Via: The Daily What
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Popular FAIL Videos
-
Recent Failures in Communications
Buncs on School of Fail: Professor Gaga… Ave Maria on Failbook: The Pre-Natal P… Kill0rBee on Failbook: The Pre-Natal P… Anonymmy on Failbook: The Pre-Natal P… Surly on Failbook: The Pre-Natal P… Pr. Shadoko on WIN!: Tasty Cake WIN MiG on Failbook: The Pre-Natal P… hurr on WIN!: Penalty WIN SpaceJockey79 on Dating Fails: That’s Rig… Xutuhulu on FAIL Nation: First Attempt at … 
Cheezburger Company Blog
U mad Pastor Shade?
Perfect example of why mainstream religion looks crazy to those who choose not to participate.
This is wholly unreasonable by ANY sane persons standards. Period.
This is holy unreasonable. Great job, bro!
This letter is GENIUS. From now on, when my undergrads start skipping class – Excommunication! Why have I never thought of this before? Oh – right. Because I’m not a fundamentalist fanatical lunatic.
Great… You completely live up to my expectations of the professors we have in “Higher Education”, completely illogical, and can’t rebut without utilizing some type of fallacy.
I’d skip your class too… or maybe just show up to expose your bias.
Please do! And I’m glad I’ve met someone’s expectations – that’s a rare treat for me!
WIN!
Betting Ryan was told that by an atheist once, and is just repeating it back to you.
+1
i like the part where the pastor states that he is handing the letter’s recipient over to “Satan and his kingdom of darkness”.
ah, Satan and his kingdom of darkness. yep, good times, good times.
What happens when people spend too much time not partaking in the fruits of “Satan’s” “kingdom of darkness”? Rules, regulations, and religion.
eace
It’s funny how not participating in one side of the religion automatically throws you into the other one by default.
Does that mean that if I do not follow satans rules I’m automatically thrown into heaven too?
What if you don’t believe in either of them, where do you end up then?
@Fnark: Maybe in both because you will be permanently handed from one to the other.
I hear they have cupcakes.
Maybe we could worship the cupcake.
YAY! cupcakes for the win!!
good to know Satan has a mailing address. Was wondering where to send my thanks for the great wealth and success he has granted me. A life of simplicity, my ass, Jesus!
Can we reschedule the handing over to Satan until next week? I’ve got some stuff to do on the weekend.
wait, if the pastor is handing over this person to the devil, doesn’t that mean he has known all along where he is as is in constant communication with him to hand off letter like this…..oh, oh crap, I’ve known it all along, the pastor is working with the devil, hide your souls
Wow! Looks like sarcasm smacked you pretty hard there. I’m surprised you didn’t feel it.
You just made my day.
Well seeing as Professors and any sort of real educator are there to EDUCATE (key word there) they are meant to help students better themselves and truly accomplish something, not to sit there and fill their students heads with fire and brimstone.
Or perhaps I am wasting my time here making a long winded statements that could be better summed up as “Learn what the word sarcasm means” Perhaps a professor could teach you
Fanatical yes! Fundamentalist, I don’t think so. What he is saying is unscriptural, he can’t take away anyone’s salvation.
Fundamentalists, in my experience, (and sadly), twist and torture “scriptual” precepts to fit their agendas to the point where any action on their part is sanctioned by God. The Bible becomes a sort of Rorschach test for ideology, and it can run off the rails pretty fast…
It’s not just fundamentalists. Moderates also do it. You just don’t notice when moderates do it because it’s more in line with your own beliefs. Like you said, it’s a Rorschach test for ideology.
You would think a reformed church adhering to Calvinist tradition would know that
“If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
that`s what the cited bible passage says. Among the many problems, they forgot that Jesus visited tax collectors and ate with them. The opposite of excommunication.
Jansenism.
The Bible passage is quoting Jesus. Those were Jesus’ instructions to his Apostles concerning the members of His Church. Just because Jesus visited and ate with tax collectors (or publicans as the King James versions states) to teach them and convert them does not mean he would allow those people – after having been baptized and taken upon themselves His name – to sin and neglect their baptismal covenants.
If the Church cannot compel this man to repentance, then he needs to be left to his own devices to return to Christ. The pastor is extreme in comitting this man to Satan, but he is following that passage as he understands it.
1 Timothy 1:20
among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Extreme? They’re following biblical pattern.
When the Bible is faithfully applied and taught, the secularists assume it is extreme. When the pastor fulfills his duty God says “Well, done!”
so I’m a secularist because I don’t judge the other people in my church and tell them they have to leave because they stopped coming to worship services? what did Jesus say to the pharisees in John 8? “Which one of you is without sin and will be the first to cast their stones?” then he says to the woman, “Who of these condemn you?” When she says no one, then he says “Neither do I.”
How are we the judge of human beings? Isn’t that the job of the Father?
Condemn in this context meaning “to put to death”. I must have missed the part where people were trying to execute in the OP.
Common Sense 2:13
“He who passes judgement upon others citing the words of someone else, shall be known as an ass!”
Common Sense 1:1
“He who makes fun of others on the internet without any logic, reason, or sources shall be forever known as an idiot.”
Common Sense 3:16
“Peaness”
For more minor sins, God says, “medium rare”!
Defusing tension by making Christians AND Athiests hungry,
You’re doing it right.
“When the pastor fulfills his duty God says ‘Well, done!’ ”
What does he say when you say something retarded?
I feel sorry for the confused pastor that thinks he has authority from God to be able to send someone away. He does not have authority to even say that someone is no longer a christian. He is a false prophet and fool. Jesus Christ was never paid to teach the gospel, neither were the prophets. Anyone that is paid to teach the gospel is not of God, and I am speaking from authority.
No, that is within his right. Just like anyone who votes or has voted for a pro-choice candidate in any election isn’t Christian
Amen.That is only Gods right.These people are nuts to think they have the right to do any of this.What would be crazier is someone believing them.
Amen David.
as far as i remember the only reason you can excomunicate someoe is serious heresy.
How is it unscriptural?
http://www.gotquestions.org/church-discipline.html
Lol, I am feeling a little superior right now because I totally know what ghoti is lol. Yum.
No one tell me I’m not the only one.
THANK YOU. You’re the only person who has ever commented on it or noticed it! And I thought I was being all clever….
You like GhotiStyx? What are you? A gay Ghoti?
Combining South Park and Literature! +1 Internets! That was awesome.
ever heard of a band called Ghoti? It is pronounced like fish.
Ghoti Hook? Ah, to be so young again!
Mmm, I think I’ll make myself a GhotiGhongur sandwich.
I actually just found myself wondering why someone would name themselves “A river of dead fish” hmmm, curious.
This is the first time in forever that I’ve read comments, or I’d probably have said something. I don’t get near enough ghoti since marrying someone who’s allergic.
I remember that too!
You’re not the only one.
Your comment intrigued me, so I looked it up. Thank you, Nicole and GhotiStyx, for expanding my horizons.
yeah, you go crack the whip on those little peons, you stuffed ass
The university looks down on engaging in anal play and sadomasachism with students. Can’t say I haven’t thought of it, though. I’ll take the suggestion under advisement!
Thanks, you’re pretty great yourself!
You caused quite an uproar, I couldn’t figure out how to post my thoughts on this thread so I’m just responding this way. Did they even finish reading your post I thought it was hilarious By the way. Good old Ryan, so full of passion but so misguided LOL. Maybee they will figure out what sarcasm is at some point as they think back on this post and go ” Oh, now I get it” =P
I C WHAT U DID THERE
Hum… no… as a Christian myself, I find this letter… disturbing.
According to what Jesus taught to us, we are not the ones who judge, the only judge is God Himself (yes, we do follow the civilian law).
This pastor is not a Christian… is a crazy fanatic using God to justify his crazyness.
Ditto. This is what people hate about Christianity. If all they’re seeing is this, how good a message is that?
The problem is, that there is just so much craziness just like this that it’s extremely difficult to see anything else. When the craziness outclasses, outnumbers, and outweighs the sane, tolerant, and, quite frankly, pleasant christians out there, that indicates a severe problem with the church as an institution, not with the core beliefs of a religion. I am whole-heartedly an athiest… that is to say that I am opposed to the belief of a supernatural deity, not that I am uncertain about it. But I am more opposed to the wretchedness that has become the christian church than I am to it’s followers. It’s like Gandhi said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
I wouldn’t say that the crazies outnumber the sane, it’s just that the sane mind their own business. The same can be said of extremists in any belief system or organization – they’re simply the ones who stand out.
WELL SAID! I have never heard anyone say it better!
I’ld rather say that the sane pave the way for the insane, by making it ‘taboo’ to critisize irrational belief in the talking snake, the magical garden and the jewish zombie.
Um, no thanks. Those are the core beliefs; if you don’t believe in those you’re not Christian.
In order to call others irrational, you must first BE rational.
Also, 50% of the US citizens believe LITERALLY in the talking snake, the magical garden, the big boat, the impossible flood, a young earth, a virgin birth,…
That’s pretty fanatical right there. So honestly, I really wouldn’t be so quick to state that the sane outnumber the crazies… At least in the US, the numbers prove otherwise. Not 100% of the US is christian, but 50% DOES believe in a literal genesis account. That makes up for the MAJORITY of christians being fanatical lunatics.
it would be illogical not to believe. E.g. the virgin birth, which is likely to be taken literally: negating it is means that whatever prevents it is superior to him. So, what would it be? it`s like saying a math teacher can`t count up to ten.
whether you believe that such being exists, is another matter.
That made no sense whatsoever.
So because you have an irrational belief in a super-being, all beliefs coming from that irrational premise suddenly becomes rational?
Asanine.
“a”: Exactly. Every nonsense argument made by Christians is “validated” by preexisting nonsense argument. The only semi-sensible argument Christians have made to me is that they have various manifestations of a “feeling” that support the Bible’s claims. If you want to live and die based on a feeling, go right ahead. Just don’t force your ideology on everyone. I.E. Prayer in schools and stamping “In God we Trust” on the currency of an ENTIRE nation. Oy… I’m with Gandhi, Christ was alright but these Christian’s are total nutters. I think the Bible has irreversibly f&*cked up Christianity beyond all recognition.
Trying to prove or disprove faith using logic seems a little pointless. There’s a reason we call it ‘faith’ after all.
How exactly does “In God We Trust” have anything to do with Christianity? Don’t all religions believe in a god?
No. Look into Shintoism, Buddhism, and various others. At any rate, only the Western religions really believe in a single, omnipotent God. Most others are pantheons, various semi-powerful deities.
oh c’mon, ,,In God we Trust”.when is the last time you noticed that on a bill?i mean intentionally observing that.no one cares about it.lets say i dont like the pyramid.who cares?its just there,and its not an observable difference
Virgin birth = Not in the bible. Tacked on later. Nothing turns you off religion like studying the key points of it.
It was actually prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus’ birth fulfills many prophecies, according to the Bible. Check out Isaiah 7:14 for a reference specifically to the Christ being born of a virgin.
Wait… so the Bible predicts it, and the Bible confirms it? Well that settles it, then. It’s not like there’s any way you could write a book that makes predictions at the beginning that come true in the end.
The Bible is actually a collection of books. Also, the Bible doesn’t “predict it” so much as one person in history told a prophecy and it was recorded. Then later the prophecy was cited and said to be fulfilled and then that was also recorded. This knowledge might help to alleviate your astonishment.
Or not studying, in your case.
But really, talking about or thinking about religion is not worth your time. You’re not into religion, so why get yourself worked up?
ROFL @ butthurt Minnesota. You’re not into logic and fact so why argue?
I’m pretty sure the crazy ones are just louder than the sane ones. I know a lot of Christians and most are not crazy, but most of them also don’t end up on the news for predicting the end of the world or protesting at soldier’s funerals. You don’t get much publicity for being a normal, sane christian.
Ichkanns-well said
Thanks
Just because you believe things more in line with the majority does not make it sane. Believing in fairies takes fewer leaps of faith than believing in an omnipotent God.
“Sane Christian” … haha … FAIL!
While I am not religious myself(Agnostic I guess, I just don’t pay it any thought), my entire family is Christian and I have never encountered anything like this. The crazy in society just get more media attention is all. All organizations have their outliers, the Christians I have known have been quite charitable and un-imposing about religious matters. To be honest a can’t say the same about some of the other Atheist I have known.
IMHO, putting words like “Christian” and “sane” into one sentence is a oxymoron. How could you possibly be considered sane when you believe there’s an invisible old white dude living in the sky and live your life according to a book written by people who didn’t even understand the mechanism of rain. INSANE.
Can’t tell if hyperbole,
or total seriousness.
I, myself, am an atheist, and see religion as silly as you do. The difference is that I can understand that perfectly sane, rational people can come to believe bizarre, even self-destructive things.
Uh, by definition, believing bizarre and self-destructive things makes you *irrational*. You know, that’s what rational/irrational means.
“Uh, by definition, believing bizarre and self-destructive things makes you *irrational*.”
Do you know what the words “rational” even mean?
It’s entirely rational to believe something bizarre (geocentrism, anyone?) because the bizarre nature of something is subjective.
And it’s entirely rational to be self destructive. Rationality (and, by extension, logic) only have to do with fulfilling premises to get to a conclusion. Hence, you can be self destructive and rational so long as your self destruction is your goal.
Bravo, I agree. Eight hundred years ago, being an atheist would have been perceived, in the Catholic stronghold of medieval Europe, as a deathwish and completely bizarre to society as a whole.
Congratulations. You just rendered the term “irrational” completely void of meaning.
Don’t see how, not so ScientificBob.
IMHO, you’re not as humble as you claim to be. I don’t think you understand the irony of your post… If a pastor can’t tell somebody what they believe, then how can you decide who’s sane or not? I’d also advise you to educate yourself about the idea of God before making an uninformed decision or an ignorant assumption.
If you’re still not convinced after hearing arguments for the existence of God, then at least learn to coexist with Christians (who are typically a lot more sane then you give them credit for.)
“If you’re still not convinced after hearing arguments for the existence of God,”
There are ZERO valid arguments for the existence of god, and I’ve read them all. I coexist with Christians just fine. That doesn’t mean that I have to tolerate their idiocies.
@Rhasta I know right?? Because the theory that the first living cell was derived from a random combination of protien molecules. The same combination that equates to something like a few trillion different possibilities. our 4 billion year history, at least 1 billion having living cells, is still generally agreed to have not been long enough to actually be true. A highly published scientist (forgot his name >.<) has even stated that it is more likely that a hyper-advanced alien species delivered a living cell to the planet and from that every living thing has developed. now which one sounds more logical?
Your protein argument is spurious and unfounded, and even the most oddball ‘it was aliens’ type scientists you can find to quote sound more logical than creationists. People like you make me doubt that humanity should be classed as intelligent life. Either give proper sources or gtfo.
@rasta:
you are really sweet, you know?
there are no valid arguments for god,
yet you read them all…
and the guy before didnt say anything about valid either…:)
so, jon. please tell me, do you have any that you think valid?
“There are ZERO valid arguments for the existence of god, and I’ve read them all.”
Nah. There are plenty of them. In fact, they’re so widely supported and disputed on logical and physical grounds that there isn’t — to be charitable — a clear winner on either side of the equation; either for or against a god.
To categorically assert that the arguments are invalid tends to show more that you’re narrow minded and dogmatic than logical and rational.
Good job
I really wouldn’t say that it’s “categorically”.
By defenition of the word “faith”, ALL arguments for god will be wordplays and philosophical gibber-gabber.
Even IF you could construct a logical argument that isn’t infested with logical fallacies, you still will have proven NOTHING at all besides your ability to construct an internally consistent argument.
But the truth of the matter is that all of those arguments I’ve ever been exposed to were infested with logical fallacies. Every single one of them.
Ah. Now you’ve redefined something. “Faith” is “gibber-gabber”.
Thanks. I used to believe in the dictionary definition, but because your name is ScientificBob I will believe you.
There may be no valid arguments justifying the existence of G-d, but just remember there aren’t any valid arguments justifying the non-existence of G-d either.
Also the only person’s idiocies you should not be tolerating are your own. The world is full of idiots, if your IQ is in the top 10 percentile then 90% of the world is stupid and there’s nothing you can do about it except accept it. But you can control your own idiocies, live and let live and all that junk.
“There may be no valid arguments justifying the existence of G-d, but just remember there aren’t any valid arguments justifying the non-existence of G-d either”
How’s that different from ANYTHING your imagination can come up with?
See, this is why the burden of proof is on the side of the proposer of the positive claim.
The quote Hitchins: what is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence.
For example, your assertion that there is no God. This is a philosophical debate/conversation/mess. The burden of proof lies with your position.
and by ‘your’ I mean each participating individual in the mess.
The negative claim is a positive claim.
To say, “There is coffee on my desk” is to make a positive claim that requires proof.
To say, “There is no coffee on my desk” asserts something just the same in the negative of the previous, this still requires the proof of it’s non-existence.
The second statement is impossible to prove. I can only show you the empty desk and evidence for the absence of coffee, but if you maintain that the coffee is invisible and intangible you can always resist seeing the obvious.
If your logic is that God exists because no can prove he doesn’t, then you by extension must believe in everyone else’s god claim.
You can’t prove the non-existence of Thor, Zeus, Mithra, Ra, Ishtar, Marduk, Vishnu, or thousands of other gods that have been worshiped over the history of mankind. You can’t disprove the existence of fairies, Santa Claus or leprechauns either, so I assume you believe in all of them. Let’s not forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his Noodly Appendage.)
There are literally an infinite number of things you could imagine and claim are real. Without evidence to support the claim of existence, there is no reason to believe any of them.
I no longer believe in a god because there is no evidence that substantiates the existence of one. If you think you’ve got some, feel free to present it.
Likewise, you could cheerfully assert that the steaming mug of coffee atop the desk is an illusion.
“The quote Hitchins: what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Just like that claim… which is asserted without evidence.
Does Hitches believe this when it comes to the origins of life?
The origins of life for which we have compelling evidence? Or the origins where a magic man made everything?
Okay – C-V, this doesn’t make sense. Not in the way Bob-0 here thinks, but simply because you can’t prove the non-existence of anything. All you can say is that the existence of the thing is not proven. So you can’t base any argument upon someone else not being able to prove the existence of something.
Bobby, of course, would know this if he were, in fact “Scientific”, as his name implies. But that just goes to show you that you can’t believe everything you read.
You are an idiot, sorry.
The burden of proof is with the POSITIVE claim. In this case, the claim of EXISTANCE.
“god does NOT exist” is not a POSITIVE claim, retard.
“Jon”: Christian’s are more sane than we give them credit for? So then you’re admitting they are insane to a measurable level?
I think there’s plenty of evidence that most, if not all, humans are insane to a measurable level. Just look at the news.
True, but what about the people who aren’t newscasters?
Don’t mock my beliefs! Anyway, you’ve got it all wrong. I’m a Christian and I just believe that the author of the universe loves me so much he came to Earth in (one of?) the biggest works of self-insertion ever, and wants me to be kind to all the other characters. And when I die I will still be canon.
Trolol
Saying “there is absolutely a God” is just as intolerant and ignorant as saying “there is absolutely no God”. Both ideologies are shoved down the opposers throats of conflicting fundamental beliefs, when neither have a justified ground of doing so.
Also for all of you trying to justify Faith with Logic, you can’t. Hence why they are separate words. If you cannot go beyond the intangible, you only limit yourself from the improbable. This ideology has limited science in itself.
By the way, enforcing stereotypes doesn’t make you sound witty, it does exactly the opposite.
As a Christian, you should understand that God is judge over everything, but within the universal church, Christians are called to keep each other accountable (‘judging’). But, Christ tells us ‘Judge lest you be judged in the same way’ which contextually means to avoid condemnation, but to judge rightly with the aim to bring the person in the wrong to correction. As Christians, we’re only prohibited from judging non-christians (though the church today does a great job of screwing that up!).
Also, it’s ‘craziness’ not ‘crazyness.’ lol
Technically, don’t all judgmental people feel they are judging rightly, and that the other party is in the wrong?
I kinda get what you’re saying, but I don’t believe we’re using ‘judgment’ in the same way. I get the subjective judgment you’re referring to, but that is based on subjective views of right and wrong.
Biblical judgment would be objective, in that it points to the Bible’s idea of morality, and would lead those in the faith to compare the actions of others and self to it. Therefore, anyone could judge anyone else for not adhering to morality presented in the Bible.
I believe what you’re saying would make sense toward some Athiest/Agnostic notion of morality or judgment, in that, there isn’t sufficient evidence for objective morality, thus there can’t be judgment toward someone else based on your own idea of it.
Hold the horses…
…”Therefore, anyone could judge anyone else for not adhering to morality presented in the Bible”… So you have the right to judge others?
yes. or does basic comprehension escape you?
I think you missed his last paragraph.
Anyway, speaking of morality, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWg5P0zj5o
If someone else within the Christian body exhibits clearly immoral conduct, yes I could judge them. As could anyone else within the church do so to me. My apologies, I didn’t make that clear in my comment.
Thank you for the reply, it was an interesting read.
I suppose your interpretation of my comment is pretty close; the only thing I tend to get hung up on is that if someone is even in a system of objective judgement, it is still being interpreted by someone else as to whether a person is “adhering to morality presented in the Bible”, and would thus, feel themselves to be judging rightly.
Of course, this is getting into semantics, but I find the exercise interesting nonetheless.
Ahh, that’s makes more sense. That’s where proper hermeneutics is vital. Which, is depressingly rare in the modern church, given a largely Bible-illiterate American church who, when they do study, do so mostly through eisegesis reading.
You’re wrong.
Then by the writer declaring the receipient of the letter a non-Christian, they are in violation of the prohibition of judging non-Christians.
Your comment doesn’t make sense. At the writing of the letter, the recipient of the letter is assumed to be Christian (since you can’t excommunicate a non-Christian). At the summation of the letter the recipient is declared to be excommunicated.
Funny, I’ve only ever heard it rendered as ‘judge not lest…’
Ummm…. read John 20:21-23 and Matthew 16:18-19 silly biblically illiterate Christian…
If you are referring to the fact that Christians are told by Jesus to forgive, you are correct. But that does not mean that Christians should not excommunicate individuals who do not adhere to the rules.
As mentioned in the letter, Matthew 18: 15-17 says that Christians are supposed to excommunicate people do not follow the rules.
The Pastor seems to be doing what he is supposed to do. And oddly enough, judging from the content of the letter, it does not seem like the recipient will be very upset.
i am tempted to join some church
to get such a letter
to get such a letter framed…
…and lead us not into temptation,
aww, go ahead.
Nope. Read those verses again. They give authority to the leaders of the church to excericise judgment over her members. Whomever the church forgives is forgiven. Whomever the church releases is released from the kingdom of God.
Yep…
1 Timothy 1:20
among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Why did you say nope? That doesn’t point out any errors I might have very well. How does what you said contradict what I said? Or are you responding to another post?
Matthew says for Christians to “treat as you would a pagan” to those Christians who refuse to stop living in sin. Doesn’t have the word ‘excommunicate’ in it, but it’s close enough to understand.
“This pastor is not a Christian… is a crazy fanatic using God to justify his crazyness.”
The problem with what you’re saying is that you’re doing the same thing the pastor did and judging him, saying that he’s not a Christian. I don’t like the guy and I don’t agree AT ALL with what he said/did, but I just thought it was worth pointing out.
