness and forgiveness is very different from the God of the OT. That God was a jealous vengeful God that cared, not so much about the individual, but about the people as a whole, and if individuals(or whole families) had to be sacrificed to teach a lesson, then so be it. All this touchy feely stuff is a modern incarnation.

The angle you describe is the one that assumes all humans are full of sin and prone to badness and need God's grace to achieve goodness, and that the only way to get God's grace is to do what some human who calls him or herself an authority on God's word tells us we should do.

You are right, according to scripture we are all flawed. But what is the evidence of that flaw? Is it behavioral? Or is it more subtle? Those who would attempt to use religion to control you would tell you that it is indeed behavioral. Others would say that behavior is irrelevant and it is the condition of our soul that matters, and that that is something that only you and God can know. So choose your poison. As always, you will have the results of your choices.

The Bible doesn't say what you say it says. Rather, some "expert" has interpreted it that way.

Short of a direct encounter with God himself, your argument could be used to discredit all religions. If you choose not to believe, that is your choice. It is incumbent on the individual to recognize "Truth" when he encounters it. That is where faith comes from. If you have no faith, religion is dead to you.

And there, again, lies the problem that rideit stated so well a ways up this thread -- if there is a God and he has a divine scriptural formula for us to follow, then we should be able to follow it without reference to man-made text or man-made interpretation of that man-made text. Either way you layer in at least one level of problematic and generally wrong interpretation.

See my last comment.

Originally Posted by uncle crud

You got that right.

Magnoe, what is a "gonzostrike"?

Uncle Crud,

It is name of a bike you used to own (an airborne lucky strike). And then you also fancied to call yourself Gonzo short for "speedy gonzales". Therefore, I argue Uncle Crud is the artist formerly known as Gonzostrike.

Case closed.

Just one thing:
True Believers - of whatever stripe - are not insane. They are not nuts. They are not wackjobs.

They truly, sincerely, completely and deeply believe in some absurdly false propositions. As a result, millions and millions of perfectly sane individuals support and commit crimes of colossal insanity and depravity.

Stop it.

Dang, Magnoe, you have a good recall.

Gold star for robot boy!

Had you got the whole thing correct, I'd have given 5 Gold Stars.

But you got one thing wrong -- the bike itself was called "speedy gonzales," and the name was given by an old girlfriend. I've never been all that speedy on a bike. I'd be more like "winter molasses potato-head" if I were to name myself based on my own riding speed.

++++++++++++++++++++

MeatPuppet,

Can you tell me the origin of these nebulous "eastern values" that say every filial generation must pay for the transgressions of the original sire?

Originally Posted by RootSkier

Kind, loving, punitive, and hard assed.

Yeah, mostly hardassed. But occasionally loving and kind if you find the way to his heart.

It's very much a model of the idealized Bedouin Patriarch...funny how that happens.

Originally Posted by uncle crud

MeatPuppet,

Can you tell me the origin of these nebulous "eastern values" that say every filial generation must pay for the transgressions of the original sire?

It's not "eastern values", it's values specific to the culture that was the source of the Christian bible, which was decidedly non-western. That concept is the foundation of Christianity, as well as much of Judaism. We(the children of Adam) are inherently flawed(because of the sin of Adam) and only a perfect sacrifice(the Christ) will cover our sins.

If you read the Old Testament, you will find that concept throughout. It's beyond the scope of this forum(and medium) to make a case for it here with specific examples.

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

Just one thing:
True Believers - of whatever stripe - are not insane. They are not nuts. They are not wackjobs.

They truly, sincerely, completely and deeply believe in some absurdly false propositions. As a result, millions and millions of perfectly sane individuals support and commit crimes of colossal insanity and depravity.

Stop it.

Knock me over with a feather, I agree with something Dave wrote.

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

It's not "eastern values", it's values specific to the culture that was the source of the Christian bible, which was decidedly non-western. That concept is the foundation of Christianity, as well as much of Judaism. We(the children of Adam) are inherently flawed(because of the sin of Adam) and only a perfect sacrifice(the Christ) will cover our sins.

If you read the Old Testament, you will find that concept throughout. It's beyond the scope of this forum(and medium) to make a case for it here with specific examples.

You haven't answered my question, you've restated the premise that is at issue. I am not disputing the premise's accuracy. I'm asking you to explain the source of the idea that all filial generations must suffer for the transgressions of the original sire.

Can you do that? Honestly, it's not beyond the scope of anything except perhaps your ability to answer the question. And if that is the scope exceeded, then so be it... but please answer as much.

ADDENDUM: If you're just sarcastically mocking the traditional Christian position by saying that we cannot know the mysteries of God's will, then I appreciate the subtle humor there.

I don't want to break up what you guys are talking about, I like it. But Uncle Crud, what is it that you believe? Not to challenge, but simply out of interest, what do you believe to be true?

Fluffballs -- 2 answers.

First you asked what college I went to. That'd be Wheeling College in beautiful Wheeling Western-by-God-Virginia.

Second, I believe in the natural stupidity of humans, their tendency to overlook what's staring them in the face, their ability to phoque up anything good handed to them, their inability to appreciate long-term consequence of short-term perspective, and generally their ability to defy reason and misuse all intellectual and ethical and moral impulses in favor of what feels good at the present time.

Now a question for you: does your tagline about the houseboat & the river refer to Cormac McCarthy's novel Suttree or is that just a coincidence?