My church would *never* do this. At the most, like, if someone did something really hurtful to the rest of the congregation, like Bernie Madoff hurtful, the rector would pull that person aside and ask them to consider not participating in communion.
so, when a person then tells the pastor to f*** off and mind his own business, then what? Paul is clear that any “christian” who does not act in a way that glorifies God should be no longer tolerated in the assembly. But yeah… this church has some wack theology. Man cannot save man, so man can definitely not un-save man.
Dear Rachel;
It seems, from your statement, as though your god has given you the exclusive right to judge others and excomunicate them from the christian faith. Out of thousands of denominations of christianity yours must be the right one then.
But have you ever worn clothing made from polyester or any other type of blended fabric? Done any sort of laborous activity on a saturday? You know that’s an abomination towards god right?
I see anyone who professes to be a Xian to be as bats**t crazy as this guy, and ignorant to boot.
Rachel. Umm…. Do I need to point out you say ” Only God can judge” then the next line you say this pastor is not a Christian?
Isnt that a little crazy too?
By your own standard, this mean you are not a christian either.
Are you feeling the slight uncomfortable pain of Cognitive Dissonance right now growing in you brain?
Its probably Satan trying to attack you, Its time to read the bible some more.
wow. And you think non-christians are blind?
This is not Christian any more than Fred Phelps is Christian. I don’t know the beliefs of the “Reformed Church” but it is clearly not a Bible-based (true) Christian church.
No offense, but if you don’t understand Reformed theology, you don’t have the understanding to say it’s not Bible-based. Which is even ironic for you to say that, given that the Reformation was started by Martin Luther’s personal study of scripture and his protest against the unbiblical practices in the church. So, I very much hope that you wouldn’t equate Martin Luther with Fred Phelps.
I certainly hope that you wouldn’t equate the movement by Martin Luther with this Reformed Church. This church is descended from the Swiss Reformation by John Calvin and others.
I wasn’t really concerned with the denomination, but Reformed theology in general.
The only people I know of that call themselves Christians and also practice excommunication (still) would be the Jehova Witnesses. The Catholic church used to back in the day, but I’ve never heard of them doing it in the last 40 years.
But I doubt this is from the JW’s. They tend to include language about not coming back and not going near your old JW buddies to keep from tainting them, etc. Which is probably why people consider them to be cultish…
Lol. Coming from a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses, you only get “excommunicated” if you are fully baptized. Unlike other Christian religions, you get baptized as an adult and it’s entirely your choice, nobody forces you.
Simply not attending will get people concerned about you and you will be likely visited to see if you’re ok, but they won’t be all up in your face and tell you to come back or you’re out into hell! Most people disfellowshipped (aka excommunicated) individuals are ones who have committed adultery, are in a homosexual relationship (Know a lot of people disfellowshipped for this one!) or generally have done something very wrong on the big table of sins.
You won’t be shunned purely due to not attending meetings, I’m one of them and I still associate with JW’s.
So in my opinion, this letter is crazy and exaggerated, like your opinion on JW’s being cult-ish. Go look at scientology for that kick.
I feel that this pastor is being legalistic and unloving.In a matter such as this ,concerne should be shown to find out if the person is okay.Excomunication is not acceptable under these circmstances,not atttending church is not a sin that warrants excomunication.The person could be dealing with health issues or depression or any other reason why he feels he is not able to attend church.If under investigation he falls under one of the excomunication sins then further steps can be taken.As a Christian you are not able to take someones Christianity away from them and hand them over to the devil,God is the only person with that authority as God is the only person who truely knows a persons heart.People are too quick to judge and too slow to show love.The bible clearly teaches that if you do not have love you have nothing and there is very little love and concerne being shown by most people,christians are even more to blame here because this is what Christianity is based on,Jesus died for us because he loves us.There are very specific conditions for excomunication and this is not one of them.
the LDS Church also practices excommunication, as do a number of Southern baptist and Born again Christian churches that I have seen
Actually, my ex was ex-communicated from the Catholic Church a few years ago. He kept the letter and framed it. XD They ex-communicated him for asking too many questions.
Under a 1988 Vatican ruling, abortion triggers automatic excommunication unless the abortion is done to save the life of the mother. So, Catholics (World’s largest Christian denomination) practice excommunication and continue to do so.
Amazed you haven’t heard of it.
Automatic excommunication differs from what is asked for, as a declaration differs from an action. But yes, this declaration is active. About excommunication by judgement – IIRC there are still people who suffer this, though such excommunication are rarely brought into public.
I’m a pastor and a part of “mainstream religion”, and I think this is ridiculous…sheesh. Most likely, “Pastor Shade’s” church is caught up in legal standards instead of God’s love…nothing chases people off faster. Except maybe rabid wolves.
Thank you Pastor ,there is no love here just legalism and it gives christians a terrible name.Christians are forgetting about love,the most important fruit of all.
Wait what? This s**t is mainstream in your country ? Holy Satan man!
burke@cornerstonecrec.org
there is his email HAVE AT IT ME FELLOW TROLLS
Hemad
Oh NO HE DIDNT!
+1
Refusal to worship isn’t grounds for excommunication, but failure to repent from sins is…
All in all, this looks Biblical to me, don’t see why it’s a fail.
It’s totally a fail because they present bible quotes as fact. You couldn’t fail much harder than that.
To those outside the religion, it may seem stupid.
I’m sure most Christians look on this treatment of a non-attending member as medieval and stupid.
This pastor belongs in the 16th Century. I’m sure he’d burn a few heretics if he thought he could get away with it.
Yup… you’re right.
I agree with you, but we weren’t talking about this church’s actions. We were talking about people viewing the bible as fact or not.
+1
I’m a Christian, not a Catholic (important distinction), and I find this ridiculous. To say that the person isn’t a Christian because they don’t communicate with you? Ever considered that they may have begun attending a different congregation? Judging by the cult-like letter I’d say they were better for it.
In his defense, his name is Pastor Shade. Could be short for pastor Slim Shady. Or maybe he just likes throwing shade (90s hiphop reference)
It is not that he does not communicate, it is all about the money he doesn’t bring in and place on the collection plate because he is not in attendance at the church.
That was my first thought too. He’s probably excommunicated people that don’t tithe their full 10% as well.
Ding! We have a winner. “Duh!” hit the nail right on the head:
I am a Christian but I don’t try to convert people, and I am suspicious of organized religion. Why? Because it is led by people and if you get the wrong person in the lead position and you can have:
1) Crusades against “non-believers”
2) Witch hunts (e.g. Salem)
3) A people who will bow down to totalitarian beliefs (Germany WWI)
Back to the letter, I picture one Sunday afternoon the pastor doesn’t like the amount of money coming in so he makes a list, prints out the letters with a firm tone, in the hope of trying to belittle. This tends to backfire.
There may be religious precedent for this, but it doesn’t mean we should do everything that was done in the bible.
Excuse me?? What exactly is the important distinction between being Christian and being Catholic?? Are Catholics not Christians? I am Catholic and was taught that the word Christian means “follower of Christ”. And furthermore, when it began, Christianity was considered a cult. Just saying…
It still is, stupid.
Sorry but in numbers alone atheists are the odd man out kind of cult, and really every other religion is a cult compared to the mainstream largest religion in the world, Christianity. Sorry, pagan, but just because all your friends are like you doesn’t mean you’re not an odd little minority.
You say “pagan” like it’s a bad thing.
I don’t think you can really SAY something like it’s a bad thing over TEXT, unless you include a bunch of context clues.
Pagan – a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pagan)
Unless you find that insulting, I don’t really think you have any reason to be insulted.
Just saying.
Because, you know, a religion must be right if the most people believe in it. It’s not like humans are fallible or anything…
love the use of sarcasm and totally agree. even though i am christian i find it sad when people try to 1up Christianity above everyone else. i distinctly remember the bible saying that we are all equal, no-one above another. and also, don’tbeaninny, you should stop being rude.
I distinctly don’t remember that. I don’t disagree that everyone should be treated fairly/equally/etc., and the Golden Rule is love your neighbor as yourself, but I’d love the verse that says we are all equal.
It might be in there, I sure don’t have the Bible memorized. I just like to see a reference when someone cites something, especially pertaining to such a controversial topic.
werent there a lot more hindu than christians…?
and even if there are more christians than anything else, see it like that: when christianity started, there were some 600 christians in rome, compared with some hundreds of thousand of people at least officially worshipping zeus.
So the atheist can find hope in history, perhaps people will stop believing in this god too…
You say pagan like it’s synonymous with atheist and not the pre-abrahamic religions your religion is based upon.
+5 You are correct; Pagan is definitely not the same as Atheist.
-1 While there is a great deal of influence from pre-abrahamic religions, and many others, that is not the basis for Christianity.
Of course the individuals who became members of the Christian church at its origin obviously must have influenced those who were already in the Church. And along the way throughout the Church’s history it has adopted many customs from the cultures which practiced some form of Christianity.
Yes, I should phrased that differently, I agree but I’m simply too lazy and wrote the first thing that came to mind.
Atleast I’m up 4!
Actually, this isn’t really true. Christianity as a religion split off from Judaism, which itself developed from pre-abrahamic Cananite religions. Those are closely related to the ancient mesopotamian religion, which is an afro-asiatic very much PAGAN religion from the same religious family as the religion of ancient Egypt. So, pagan religions are the basis for Christianity and all abrahamic religions.
Cults are not identified by number of followers. There are certain requirements that must be met.
Atheism meets none of the requirements.
Organised religion (any religion) meets all of the requirements.
ps: atheists are the majority in western europe, china, japan,…. Just saying.
I’m curious about the requirements that you speak of. According to the definition of Atheism, it falls in line pretty well with a cult when considering certain Atheists.
For more fun, look up “-ism”.
“atheists are the majority in western europe, china, japan,…. Just saying.”
Uh, wow, you are so incredibly wrong on Japan. About 95%+ are Shinto and/or Buddhist. Even if Japanese do not state they believe in Shinto or Buddhism, almost every Japanese person takes part in those religious practices in some form or another (funerals are Buddhist, weddings Buddhist or Shinto, etc).
And this is coming from Japanese natives and just about any reputable Japanese culture text. Please research before you say things like that next time. =\
Buddhists don’t have a god. Just saying.
But Shintoism does have gods and it is practiced alongside Buddhism. Japan is a country that worships both religions simultaneously. Other populations in Japan, such as the Ainu and Okinawans, practice other beliefs (types of animism) and make up a large chunk of the remaining percentage. About 1-2 percent are Christian. That leaves maybe 1% which consists of other religions and atheists, meaning atheism is practically non-existant in Japan.
You can sit and try to twist the conversation to make yourself right, but I have been researching Japan for at least 10 years, have Japanese friends, studied Japan in college for several years, and have actually been there. Sorry, but your information is just not correct.
You can never truely be an atheist,everyone has something driving them to live or better themselves or to be able to say ‘Tomorrow will be better’ we all believe in something that helps us in our lives,atheists just deny this truth.
Atheism means “without gods.” o.O Not “without faith/belief.” I’ve met fellow atheists who believe aliens come down to probe anuses. Of course, I have a hard time not smacking them upside the head, but still..
Actually religious people deny this truth by attributing it to god.
TheLaughingPig asked “Excuse me?? What exactly is the important distinction between being Christian and being Catholic??”
Not to start a holy war, but for starters… the Pope.
As a former Catholic I have to tell you how ridiculous you are. Just because one religion has a different hierarchy than others doesn’t make it less Christian. Episcopals have a different hierarchy than Presbyterians who have a different hierarchy than Baptists.
The Archbishop of Canterbury can make a statement and everyone takes it as just another religion’s CEO making a statement, but let the Pope say anything and people go ape.
Anti-Catholicism. The last respectable prejudice.
That’s pretty insulting to distinguish Catholic from Christian. I don’t agree with most of Catholic theology, but I can’t say that because someone is Catholic isn’t a Christian. That statement is just as condemning as this letter, in all honesty.
There is a possessiveness about the letter though, which is characteristically cultish. And your 90s hip-op references are pretty dope.
“That statement is just as condemning as this letter, in all honesty”
Really? Did I suggest that any one RELIGION was more right than the other? Never casted condemnation on anyone as I think ALL forms of practiced religion are flawed which is why Jesus said HE [not pastors, an organized religion, or church membership], is the way, the truth, and the light.
I’m just saying.
But you did divide Catholicism from Christianity based upon Catholicism having the Pope. So, take responsibility for your statements. Especially since they are still here for all to read.
Definitely cult–I agree Really Really
Love the Shade references heh heh
Those “outside the religion” wouldn’t have ever joined the church to get a letter like this in the first place, and wouldn’t really care about getting kicked out if they had somehow accidentally managed to join (not quite sure how that could happen; most churches require you to be pretty specifically intentional about joining in order to be considered a member … just “showing up”, even if you do so for years, won’t usually do it).
A church has every right to set its own standards for membership and to expel those who fail to follow them (provided, of course, that they’re not discriminatory, which isn’t the case here).
The last sentence of the third paragraph and the first sentence of the fourth paragraph are really the only part of this letter that I consider theologically questionable. Stripped of that, it basically boils down to “Since you’ve left the church every way but officially, we’re going to go ahead and take care of that last part for you.”
(I also think that a narrow legalistic focus like that displayed in the underlying premise of this letter is an indication of deep and severe problems within this particular church, and I personally wouldn’t want to go there either, but that’s kind of beside the point.)
No, it’s stupid no matter where you stand.
You’re entering the conversation with an unproven presupposition. The presupposition being that the Bible is not fact, but if not fact, then opinion, and if opinion cannot be proven right or wrong.
Are you saying the Bible is not fact and wrong at the same time?
^this
The bible is neither opinion or fact, but a very poor attempt at understanding the world(pretty impressive for bronze age, misogynistic, goat herders).
Also, how low does your IQ need to be to believe that an opinion can’t be proven wrong?
My opinion of your comment, is that your comment is stupid. This is based on the fact that your comment is wrong. If your comment is indeed true, then the fact I used to present my opinion is wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong, however, the facts that they are based on can be.
also, how does presenting your opinion as a fact work out for you?
My opinion is that glass is an excellent conductor of electricity, and the Earth is flat. You can’t prove them wrong, they’re opinions!
True, but if presented with a bulk of evidence disproving the basis of said opinion, you can prove the person wrong for holding the same opinions, despite all rational thinking.
Not posted to support a side, just annoyed by the strawman-like argument tactics.
“Toast is tasty.” “The color blue is my favorite.”
^^ Opinions.
You cannot PROVE them wrong, they are dictated only by one’s own outlook on life.
“Glass is an excellent conductor of electricity.”
^ FACT. Not necessarily a TRUE, but “something said to be true or supposed to have happened” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact) By this definition, the Bible is indeed FACT.
“I think glass is an excellent conductor of electricity.”
^ Opinion, “a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion)
If you had actually read any of the Bible, you wouldn’t have posted this. Much of the Bible actually does represent facts (this is coming from a very non-religious person), although quite a few of the “miracles” probably didn’t happen the way the Bible says they did. The Bible is also a book of philosophy–specifically, the writings of early Christians trying to figure out how best to interpret and apply the teachings of Jesus. As an attempt to understand the world, the New Testament actually does a pretty good job assuming you live in the 4th century AD. The problems we see now come from the fact that some people are still trying to apply the same old ideas to a very new and different world, rather than trying to adapt the philosophical teachings of the Bible to modern society.
Aw, crap. “no way” not “now way.” *facepalm*
You are the one who has no clue about punctuation here.
“The Bible is also a book of philosophy-specifically, the wr….
The hyphen is used as a mark for interruption, not always just a connection between two words. So, in effect, what he’s doing is cutting himself off to create more emphasis. I know that understanding that is for those with a higher knowledge of the English language (not being sarcastic, it took me quite a while to understand it), but I take offense to mocking someone else’s use of grammar that is simply to skilled for you to grab ahold of.
*too* Better correct it before you come back here, ready to tear my ass off
I’m pretty sure that the interruption needs to end when using a hyphen in this way. Please enlighten me, I must be losing my edge.
Historical relevance of certain aspects of the Bible are definitely relevant. Many people are basically saying that the Bible is untrue, along with many other points (Christians are crazy for believing the Bible, Mary wasn’t a virgin, etc.). The reason they are relevant is because it shows that there is accuracy in the Bible. Furthermore, nothing can be definitively proven false.
You reference many laws and issues that were discussed in the Old Testament, but the laws Christians are supposed to follow could be quite different, depending on the situation.
And some insects do have six legs, last I checked. lol
I think you’re getting the wrong opinion here….
If it’s not fact, then it’s fiction. Not “opinion.” Trick question fail.
Fiction can be fact…
Truth has no correlation to fact, facts can be proven or disproved.
“Fact and fiction” are not antonyms. A fictional story can still be fact if proven incorrect.
Fiction: (noun) something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story (Oxford American Dictionary)
Fiction by definition is NOT fact, so no, fiction cannot be fact. And the Bible is pure fiction.
What if you imagine something, and then find out later that it actually exists?
In the interim, is it fiction for you but fact for others (those who are already aware of its existence)? Or is it fact, period, and you’re just uninformed?
I guess that’s just another way of asking the old question, what counts, perception or reality. Like the proverbial tree falling in the woods.
Your use of definition is flawed without a relevant time scale, spacecraft were imaginary before they were invented, then they became real. Same for the telephone, or the electric lightbulb. However, all these things do exist, and their mechanics are based in fact. So, it would be more prudent to say that the Bible is a hypothesis, yet to be proven or disproven.
^ this.
A hypothesis, yes. But not a scientific hypothesis. In order to qualify as such, the scientific method requires that one can test it. A hypothesis that remains impossible to test, prove or disprove (especially by design), therefore, remains as directly relevant as any thought floating around in the head of anyone else.
Technically speaking though, Jules Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon” stays in the fiction section, even after we fly to the moon. Jules Verne’s novel stays fiction, even if a component of it becomes fact (space travel).
Otherwise, you could justify all fiction as non-fiction. After all, we haven’t disproven the existence of an alternate reality inhabited by hobbits and elves…
A better example for your argument might be the history of Troy, thought to be nothing but a story in the Iliad, but was later discovered. This example however, allows for examination of the facts, and historical records pre and post, for civilizations in the area. This however, only leads to the facts as they are proven- the city existed, etc. We couldn’t go as far as to know what passed through the occupant’s minds, or make further suppositions outside of what we can directly observe and test.
TLDR; Arguing semantics is never simple.
technically, you could die to , for example, test if there is a purgatory. You only couldn´t publish your results…
+4 Using the history of Troy does work well. And arguing semantics isn’t usually simple, but it can be entertaining if the right people are involved.
Just to point out, Edward didn’t say scientific, just hypothesis.
Ok, while I certainly agree about the Bible not being scientific and, therefore, not being quantifiable, you can’t really say that it’s not relevent. Any belief system that influences a large number of people, whether it’s correct or not, is clearly relevent.
I don’t believe you can label the Bible as a hypothesis. What’s more, I don’t think it’s appropriate to really put the Bible and science against one another or to place them into the same category. It’s ‘apples and oranges’ really.
Except, apples never tell the oranges to turn red and oranges never tell the apples to turn orange. Religion and science on the other hand … if they had colors, they’d be trying to forcibly dye the other.
in history, corrupt politicians/nobles (often who were church-men by buying positions) tried to confine science to their poor understanding of, well, everything. But if you look at the founders of modern science, they all were avid Christians. Most of them claimed that Christianity gave them the framework to be able to properly move forward, and Christendom did not stop their progress. Shortly afterward agnostic and atheistic science and philosophy came to age. Then they lost a lot of their progress to greedy leaders who were unwilling to accept advancement, and to horrible philosophy that led to atrocities such as the french revolution (the bible-less version of the American revolution)
The French Revolution was the Bible-less version of the American Revolution…my understanding is that there were a lot of differences between the French and American Revolutions that had nothing to do with religion, but then, my study of the time period is not complete. I will concede the point.
However, if you’re saying that there has been less scientific progress since said revolutions than before them, you are sadly mistaken. Science and technology is advancing now at a faster rate than ever. We’re in the information age! Whether these advances in science are due to religion or not, I don’t know – but if I’m right that we are in the age of technology (and look around if you doubt me) and you are right that atheistic science is more prevalent now…do you see where this is going?
That’s because there are parties on both sides that fabricate discontinuity where it isn’t truly there. Science attempts to explain how things happened and Religion explains why.
I disagree – but then, I happen to be on the science side of the argument. I don’t see what religion gives to our understanding of the universe. If someone needs religion for self-fulfillment or something like that, then who am I to say they shouldn’t have it? But religion has no place in science – because science deals in evidence and religion, in faith
I say that they are different – as different as the apples and oranges mentioned above – and should remain separate.
Um.. It’s testable reality and bronze-age fairy tales.
And no, it’s not appropriate. It’s not appropriate that humans reap the benefits of science and then put an imaginary sky daddy in charge of their reasoning.
What are you using as a standard for what is and what is not appropriate?
You are not able to prove the nonexistence of God, just as Christians are not able to prove the existence of God.
Likewise you are not able to prove anything in the Bible as “bronze-age fairy tales.” That is merely the opinion of you along with many others.
Much of what is written in the Bible has led to many scientific discoveries.
-”What are you using as a standard for what is and what is not appropriate?”
Reasoning.
-”You are not able to prove the nonexistence of God, just as Christians are not able to prove the existence of God.”
If by god you mean the abrahamic god and alleged source of the bible I can. Archeology disproves the bible stories. If you deny that you deny reality and might as well be a solipsist.
-”Likewise you are not able to prove anything in the Bible as “bronze-age fairy tales.” That is merely the opinion of you along with many others.”
Opinion of how the words ‘fairy tales’ are defined perhaps. The stories in the bible have the same realworld accuracy as the Grimms’ stories, Cinderella, red ridinghood etc.
-”Much of what is written in the Bible has led to many scientific discoveries.”
Name one scientific discovery that comes from the bible and not pre-contemporary knowledge, and please spare yourself the humiliation of bringing up some old apologetics argument by doing some research before you post it. Or at least google it.
1. Sorry, reasoning is not a standard. It is a process by which you come to conclusions based on some fact or standard. But you must use some standard from which to base your conclusions.
2. Please show/post where I might find the archeological evidence/report/article/etc. where it proves the Bible incorrect.
3. I’m glad you note that is your opinion.
4. I don’t even need to do research to respond. The Bible refers to vast amounts of stars (basically countless for one person). There are only about 3,000 visible by the naked eye. The Bible references creatures which are now known to be dinosaurs.
5. I humbly submit to your vast knowledge for approval.
“it would be more prudent to say that the Bible is a hypothesis, yet to be proven or disproven.”
Eum… it’s been disproven centuries ago when science started making it’s baby steps.
Opinion. An opinion which is shared by many people, but an opinion none-the-less. For every part of the Bible you say has been “disproven”, there is evidence that supports it’s validity. Ask for an example if you like, but regarding the origin of the universe, humans will only ever conjecture.
It’s not an opinion that Adam and Eve never existed.
It’s not an opinion that there never was a global flood.
Disprove the mythology = disprove the religion.
oh rly? can u disprove it? or was that an opinion?
You’ve just made fact the opposite of fiction. This is incorrect. While fiction cannot be fact, the two are not opposites. That would be like saying that a brick and a post are opposites because one cannot be the other. Something not a fact can be a lie, it can be a supposition, it can be simply not proven (since a fact needs to be able to be proven to be a fact). But it doesn’t need to be fiction.
Trick question fail is correct.
i think you’re trying to make big statements out of big words on big issues to try and show everyone that you’re smarter than them.
using your logic it’s like this – if the bible is opinion (by which i assume you mean that belief in the bible is based on opinion) then pastor shade is judging and excluding based on his opinion, not any kind of logic.
and stretching it further, the pastor is just throwing out lines from the book, its like writing a paper to dispute something but basing it off one other piece of evidence, from which you rip everything and create nothing
Not if the basis of his judgement is founded in Scripture, then his rule is void of opinion, and purely based on the text.
Like laws, if I say you’re a murderer, and I use the law to define the term, I am not giving opinion within the definition or the accusation, I am letting the law determine the reality.
So called “Scripture” (a word that simply means writing) is not law, not fact and any following of ONE book of scripture is based on that persons belief in it. Belief being the trust in a statement based on opinion, not on established fact. If you say someone is a murderer, then you have to PROVE they are indeed a murderer, or it is just your opinion, even if you use the law to define what “murderer” is. You have to show that person fits that definition.
^^This.
So called “Scripture” simply because it’s a reference to the writings of the Bible. Do you really need to make that distinction? I’m pretty sure most people here understand what is meant when the word “Scripture” is used.
Also, much of “Scripture” have been PROVED correct.
Sir, with the greatest of respect, you are talking utter bulls**t!
^^…and This.
I believe he’s saying first that the Bible is not fact (i.e. not proven), but if you assume for the sake of Christians that believe it’s true (an acceptable supposition given the context), they’re wrong in their interpretation.
I’m sorry, but your logic fails. Since it is a Christian matter that is the issue between sender and recipient, the Bible would be the most pertinent reference material, regardless of facts.
And incidentally, the facts (history, science, archeology, etc.) actually haven’t been able to invalidate the Bible.
Try Again.
Try again? Alright, I’ll try to say it in a different way. The matter of the letter is that the recipient is being kicked out of the church. The letter states the reasons in accordance with the rule book for the church. Of course they should follow the rules of their own book instead of the opinions of people who do not practice their religion. I hope that cleared up the first part.
As to the second part, the archaeological discoveries since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative. There are many examples in other areas of science but that is the branch of science that is easiest for me to relate in this manner. I hope my second attempt meets your approval.
You make hugely inaccurate claims without a shred of evidence. You are incorrect. If you took a moment to read into anything I’ve posted, you would realize that there is at least some evidence that contradicts what you state.
I don’t see why quoting the Bible as a fact is a fail.
Of course, it would look like a fail to those who don’t believe in anything, but to Christians, the book is of factual value and they have good reasons to keep that view.
You know that beliefs dont change facts right?
Perhaps because sending someone “to Satan” for failure to worship at that particular church is a bit extreme?
Perhaps you’ve not read that the early church … oh well, it’s 1 Corinthians 5:5 if you must know
Ryan: “Refusal to worship isn’t grounds for excommunication, but failure to repent from sins is… ”
Only if you’re a Roman Catholic and you believe that St Peter’s ordained representative (the priest) has the keys to heaven (Matthew 16:19). I doubt whether Pastor Shade has been ordained as an episcopalian priest (by a bishop). The Bible therefore gives him no authority to excommunicate someone (in the sense of consigning them to hell).
Here are the scriptural proofs for the chapter they are invoking within the Westminster Confession, you can also find it here- http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXX.html -
1TH 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you. 2TH 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. 1CO 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. MAT 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. TIT 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.
You haven’t listened to what I’m saying. I’m aware of those Bible references. I’m not arguing that a pastor does not have the authority to remove a member from the church. Read my last sentence, I said that a pastor cannot consign someone to hell. The Roman Catholic Church believes bishops and ordained priests do have that power, relying on an interpretation of Matthew 16:19 (I won’t quote it, please look it up). Pastor Shade is not a Roman Catholic priest and therefore does not have the authority to consign someone to hell.
It is the general belief of those who hold to the original teachings of Christianity that if you are not a Christian, you are going to hell. The Pastor doesn’t state that he himself is consigning the recipient to hell. He isn’t forcing the person into hell, but rather letting them go there on their own will.
You do realize that the Episcopal church is Anglican, not Roman Catholic, yes? Since the name of the church includes “Reformed”, I highly doubt he is a Roman Catholic Priest, though he might still be Episcopalian.
I agree bro. Do you study apologetics?
Yes.
You can tell lol
It is God who softens, we’re tools in the hands of the gardener.
You’re a “tool” all right…..
Someones taking religion serious. Theres your fail sir!
You don’t take your religion seriously?
Ryan: why do you assume lumpy HAS any religion? And why do you assume it’s any of your business what he/she believes or doesn’t believe?
We are all preaching something.
Humans are religious by nature.
I disagree vehemently. Humans are naturally curious, investigating the world using reason and logic. Nobody comes out of the womb with the word “God” on his/her lips. Religion has to be superimposed on this by careful instruction and brainwashing.
Ditto, I went to a Church of England Junior School, we had to pray every school assembly and we sung hymns. I even went to junior cub/scouts for a while where we occasionally went to church for things like christingle.
Needless to say, my Parents were never particularly religious and they never pressured any beliefs onto me. I quickly grew out of believing in god in probably my 3rd year at this CoE school and remember how shocked my friends were when I told them that “god doesn’t exist anyway” in my 6th or 7th year (we had 7 years at junior school from the year of turning 5 until 12 with ‘Reception’ as the first year)
Humans being religious by nature is a fallacy, my school’s attempt at brainwashing (ok, it wasn’t super strict but we still prayed etc) completely failed. Believing in a superior being and the afterlife is just the easy way out of thinking about the inevitability of death.
So your belief is that there is no God, death is ceasing to exist, and that’s all there is to it?
Nice try. But it isn’t a *belief*; it is the absence of belief.
Calling non-theism a belief is like calling bald a hair color.
You are incorrect. You stated, “god doesn’t exist anyway.” And unless you know everything and show proof of the lack of god’s existence, you just believe that god doesn’t exist.
1. I said nothing of the kind. Please do not put words in my mouth.
2. This is nonsense. The burden of proof lies on those who claim that something exists, not on those who don’t believe it.
3. Please stop trying to tell me and others what we believe. You haven’t a clue what I believe, if anything.
@point 2
Yes the burden of proof relies on those who claim something exists, but your claim that there is no deity is still just as flimsy and lacking in evidence to support the statement.
Also this burden of proof on the positive statement only applies to scientific reasoning, philosophical reasoning requires both positive and negative statements (and all other statements in between) to provide a justification. Since religion is unscientific (and therefore a philosophical subject) both parties are required to justify their reasoning when engaging in a debate.
Geez does no one study the art of debating any more?
1. I apologize for “putting words in your mouth.” I accidentally clicked the wrong reply. It was meant for chipmonkslol.
2. C-V has nicely responded to this already.
3. I haven’t told anyone what to believe. And I actually do have several clues to what you believe based on what you have written.
4. Have a nice day.
@C-V
Y NO U Study Debating?
I don’t know why people don’t study debating or logic anymore, outside of conversation, it is also a great benefit.
Yes, and if you would look and actually read what I wrote. I was 11 years old at the time, I am now 23. My exact statement from those 12 years ago is likely different, and even if I did exactly say “god doesn’t exist anyway”, again I was eleven years old.
I have grown up to accept the possibility, but there is zero evidence and so if I were to say the same line again it would be “I do not believe in god because there is no evidence”
Of course many things might change from when you were younger. I assumed that you were of the same opinion as back then, which appears to be a correct assumption.
Also, there is actually a lot of evidence, but I doubt you would even consider it. It’s funny how many Christians are accused as being close-minded (which they may be), but it’s actually more than just them.
I could just as easily say, “I do believe in God because there is no evidence that disproves his existence.”
And at that point we agree to disagree.
By all means 789, point me to the evidence of the existence of god. We differ in that I require hard proof to believe in something that I am supposed to manage my whole life around, while you require none whatsoever.
It’s simple to say that I am close-minded because I appear to reject your beliefs when the pure definition of agnosticism is completely contrary to that. We do not believe, because there are no facts to prove it to us and until there are we will continue to look towards what we know about the universe as much more important.
You could just as easily say that, but your argument is rediculous. I can say that I have a burning star in my hand, and you cannot prove otherwise, it would be up to me to show you the charred remains of my arm to prove it to you. The burden of proof lies on the believer.
First, I didn’t accuse you of being close-minded. I used that term to refer to a lot of what is discussed involving beliefs.
Second, irreducibly complex organisms, gravity, and that mysterious stuff that holds atoms together could be used as evidence. But as I said, I don’t think that would be acceptable to you.
Third, when it comes to philosophy, the burden of proof lies with each position. You have the position that there is no God. And you can’t prove it.
But that’s why I’ll agree to disagree with you.
You are correct, using complex organisms, gravity, and all the mysterious isn’t acceptable proof for me, BECAUSE IT ISN’T PROOF. “Why? Because God!” just the cue for a facepalm. Lets use a term that people use in conversation with children every day;
“I do not like it”, “Why not?”, “Because I don’t”, “But why?”, “Because”, “Because why?”, “I don’t like it, that’s why”
Your ‘evidence’ of it exists because of god is so flawed that it is hard to find the words for it. You do not understand something so you automatically put a three letter word as its cause, it is ignorance.
You cannot disprove ANYTHING theological or spiritual, it is impossible to do so because the automatic end answer is something along the lines of “well you cannot see it” or “it does not want to be seen by you”
Oh and also since i missed it, I do NOT have the position that there is no god, I am very much open to the possibility of one, but again I will say that there is no evidence to support such a thing.
“You stated, “god doesn’t exist anyway.” And unless you know everything and show proof of the lack of god’s existence,”
Here’s something you need to understand. There’s an analogy I like to use to explain this issue.
Consider driving a car on a single lane road with me next to you. Suddenly, I claim, on faith (so – no evidence), that there is an invisible rock on the road.
As I don’t have any evidence to offer, and you have never seen such a type of rock, you won’t believe me.
You will NOT slam your breaks. You will just drive AS IF there is not rock on the road. Do you have evidence that there is NO rock on the road? NOPE! You just don’t accept my claim because I can’t meet my burden of proof.
In the exact same way, atheists live their lives AS IF there is no god. You, in the car, will operate under the assumption that there is no rock on the road. I, in life, will operate under the assumption that there is no god watching every move I make.
See? That’s how that works. I’m not required to prove that there is no god. I can assume it because you FAIL to prove that there is one.
You’re analogy is pretty weak given that you’re equating what can be physically proven with what can’t be. If you believe in God as a spiritual being and creator of physical existence, the proof his existence lies within those means. Seeing as spiritually is improvable and even inexpressible from person to person, one could only argue through the logical look at ‘creation’ around us. In this, it is pretty well accepted in the scientific community that the earth and the universe looks and acts like it has been designed. Logically it follows that if it looks like a dog and acts like a dog, it most likely isn’t a duck.
Still, this only provides logical support for a creator, not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God, YHVH. From there, I feel there is far more evidence to support Christianity as truth than any other major religion, but that’s a whole other conversation.
Caleb, to say that “it is pretty well accepted in the scientific community that the earth and universe looks and acts like it has been designed” is a falsehood of breathtaking scale and is exactly the type of pseudo-fact for which creationists are famous. Of course you can find some scientists who will hold this view, just as I could find Christians who think the opposite. The fact remains though that things only tend to look designed until we understand them properly, and I challenge you to prove that a majority of the global scientific community think otherwise. Evolution is strikingly clear in the way nature works. It’s ironic that people try to use the eye as an example of design when a designed eye could be far more simple and efficient than viewing upside down and then flipping the image back.
So you believe in nothing?
You keep trying to twist my words and define what I “believe” as if it’s somehow significant. I believe this attempt is making you look foolish.
It is typical of religious types to think that if we do not believe in god, then we ‘believe’ in nothing at all. I do not believe in a god, or gods, or hell, or an afterlife, or that a zombie died for sins that I did not commit.
I prefer to aknowledge truth and evidence over myth. People think that no belief is synonymous with no path in life, that we are just plodding along waiting for the god-lovers to save us and help us into an afterlife, and yet we really are not. Our ‘beliefs’ as you would call them, are that we should live our lives to the full, learning about how the universe works and not making up magical stories simply because we cannot explain things, not only are you misleading your children; you are misleading yourselves.
If we (atheists) believed in “nothing” we wouldn’t be on Internet talking with you trying to make you understand the world. But it’s true that most of us don’t believe in any supernatural phenomenon. Some phenomenon are really amazing (the gravity shaping galaxies for example) but non appear to be supernatural.
Stop trying to make people do things. What others believe is, ultimately, none of your business, particularly if it doesn’t affect you.
@Russel Miller
The problem is that it DOES affect us.
Please don’t play dumb… don’t make me mention all the bullshit that’s being pulled in the name of some god.
Ironic. It’s usually the Christians or religious-types that are trying to get people to believe something…or is it?
Preach it, brotha
lol, FTW!
Glad someone caught that, I’d hate to have wasted it.
Not sure whether you’re referring to my post above or not, but I assure you that if my post HAD been a sermon, it would have been 30x as long, a lot more boring, and totally devoid of meaningful content.
You may disagree, but you can’t argue that humans have had some aspects of religion basically all throughout recorded history. Humans are certainly curious, but seeing as how religion has been around basically since before humans were keeping historical records, I’d say the evidence does not support your opinion.
I disagree (with you). Humans _have_ had some aspects of religion throughout history, yes. But that religion was always about trying to explain the world around them; explain the unexplainable, if you will. If you read Greek mythology, and then read Genesis, you’ll find: The rainbow is a covenant from God, saying that he’ll never flood the Earth again and that Iris is the messenger goddess, and the personification of the rainbow.
Which is true? Neither. The rainbow is water droplets in the air splitting sunlight, much like tiny prisms. Both the Bible and the myths are simply trying to explain what they didn’t understand.
Now, as long as you don’t understand something and have no means of figuring it out, I’m fine with you making up stories about it (personally, I’ll try to find the means to figure it out, but that’s just me). But things that _have_ been figured out don’t need stories anymore – which means that I don’t believe a rainbow has anything to do with covenants or goddesses – I believe (well, I know) that it is water droplets in the air. Both ‘explanations’ become invalid when proof exists to show what the rainbow really is.
You may tell me ‘Oh, but God made the droplets split the light like that, to show that he’d never flood the world again.’ My answer will be, ‘Yep, and it’s also Iris’s dress.’
Now, what was my point?
Oh yeah, religion is just a (seriously outdated) way of explaining things. The relatively new way of explaining is science. (relatively, considering religions have been around for thousands of years, and the scientific method much, much less) Really, it’s all just curiosity, like beerslayer said. Maybe not by logic or reason, originally, but it’s all curiosity.
Now that I think about it … I’m pretty much agreeing with you, aren’t I?
sorry ryan i dont agree with you. and a lot of people in the world too. U mad?
define “a lot”. Compare your definition of “a lot” to the population of the world which is religious. Step 3: rephrase sentence “and a lot of people in the world too.”
ok. at first, “a lot” doesn’t mean “more”. it’s not used as a comparative word in my sentence. you put that one on. and about step 3, are you trying to rephrase my first sentence to something else. you’re putting that one too. U mad?
Taking religion (doctrine, not spirituality) seriously has basically three paths; zealotry, academia, and apostacy.
You can “take it seriously”, as in a “biblical literalist” perspective and become a crazy zealot. Crazy because you’ve chosen to base all your decisions on the literal interpretation of a book that neither contains claims of absolute authority, nor was considered an authority by the founders of the church or the “son of man” himself. To be a “100% doctrinal adherant” is the same, except your accepting a person, instead of a book. Trademarks: Can quote you lots of random, noncontextualized phrases from the book, supporting their “literal and perfect only-on-true-religion”.
You could become an academic, and while still spritual, accept the failings of the “word of god”; and focus on contextualizing and historicalizing the events and teachings that were recorded. Perfectly sane, and representing a far greater understanding of Christianity than most zealots actually have. However, you’ll be “cursed” with the understanding that the bible is a GUIDE (while maintaining that it’s the best guide available) and that faith, truth, and sprituality are personal for everyone. So, you’re not a Paladin in God’s one-true-army, and you don’t get lay-on-hands.
The third path for the “serious” religious adherant is straight-out apostacy. Wow, I’ve read this book cover-to-cover twice. I have no idea why I ever thought it was anything more than just a book. I don’t see why I have to give it credit for every good idea, and shoot down anything that threatens its authority. I’m done with this BS. I quit.
Of course, people on any of these three paths are not very likely to take this pastor’s letter seriously.
I have never seen someone articulate this as well as you have right here. Bravo!
I dunno… sounds to me like that pastor would fit right in with your first group! Unless I’m misunderstanding what you meant, which is always possible…
Uhh, it does claim absolute authority. John 4:25-26 (messiahship), John 8:58 (preexistence), Mark 14:61 (Son of God) John 1:1-2 (He was the word, was God, and is) And lets just look at 2 Tim. 3:16. This verse clearly shows how Paul did see the scriptures as definite. Constantly the early church leaders defaulted to the scriptures for their doctrine and for correction, you can read the works of many early apologists, such as Tertullian and see how they used scripture. Now on a different note, we cannot work for our salvation, or for other people salvation. So, if salvation is given by grace through faith, it cannot be taken away. This guy is nuts.
I’m curious. How could you claim that the “son of man” did not consider the Bible an absolute authority? The Bible was not complete until after his death, so of course he wouldn’t be able to say one way or the other.
Unless you are referring the notion that He rose from the dead and would then be able to have made such a declaration.
Maybe because the Bible is such a fantasy, and because they are kicking him out of their church for not coming to their church.
One sentence that summarizes everything better than paragraphs of garbage.
Since we don’t know the background of this letter, you have the right approach. Generally this kind of letter comes only after many attempts to reach the person in question and is meant to serve as a wake-up call that the person is in mortal danger of losing their faith.
We probably wouldn’t use the word excommunication in such a letter, but would ask that the person who has decided to remove himself from our fellowship to ask to be released from membership. There really isn’t enough information here to know the full history of church discipline being applied in accordance with Matthew 18.
At the start I was thinking, “Ok, I can see why a church may take someone off their membership roll if the person no longer attends. Makes sense. The person probably couldn’t care less anyway since they no longer attend”. Then the church went all, “By the way, unless you come to our church, your pretty much doomed for all eternity”, and I realized, that sucks for me and the other 6,999,999,975 people on the planet who don’t go to Cornerstone Reformed Church.
*disclaimer* True Christians would never do this or allow this to happen. Just saying.
P.S. FIRST!
Looks like you were actually fifth, dumb-@$$. U mad?
Who are you to determine what a ‘true Christian’ is? These people follow the Christian faith and are therefore as ‘true’ of Christians as any other Christian. I get sick of Christians denying that other Christians are ‘true Christians’ just because they disagree with certain actions and opinions of those other Christians.
You can’t have two groups of people believe and do contradictory things and slap the same label on it.
It would be like me believing in God and saying I’m an Atheist. Who are you to deny my Atheism just because you disagree with certain actions and opinions of mine?
The Bible gives “true Christians” the guidelines for determining what true Christianity looks like, as well as how to respond from those claiming to be “true Christians” and being in a state of contradiction to the claim
Except the Bible is ambiguous and written in an ancient language that doesn’t always translate directly into English or the modern vernacular.
Would a fair god punish us for not following these “guidelines” that are interpreted differently by millions of people all over the world, each believing their interpretation of the guidelines to be the correct one, when in truth it’s entirely possible that NO one has it correct?
Man wrote the Bible, not God. Man translated and interpreted the Bible, not God. Therefore, we have Man’s guidelines, not God’s guidelines.
No matter how differently the guidelines have been translated, they all end up with the same message. It’s explained very clearly in any translation of the new testament that nobody is righteous and the law exists to point out that nobody is capable of righteousness on their own. So, would a fair god punish us for not following these guidelines? Well, actually, he gave us the guidelines to show us that it can’t be done. What we’re punished for is loving things in place of God.
What’s even more unfair about this whole situation, is that we can get out of condemnation for free, even though God doesn’t owe that to us. Jesus existed, and if He is who He claimed to be, then there’s no reason for us to resent God.
But why would god need us to worship him in the first place? If never committing a sin can’t let you win his game (go the haven), what’s the point of all this. Why does he want to reward sinners as long as they worship him? Why is this useful to him? And how does it help us (humans)?
No matter how I look at it, religion is not a system to insure moral in the world but a system protecting his own existence. The one and only goal of religion is to exist. Now we need to ask our self: How is this useful for people to maintain a system in which the most important goal is to make sure the system survive? It seams very unproductive if you ask me.
Once again, that is YOUR interpretation, which is not necessarily fact. You (and others that agree with you) are the only ones to say that what you believe is correct, and others are wrong.
Thousands of Christians continue to use scripture as the basis for their arguments against those of other religions, those without religion, and those who don’t follow the guidelines that they interpret to be God’s word. Thousands of Christians still tell people like me that we shouldn’t be teaching evolution in the classroom, that women don’t have a right to choose what they do with their bodies, and that homosexual people will burn in hell. These Christians consider themselves to be “true Christians.”
You may believe that every translation leads to the same message, but that doesn’t mean that it does. Even if YOU think the message is clear, thousands of people still read it differently. Who is to say that the way you read it is any more or less correct than the way others read it?
…and every Christian believes THEY are group inside of the double-quotes, and everyone else is wrong.
So, are you saying that you don’t believe you are right and that you also don’t believe that anyone who holds a proposition that contradicts yours is wrong?
I’ll be honest, after re-reading the post you replied to, I could see how it could come off as argumentative, so I apologize if it appeared that way. I only meant to point out that any belief system, religion, etc. can contain groups of people that believe that they are the only ones who are correct, and everyone else is wrong, while citing their reasons from the same source material as their competition.
This is similar to the example you provide above, but instead of a single person vs. group, I was more referring to this on a group level.
I didn’t mean to imply it was something unique to you, or other Christians, but simply a common circumstance I have observed with groups of all sorts.
Noted, thank you for the clarification
“You can’t have two groups of people believe and do contradictory things and slap the same label on it.”
Allow me to provide a counter-example: both groups have the label ‘human’ attached to them.
Neither group fits a classification that fall outside of the categorical label of “human”.
Your comparison fails.
Neither needs to in order to fit the sentence you used, which thunderflame even quoted back to you to avoid confusion. If you didn’t mean it that way then you shouldn’t have said it that way.
Your use of the English language fails.
Mammal.
Vertebrate.
Animal.
The list goes on.
(Ghutom – Feeding the trolls since.. like forever.)
And none of the groups you were reffering to falls outside of the categorical label of “Christian”.
oh, i fear you will have to accept the fools that call themselves Christians though you find them unsufferable. They have to accept you, too.
who were to judge who calls himself a christian? He without dogma may cast a first stone.
What I’m saying is that who are we to tell someone they aren’t allowed in God’s family anymore? Isn’t that God’s decision? A person’s relationship is with God is their business and anyone who tries to get involved is out of line
Who are we to say who’s in God’s family? Our relationship with God is our business No one else should get involved is what I’m saying.
I have to agree. The very *concept* of excommunication is anti-christian. (yeah catholic church, I see you hiding there in the corner. Your power-mad ways don’t fool me any.)
The very *concept* of excommunication is not anti christian, seeing as how any christian church can excommunicate someone.. What are you talking about, catholic power mads?
riiight, except for 1 corinthians 5:5 and all that whole mess, but yeah, totally non-christian
I beg to differ.
II Thessalonians 3:14 – If anyone does not obey out instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. YET DO NOT REGARD HIM AS AN ENEMY, BUT WARN HIM AS A BROTHER.
I think that can happen, as long as the motive is set right. Kicking somebody out of church is allowed to be done as long as they are not simply meaning, “Hahaha! You’re screwed!”, but instead truly warning him as a brother in Christ.
This is why I hate the majority of churches…
Come to the UK where the majority of churches are not like that.
Or he could stay in the US and realize that most religions aren’t like this. Excommunicating a guy because he doesn’t show up is ridiculous.
Eh no it’s not. But it’s also not done on a whim. These things tend to come at the culmination of a process that can take years, one letter won’t convey that though.
I’m actually Presbyterian, I realize that a lot of religious institutions are sane, It’s the few that aren’t that disgust me.
I wrote this above, but the only people I know of that call themselves Christians and also practice excommunication (still) would be the Jehova Witnesses. The Catholic church used to back in the day, but I’ve never heard of them doing it in the last 40 years.
But I doubt this is from the JW’s. They tend to include language about not coming back and not going near your old JW buddies to keep from tainting them, etc. Which is probably why people seem consider them to be cultish…
I know lots of Christians that do lots of non-Christian stuff (boozing, partying, the fun stuff) an never show their faces at the churches where they were raised, etc. Non of them have ever gotten a letter like this. Sure, the occasional panhandling letter… Or invites to services, but never anything like this. Heck, my buddy and me woke up one morning after being completely hammered and decided to walk to his old church to see if they still had free coffee. We absolutely reeked of booze and cigs, but the pastor just smiled, shook his hand, and let us eat some donuts.
See my previous reply to your comment, not sure why you double posted. You have no idea about Jehovah’s Witnesses methods and calling them cult-ish is showing you to be even more uninformed about them. A typical JW also does the things you have described as being non-christian, they are like normal citizens mostly.
“They mostly come at night, mostly.”
“They’re coming out of the walls!” “Where’s Epone?” etc.
Yeah, something like that.
Want half my cookie?
No, you earned that for being one of the very few properly funny posts on here, that post made me laugh at work. I award you some internets.
It must take some very special kind of stupidity to make your hands actually type this s**t. It this shady pastor for real?
This pastor is tragically misaligned with biblical teachings > Pastor FAIL
Actually, he’s acting in accordance with the Bible and the doctrine of his denomination of Christianity. He even references the areas in the Bible where he is told to excommunicate the member from his church. The Bible does teach forgiveness but it also commands Christians to hold themselves accountable to its rules.
I actually doubt if the addressee actually received any of these letters, so this can come to a “lost cause” which is by no means a reason for excom. That “pastor” acted ridiculously, especially when saying something about “handing over to Satan”. First, Heb 10:25 speaks about community, which is now expanded to the whole of Christianity, and that pastor said about only his church. He then says this is a sin and seemingly requests “repentance” in form of return to their community. A weird thing, considering he does not know whether that person actually received these letters or not. Third, he should know that there are more than him as priests, even in his church, maybe the addressee ended up at one of them, I’m not even speaking about other denominations. Fourth, Mt 18:15-17 speaks about “treating as a Gentile or a tax collector”, which basically mean “treating like anyone non-Christian”, which is with love and patience, for maybe he will accept Christianity and receive forgiveness. And fifth, 1 Tim 1:20, which is the grounding of “handing over to Satan”, is a condemnation for blasphemy, which is obviously not the case here. So, the priest here showed his lack of love in its utmost form, and will be judged by his own words. Pitiful I say.
(1) Aren’t Catholics the only ones that excommunicate? And (2) doesn’t it seem ironic that a “Reformed Church” is willing to state “we are handing you over to satan”? Doesn’t seem like they reformed much.
1) That is incorrect.
2) As a Reformed Church, and one that holds to the Westminster Standards, according to section 3 of chapter 30.
Man, following Christ is a way of life, not a slate of written texts. Chapter 3, section 30? Sounds like an additional religious textbook to me, as in the Bible alone wasn’t enough. I don’t get it.
Well, “excommunicate” makes it sound important. And really, Pastor Shade has enough on his hands damning everyone to hell… probably doesn’t have time to bother with a thesaurus.
Here is the text from the WCF-
“For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.”
the bible says this,
“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
and this…
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
I hope, as a good christian, that you follow the teachings of god and kill all your non-believer neighbours.
Jesus says this…
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Oh wait…
Yes, well guess what happened between Deuteronomy and today? JESUS CHRIST. It was HE who took the death penalty of all those OT sins. Yes, not one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until all is fulfilled. It is STILL a sin to do those things, but CHRIST has already paid for them. Understand? That’s why we no longer need to kill witches or homosexuals. Their sins have already been paid for (for those who accept it on their behalf).
For those who reject this gift of Christ, they are basically saying, “I choose to pay for my sins myself”, in which case the price is eternal death and separation from God.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, “Baptist!” I said, “Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.
Served him right. Any Reformed Baptist who doesn’t go back to the 1644 confession is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Of course anything before that we have to eye with suspicion, and no doubt there was no Christian church before 10/31/1517.
The Lutheran church also excommunicates. I was born & raised Catholic; you’re correct they do. My wife was born & raised Lutheran. Her mom was excommunicated after commiting adultery.
Is your mother in law ECLA or was she Missouri or Wisconsin Synod? There’s two kinds of Lutherans, the mellow accepting ones and the hater ones.
Mormons also excommunicate.
Only if you ask them how magnets work.
^Zing.
I f-ing love this!!!
Catholics are not the only faith that excommuncates… The Latter Day Saints (Mormons) also excommunicate. And as far as I know, they are also Christians.
You’ll get some feedback on that one. lol.
What, no one bit yet? Okay, I will. Mormons are about as Christian as Muslims are. The difference is Muslims are open about the differences but Mormons try to sound Christian (and as they are extremely well trained, dare I say do a better job of spouting correct Christian doctrine than your average Christian, let alone christians by name and tradition alone…), and it really takes some digging to realize there are some pretty significant differences.
“The church of JESUS CHRIST” is not Christian? From now on, just start every statement with “I’m an ignorant biggot that says stuff about a people without knowing what I’m talking about”… and then continue with your meaningless opinions.
if that church’s ideals contradict Chirst’s teaching in the slightest, they are not Christian by default, even if they name themselves Christians.
And, duh, at the very least this one protestant pastor also excommunicates.
Some Jewish communities also excommunicate but you have to do some pretty terrible things to the community to wind up being excommunicated, terrible enough to end up in jail as well kind of stuff.
Why didn’t I get a letter like this? Would’ve made my day, I would probably be rolling on the floor laughing until I cried.
And why the big emphasis on Jesus? Isn’t god the one who should be worshipped, and his son after that?
Wait… am I trying to tie logic to religion? Naah, that’s almost like dividing by zero.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
But even Chuck Norris can’t marry logic to religion.
Chuck’s gonna get you for that.
Chuck already married them. Now they’re known as “logigion”.
Hyuk hyuk. Obvious troll is obvious.
This letter is very telling as to why he hated going to that church.
This pastor seems a bit shady. *rimshot* *laugh track*
“Handing you over to Satan” — Wow.
This guy is a whackjob from way back. The Presbyterians defrocked him in the late 90′s, he went to Christ Church then, taking his faction supporters. He demanded a mess of cash and stuff on his way out the door, but didn’t get it. Idiot.
By the way, the “Handing over to satan” is from 1 Corinthians 5:5-
“I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
But “handing over to satan” in 1 Corinthians 5:5 cannot mean consigning a person to hell because Paul says “so that his spirit may be saved.” That does not happen if you consign someone to hell. It’s not what is normally meant by excommunication.
… and like Paul, the Pastor continues with “in hopes that you will come to your senses, repent, and return.”
But in terms of 1 Cor 5:5, Paul ends it with this in v13-
But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
im gonna nail you to a cross Ryan. You will die for our sins
You’re awkward.
Paul was a closeted homosexual. Everyone knows that.
The 12 dudes were most probably gay. 12 happy gay guys eating the body of the gay pimp Jesus. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Gays are awesome (hetero too, now that I think about it).
Don’t forget he was in his 30′s, Jewish and unmarried (allegedly) by the time he died.
No way in hell a Jewish mother is going to let her son die without producing a few grandchildren first unless there is something seriously, seriously wrong with him. My theory is he was so ugly that not only would you hit him in the face with a shovel to make him look better, but you’d hit yourself in the face with the shovel a few times for good measure.
The super ugly theory goes a long way to explaining his really nice personality as well
Peter was a rabbit also.
So the pastor’s not insane, he’s just stuck 2,000 years in the past?
Maybe it is just me, but it seems strange to actually sign your name as “Pastor”. I think I would sign first + last, then put underneath “Pastor First Last”.
Incidentally, a friend of mine got a very similar letter, but from a “Church of Christ”. I wonder if plagiarism is a sin :p
Wait.. So this is real?? I was hoping it was a joke. Haha
What a douchebag.
To the OP:
No one cares about your personal problems. Just because you’re mad about being kicked out of your local church doesn’t mean you can declare it a “fail” and post it on FailBlog. Go cry to someone else, whiner!
What are you talking about? This isn’t a real letter – no one in their right mind would write such trite, childish nonsense beneath the letterhead of an organization as important to the community as one’s local church.
You are clueless. Have you ever spoken with one of these brainwashed evangelicals? they believe this s**t. The funny thing is….If Jesus were standing at that church, I bet he’d throw that “pastor” into hell before he would the guy who stopped attending.
Understanding the purpose of FailBlog FAIL (it’s not to attract sympathy).
This has to be a joke.
Looks real to me: http://www.cornerstonecrec.org/contact.html
I don’t mind this god and his little boy Jesus so much as I do the sycophants that think they speak on his behalf….
What about the scripture coming from “this god and his little boy Jesus” that clearly outlines what the letter states?
Ryan, why are you responding to him? He’s clearly hoping someone will do so. Best just to ignore comments like that. Again, I say, obvious troll is obvious.
Hardy-har-har
Leviticus 11:22-23
20 “”"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.”"”
I shall now do god’s work and pull 2 legs off every insect so that the bible and god don’t look ridiculous.
That’s just a translation error that never happens. They’re supposed to be FNORDs, that you can’t actually see but make you vaguely uncomfortable.
Proverbs 26:5 – bam! :p (tricky one either way, that’s the beauty of the chapter – whichever approach will provide the best instruction is the judgement call!)
Proverbs 26:5 back at you….
So wait, did Jesus kick Pagans and Tax collectors out of church? Seems to me that I remember Jesus hanging out with them often. This letter is a guilt tactic designed to snag cash. It really says: I’ve noticed that you haven’t been lining my pockets with cash lately. Come back and give me cash or people will think bad things about you. It’s D*ckWads like this pastor that make people hate religion in general.
“Jesus kick Pagans and Tax collectors out of church?”
Yeah… with a bull whip, and he seriously screwed up their work area as well by flipping over all their desks.
“And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.”
——
“He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple.”
——
And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.”
That says nothing of Pagans. Please leave us out of it. That clearly shows merchants and bankers, doesn’t even say anything about tax collectors either.
I know, right? We were enjoying our mead, wine, and pork, and chatting with other people. Left the Jews to chill in temple with other Jews, it was Sabbath. Ah well, back to planning for the yule celebration now that samhain is over… *trots off to get evergreens*
It was the use of the temple as a place of commerce he was objecting to. Especially since the money changers took a fat slice off the top when exchanging the coins.
The “scripture” comes from authors a century or more after the so-called “son of god” supposedly was executed by the Romans. The text has been translated and re-translated many times since, sometimes with political motives behind how the translation was done. The current book, in it’s 6,000 different iterations bears no relation to the original, and is purely a work of opinion by the person doing the latest translation.
There are over 13,000 original manuscripts. We still have them, regardless of subsequent translations.
Where do you find this info? “original manuscripts”? You sure about that?
It’s called study.
And, according to this source, there are even more, though they’re probably using less direct sources.
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
No originals, and, of the original Greek, well over 5,000. Though we know of more they have yet to be cataloged. I assume you have made a mistake in word only. We certainly have more witnesses to the original text than just the Greek copies. There are of course many early translations, and patristic citations. The evidence of what the original text said is very great. no one, not even trolls, have any excuse to claim that the attestation to the original text is deficient in any way. It is overly accessible.
unicorns? 4 legged insects? firmament? day light and night light? plants created before the sun? the ark(with 6-10 million insects+2 of everything else)….
It’s not trolling if it’s true!
But of course your latest comment has absolutely nothing to do with the transmission of the text or the reliability of the copies. Your problem has more to do with being disturbed by archaic forms of speech and attempting to interpret 66 books of continuous structure by isolated instances of things not comfortable to your 21st century culture. If you want to complain about Textual issues do so, but citation of various things that sound weird means nothing to that.
The ark is surprisingly scientifically realistic.
The dimensions of the ark is so that the length x width ratio is 6:1, which is proven by modern naval science to create the most stable of water vessels.
The ark did not look like what is portrayed in the everyday Sunday-school book, but instead looked more like a giant box, and was built so that it would have to be banked 90* to take in water.
The dimensions of the ark created a huge volume capacity, and there were more than enough room to house all the animals, insects, worms, arachnids, etc… and of course, the fish didn’t really need an ark to survive…
Another perspective of this issue is by looking at an old Chinese legend, about a man named “Nuwa”, riding on a big boat with 8 people and the “remnants of the world” aboard, and coming to rest on a mountain. Even a village I’ve been to here in Papua has a similar legend about a big “overflowing” even though they are completely landlocked.
Perhaps you have difficulty with numbers higher than 26, what with your 13 fingers and 13 toes, and you don’t seem to understand weights and measures either, so I’ll try and help.
So let me get this straight, two of every land animal(dinosaurs included) and any other amphibious creature that can’t swim for a few weeks without drowning, stored on a wooden boat, with food and drinking water, protected from each other so that they all survive and still didn’t sink, is the basis for your religious beliefs?
That is a whole lot of inbreeding. Added to that, these saved animals then colonized the the Earth, crossing vast stretches of water, many arriving in these new lands only to rapidly go extinct, often(not always) with specific genealogies deciding on limited land masses to proliferate their species?
This seems odd to me.
Lets not forget about all the freshwater species that would have died from the salt water, and all the plants of course.
Although I cannot remember any of the bits of the bible that I was forced to read in junior school, i’m pretty sure it doesn’t say two of every animal by the way.
Lets ignore the two of every animal thing and just concentrate on the work it would take to manage them all. Just keeping up with the hourly food and water intake would be extremely difficult. Think about the hundres of species that rely on one food source, and all the plant matter that many herbivores would require, plus all of the carnivorous ones eating things left right and center. Would make a pretty sick video.
The earliest of NT manuscpripts come from roughly 10-50 years after the writing of the text found in it (for this is only a copy, the original would naturally have to have been written before it). True, it is only a scrap, but it is sure testimony to the falsehood of your claim. The authors of the originals most certainly, according to modern paleographical studies, had written these letters and stories before 133 AD. The nature of the transmission of the NT text, being broad both geographically and geneologically, makes it rather impossible for any central revisions to have ever occurred which rather guarantees a relatively pure text transmission.
The text itself, though being translated more times than can be counted still remains available for any to view from well over 5,000 witnesses dating from ca 100 AD to the time of the printing press, all of these witnesses bearing basically the same text. Anyone who cares to bother to learn Koine Greek (an easy language to pick up) can read it without the “political baggage” that some seem so concerned about. The “current book” bears a rather striking resemblance (in the mainstream translations, e. g. KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NET et al. each with its own purpose and goal behind translation) with the original Greek text; as much as a translation can. Opinion can only go so far in distortion of a wide and diverse, not to mention open, witness of the autographs.
This is all well known stuff. Even Dr. Bart Ehrman assumes that the original is accessible when he argues that we don’t know it.
If you wish to make a viewpoint opposing your own appear to be false or worthless, use fact. It helps no one, and indeed harms yourself, when either (*any*) side employs falsehood or abandons logic to get a hit in for themselves. Always tell the truth. Do it for humanity, do it for yourself.
A lot of bible scholars agree that the Greek version was more than likely to be different from the original text (if text was the transmission tool). The authorship of the different texts/sources are still disputed to this day.
Of course text was the transmission tool, that is, after it was written down. We have a plethora (well over 5,000 Greek copies, not to mention early translations (of several different languages, patristic citiations, non-Christian citations, etc.)of evidence of that (check out CSNTM.org ), after all every printed text of the Greek NT from Erasmus’ to Ximenes’ to Tregelles’ to Tischendorf’s to Wescott & Hort’s to Nestle’s to the UBS’ were all made from collations of the written manuscripts, The UBS 4 and NA27 (today’s modern text critical editions) use manuscripts from ca 100 AD, and several copies that prove, using the science of textual criticism, to be copied from other very early copies, their late date not necessarily being a testament to their being far removed from the original in content.
“A lot”, I suppose would need to be defined. Consensus or majority also not defining fact.
Then naturally following that line of reasoning, their argument would need to be cited and critically analyzed. Your reply fails to offer any informative attribute. NT Textual Criticism is a subject over which popular ignorance prevails. It’s kind of a big subject to just go trolling around about. Read a book.
Geneological study of the manuscripts has revealed that there are several lines of transmission, starting at very early stages in the transmission. Naturally this means that if family A which copied the original, and which family D copied the original, both maintained relatively separate geneological lines they maintain, as families, independent witnesses of the original. This in fact did happen, as current scholarship has been able to identify, Alexandrian, Caesarian, Western, and Byzantine text types. These all independently serving as witnesses to the original text.
The authorship of these letters and books are often not given by the authors themselves. No surprise. Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John bother to tell us what their names are; really only in the epistles are the authors self identified. Hebrews is still completely unknown. I wonder, what difference does that make?
Well said. Your posts describe very well the process through history in how the Bible’s manuscripts were translated.
Remember the discovery of the dead sea scrolls? Yep, those were sealed for thousands of years. Comparing them with the Bible in the wild, they found less than 5% difference. And those were from the Catholic Monks trying to shove the false trinity down our throats. And claim that Jesus is God…
The Catholics are responsible for a huge amount of severe problems. And modern Christianity is no different.
So, the Bible we have today is the same one back then…
The scripture didn’t come from god. It came from his publicist.
Do the pastor believe in talking burros
LOL, this guy has been arrested and moved from church to church…wonder what he’s doing that keeps him from being excommunicated, check this out.
http://www.presbyteriannews.org/volumes/v5/2/Carbondale.html
Or you can contact this guy directly and ask him what his problem is
http://www.cornerstonecrec.org/contact.html
LOL
The problem with these people is that they are defining what the sins are. Failure to repent may well be grounds for excommunication, but it depends who defines what is and is not a sin. In this case these jerks are hitting this victim for failing to obey *their* rules – not necessarily the same as the Biblical definition.
Dear Pastor Shade,
Thank you for relinquishing this fine individual to our care. Note he will be well taken care. We have reserved him a place next to Michael Jackson and the midget from Fantasy Island.
^ THIS.
Stop stealing content, Failblog. You’re not even acknowledging the original source.
I saw this exact same complaint on 4chan last week under a different name.
@Ryan – “and if opinion cannot be proven right or wrong.”
Opinion can categorically be proven wrong. If it is your opinion it is raining and it is not raining, then you are wrong. If you believe something to be true, despite evidence to the contrary, it is wrong. The Bible, as a tome, is written by many different people over an extraordinarily long time. It often contradicts itself. It is literally impossible to be taken wholly as fact.
Your suggestion there is a binary choice as to it is either fact or opinion with no middle ground is actually the reason many casually non-religious people have issues with religion.
You know, in my opinion.
1. I disagree with your presuppositions concerning Scripture.
2. It is my opinion that black coffee tastes good. That cannot be categorically proven right or wrong. Black coffee exists, that is a fact. It can be categorically proven right or wrong. Black coffee is on my desk, this is a fact, and it can categorically be proven right or wrong. Whether or not the black coffee really is on my desk at this given moment in time is yet to be determined, but it is still a fact none-the-less.
3. Binary choices, I believe in them, as do you. Even in your denial of binary choices, you give binary choices… non-religious vs religion.
1. Just because something is written/old/believed, does not make it true.
2. Yes it can, quite easily actually. The options here are either you are lying or telling the truth according to your sense of taste.
3. Who was in denial of binary choices?
^This
1. You are correct, each of those is a logical fallacy within itself. Whether something is true or not directly correlates to it’s inherent ability to coincide with reality.
2. Regardless of the options, they can be true or false. These “options” are facts. They are either true facts or false facts.
3. Him or I, one of the two.
Sorry, Ryan, your #2 above is rubbish. There’s no such thing as a “false fact”. If it’s false, it ain’t a fact.
Unless, your above statement is wrong… then it just became a false fact.
Nope. If it was wrong it was never a fact. It would merely be a false statement.
Concerning #2 of your post, if Ryan honestly states his preference for black coffee, that is his opinion which cannot be proven right or wrong.
I feel that it was easier to describe the situation if you assume he is telling the truth about his own opinion in the first place, rather than add confusion to the discussion by stating he might be lying about what he likes.
Perhaps some people need such aspects cleared up in the first place. Thanks for helping them out.
The Bible, as a tome, is written by about 40 people (+3 if Christians want to include Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
It was indeed written over a long time.
It never contradicts itself. Any supposed contradictions that have been pointed out thus far have been shown to be false. (If you post any I’ll try to help you find out how it’s false if you like)
And since nothing in the Bible can be proven false, and much of what is written in the Bible has proven to be accurate according to history/archeology/etc., it is literally possible for the Bible to be taken wholly as fact, depending simply on what you believe.
Some church leaders just love to be dictators.
When you read Hebrews 10:24-25, you see that it is an exhortation and not a commandment, “Let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together…” The writer of Hebrews says to consider it, he does not give it as a command. Not going to church is therefore not sinful. However, the pastor’s claim may be considered sinful because he is distorting scripture for his own nefarious purposes.
He would never get away with this in the UK. The church would be ridiculed in the national newspapers.
Striking a person from the roles of the church for non-attendance is one thing, but “we are handing you over to Satan and his kingdom of darkness” seems a little overboard. And stating “you are no longer a Christian” is just silly given the range of Christian churches. I think this pastor should remember that pride is also a sin.
I think that his claims that he, and his followers, have the power of salvation and damnation (handing over to satan) is the sin, when it is clearly stated in their own religious texts that only God and his Son have that power.
My church practiced “disfellowship” when someone went too against-the-grain. And, that makes sense. The church is a club of like-minded individuals. They meet and fellowship based on a charter. It’s when that charter gets convoluted with “absolute truth” that it becomes silly.
Sure, you’d kick someone out of the chess club if they kept playing checkers, but making grand proclaimations that their disenrollment precludes them from ever finding happiness is just stupid.
I don’t know…if someone really wants to go against the grain that much, why don’t they just leave on their own? (Actually, it seems that’s exactly what the recipient of this letter had done) Like, if you want to play checkers, why bother waiting until the chess club kicks you out? Why not just start going to checkers club instead?
I don’t know whether the Seventh Day Adventist Church practices any sort of ‘kicking out’ (I don’t know because the last time I attended a service was at the age of ten), but I do know that they often tell their very own members that they’re going to Hell. I know this, because that’s why my mom stopped taking me there – and she didn’t need to be kicked out.
Wow! Seems to me that they are better off at a different church anyway. Must be afraid to breathe in that church for fear of condemnation. What a nut job.
And this is why I’m Jewish.
Are you Haredi, Hasidic, Modern, Conservative, Reformed, Karaite, Reconstructionist, Renewalistic, or Humanistic?
You forgot Satmar and Messianic…….(Of course the Messianics are recognised as Jews by other Jews, so yea…….)
err that should’ve read the Messianics aren’t recognised as Jews by other Jews so yea…….
Are you sure it has nothing to do with social structure, maybe your parents had something to do with it? Geography is also a common attributer.
I *love* christians! They are by far the funniest of all the idiots.
Atheists are pretty funny too, but I don’t know if they fit into the group of idiots too or not. I don’t think they’re smart enough to be declared idiots.
It’s the ironytroll, run for your lives.
At first I was okay with this letter. It makes sense that if you don’t attend that they would take you off their records. However, this letter provide a lot of baseless accusations. It talks about going to hell and all that. Jesus himself said that whoever believes in him will go to heaven. Not whoever goes to church. As far as repenting your sins in public, Jesus himself said that one should never pray in public for show. Instead they should pray in their own times.
My guess is that when this letter says they don’t go attend their service, what they’re really saying is that, “You don’t give us enough money.”
I can see why he left that church.
Does anyone familiar with Christian theology notice the irony in a Reformed church using the phrase “you are no longer a Christian”? Where’s ‘Perseverance of the Saints’? Calvin would turn in his grave lol.
Calvin dealt with the authenticity of the conversion… you’re also forgetting Servetus, and the fact that Calvin was involved in his excommunication, and somewhat involved in his execution.
Ryan, why are you bothering on a failblog post? You are (probably) a seminarian trying to discuss difficult theological concepts with 30 year old high school drop-outs. I’m an atheist and even I know this isn’t a fail. Let it go, you’re trying to talk 4 years of a master’s of divinity into a playground. These kids won’t understand.
Oh high and mighty Amiable, allow me to grovel at your feet and worship your awesomeness.
I’ll allow it.
+3 for making me chuckle
Not a seminarian, just a home reader.
I don’t do it because I think some will understand, I do it in hopes that some will be intrigued to study. The only thing worse than an educated fool is an uneducated one…
Home schooled is more like it.
Then again most xians are, they might actually wake up if they spend too much time in the real world.
Sounds like someone was treated poorly by their sunday school teacher.
I never attended Sunday school. It’s not common practise where I’m from. Geesh, imagine that!
I appreciate that despite your belief you don’t see this as a fail. And I must admit, though I’m guilty of it myself, arguing with non-christians over the Bible or religion has proven fairly fruitless. I think too many Christians see winning an argument as a way to create converts when all it usually does is make people pissed with you. What’s more, it seems like most Christians are only interested in creating converts and aren’t really invested personally with whom they’re discussing, which is sad.
I’ve had some truly enlightening conversations with those in the Athiest/Agnostic camp, but only because it was about understanding each other, not giving all the ‘right’ answers and having ‘right’ logic, but presenting the faith for what it is and admitting where faith comes into play. I think Tim Keller is a great example of a pastor who succeeds in having these kind of discussions.
I believe educated Christians should be far more concerned in correcting ignorant Christians. I think the lack of this is why most of the church is so Bible-illiterate and lazy (if only all who claimed to be a part of the church would actually live out Matthew 25:31-46!).
Oh I’m just pointing to the language used in the letter seemingly contradicting reformed doctrine. “You’re no longer a Christian” would suggest that one could lose their salvation, where ‘Perseverance’ logically would lead one to assume that they never had salvation. I wasn’t trying to make a statement about Calvin in regards to excommunication. Haha, and I have to admit, I didn’t forget Servetus bc I had never heard of him. But I’m more than interested to study more about that ordeal. Thanks.
Damn it! I wish it was that easy to get out of church in my country :’D Here, you have to fill out tons of documents and bring them to a special office. Really bothersome… I’d rather have myself excommunicated automatically by not going to church XD
And some people don’t see why atheists get annoyed… Which country btw, Sweden?
I wish it was that easy in my country (Belgium) too. Not only do you have to fill tons of documents, and get document from your chuch. But even after thet the archbishop refuses your request any way.
The reasons are quite obvious. If the number of christians in Belgium were the real one, church would lose all the money it gets from the states.
Actually, i already thought about killing some chicken in front of assembly on the altar at the church while invoking satan.
But it would probably make my parents very sad…
Wow as one who worships on the other side of the fence (so to speak) I am sure learning alot about Christianity. Its comforting to know that the Rabbi at my shul, wouldn’t take it to this level.
Thank you G-d for making me Jewish!
Oh by the way, Ryan, I was raised as an Israeli Jew (Jewish but non observant, the majority of Israeli’s are like this) However since moving to Canada I now attend a shul in Vancouver that is Modern Orthodox in service but accepting of everyone. (I literally live next door to said shul so meh, why not attend……..besides their oneg is AWESOME)
My point was that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to talk less of Christianity because of denominational-ism, as if to say the same thing doesn’t happen in Judaism.
True, but since you asked Wolfman what he was I thought I would tell you right off the bat, and actually, not even Chabad would “excommunicate” so to speak. However if you are dispora then, yes you wouldn’t be allowed to attend services but at least as Jews for the most part, we would be cordial and respectful towards you and wouldn’t admonish any type of hate on to you. Just sayin’
A quick reading of the New Testament suggests that this is several flavors of all-natural bovine byproduct.
And we also have the added benefit of never ever closing the door to the opportunity to repent even if it’s on your death bed.
We’re also rational enough (generally speaking) to acknowledge the G-d doesn’t just leave physical evidence just lying around for any old fool to find so we’re not likely to ever truly know if G-d exists or not (but hey, at least we have the free will to choose), that it’s just as possible the universe and everything in it was caused by a Big Bang 14 billion years ago (Genesis really isn’t clear on this since we don’t know how long a day is in G-d’s eyes), that there is no conflict between science and religion and all that other junk some of the hardcore christians seem to prattle on about.
That said a lot of us could be more tolerant of others (especially some of the Chasidic movements) and some of our laws are a bit out of date.
Yep you nailed it Ex Chabad. For the most part, we’re laid back, allowed to question G-d and Torah, and we are pretty much accepted in any Jewish circle.
Oh and I do agree with you about some of the mitzvahs (laws, commandments) but for the most part, alot of them hold true, and I would gladly follow them for my health and my spirit.
Shabbat Shalom Ex Chabad, Wolfman, and any others out there.
God didn’t make you Jewish, your parents did.
And this is why I don’t call myself a Christian anymore.
As a christian (though I hate to call myself by the same name as people like these) I think this guy should be pushed off a cliff. The scriptural basis he cites is taken so far out of context it is no longer scriptural, and blatantly goes against the two greatest commandments Jesus preached. Love God, love people, that’s all it’s about, and this guy most definitely failed on every level.
How is this a fail? I mean, I’m an atheist. But shouldn’t a religious organization be allowed to determine who is a member and who isn’t? They have every right to kick someone out, just like any other organization.
The only fail here is that a Reformed church is declaring that this person is ‘not saved,’ and yet the Protestants complain about Catholics doing that very thing, and how no church can declare whether a person ‘is saved,’ etc.
It’s not really a ‘clear’ fail, no. As it makes perfect sense that an organization of any kind can/may eject a member for non-participation.
You’re right, the only fail here is that this Christian denomination(or rather, this particular congregation) thinks that they can actually declare a person a non-christian, as if they somehow have the power to override Jesus’ original offer to save a them. Excommunication is rejection from a MAN-MADE organization. It might be a disgrace, but not d@mnation.
In Christ’s name!
This letter is oddly worded and sort of over the top, but not all that strange in standard conservative Protestant circles. Perhaps some people don’t get it that when you join a church like this, you make a serious vow to the church, like a wedding vow, to attend that church. If you break your vow you are in sin and if you refuse to repent of a sin, you are indeed saying that you want no part of Christ, who commands that we repent of all sins (even if we know we may fall into them again). Who would respect a church that allowed a person to continue in, say, the sin of child abuse without repentance? Our society doesn’t think much of vowbreaking, but historically people have. Now, if the person had never made that vow, they would not get a letter like this– churches are not on the lookout to find people to excommunicate, they are trying to hold people accountable who have indeed committed to those churches. And if the person simply transferred to another church, that would also not be a problem.
The one thing that does seem over the top to me, though, is the declaration that the person is definitely outside of Christ. My church would probably say something like “we see no evidence of repentance and faith” or “you are choosing to act like a non-Christian, so we must treat you as such.”
^This
I just hope that Pater shade deals with this guys children in the manner that the bible tells christians and jews to.
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
Ah, you are obviously unfamiliar with the old and new covenants. If you’re going to mock people, at least try to know something about what you’re mocking. You make us atheists look bad.
I like you.
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV
Seems pretty conclusive to me…
Ooh, what about this one?
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
Yes, that is in the bible.
Right. Jesus came to fulfill (accomplish) the law, and he did. Read the part where the temple was torn in two at Christ’s death. Then, read Hebrews. Then, get back to me when you read the WHOLE bible, not just stuff a bunch of your ill-informed, douchebag atheist friends think is useful for making fun of Christians.
You are why I like to hang out with Christians.
That wasn’t a very amiable response…
But you did point him in the correct direction…
:-\
Yeah, it just gets old hearing the same “what about this verse?! or what about this verse?!” schtick from the people who are supposedly more “intellectually refined.”
Is the whole of Scripture true?
No. But atheists who begin a debate assuming it is not, without confronting biblical inerrancy, or any of the foundational beliefs of post-reformed Christianity, end up looking pretty stupid.
Would you say reformed Christianity is the most consistent “form” of Christianity to debate with/against?
Absolutely… unless, of course, there are no absolutes.
If there are no absolutes, then it is absolutely not reformed theology.
Drawing attention to absurdity and hypocrisy are two very different things. You haven’t shown any hypocrisy, explicit or implicit. And when someone, like Hitler or ANDERS Breivik, acts outside of biblical moral teachings, it is not a reflection on the bible but on themselves as individuals.
Besides, chances are you have no reasons to conclude that OT morality is absurd. Why don’t you give us a run-down of ethics (or, in case you don’t know what that is, how we determine what’s right and wrong).
You didn’t respond to the question regarding hypocrisy/moral absurdity.
BTW, you meant inconsistency, not hypocrisy.
But do go on.
I’m sorry Ryan, but he was Christian whether you like it or not.
http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
However, either side using x was a x is pointless unless it is because of those beliefs that atrocities were performed.
Religious man kills none religious man.
Religious man kills none religious man because he didn’t believe in god.
Two different things.
“The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schonerer’s opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality.”
From Mein Kamf, not Christian you say?
It is a fail because all religion is a giant crock of bulls**t. Plain and simple. Wake up, folks, there is no “god”.
Thank you!
Interesting thing to me, by the way, is that in several recent blog conversations it seems like most people in the US feel that anyone has the right to call himself or herself a Christian no matter what they believe or do. So, for example, people say non-trinitarian Mormons want to call themselves Christian, so we have to let them. But would that argument work with any other religion? Suppose I said I want to call myself a Jew, so everyone, including Jewish synagogues, has to accept me as such. Or suppose I said I will be a trinitarian, Jesus-worshipping Muslim. Would Muslims accept me as such? So why is it that every Christian church must accept anybody else’s definition of Christian? Now, if you choose to join a church that says keeping your vows and repenting of your sins is part of what it means to be a Christian, as historically all Christian churches once did, you can hardly complain unless they tricked you and didn’t tell you those were their beliefs when you joined.
Since when is trinitarianism a standard of Christianity? It’s certainly very possible to read the Bible and find a non-Trinitarian God there. Later scholars added additional stipulations after the ascention of Christ. Trinitarianism is at best a Christian tradition, not an ironclad doctrine of any sort.
Any non-Trinitarian view of the Bible is going to be rife with contradictions. The atonement, justification, justice, communion, perfect, etc… all don’t make sense.
Ehh, personally as a non-Trinitarian worshipper I have little trouble reconciling the New Testament as I understand it with the Atonement, etc. And Trinitarians would have trouble explaining some stuff too — such as the three distinct personages present when Christ was baptized in Jordan — the voice of the Father, the dove, and Christ personally, all in evidence as apparent individuals.
Sure if you want to think backwards, you can press the point and say that it’s possible for one all-powerful being to manifest himself as three personages, but that’s retrospective logic. Looking forward from a rational standpoint, exactly why the heck would that be the thing that makes the most sense to do?
I think Christ’s baptism is an affirmation of the Trinity, and difficult for the non-Trinitarian…
How do you reconcile Phil 2:6?
Are you a Modalist?
Me? I’m a Mormon. And I’m staggered if I can see how that incident AFFIRMS trinity, when it displays three distinct personages in different places.
Besides, I’ve always looked at trinity as a basic mathematics fail, or an attempt to state that God had dissociative personality disorder. I also look at it as a primitive solution to a problem that can be resolved in a much more conventional way. (three perfected personages, united in intent and acting in concern, is much more sensible and resolves most of these situations satisfactorally if you’re prepared to readjust your presumptions to account for it)
The trinity, as doctrinally defined, is 3 separate persons in the Godhead.
In looking at it defined by the Westminster, which I would agree with about 90% of… the divines look at the whole of Scripture and give the following definition-
—————
In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
—————
I would completely affirm the previous statement.
When the Bible says that no one has or can see God, how do you respond to Joseph Smith’s claims of seeing God?
The same way a Jew would respond to Moses’ claims of seeing God, or Christ’s claims of being the son of God I suppose. Just because the common usage of a scripture is one way, doesn’t mean the real intent isn’t something else, as the Pharisees found out the hard way.
Umm what about the fact that the 1st commandment says “I am the Lord your G-d” and so on? It doesn’t say “we” and directly preceding this commandment is “And G-d said to the people of Israel…” which is interpreted as G-d speaking directly to the Jewish people. If G-d gave the first 2 commandments to the people of Israel directly (the other 8 commandments say “And G-d said to Moses, say to the people of Israel…”) then they are immutable and not subject to any re-interpretation of any sort making any split of G-d into a trinity a direct violation of G-d’s immutable word.
What about Genesis 1, God made man in OUR image?
Crickets? I’d say that’s check mate.
There are several historical and modern churches that do not adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity. Most notably the Jehovas Witness, Unitarians, Christian Science, and LDS churches.
Are these truly christian churches? I was told by a Methodist minister that the most important component of the Christian faith was the belief that Christ was the son of God and salvation is achieved through him.
Not sure if that is universally accepted, but by those standards, most of the non-trinitarian churches would certainly be christian.
It’s… just what we do.
I find it amusing that on the church’s website under resources they list HomeBrew – a beer and winemaking supply house. Maybe the good pastor Shade was partaking a little too much as he wrote the letter?
I suppose failblog isn’t the place to go if you want to discuss biblical hermeneutics or exegesis. I think it is a fail on failblogs part to not do research. It is not the elders (pastors) who are deciding that they are not Christians, rather, it is the elders who are stating that their judgment of the situation would lead them to conclude that they are not saved, and it is through excommunication of the church (matthew 18:15-20, 1 corinthians 5:1-13) that they both hope to save the person and the well-being of the church.
Quite.
Most people don’t understand the context of the letter.
haha… Jesus didn’t teach anything more than Fred Flintstone did… newsflash… he is a character in a book…
There is no doubt that Jesus is an historical figure. Read a world history book.
Indeed. Christ’s presence as a person on this planet at the rough point in history his existence was reported in the Bible is a matter of historical record.
Try Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud. Along with the biblical manuscripts.
Indeed. The Jews in particular were strict in their geneologicy, especially those who had the lineage of the priests in their blood, as lineage established their claim to Priesthood. Since Christ was of the lineage of the priests through Mary, his status is a matter of record in Jewish geneaology.
Contemporary evidence on the existence of Jesus would be more appreciated. I meant the ones not written by True Christians™, but rather the peer-reviewed scientific stuff. As it is, the evidence for the actual existence of Christ is very shallow, and remains not at all a settled case under modern-day scholars. Part of the problem is that for a movement that was supposedly very big and influential, there is a serious lack of historical accounts outside those in the Bible. And mind you, the Romans did like to write down stuff a lot.
About your suggestions, they have hardly written what we consider, by today’s academic standards, ‘real world history books’. They are historic books, no doubt, but you’ll notice that current-day books don’t have gods running around in them changing the course of history.
In so far eye witnesses are trustworthy, the authors you mention aren’t even that: both Josephus and Pliny the Younger weren’t even born before the date Jesus was assumed to be crucified. The earliest known written versions of the Talmud also came well after that.
As for the Bible… Well, even if you wish to prove the Bible with the Bible (in which case Harry Potter exists, too), the oldest NT account of Jesus’ death were written about 30-40 years after the event. That’s like us starting to talk about Jimi Hendrix for the first time, last year.
Would the history of Jimi Hendrix, or the eye witnesses that met him and attended his concerts, be any less true if we had only begun writing about him, in some widespread manner, as of last year?
Yes. Considering his musical legacy, not to mention the amount of people who have heard him live or have his records or taping, it would indeed have been ridiculously shady to read the first word about him last year. Many small events are easily lost in time, but the death of Christ is assumed the start of the Christianity movement. Then it’s weird at least to have the first eye witness account some 40 years later. In Greek, no less.
Yes. Ask any cop how reliable eye-witnesses are even an hour after the event. With no recordings or artifacts our perception of Mr. Hendrix would be severely limited and possibly very different.
Different situation when it comes to a rabbi and his disciples. Also very different situation when it comes to an event (one which lated about 3 years) which was observed by thousands, believed by thousands, and then talked about by thousands for several years before it had been written down both by eyewitnesses, and those who had interviewed eyewitnesses.
Quite possibly, but then my point was mostly that Ryan chose a bad comparison.
I apologize if I have misunderstood, but just as well, Ryan’s example was not one of discussing the history of Hendrix after a run-in with the law, but th writing of a history composed of eyewitness accounts from concert attendees and other eyewitnesses of the man and his legendary guitaristry. These eyewitness accounts would be relatively reliable, especially when compared with one another independently. Just so a similar instance occurred in the writing of particularly the gospels, only the strength of that case is greater due to the rabbi/disciple relationship Jesus had with many including the famous 12. The sheer number of witnesses in Judea would make a fake story really hard to pass off to the early church.
My reply had nothing to do with a run-in with the law either. I’m sure that you could get plenty of information about Hendrix concerts if you could find witnesses, but given the rich variety of film, audio, posters etc. which we have access to in reality the difference in quality between the two sets of data would be colossal. In regard to the eyewitness situation in ancient Judea, a period of 30-40 years would mean that most witnesses would be dead even if they were young children when they saw Jesus. Also the sheer numbers of people who were interested in events at the time, combined with human nature and poor communication could render rumours more commonly remembered than reality in some cases.
I understand what you are saying, and i am not disputing that some truth could have been learned from the sources you mentioned, however since you keep giving me your point of view, I’ll say that in my opinion you should never assume the accuracy of records to the extent that Ryan and yourself seem to.
I suppose this is why we should never believe any historical account written before the invention of the photograph. Moving pictures makes it even better. It’s probably also why most folks seem to disregard any history that has occurred before their birth.
However these things haven’t done much to improve the situation for falsehoods can just as easily be conveyed through that medium as any other. The situation is basically the same, just faster.
Archaeology is a very helpful tool, but even then the stuff you find has to be interpreted by a historical narrative. Just as Hendrix left a bunch of crap behind, so did the events there in Judea.
Your claim about a 30-40 year time period also seems to be un-corroborated by history. There are historical records from that time. They should be referenced when making claims like that.
What is considered reliable and unreliable evidence by historians is generally confirmed through the scientific method or similar methods. We only have one original manuscript of Homer’s “Odyssey,” yet there is little to no dispute that it was written by Homer. Obviously Jesus didn’t write the NT, but its historical accuracy, at least in regards to who did or did not exist, along with Paul’s letters and the authors mentioned, and many others, is really not debated. The equivalent to your argument is the creationist argument against evolution: nobody REALLY knows because we all weren’t there to see it. Almost no historian argues that Jesus was not an historical person, and if they do, it’s only because Jesus was such a controversial person.
Actually, Odyssey is *attributed* to Homer, in more than one sense – it is very likely that Odyssey, like Iliad, is also composed of orally transmitted mythology.
And I can’t for the life figure out why you get the idea that my argument equals the creationist default were-you-there retort. Since we can’t be there, what I was talking about is *evidence*, something which creationists have a hard time accepting as the next best thing. The more evidence the better because it builds the accuracy of our understanding of historic events. And we’re certainly not talking eye witness accounts alone, here.
And the evidence, like I said, is shallow. Heck, it has been easier to build information around the apostles, because at least they’ve put the pen to the papyrus.
And you are wrong – historians do argue that Jesus is a ‘historical person’ – some in favor, some against. This has nothing to do with this being a controversial subject, but everything with being properly peer-reviewed by fellow scientists, without the pressure of those to whose peace of mind it is important the answer is an unequivocal “yes”.
I stated earlier in this comment section that there are over 13,000 NT manuscripts, and many more indirect sources (go back to Josephus, etc.) that note Jesus’ existence; all of this is evidence. And you’re right, because Jesus did not himself write anything, it is all based around what others wrote of him. This does not take away from the evidence, or what was written. Any “scholar” trying to make the case that Jesus did not physically exist is simply trying to make a name for himself. And all manuscripts are necessarily reviewed and studied for authenticity, which is why you won’t see anybody taking the “Gospel of Judas” seriously.
Yes. There are many NT manuscripts, although I would challenge you to quote your sources on the number you provide there.
However, the abundance of NT manuscripts is mainly in *copies*. I’m not sure how you think evidence works, but a copy of a piece of evidence does no add to the evidence. That’s just cheating.
As for “any scholar trying to make the case that Jesus did not physically exist is simply trying to make a name for himself”… Actually, they’d make a name for themselves finding evidence *in support of*. The fact that you believe a historical Jesus existed suggests, to me, that you’ve only been reading papers on apologetic websites.
The problem is “a copy of a piece of evidence,” when it’s 99.5% accurate, is not cheating; it’s reliable. Again, look at how historians determine reliability and accuracy.
You can’t be serious, can you? A copy can only be reliable as a COPY of the actual text, not of what it claims.
Here’s the equivalent to what you are saying: if I wrote down a claim that person A committed a crime, and then copied that claim onto another paper, according to you a judge should count that copy as *increasing* the probability that person A indeed committed the crime.
If this happened in a scientific paper, for some strange reason they would actually call that forgery.
You’re not knowledgeable in the methods of the accuracy.
If there is Source Doc A, and both you and I independently copy A, then our rate of accuracy just tremendously increased over the possibility of only 1 copy.
Now, apply that across the entire New Testament, with Thousands of manuscripts.
*Head-desk*
Ryan, did you even read what I stated? I didn’t say anything about how the NT was copied or how accurate those copies were.
Amiable came from the argument that there are ‘over 13,000 NT manuscripts’ that are supportive evidence of Christ having existed. Sure, you can have thousands of manuscripts of evidence if you forget that they’re all copies. But IT DOES NOT ADD TO THE EVIDENCE if they’re all based off the same text. And this was the entire argument.
Spelling it out again: making a copy of a text does not make the original text more true.
No one is saying it is more true… what he is saying is that by having X+1 copies increases the probability of accuracy than having X copies. No one has stated that large variable X number of copies is going to improve or surpass the accuracy of the source.
The numbers of the copies improve the % of reliability that we have of our translation, when taking into account every copy we have. By using every copy we have we are able to state with a high % of certainty that we have 99.5% exact in common with the source.
If you take a room of students, and ask them all to hand write the Bill of Rights, and then take any independent copy, for sake of the argument, let us say it is 75% true to the source. If you take two students Bill of Rights copies, and both of them had a 75% accuracy rate, both documents are not going to have exactly the same errors. One will have one error set, and the other will have another error set. So when combined, one may be able to determine with some degree of certainty, that accuracy of the source, without having the source to 80-90% certainty. Now add the entire class… if the whole class maintains the 75% accuracy rate, and they did actually copy the whole source, then it will be very easy to determine what the full text of the source was, at almost a proof positive level.
posting twice to bypass moderation.
No one is saying it is more true… what he is saying is that by having X+1 copies increases the probability of accuracy than having X copies. No one has stated that large variable X number of copies is going to improve or surpass the accuracy of the source.
The numbers of the copies improve the % of reliability that we have of our translation, when taking into account every copy we have. By using every copy we have we are able to state with a high % of certainty that we have 99.5% exact in common with the source.
If you take a room of students, and ask them all to hand write the Bill of Rights, and then take any independent copy, for sake of the argument, let us say it is 75% true to the source. If you take two students Bill of Rights copies, and both of them had a 75% accuracy rate, both documents are not going to have exactly the same errors. One will have one error set, and the other will have another error set. So when combined, one may be able to determine with some degree of certainty, that accuracy of the source, without having the source to 80-90% certainty. Now add the entire class… if the whole class maintains the 75% accuracy rate, and they did actually copy the whole source, then it will be very easy to determine what the full text of the source was, at almost a proof positive level.
If you take a room of students, and ask them all to hand write the Bill of Rights, and then take any independent copy, let us say it is 75% true to the source. If you take two students Bill of Rights copies, and both of them had a 75% accuracy rate, both documents are not going to have exactly the same errors. One will have one error set, and the other will have another error set. So when combined, one may be able to determine with some degree of certainty, the accuracy of the source, without having the source to 80-90% certainty. Now add the entire class… if the whole class maintains the 75% accuracy rate, and they did actually copy the whole source, then it will be very easy to determine what the full text of the source was
ROFL at how stupid Ryan is. ‘I don’t understand, I should restate my argument (which my more intelligent opponent already understands) at least four times so there will be no room for reply and then i’m sure to win the argument!
I was attempting to trim down the response so it bypassed the moderation filter…
Also, in this instance, the bible is not being used to authenticate the bible, but the facts regarding Jesus’ existence; therefore, it is an acceptable means.
Let me put it this way – if you have a book that says that a certain character mentioned in the book really existed, do you naturally accept this for fact? No questions asked?
Absolutely not, and neither do historians. All of human history is records. We don’t think Harry Potter is real because it would not logically follow that what is inherently not an historical account would be regarded as an historical account. All of the bible, OT and NT, with the exception of the creation story, is an historical account of people and events.
All of human history is records? Archaeological excavations don’t count? Bones don’t count? Cave paintings, primitive household appliance, boats, weapons, jewelry, buildings, etc. etc. etc. don’t count?
We’d know surprisingly little of human history if we only considered *accounts* to be evidence. Heck, took some regions a while before they actually started to write.
Absolutely those are. Are you suggesting we need to see Jesus’ body to believe?
are you… THOMAS?!
Really, though, of course those are components of human history, but in the context of this discussion, they do not help. Unless, of course, you don’t think anybody in that region and at that time lived at all. But I think you probably do.
Of course they did. And we know the area was rich in theological dispute. So it’s not unlikely that one or more self-proclaimed prophets would have attracted followers and gotten themselves into troubles with the establishment.
This may be a shocker to you – I do think there is a *possibility* that Christ, or a comparable person, existed right there. It’s just that there isn’t conclusive evidence. If there was one there, though, it doesn’t automatically follow that everything claimed about this person in the Bible took place. It’s one thing to be a fine philosopher and attract a following, and crucifixion certainly was an option, but it’s an entirely different thing to do miracles (especially in the light of sheer lack of miracle-making today). Books are written by people, and people always have an agenda.
So you’re arguing against Jesus doing miracles, not Jesus existing? There, we have no argument. And yeah, it’s shocking that after everything you wrote, you said “I do think there is a possibility that Christ, or a comparable person, existed.” I’m just as shocked when I hear a creationist say they think evolution may have happened.
If these manuscripts aren’t conclusive, then you probably have a hard time believing guys like Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Socrates, or Shakespeare ever existed either, right?
I don’t understand why it is shocking. I never made claims either way, because, unlike you, I don’t claim we know for sure.
I’m arguing against people like you who come around with the blatant lie that the existence of a historical figure with that name is a *settled case among historians*. I did this by pointing out that what you bring about as ‘evidence’ has problems as being reliable, and I didn’t even make an effort to give *all* the reasons.
Here, let’s take a further poke at the two external sources you claim. For the excessive records Josephus left behind, only two passages seem to refer to Christ. And you know what? The overall consensus seems to be that they’re forgeries. Look up “Josephus on Jesus” on Wikipedia.
Pliny the Younger? A single passage, in a letter on how to deal with followers of Christ. Mind you, several decades after the crucifixion. We already know a cult emerged out of that era, but reading that as evidence to the existence of is just silly.
Frankly, the only ones delivering evidence for the ‘historical figure’ are followers of the cult themselves. Not that this immediately renders their texts as useless, but it should make anyone very, very suspicious about the authenticity.
With such an event, you’d expect there to be more evidence from different, non-apocryphal sources. There isn’t. Mind you – I’m not even *concluding* that because of this Christ never existed. However, in our current state of knowledge I’d put my money on the did-not side.
As for the other guys you mention – there is overwhelmingly more evidence, both direct and indirect, of their existence, not in the least because, but starting with, that almost all of them wrote stuff down under their own names. They’re also more likely real in the sense that they have no miracles attributed to them – neither to their birth and their death.
Now you’re saying “settled case among historians.” You’re sounding more like a creationist every time you write. And you just admitted that it’s because Jesus was a controversial person that his existence is debated.
Look, the majority of historians don’t debate the existence of Jesus. The majority of historians don’t think the text of Josephus was altered. No historian will hand you the body of Christ, and if they did you’d still not accept that its Jesus’. You don’t have to. What you do have to accept is that you are part of the minority on this issue, even among secular scholars. You obviously have a problem with Christianity, but rejecting what is overwhelmingly accepted in academic, scientific fields just makes you look crazy… like creationists. Buddha speed.
There is MUCH doubt that the character in the bible called jesus was born lived or died, or ever existed. In fact there are no reliable historic sources (contemporary or otherwise) of his existance.
If you claim to have studied this I suggest you study further.
In fact you make a mockery of history by even claiming that.
You, sir, are an imbecile.
Really, though, you’re wrong. Read my previous posts… or the entire comments section.
My reply remains. Read it again to your content or you come to your senses.
Would you accept manuscripts and/or witness testimony of an event as a reliable historic source of the existence of said event?
As a Satan worshipper, I see nothing wrong with this letter. We welcome this new member to the land of darkness and wish him all the best while he is here.
Watch out guys, we’re dealing with a badass over here.
Yeah. Color me terrified.
Never met a Satan worshipper yet who wasn’t a poseur.
Guys, I think, I THINK, he may be joking. Just a hunch.
That is the way to lay the money, yes.
New question: Exactly what in our responses suggested that we were taking him in the slightest seriously?
Failblog failing to understand basic belief systems. I have no idea what is the background of this particular situation, but the church has the right to decide their own membership. If someone fails to abide by the rules of membership of any organization, they have the right to disfellowship someone. This letter in isolation may look harsh, but apparently it is not an isolated communication as stated in the letter.
Did anyone in this church stick a gun to this person’s head? Did they “force” him/her to believe anything? NO! They simply stated their beliefs about the necessity of fellowship and obedience to God. The person obviously disagrees, but how is this a fail on the church’s part.
Are you people honestly saying that the church has no right to even say what they believe to people who have at one time been part of their fellowship?? This is not a fail, this is called communication. Obviously the person did not like the communication. So what, don’t be part of the church then, no one is forcing you in the first place.
What kind of church or any kind of organization if they did not have some kind of standards?
If this guy hadn’t been coming to church and ignoring their letters, then I totally agree that the church may say he’s no longer part of their church. But – saying he’s no longer saved, handing him over to Satan? Doesn’t it seem harsh for just not attending?
If he’d committed some heinous crime or something I would think his letter of excommunication would have at least mentioned it. As it is, their only reason for condemning him is that he hasn’t been coming to their church. (There’s nothing even to say that he hadn’t started attending another church).
The handing him over to Satan part is actually a Biblical reference from 1 Corinthians 5:5. I am not saying I agree or disagreeing with the church here, because I do not know the whole situation. If this person is known to be rejecting their beliefs or living in such a way that shows him to be rejecting them, then they are simply following their own standards by telling him that they believe he is not a Christian. In that respect they are acting out of concern for him because they believe his actions may have eternal consequences. If the guy was not attending anyway, they did not have to send the letter, but they did send it not for their benefit, but his.
the power of christ compels you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
The only fail bigger than this letter are all the 155+ people who responded to it by posting their ever-so-passionate “feelings” and “beliefs” – oh wait, I guess I just failed as well!
We’re hard-wired towards religion. Those who don’t believe by and large feel as strongly about their refusal to believe, as the believers. As we see plenty of evidence for from the anti religion folk in this thread.
While it is possible that due to evolutionary pressure we are inclined as a species to jump to false positive conclusions, the same tendency cannot be applied to atheism. Atheism is more about rejecting the positive gut feeling in favour of a negative conclusion based upon further examination of the evidence. The only thing you see on this thread is atheists being annoyed by constant social pressure from religion and reacting negatively against it. It’s interesting to watch how you attempt to represent your own false assumptions as ‘evidence’ however.
This is ridiculous. I am a Christian and my church would never ever do that. We don’t even take attendance at our church because the church is not the stupid building you go to worship at it is us the people and if you have three people at your house discussing Jesus guess what that is church. Some body needs to slap that pastor with the Bible maybe more of what is in the Bible will sink in that way. This is why people run away from the church.
What did he do with the letter I wonder? Hang it up in the ‘Smallest room in the house?’
Y U no worship Poseidon? Polytheism is WIN
Win
Agreed, but I’m a follower of Lugh of the Celt pantheon, he kicks A$$ as well ^^
By Odin’s Beard you shall pay for your blasphemy, and I shall have a lovely new skull to drink mead from
Turns out I’m not saved either since I don’t go to their church. Guess I’ve been serving the Lord for no reason. Oh well, back to hedonism then…
Seriously though…wow. Sorry everyone. We Christians are just as fallible as anyone, and APPARENTLY a group of particularly MISGUIDED ones lead that congregation. I offer this rebuttal:
“I have NOT come to CONDEMN man, but to SAVE him.” John 3:17
hebrew 10:25 says to encourage people to join in congregation, not to condemn and call them blasphemers, heathens and devil worshippers for not showing up every sunday.
Why does anyone here care about some little denomination’s ecclesiology? If it was any other organization that happened to have attendance requirements to maintain membership, no one would give a damn, but for some reason THIS draws attention.
The real fail: The 2nd paragraph is only 3 sentences. So many commas, so little time…
Note to self: Do NOT subscribe to post updates on this thread, don’t want to fill up the inbox.
For those wondering, this is a fail because they suggest that being a Christian is synonymous with church attendance, which is as far away from the message given in the Bible as you can get – that is the personal relationship with Jesus as the sole forgiver of sin leads to salvation.
OMG, are you for real?
I’m sorry, what part of the comment is so unbelievable to you? People have commented and claimed that it is not a fail because it’s what the Bible says, when it’s not.
They wouldn’t have sent this letter if he had just kept sending his tithe check.
I love how the humor is slowly being taken out of this letter to make room for all the argumentation and defense of religion.
I found this letter extremely hard to masturbate to.
Try conTejas post above instead. I can only imagine that’s why she(?) posted it since it has nothing to do with anything else.
Turning him over to Satan LOL what a crock! May this priest rot in hell for his crimes
Did you just turn him over to Satan?
These are, and will forever be, the best two comments in this comment section.
Not that funny at all, are you having a bromance or are you two the same person?
Yeah… we’re the same person.
I like to go places on the internet posing as two individuals, one of which is a theist and the other is an atheist.
Then I argue with myself.
Amiable is no atheist. I’m sure you are separate people, but your ‘arguments’ do seem closer to sex than fighting.
Agnostic is more like it. I’m soft to Christianity, and generally defend Christians among the a**hole atheists. The certainty of the majority of atheists is baffling, and their willingness to resort to ad-hominem attacks puts me off. Things like mocking Christians for something like this letter, consistent in the biblical teaching of church discipline, makes me furious. I don’t think the bible is true, but I like its followers more than I like the followers of Dawkins.
Mangina, do you see the irony in the post Ryan responded to? Do you see it at all? Anything? It basically sums up the uninformed psyche of modern liberal theology/atheism. From previous discussion, I would guess no, considering your ability, or inability, to read analytically.
And since we’re here, can you give me a complete explanation, including actual reasons, why you’re an atheist, without resorting to argumentative fallacies? (And yes, cherry-picking is a fallacy). I know I previously stated I am an atheist, but agnostic would probably be a more accurate term. If you’d like me to explain, I can.
If I was “cherry picking”, then I seem to have picked too many cherries. Would you like that I empty my basket of some of these juicy cherries in order to level the playing field?
Who said I was an atheist?
I figured you were an atheist because you act like an atheist.
And please, do take the analogy too far and give me some reasons you are a non-Christian, since you have yet to do that.
you’re a bit of a loser, aren’t you? Of course you are, no need to ask.
Am I somehow obliged to answer your questions?
Question what I’ve written, dumbass.
^True
Ok, I got curious and googled this, and what I turned up turns the whole bible argument of the past hundred and so posters, on their ear. Here is the whole story of how this came about.
The guy that got this letter, only got it after he informed his pastor (Shade) that he had decided to leave the church and was going to another one which was nearer his home. That’s it guys. The whole thing started because a guy decided to go to a new church.
It’s not the first time that the pastor has been in trouble (and apparently he’s in a TON of hot water for this one from the ruling elders of the church). In the 90′s, he was deposed from one church he pastored at (meaning he was kicked out) because he followed some very…strange views when it came to ministry. In that incident, Shade had charged that one of the church elders who had been suggesting church goers could donate money to help the needy families in their town; in place of tithing the church itself; that this elder was, preaching heresy. The case was tossed out and the pastor along with it.
If that’s the extent of what the congregant did, then the excommunication is not Biblical…
Thanks for looking this up!
This is the biggest reason why Christians suck.
Agreed. Religion brainwashes people.
By its own definition, Atheism is a religion.
Religions are defined by three key factors.
1.) do they have a defined belief about a higher being?
2.) do they have a defined belief about creation?
3.) do they have a defined belief about an after life.
Atheist answers to these questions are:
1.) They do not believe a higher being exists. This is their core belief, which all atheists agree upon.
2.) They have a defined belief in creation, stating when asked (9 times out of 10) that science can explain the answer.
3.) They believe that there is no after life.
Since they have those three core beliefs, even if they are “lack” of belief in their eyes, they meet the criteria for being a religion. Thus, by your own definition they too are as brainwashing as any other religion.
Gave me a nice laugh. Atheism (which is not really what most people mean, but rather Agnosticism) is as much a religion as baldness is a hair colour.
Most ‘Atheists’ are Agnostic, they do not ‘believe that there is no higher being’ but instead accept that there is no reason to believe since there is no evidence.
Creation – abiogenesis
No afterlife – again we do not believe that there is not one, simply we do not believe that there is one, there is no evidence.
I suggest you read into what Religion actually means rather than spouting nonsense from a vague dictionary definition.
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2011/03/atheism-is-religion-too.html
Yeah, only the pope can excommunicate someone.
So wait… they’re kicking him out of their church because he doesn’t go to church? Isn’t that a little like expelling a kid for cutting class?
That’s exact what I was thinking. It’s an empty and pointless punishment when a person actually wants it. If I was this guy I’d be sending the church a thank you letter to mock them.
Given the pastor’s previous record, it’s likely more money than anything. When my parents were alive, I’d go to church with them. It always struck me funny that you could tell when the church needed cash; by how often the pastor preached on how much you were to tithe to the church.
Thing is, in some areas the pastor is paid a percentage of the money tithed (gifted) to the church. If this church were having a hard time, or the person who left was known for giving a great deal; then the pastor may have snapped, seeing his money going to another church would be enough to push him over the edge.
Nothing like a bit of religion to fire peeps up!!!!
Can you all just shut up now kthxbye
I got a similar letter when I canceled my old ISP contract.
LOL!
I lol’d. In the middle of work. Thank you.
Who’d ever thought failblog was filled with so many intellectuals?? :p
Nope not intellectuals,more like religious prats that think preaching the bible will make us all cower in a corner
That letter is gonna start on fire from all the flaming going on in here!
I’m a Christian who only manages to attend church every now and then due to my busy schedule. There was one time when I couldn’t go to my church at all, because I wasn’t even in the same town. They still welcomed me with open arms when I came home, even when I barely corresponded with them when I was away.
We don’t know the full circumstances behind this letter being sent, but I’m going to give the recipient the benefit of the doubt. Who knows what was actually going on in their life? The pastor had NO right to accuse them of the things he did. And it kind of frightens me that he claimed they were going to “hand them over to Satan.” Where I come from, the proper Christian term is to hand them over to GOD.
And to say “according to us, you’re not a Christian anymore.” Oh ho ho I have a problem with that. I think Christ would have a problem with that too, especially if that person still believed in Him, despite not going to church.
You don’t need to go to church in order to follow God. If you did, how on earth would anyone in the Old Testament been able to claim to know God? The idea of “church” didn’t really come into play until the Apostle Paul started his missionary trips.
This comment isn’t meant to start any arguments; I’m just giving an opinion from a Christian’s perspective. And I have a really big problem with the way that particular church handles the idea of “Christian love.”
I get what the pastor is doing. If you believe in the teachings of the Church, and the person is not coming to Church, it is actually a way to remind them that their souls are in jeopardy. I realize that traditional theology can be a bit confusing for many in today’s post-modern world, but it is actually a loving wake-up call.
I’m sure you won’t appreciate what I’m saying; that’s fine. But it’s not as bad as you think. It is just a reminder to a person who has indicated that they believe in the teachings of the church by becoming a member, that it does, in fact, matter.
Apparently, he received this after moving to a different church closer to his home… still, I would do my own research to confirm.
Hihi…silly religion. It’s all good fun until someone get killed.
or until someone gets turned over to satan…
http://shaderenegade.blogspot.com/2001/05/another-church-court-vindicates-burke.html
This will shed some light on this man.
We need a word for someone who is neither atheist nor agnostic nor religious nor spiritual, but rather, someone who sees every side of the so-called debate as simply…pointless and near-nauseating.
That person is called an impossibility.
We all believe something.
I think the closest you could get is someone that believes something, but feels the debate is needless.
I find the act of the argument kind of sad, but I suppose my belief is that we could be finding better ways to spend our time (as a culture) than arguing over whose beliefs are going to result in eternal punishment.
A nihilist?
Maybe a solipsist!
An Apathist.
This is why I only go to church once a year, because of people like Pastor Shade. Jesus is up there reading sh!t like that and going “*facepalm*”. I’m so sick of churches brow-beating you into worshipping like them. If you don’t worship EXACTLY like they do, you’re going to hell and are beneath contempt. I don’t need a$$holes like this telling me how to practice my faith.
inb4 u mad bro
Umm… why is this a fail? It is standard procedure to remove a member for the church’s membership if he or she has not attended church in a ridiculously long time. At my church, 2 years of phone calls, visits, and letters precede striking the member from the roster. If someone calls himself Christian, he or she should want to worship with fellow believers; if that person does not worship, then he or she needs to be brought to repentance. Clearly that is not going to work in this instance.
The only fail in this post is that the poster actually considers this to be a fail.
So you know if they’re going to another church, or whatever? It’s your call to tell them they’re not a Christian for not going to your church?
to remove them from the Church roster, sure.. that makes sense. They quit showing up… but to “excommunicate” them from the Christian faith… really?
“You are no longer a Christian, and are no longer part of the company of the saved”… did you read that far?
You think this is appropriate, rational, or reasonable?
Maybe you do, but it doesn’t mean the only fail here is the poster… I missed where local pastors decide who gets into heaven; where is in the bible do pastors get to kick people out of the “company of the saved” again?
I think it’s towards the back somewhere…
Yes exactly–ok to remove from roster NOT okay to judge!
NOT ok to “hand over to Satan” yikes!!!
Reading the context is key (he was disassociating himself from fellowship and refused to follow the Bible). Excommunication is a Biblical concept that is sadly not utilized in most churches today. If you are claiming to be a Christian and refuse to act like one, then you’re proving what you’re not and no one in the church needs to recognize you as a Christian. Excommunication is just an official way of saying, “peace and so long”.
You can disagree, whatever. But it’s pretty clear in the Bible that this should take place.
Think about it….If you’re claiming to be apart of something you are not, who are you kidding? Disassociating yourself is a bit of an indicator. If you want to claim to be a Christian simultaneously, the community of Christ does not have to recognize you. So if the world looks at this guy and then tries to point to the church as corrupt, they don’t have to associate themselves with him.
“among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” ~Paul
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ~Jesus
http://www.gotquestions.org/church-discipline.html
Well said bro.
So is the basic idea here that everyone who doesn’t go to this guy’s church is going to hell? The people in this letter could have started going to another church. But I guess only the people who attend this particular church are saved.
Also, passive aggressive much? Wow, dude.
Finally, one of you works out where the Fail is:
“He won’t come — we won’t let him. Fix his ass.” [Gallagher]
This isn’t the only church that says anyone who doesn’t believe what they say is going to hell. Take Seventh Day Adventism for example: Ellen White said ‘Not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history.” Meaning that less than 5% of Christians – perhaps less than 5% of Adventists, I’m not positive what she means – would go to heaven if they died now (or on the day she said that).
Do you realize how few people this is? Especially if it’s only referring to Seventh Day Adventists. But to the SDA church, Ellen White’s word is law. Sometimes I think it’s more important than the Bible itself.
Crossing someone off the roster once they’ve stopped attending?
Fine.
“We have handed you over to Satan and his kingdom of darkness?”
Dear lord, someone shut him up before his inane babble lowers the collective I.Q. of all who have to deal with him on a regular basis.
And Christians wonder why so many scoff at the faith? This is the perfect example of the hypocrisy and underlying snobbishness that turns people away. Please know, though, that not all Christians are like this. There are still some of us out there who actually give a damn about loving people and showing compassion…something this so-called pastor seriously lacks.
Lol… So these “Christians” in this thread are wrong but you’re right? Isn’t that a little snobbish towards the “Christians” in this thread?
@Rach: I tend to agree; I for one do not believe that all Christians are as narrow-minded as this pastor has shown himself to be. Unfortunately, the narrow-minded, bigoted Christians tend to be a lot more vocal than those who feel as you do, and therefore come to represent the religion to the outside world.
The only cure is for those Christians who do still believe in compassion and respect for everyone, even those outside their faith, to become more outspoken and not let the bigots speak for you all.
Some of us do try to speak out. I apologize on behalf of anyone who believes as I do every time I see something like this. Such lack of tolerance… I bet this guy merely moved somewhere else where he could no longer get to this church without using a lot of expensive gas money, or some other reasonable thing. Maybe he just got tired of the lack of understanding that must be plaguing this church. Who knows? The point is: I’m sorry everyone is exposed to Christians who think God’s word restricts people to very specific behavior, such as staying with a single church no matter what once you’ve become a member there. Especially pastors who think they have the authority to hand people over to Satan.
This is adorable!
It’s some guy saying that “You can’t break up with us — we break up with you first” and then sprinkling over the whole thing a few imaginary toppings.
Look, the person it’s addressed to gave you up. They obviously don’t care what inanities you are spewing.
Church-fail!
I’m lost; what’s this ‘god’ thing?
Obviously fake, and obviously gay, kind of like all of you.
Trololol?
http://www.cornerstonecrec.org/contact.html
Pastor Shade:
burke@cornerstonecrec.org
lol Wow, this is definitely a fail. That is not a church, not at all. If they were half as holy as they probably think they are they’d know that the Bible says
( John 10:28 ) “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.”
It’s sad that there are really people like that in the world.
I got a letter a lot like this yrs ago when I visited a friend’s church. It had the outline of the devil on it. They told me that since I don’t go to church anymore they hope the devil and me were having a great time. It was a Baptist church.
*facepalm* That sucks. I hope your friend found a better church.
I am agnostic. My sister is Christian. Both of us think that this letter is insane, and probably resembles something that WBC would write.
There is nothing wrong with this.
If you were a member of a club but never attended or participate in the club, you have no right to be a member of the club.
I agree that the church has the right to terminate the membership of anyone who no longer meets their criteria for membership, which in this case apparently includes regular attendance.
I do think, however, that the manner in which they chose to terminate this membership is utterly tasteless and offensive, and thus it fully qualifies as a FAIL, regardless of their legal or ethical right to terminate it. A simple letter reading “Dear John(*) – Sorry, you’re no longer a member because you never show up. Have a nice life.” would have sufficed.
* – or whatever the heck the ex-member’s name is
What is truly shocking is the raging hypocrisy of piling judgment onto someone for being ‘judgmental’. Really, most of you should think about that. But the problem is that you won’t, because you don’t like where that conclusion goes. It is stunningly inept to ad hoc define your own morality and then try to hold someone morally accountable, when you operate on the premise that it is inappropriate to hold someone accountable. You tolerate anything but that which doesn’t agree with you.
This is nothing near Westboro Baptist. The equation merely shows your theological ineptitude. It’s on the level of saying that because McDonald’s often uses the color red, they must be communist. Seriously. Your myopia is shocking. Most of you who say that you are Christians really ought to read the NT more. Even the red letters. Just actually read them for once. You’ll probably find that you don’t like Jesus (at least the one of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as much as you think you do.
And one more thing: The thing most of you really hate is that Christians would actually believe Christianity. You’re fine with Christians who don’t really believe it, who simply live, act, and talk like you do. But drop the pretension that you’re tolerant. You’re not – not even close. You’re just the next brand of fundamentalism, asserting your belief in tolerance with as much vitriol as any other.
Yo Dawg, I heard you like to judge people for judging a judgement…
Your standard, not mine. Follow an argument.
ROFL! I was actually joking in the style of an internet meme, but thank you for the comedy of your po-faced butthurt reaction.
This seems the usual Christian horses**t…what exactly earns this its spot on FAILBlog?
here’s the pastor’s email, taken from the church’s site: burke@cornerstonecrec.org
What the heck?! That church is definitely NOT Christian…no wonder people think we’re crazy! It’s because people like “Pastor Shade”(?) have no clue what real Christianity looks like. I honestly don’t blame the people for leaving. And if I got this letter, I think I’d be cracking up and thankful for being “excommunicated” from the church of stupid.
Irony alert. Someone calling someone not a Christian for calling someone not a Christian. You’re just as fundamentalist as he is. And I personally would infer from your “church of stupid” comment that your “Christianity” isn’t a very gracious religion. Which seems to be, again, quite ironic.
Indeed, I’ve found it quite fascinating to observe the responses of Christians to this. By far the most common seems to be, “That guy’s whack. I’m not like that. See Christians can be normal too!” Most seem to be ignorant of he reasoning and history (both recent and ancient) behind this letter. The fidelity of this particular pastor notwithstanding, this letter is representative of nearly all local churches which practice church discipline. Just because it seems odd to some people is no indication of its being the fruit of insanity. Christians from the very foundation of the religion have frequently expressed their view of reality in paradoxical statement as well as retaining the language of their scriptures (i. e. in modified quotations) in a way that would sound very odd to outsiders; apparently it also sounds odd to modern day adherents who don’t know their own history…
“The fidelity of this particular pastor notwithstanding, this letter is representative of nearly all local churches which practice church discipline.”
Exactly.
The failure lies with the utter religious, cultural, and historical naivity and ignorance of the vast majority of Failblog commentators.
They cannot seem to imagine a world in which they are not at the center, and where their view isn’t absolute truth, with them looking over all those other silly people with their beliefs (another irony). The irony of such a posture of tolerance is its fundamentalist dogmatic claim to be able to rise above everything else and tell everyone else what the truth is.
And most of these Christians would have themselves been excommunicated from the church for the first five hundred years of its existence.
http://www.cornerstonecrec.org/
troller ahoy
Wow! You get a ticket to Satan’s Kingdom of Darkness! Can I come too??
Why can’t bible-thumping, intolerant Christians and lousy, worthless atheist pricks just shut up already? They’re both just as ignorant and hard-headed as the other. But it is what it is.
“Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.” -F. Nietzsche
Yet another intolerant prick who won’t shut up.
I skip one Sunday service to watch the NFL, and they send me this letter.
What the hell!
If you look up the story, the “Pastor” of this church has been kicked out of mainline congregations and started his own little cult under the name of Covenant Reformed Church. It’s not a Christian church.
Whether that is the case, the letter of excommunication itself is not particularly aberrant (even the comment regarding the person’s salvation is not contextually surprising, as church discipline is in its authorization proleptic of divine judgment).
Last! Yesssssss!!!!
I WISH my church did this.
I keep seeing all the comments where folks say “My church would NEVER do this!” And I believe it.
The problem is that this is simply what the Bible says to do.
And yet a lot of churches are so big on welcoming people in that you don’t even have to be “Christian” anymore to be a part of the church.
The Bible tells you how to live. 2 Timothy 3:16
It isn’t vague, unclear, difficult to understand. If you read the book, you’ll know. If you confess and turn from sin and believe on Christ – He’ll also help you know better, and see better the things in your life that don’t bring Him glory.
Salvation isn’t a belief.
If I’m drowning, I can believe in the life guard, I can believe He has the power to save me, but if instead of screaming HELP ME! I continue bobbing in the water, going under and saying “I’m just like everybody else out here” then I’m going to die believing in the lifeguard. The Bible also says that the devil/demons believe also and tremble. *Our churches are so busy loving everyone that no one realizes they have reason to tremble*
But if you believe, call on His name, humble yourself and pray, turn (turn means quit doing them) from your wicked ways you will find God answers that cry. (2 Chronicles 7:14)
Problem is, we have churches full of people that never turned from any kind of sin. They come to church committing adultery, loving themselves and their comfort more than God (spent hours playing facebook games lately with no time to read the Bible?)
I don’t say it to condemn… if you’re going to be a sinner. By all means sin. SIN gloriously. But if you’re going to call yourself a Christian, actually follow Christ. Do what He says in His book – ALL He says and not just the nice scriptures like “love and encourage”, but “rebuke”, “confess sin to others”, “give your shirt to someone that just stole your coat”
The Bible is a whole book.
You’re right folks, you’re church wouldn’t do this. But that just means they want more people than God. Things like this is exactly why God said we’d be hated for His names sake. And it’s proven in these comments.
Stand up for what the Bible says and it’s going to irk folks.
I love sinners.
It’s fake Christians I have a problem with.
And if you read the Bible, you’ll see Jesus felt the same way.
Wow. I have no idea if we have any specific beliefs in common outside this post but kudos for standing up. You, my friend, have guts. I will point out that the only people Christ ever came close to condemning the way this letter’s writer does were the very ones (Pharisees) who spent their time telling the ‘sinners’ they were going to hell. He never spoke that way to the prostitutes and the tax collectors and the demon-possessed. Of course, it’s granted that those of that element who followed him were actually repenting, not continuing to live in sin. I see very little wrong with what this guy is doing, even if his words are harsh. The only issue I take is that he says the recipient is not saved, which is in no way up to any pastor or any human being–it’s God who saves. I won’t be the one to underestimate his mercy.
That’s kinda exactly the point.
The Pharisee’s (the people considered to be religious) weren’t acting like they ought to. And that’s who Jesus constantly condemned.
God loves us and will take care of His church. Leading them, teaching them, guiding them into righteousness. It’s just a part of growing.
If you say you’re a Christian, you better be one.
If you say you’re a Christian and aren’t, you’re a detriment to those that are seeking because they’ll look to you.
If you aren’t willing to run to the water to save people, you’d better not put on a lifeguard uniform and visit the beach tower on Sundays. People will lose faith in lifeguards.
“If you aren’t willing to run to the water to save people, you’d better not put on a lifeguard uniform and visit the beach tower on Sundays. People will lose faith in lifeguards.”
This is exactly why I’m no longer Christian. I’ve seen people need saved by your God – and yes, asked for His help – and too often He’s unwilling to do it. Unwilling, unable, or – dare I say it? – nonexistent. I’ve lost faith in your lifeguard. If I drown for this? Am I then any different from the people He didn’t help?
Satra, I really wish I knew or could explain. I’ve found myself in places, just times in my life that absolutely hurt (my mom has alzheimers and is in a mental hospital for “treatment” right now before they’ll send her back to the nursing home). Why doesn’t God heal her? Why doesn’t He take away the ripping pain of her being in such an awful place? Why doesn’t He just let her die so she won’t be in this torment anymore?
I’m a Christian not just becuase I choose to be, but because He changed my heart. He’s done things in my life that I just can’t explain. I was addicted to sinful things and He just took away that awful desire so I don’t have to live in shame anymore. When He planted a dream in my heart (foster care) He provided enough money (sometimes right to the penny) to do what needed to be done.
He’s gave me peace in the middle of my moms illness. He gave me joy in the middle of a trying courtroom drama for one of my kids. He gave me hope and a future that I get to pursue every day – and pursue confidently because I’ve seen Him provide for me time and time again so I trust that, just like His word says, He that began a good work in me will be faithful to complete it.
Will I understand everything? Well, if I did that’d be asking God to be as uncomplicated as a human being. And I need Him to be so much bigger.
I’m sorry for your hurt though, I understand – definitely.
Yeh, its a shame when god decides to act as if he doesnt exist…. its almost like…….he…..doesnt…..exist……..
The bible also says it’s okay to sell my daughter into slavery.
How much should I charge?
Check out the old covenant vs the new covenant.
And if I were you, if you were an Israelite a few thousand years ago, I’d charge about 20 american dollars. The exchange rate is legit.
Wow, thank you, a voice of sanity for a change.
Very well said bro. I’ve been trying to say the same thing but haven’t been able to find the words.
I imagine you have trouble finding the words for a lot of things.
Finally, somebody who gets it! Well said, flyawaynet.
PS – Bear in mind I don’t know the particulars of why this person received the letter. I’m only speaking in general of church discipline.
Late fees may apply if you return after the due date.
haaa my friend got almost the same letter for moving in with her long time boyfriend. Typical Dutch Reformed ‘Christians’
Last! Nooooooooo!!!
As a minister this is the most theologically incorrect thing I have read in a long time. It notes that the recipient in “no longer a Christian and unsaved”. On of many reasons that those who are outside the church will never cross it threshold.
I love how this thread has over 400+ comments it strikes a core for those who profess and do not profess to the Christian faith.
Really? You love the non-stop arguing and insult throwing that always happens whenever failblog posts something remotely religious?
I learned in Psychology that when people who agree on the same thing talk about it, they all grow more and more firm in their agreement. But I think it’s even worse when people are on opposite ends of the argument, because there doesn’t seem to be much room for being moderate. Everyone (almost everyone, anyway) seems to feel the need to gravitate toward one side or the other – in this case, religious or atheistic – and as the argument continues, it grows more heated and the people become more set in what they believe and don’t.
See, I love debate. Debate is necessary to progress, I think. But there’s a difference between debating and arguing – in debate, both sides are educated and informed about the different points, so hopefully either an eventually conclusion can be reached, or a respectful difference in opinion. In an argument, name-calling and irrationality is more prevalent, so the same old points are made again and again, without any progress.
Do we really need more argument? Doesn’t it just lead to more hatred?
The Pope was excommunicating people before it was cool. Just sayin’
this letter has nothing to do with religion. I have no interest in the religious beliefs of anyone on this board. Let them worship as they please.
This letter is all about MONEY. Pastor Shade is hurting for cash and he has resorted to guilt letters to get people to come back to church and buy back their salvation. Its a desperation plea.
This comment is so true… and yet, so neglected.
I don’t think the truth is valid here…. it’s all about “my god can beat up your non-god!”
To be honest, with just the letter it’s hard to say if it’s justified or not. If regular attendance is the issue, then that’s laughable. The church isn’t just one little group of people, and if a pastor/preacher/whatever starts getting clingy with members, get the hell out fast.
On the other hand, it’s not unheard of for pastors to say… you have a major problem with “x” please attend church and help us help you with that. If there was some sort of verbal agreement to that effect, then there is some justification in writing someone off like that.
Regardless, the letter is lame. Maybe this is like divorce papers after 10 years of separation and they’ve really been trying to contact over and over(again, hard to say… obviously the poster of this wants to make the church look bad and would withhold any information that incriminates himself), but everyone knows breaking up by text (mesage, e-mail, whatever) is lame, lame, lame. Man up and do it in person so you can at least make half a claim about caring about your members instead of coming across as the impersonal bureaucratic mess that no true church should be guilty of.
^this^
Can we make a referendum against religious fails on FailBlog? The comment flamewars get quite out of hand. 400+ comments within a few hours is pretty ridiculous.
Seriously, though. Keep your opinions to yourself. It’s not like you’ll actually change anyone’s opinion. As they say, arguing on the internet is like the special olympics. Win or lose, you’re still retarded.
Expecting people not to post is a lost cause, so why post your opinion? Your argument is invalid, and you just called yourself retarded.
There is nothing I can say to anyone to “prove” that there is a God. If we could, where is faith? The bottom line is this: Anyone who is unwilling to live by a certain set of basic standards, open themselves up to ridicule, disagree with modern secular society, and have faith in something beyond the physical will fight bitterly and endlessly to “disprove” the fact that they are called to do so. Now if there was a major world religion saying that there is a supreme deity and he calls upon us to get wasted on a regular basis, swear profusely, have as much extramarital sex as we can with both genders, have abortions whenever consequences of the aforementioned sex are inconvenient, conform to the highest degree possible with whatever society does, stay away from gathering for any spiritual purpose, and live for materialistic ends, then many of the same people who incessantly deny the actual God would faithfully fall in line behind that one. To those who know the truth: You aren’t alone, and it wouldn’t matter if you were, because sooner or later every knee will bow. To those who won’t believe: True Christians will force nothing on you. Forced morality is none at all, and the best we can do for you is try to let Christ show in our lives. We often fail, and sometimes we deserve the derision you all throw our way for hypocrisy. This pastor does not represent all Christians. I won’t judge his motives or his sincerity, but I don’t feel it’s too harsh to say he could work on expressing the kind of love Christ showed. On the other hand, it’s his role to warn those who turn their backs, and he’s doing the best he can here. Honestly, why would the recipient of this letter ever have been involved in the church if he or she blows this off as Failblog-worthy? The poster is looking for reassurance from the ubiquitous online atheist support network, because there’s still a kernel of spiritual awareness in there somewhere and it won’t be quiet. To that person: You can turn back, though I’d suggest searching for a more compassionate group. Don’t allow a bunch of trolls who have a problem with accepting a higher authority to discourage you. Every knee will bow. They are not excepted. God bless you all
*Disclaimer: I don’t claim to be perfect. No Christian is. If we were, we wouldn’t need Christ.
Contrary to what you may believe, calling yourself grace and peace and putting a smile on the end of your post does not make it less of a ignorant and patronising attack upon those who don’t share your beliefs. Sadly your assertion that religion and moral behaviour are the same thing is all too common from people as stupid as you. The major world religion opposing Christianity would be satanism, which you may have noticed atheists do not follow either. People have a set of basic morals which have nothing to do with religion, there are Christians who live in ways you would disapprove of, and atheists who would share your views but not require god to enforce them. I don’t care what you believe, but you should really educate yourself about the other people you share the world with.
Are you Sarah Palin? O_O
“Now if there was a major world religion saying that there is a supreme deity and he calls upon us to get wasted on a regular basis, swear profusely, have as much extramarital sex as we can with both genders, have abortions whenever consequences of the aforementioned sex are inconvenient, conform to the highest degree possible with whatever society does, stay away from gathering for any spiritual purpose, and live for materialistic ends, then many of the same people who incessantly deny the actual God would faithfully fall in line behind that one.”
You actually think people become atheist because worshiping God is inconvenient, don’t you? XD You might want to at least try to understand the people you’re bashing before you type a single letter on that keyboard. Btw you’re not fooling anyone with that “God bless you all” at the end. We all know you’re a hater.
I had a pondering… your satan is called the great trickster right? what if he wrote the bible to trick you?
here’s another one, what if you’re all devoted, all your life, and then you die. and then… there is nothing.
Buddy of mine is actually a priest, he condemned me for being a celt. i told him just one sentence. What if I’m right? He said….. i dont wanna talk about this anymore
i love it when they say that
As much as I don’t want to respond, I believe the “trickster” you’re recalling is actually some coyote in Native American legend that’s drawn comparisons to the figure of Satan. Close enough–Satan is called the father of lies. However, I seriously doubt he would induce millions of people down through centuries to turn their backs on him–he is evil but not insane. Watch how people live; he’s very good at what he does, and most certainly sane. And against all I know to be true, what if you’re right? Well then, I along with many, many others have attempted, however weakly, to stand for something honorable and pure, and have lived with meaning while others merely existed, and that is far from regrettable. Rub it in all you want if there’s nothing–supposedly I’ll never know the difference. The question I have to pose to you, of course, is: What if you’re wrong? I know this is a sad and cynical defense of Christianity, and fear of being wrong “if” there is in fact a God is definitely not my reason for believing, but if you’re going to ask “what if” then I have to do the same.
I see,
So you’re saying that people who don’t go to the same building as you do and say the same meaningless series of words you do are not living… but instead, are simply existing?
I can tell you that if Endarfin is wrong, and in the end we find out that this entire experience of life is just a test from a mean, vengeful, petty, insecure, petulant child of a god, I know I’d rather be anywhere but near him.
I’ll happily go to “hell” and hang out with all those horrible non-believers like Ghandi.
Oh, and by the way, no historians in the area of Jerusalem, Bethlehem or the surrounding regions have any recorded account of anyone named or described as Jesus Christ between 0 and 600 A.D.
Look it up.
Definitely incorrect. Read the previous posts. Or read Josephus.
Negative,
Josephus is always the first response to this one. Greek mentions of “The Christos” simply refer to “the anointed one,” a common term at the time.
You’ll need to do better than Wikipedia.
Look at the historians of the region… not the Romans, not the Greeks, and look for someone referring to Jesus Christ.
You’ll come away empty handed.
Again, read the comment section.
The conclusion there was that although Jesus could have been real, there’s no conclusive evidence. Unless you wear your faith-tinted spectacles.
Do you hold all other beliefs to the same standard that you hold to the authenticity of Christ?
The Moon, Concentration camps, the existence of Australia? If you’re as skeptical of the reality of Christ that you’re displaying, what can you realistically believe in?
Umm…the Moon is in the sky. You can look up and see it – if you really want proof that it’s there, I’m sure NASA would be glad to send you, as long as you pay for it. Australia is even more easily visited and Concentration camps … you do realize they’re still there? You can go to Auschwitz.
All the things you mention are in the here (relatively, in the case of the moon) and now – you can, with the proper resources, go to them yourself. No amount of funding, though, is going to build you a time machine that will take you to meet Jesus 2000 years ago.
Note: all the above uses of the word ‘you’ are referring to people in a general sense. I don’t think that you don’t actually believe in these things. Just to clarify.
My point is, your examples aren’t very analogous to Jesus.
If your going to think up things that the extremely skeptical wouldn’t believe try things like … the existence empty space. That one was argued over for years. Or … ooh, my friend and I had a discussion about knowledge outside our own awareness a few days ago – we decided that if you’re alone, there’s really no conclusive evidence to suggest that you’re not the last human alive on Earth.
Or – my science teacher told me this one – our very existence. What’s to say that we’re not all in comas, having a very long dream? How do I know you’re real? How do you know I am? And my favorite – how is what you perceive different from what I do? I’m not you and never will be. Do you see the color ‘blue’ as I do? There’s no way for either of us to know.
My point is, out of all the beliefs you could possible have chosen, you choose the Moon, Concentration camps, and _Australia_?
Satra’s got it.
And all of these hypotheses, such as the idea that we all “might be part of some elaborate dream,” do not claim that this is PROVEN FACT and should be ritualized and followed to the letter.
That you must run around and convince others to believe that we are in this elaborate dream and change their entire method of living because you think it could be true, (having no way to possibly prove it) would be ridiculous.
Now, the possibility exists that it could be true… sure. Scientifically we must all admit this, but, to claim that one KNOWS what happens when we die and that some people will get preferential treatment because they wore this certain funny hat on this day, or said these specific words in this man-made building on another day, is pure delusion.
Now, of course I understand that this delusion might make some of you feel better, so go right ahead and believe it as long as you leave me out of your crusade to “save” those that don’t agree with you.
Cool?
What? If someone is skeptical by nature, it doesn’t mean they automatically don’t treat anything as real, forever. We can see the moon, and we’ve sent probes and people there. Thousands of people died in Nazi concentration camps, pictures were taken, and there are survivors still living today. I’m not even going to start with Australia. At a certain point, proof and evidence become irrefutable, and all three of your examples, along with most realities we live with, have long since passed it.
My very simple answer: any god that demands worship is a god that does not deserve it. If this god cannot accept my reasoning and logic, then it is not a god who I would want to spend an eternity with.
This is like saying any parent that demands obedience does not deserve obedience.
lol
“If this god cannot accept my reasoning and logic, then it is not a god who I would want to spend an eternity with.”
I don’t accept your reasoning or your logic, I don’t want to spend any time with you.
Oh, but then you don’t accept my reasoning or logic about not accepting your reasoning or logic, so you don’t want to spend time with me.
And around around we go.
Your argument is dumb.
I am pretty sure that any parent who would torment their child for eternity does not deserve children. Normal parents require obedience to protect kids from environmental hazards, not from their own vengeful wrath. That’s the difference between obedience and worship. Rawr’s argument isn’t the problem, just your capacity to understand it.
need a new church?
why not Zoidberg Reformed Church?
everytime i hear that, i think it in zoidbergs voice lol
How on earth did this get up-voted high enough to make the main page, anyway?
If you don’t follow the rules of *any* group you’ve joined, they have the right to tell you to 1) get it together or 2) don’t be a member anymore. Churches have that same right- though they’re usually hoping you’ll work out whatever’s wrong and 1). Other groups I’ve seen, not so much. (though that’s not always the case)
yup.
Wow…fail on compassion, church
I came looking to see why there were over 400 comments.
I left with a sad face. :*-( <—That's my sad face. The asterisk means I'm CRYING!
Soooooo in the GTA V trailer …. is the main guy Claude from GTA III….?
It’s turtles all the way down.
Are they the teenage mutant kind?
And elephants. Don’t forget the elephants.
Honestly, I’d say good riddance. Maybe the pastor at the next church this person attends (if they decide to attend another church) won’t act like such a prick.
I’d send a letter back to the church that describes how they should go f themselves.
awesome
So the guy is mad cause the church did what the membership regulations said they would do? Inconsistent much? The statement of faith of any conservative Reformed church explains this procedure in accordance with 1 Corinthians… He is the fail.
hello,
maybe it is just me, but i have been to a number of churches (military spouse) and not once was there “membership regulations” of course it might be because I go to a Lutheran church and each of them do things differently but i have never heard of any church doing this….and who knows, like i said, i may be wrong.
It’s just you. I’ve seen several excommunications.
Basically something happens which puts the person under discipline for whatever reason. The guy decides he’s going to walk away and pretend that the problem doesn’t exist, and avoids or refuses to meet with the elders. If he’s a full member, he’s actually taken a vow to submit to the discipline of the church so he’s breaking a vow there.
As someone who knows both the pastor and the excommunicant, I can say yes. This person was called, met for coffee, had over for dinner, offered to be picked up and dropped off, talked with, given lunch money, and exhorted to attend ANY Christian church (not just Cornerstone) for over a year before this letter was hand delivered to him.
“you are no longer a Christian”… so they decide about that, huh! Ridiculous.
They are not making a decision, rather an observation with that statement.
In terms of excommunication, that statement isn’t that controversial.
YOU IGNORANT FOOLS!
BY THE COMMAND OF THE HOLY EMPEROR,
EXTERMINATUS IS COMING YOUR WAY
TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU!
Looks like some “poor” soul didn’t drink the community koolaid haha. Thank goodness for him too, I think he saved his soul by not following the cult of pseudo-christ.
Christianity is one of the few religions out there that thinks it can decide who is and isn’t a real christian and how much of one somone is, while anyone else with their own spirituality already knows that spirituality has no measurable scale, so no Christians, your spirituality levels are not over 9000 in comparison to the rest of the world no matter how holy and right you think you are.
Everybody on this thread would be better off if they read “Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?” by James Sire. Do it, and do it now.
damn, now i want a letter that officially hands me over to satan and his kingdom of darkness, too.
“Failures in Communication” is right on.
I did some googling on the “pastor” of this “church” and it seems that this guy is a nutcase.
He should not be considered an example of a Christian Minister.
wow, really? some church takes themselves way too seriously. o noes, i changed churches. i left the ONLY CHURCH on the face of the earth that’s gonna make it to heaven!!!… i’m going to hellllllllll!!!!!1!11!!!one! *weep*
i wonder if i’d get the same letter if i moved 1000 miles away. i hope the recipient just laughed it off and (hopefully) continued in whatever *sane* church they moved to.
i’m Christian, BTW. this is not normal. it’s the (very) vocal minority that gives a bad rep to the sane rest of us. >.>
If you take membership in a church then fail to submit to discipline, then you are excommunicated. This isn’t complicated. That’s what’s happened here.
You are no longer a Christian.
And don’t even THINK of joining any of those lazy bum churches who don’t kick you out if yu don’t show up. Those don’t count!
If you guys want to let this d-bag know how you felt about what he had to say feel free to follow this link: http://www.cornerstonecrec.org/contact.html and then just click on Burke Shade. I let him know what I thought. It’s sad that man are institutions centered on religion think they have the right to claim that in which they seek. Something transcendental, divine, or holy. If there is a Creator of this universe (which I personally believe there is). Why would we use that belief to create a system in which we think we can attain that divinity, or God or whatever. Just doesn’t make sense. Jesus hated judgmental religious people (pharisees and sadducees), yet the world has many people in it that claim themselves to be “Christ”-ians are the most judgmental, bigoted, racists, narrow-minded people. ? SMH. Just doesn’t make sense. Those people need to read the Bible they are thumping on all the time.
You “let him know what you thought”? Why should he care what you thought about a private internal matter within their church? This letter should be expected by a member of that church who does not abide by the confession of faith.
just like I care what you think?
Apparently this matter isn’t private because it’s the most talked about matter on failblog today. And of course what has ensued is a huge theological debate from all ends. But what Jesus commands is quite simple: Love. The confession of faith is Love. And this letter is “unloving”. As a matter of fact any person that thinks they can pass along condemnation the way this “pastor” has is making themselves an idol. “Only God is Good” (Christ’s words not mine). I find the irony that a bunch of religious nut cases have really tarnished the Earthly image of God and think that because their way is “right” that they worship their doctrines, adhere to their traditions, and focus on everything except the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love others. SIMPLE yet condescending, learned but ignorant jackasses have taken those CHRIST commands and focused more on the legalism of religion. Anybody who thinks they can justify condemning other people can take their self-righteous and pious attitudes and stick them up their rear ends. And I find it ironic that the people Jesus hated were religious people….just saying.
If you don’t go to work, you get fired. If you don’t go to class, you fail. If you don’t pay rent, you get evicted. If you piss off your friends, they won’t want you around. If you’re a 35 year-old jobless slob, your mom will probably kick you out of her basement. Every organization, company, or social group of any kind has some sort of structure or rules (formal or informal) that if violated, have consequences and provokes some sort of disciplinary action.
The “self-destructive path” could mean the recipient of the letter is a compulsive gambler that can’t feed his own family, or a wife-beating alcoholic. Shouldn’t that have consequences?
Why is it laughable if the Christian church operates under the same kind of structure as the rest of reality?
The “Satan and his kingdom of darkness” does sound a bit ridiculous. Poor choice of words and unnecessary drama on the pastor’s part.
They’re consistent with their confession of faith. This fellow agreed to that confession when he joined. That’s the language he agreed to… what did he expect, a party?
You people keep ignoring the context, which has been linked to several times in this thread. He went to another church closer to his house.
“A-hole wants to save gas money? Eff that, he knew the risks when he joined!”
I’m gonna comment for the heck of it. This an example of pure sadness. Some Christians have it together, and some don’t. The same applies to church leadership, and this is church leadership that doesn’t have it together. Handing this person over to satan and the kingdom of darkness? Where do they think they even have the power to do that, even if supernaturally? Just another example of how some (not all; gotta be fair here) Christians have neglected to agree to disagree. On a side note if you bring up the possibility of that they act as though being a jerk is their duty. I know all about how disagreeing on things that don’t matter in the end will cause some Christians to act as though you just burned the church down or something. I am a Christian but have several beliefs that differ from mainstream Christianity. When I went public I was all too willing to maintain healthy relationship with my fellow Christians based on what we do agree on, but they didn’t want to have it. I was no longer asked to do public speaking in front of the church among other little things that changed, and certain people I could detect giving me somewhat of a cold shoulder. Our friendships weren’t like before. Some even took the liberty of telling me I was speaking for satan, that he had a foothold in my life, and on the path to hell. I wasn’t feeling the love. Ultimately, I still try to have grace with these people; practice what you preach and all that, but Christianity becoming condemning and judgmental, especially to the point of the expense of others, bothers me. We all screw up but that is no excuse for someone, especially a pastor, to use their name (Christian) and their position to act like this, especially since it contradicts the character of Christ who, uh, didn’t judge and talk to people like this. Come on church, let’s stop talking like we love others and actually follow through with action.
I wish I got a litter like that, I would frame it. The church I got put into as a kid kept sending people over after I left, took about a dozen guys stopping being told I wasn’t interested in coming back before they got a clue.
I’d frame this s***!
Dear Pastor Shade,
I want to thank you once again for reminding me why I left your congregation in the first place.
Sincerely,
The Excommunicated
TOLERATE ME!!! No, I won’t tolerate you, but you have to tolerate me! Both sides, man up, stop with the name calling, and realize that failblog is hardly the place for any of you to hold a legitimate argument that will do any good for either side. Essentially, shut up. I’m tired of seeing all the pointless arguing.
Have a nice day.
WOW! That is priceless. I haven’t laughed this hard in a good while. To think – someone wrote that with a straight face (presumably). Go, religion, go!
ooooh can I get one of these too
I love how he automatically assumes ‘not going to church’ means ‘not a Christian anymore’ or some bull like that. As was once said, ‘going to church makes a man a Christian as much as going to a garage makes him an automobile’.
Who is to say the recipient of this letter stopped going to church altogether? Maybe he or she just stopped attending that particular church and now attends a different house of worship. If this letter is any indication of the character of the congregation, I can’t say I would blame him or her.
As a friend of the excommunicated and a member of cornerstone I’d like to say that he’s not attending any other churches. If he didn’t like the way our church teaches and wanted to go to another church, we’d be completely content allowing him to. But he didn’t.. actually, the fact that he posted this on failblog instead of taking what the pastor said into consideration is a sign that he’s not repentant of a thing he’s done. Now I could go off and name the things he’s done, but I won’t. Now I’m not saying “I’m a better person.” I’m saying that I get listen when God convicts me of my many sins. And we’re not saying its too late for him. We’re just trying to convict him before it’s too late.
The letter doesn’t site the “many things” this person has supposedly done as the reason for excommunication. It cites his “non-attendance at worship services”. I suspect he hasn’t actually done the things you’ve been told he’s done. More likely, he saw your pastor for what he is and walked away.
“By sending (I’ll call him Bob for privacy reasons) Bob this letter, he’s not sent encing him to hell. He’s trying to let him know the severity of the situation. By saying hes “handing him over to the devil” he’s saying that that’s the road he’s on and that he can no longer help him. This should scare Bob. I still consider myself a friend of Bob and I pray for him daily.”
Really? The pastor asserts he’s handing him over to Satan, declaring he’s no longer a Christian. You defend this, and really expect to be taken seriously?
You’ll jump through whatever mental hoops you have to in order to avoid seeing the truth about your pastor and his church. Your defense of him is just sad.
http://shaderenegade.blogspot.com/2001/05/another-church-court-vindicates-burke.html
This letter is obviously fake. No Reformed pastor would take the stance that you can lose your salvation. Especially by just not attending church. It is also not the position for any real protestant church to play any role in dictating who is and who isn’t going to heaven or who is in the community of Jesus. That is left to the Catholics.
Suggest you see what R C Sproul says about excommunication.
This is not proper church discipline! That pastor needs to study the Word a bit more.
Church discipline? These guys don’t even want you dancing. Or reading fiction.
What? Reading a certain work of fiction is what they based their whole belief system on.
^This
ROFL
Poor Christianity, it’s really taking a beating these days. I wouldn’t want to be a part of any of these churches. No wonder nobody wants to convert any more, we got all these radicals perverting what real Christianity is.
To be fair, a sizable portion of “Christians,” particularly in America, have been deceived by televangelists and phony beliefs, many of which claim that if they become a Christian, they’ll have a happy life and make lots of money, when in fact nowhere in the Bible does it say such a thing will happen. Quite the opposite, in fact. We hear several times from Jesus that we cannot serve both God and money, and that our possessions are often roadblocks to following Christ. Now that doesn’t mean that Christians should have nothing at all to their name. It simply means that in the grand scheme of things, our possessions aren’t going with us, and really shouldn’t matter, since we are taught that God will provide for our needs.
Not a very nice letter. So. Where’s the fail?
I guess writing it in the first place so it could be put on the net for the whole world to see was the fail.
Bible Contradiction Fail:
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” (Mt 6:1-6 AV)
burke@cornerstonecrec.org is the pastors e-mail address, have fun!
Cornerstone Reformed Church
801 North Almond
Carbondale, Illinois
(618) 549-3333
Burke Shade, Pastor
burke@cornerstonecrec.org
Wayne Southerland, SIU Student Ministry
wayne@cornerstonecrec.org
This is the churches/Pastor’s contact information. I suggest we take our opinions on this matter to him directly. >8)
TLDR. >:=)
Dear Pastor Shade of Cornerstone Reformed Church,
I have recently come upon a letter excommunication that was sent to one of your church members. As a faithful child of our God I am highly disturbed by the content of this document.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” (Mt 6:1-6 AV)
It is you that has sinned by preaching false scriptures. Twice within this letter you have pulled lines from the passages and warped them out of the context of the passage itself to fit your selfish needs.
From your letter -”We have repeatedly attempted to call you back to fellowship with the Lord Jesus Christ, both personally and by letter. You have not responded to any of these appeals, but have steadfastly refused to listen to us and to worship on a regular basis with us.”
If one worships by himself or within the masses of others, his faith is strong and is still a child of God.
Your letter – “As a result of your non-attendance at worship services or any functions of this body (in violation of Hebrews 10.25, where Christians are commanded “not to forsake our own assembling together:), the Session, by action taken on October 27, is striking your name from the rolls of this church.”
Hebrews 10: 19- 10: 25
19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
As quoted above your words are corrupt and pulled from context to fit your agenda. Nowhere in the passage does it state to excommunicate anyone for not attending the masses. “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but ENCOURAGING one another, and all more as you see the Day approaching.
Your letter – “Jesus himself tells the church to discipline those who refuse to repent of their sins and listen to him through the church (Matthew 18.15-17). In obedience to his command, we are handing you over to Satan and hsi kingdom of darkness, in hopes that you will come to your senses, repent and return.”
Matthews 18: 12-14
12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.
As above our lord our God would not let one out of ninety-nine of us falter and become lost, yet you are willing to hand that lost sheep directly into the hands of Satan himself? In hopes that he “comes to his senses”. Tell me who are you to decide whether a soul goes to heaven or hell?
The most false quote from your letter – “By this excommunication, we are declaring that you are no longer a Christian.”
A Christian is someone who has decided to entrust his or her life to Jesus Christ. A Christian trusts Christ for forgiveness of sin, a right standing before God, and guidance in life.
Christian’s are sometimes referred to as “born again” because Jesus said that one must be born of the water (the physical birth) and the Spirit:
John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
To be born again–born of the Spirit–a person must place his or her trust in Jesus Christ The Spirit of Jesus Christ actually comes to dwell within the new Christian, giving newness of life–His life.
In sum, Christ makes a Christian a Christian. Going to church does not make a person a Christian. A special ceremony can’t do it. And nobody can be a Christian by trying to be a good person. Only Jesus Christ can make a person a Christian:
John 1:12,13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
I fear for your soul Pastor Shade, for if you continue down this path of corruption and keep spouting your false prophecies to those of your church you will be damning them to hell.
Sincerely,
A Child of God
My letter to the pastor is sent
Bet he replies ‘TL;DR’.
Won’t God realize they’ve been misled, and forgive them?
Well put Lareth! It’s the Gospel that saves – the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. He came to give us _eternal_ life (His). That preach-tard (false prophet) has it all wrong. After all, Jesus did say that He would never leave us nor forsake us. And the bull that many people argue of “yeah, He’ll never leave you but you can leave Him” is nonsense..wherever you go, He is with you forever.
Take care bro!
I’m a member of Cornerstone, and I’m deeply grieved about everybody’s blindness in this situation.
By everybody’s, I mean you people
Hola peeps! Now I understand that my views on this topic are far from the views of most of you. I’m prepared to get a lot of hating comments in return. I know the guy who’s being excommunicated. It deeply grieves me that he’s being kicked out of his church, but I’d like to say something else! As a close friend of the pastor of cornerstone I know that this judgement was not made oh a whim. Pastor Shade is a very Godly man. I don’t agree with him on a lot of issues. but I know that he does not consider himself the judge of man’s souls. By sending (I’ll call him Bob for privacy reasons) Bob this letter, he’s not sentencing him to hell. He’s trying to let him know the severity of the situation. By saying hes “handing him over to the devil” he’s saying that that’s the road he’s on and that he can no longer help him. This should scare Bob. I still consider myself a friend of Bob and I pray for him daily.
I’d like to ask all Christians to pray for Bob. That he’d be convicted of his sins and come back to fellowship with his other christians before it’s too late.
In Christ,
Elijah
Is he related to Pastor Fuzz?
I love how the Pastor specifically declares that the person he is writing to “is no longer a Christian” because they are violating some sin from the Hebrews in the Old Testament. If the Pastor knew anything about the term “Christian”, then he’d understand that Christians specifically only follow the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ, which have very little to do with the book of Hebrews.
Hebrews is in the NT, dork.
Hebrews is in the New Testament, yes.
But also, I think you’re confused about Christianity vs. Judaism. Before Jesus came, there was no Christianity obviously – just Judaism (Jesus himself was a Jew), and everyone believed that a Messiah would come. When Jesus came, some Jews believed that he _was_ the Messiah and called themselves Christians. The others believed he was just another prophet and remained Jews.
Jews follow the Tanakh (Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim) which is nearly identical to what you probably know as the Old Testament. It’s also called the Hebrew Bible (possible what confused you about Hebrews). Anyway, Jews follow the Tanakh and _not_ the New Testament.
Christians follow both. At least, I remember learning about things like the creation story and the great flood in Sabbath school, both in the Old Testament. Besides, why would the Christian Bible include both if they only followed the NT?
Erm, next time you decide to post something like this.. make sure you know what you’re talking about. The book of hebrews happens to be in the new testament
you might wanna check that out.
“The book of hebrews happens to be in the new testament”
S/he is talking referring to the ancient Hebrews, not the book of Hebrews.
What I want to know is if anyone from the church actually went to this persons house to see if they were ok. The called and sent letters to the house but did anyone actually go there? Maybe there is a reason they haven’t been at church, did anyone ask?
As someone who knows both the pastor and the excommunicant, I can say yes. This person was called, met for coffee, had over for dinner, offered to be picked up and dropped off, talked with, given lunch money, and exhorted to attend ANY Christian church (not just Cornerstone) for over a year before this letter was hand delivered to him.
you have to not judge an entire religion by the wackos that are in it this is called fail blog for a reason. no successful church would be listed here only the bad ones, be careful not to bundle them all into one.
I would consider a church that never excommunicates to be either very good (a perfect congregation) or very bad (no pastoral support or discipline).
I would expect many good churches to “turn up” on this site – John 15:18
640 comments? Because of religion? This thread is a fail!
noob.
I disagree with the OP. This pastor isn’t “crazy”, just consistent with NT teachings! The NT DOES say that the church is to reprimand believers within the church (but not unbelievers outside of the church). Just look what happened to Simon – he was killed by God because he thought that the Holy Spirit could be bought with money. (Acts 8:18-20) That’s NEW Testament, not OLD Testament! So yes, the behavior of a Christian IS important to God. It seems that the church member was acting no differently than your average atheist, and had been doing so for quite some time, so the pastor was justified in excommunicating him – at least until the man repents and returns. If the man never repents, well, I’m sorry, but that just isn’t a Christian.
This letter reads like someone trying to collect a bad debt, with “Satan and his kingdom of darkness” as the collection agency.
Actually, that would make a pretty good name for a collection agency.
The irony is the person stopped going to the church because they’d died and gone to heaven.
Did he died?
Whoa, he is more non-christian than me!
I never was christian and he is officaly satanist!
Does that make me go to hell less unconfortable?
Also He is nearer at Jesus, because Jesus was no christian either.
It’s funny to see how religion themed posts always grows to a thread with 300+ comments
How come no one has googled this church and emailed them the above pic of the letter?
http://www.cornerstonecrec.org/
some one do it and post up there reply. get them in on the discussion.
I’m a member of cornerstone. Tomorrow afternoon about, I’ll join this conversation. Its late, and I’ve got homework.
I don’t mean to sound lazy. I’m very upset about this being posted on failblog, and I know who did it.
Tamaya, @ about 11 posts up from here: Thank you.
This is your brain.
This is your brain on Christianity.
http://www.cornerstonecrec.org/contact.html
Joyce Meyer once said that sitting in church does not make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car. Can cars sit outside of a garage and still be a car? Then I would assume Christians can sit outside of church and still be Christian. Fact of the matter is, I do not think that that pastor has a right to judge the guy’s state of salvation. That is for God to decide alone.
Also, it should be noted that this line of thinking has caused so much harm throughout history. I’ve been studying the literary work “Inherit the Wind” this semester in grad school (based on Scopes Monkey Trial), and the fact is, I believe Christians do have a lot of latitude in their beliefs, and I don’t think we have as much of a right to call each others blasphemers and the like as we think we do.
This kind of thinking turns outsiders to the church off. You’re never gonna win new converts through extremism. Heck, some people are so far lost as far as Christianity is concerned simply because segments of the faith are so overzealous.
THANK YOU, ^THIS. Christianity is SUPPOSED to be about God’s love and acceptance, not rejection. Anyone who says “we’re kicking you out, and taking your salvation away” obviously never read a Bible all the way through, since it says that no one can take your salvation from you. And even if you don’t live your life entirely the way you should, that’s human nature, and between you and God alone.
Using God as a weapon is wrong, and while it’s been done throughout history, anyone who has actually READ a Bible cover to cover would know that. That’s part of the reason Protestantism started. We’re trying to separate ourselves from the past corruptions of now long-dead politicians who bought and sold their positions in church and tortured and killed anyone who questioned them or the doctrine they preached.
Something similar like this happened to my friend, but it was because he was gay (I’m a Southern Baptist). It annoyed me so much, that should have never happened to him. So what if he is gay, he is still a Christian. It’s no wonder why we are seen as closed minded homophobes.
Kingdom of Darkness?
Hell, sign me up!
For anyone who is still debating about this, cornerstone has always been known to be bats**t insane, the pastor is a former convict/criminal and injects politics into EVERY sermon so this kind of s**t is not really beneath him he’s ALWAYS been this crazy
So when all the christians are freeeeeeezing in winter in heaven, I’m cosy with a nice fire in hell, watching movies in which they have sex before marriage, and gambling with Hitler.
Only the Pope can excommunicate someone. I went through this same bulls**t when I was a teenager and I told my priest that nowhere in any version of any Bible does it say priests can’t marry. He tried to feed me that line too. Know your own religion/rules FAIL.