America's decline of morality

[pattygreen 5]

This is one of those things that makes the skeptics doubt so much that the bible is the word of God and not the ramblings of men. It’s interesting that Islam uses a similar approach. In Islam, believers are taught that Muhammad transcribed the words of Allah into the Quran with the help of the angel Gabriel. To further the belief that he did not insert his own thoughts into the writings, it is believed that Muhammad was illiterate and therefore incapable of writing anything other than what the angel prescribed. Another interpretation is that Muhammad recited (and committed to memory) all of the versus that Gabriel gave him and that literate followers of Muhammad later wrote them into the Quran exactly as Muhammad said them so as not to put their own words in.

I have read some of the Quaran and have come to the conclusion that Jesus and Allah could not be the same beings. Their personalities and teachings contradict one another IMO.

[BJean 16]

Or it could be that men are human. Human beings wrote the Bible and the Quaran. Whether you believe that the Bible or Quaran are divinely inspired by God or Allah or if you believe that some extremely creative people worked on those books for years and years to come up with the final texts, it all has to do with faith and which doctrine you choose to trust and believe in. That's true across the board with all doctrines.

You can compare off-shoot churches in the same way. That's why there are so many of them. That's why the Pilgrims came over on the Mayflower. There is no "one" doctrine that trumps all others - except in the minds of the believers.

I was surprised to read what you said about envelopes, patty (see below). I could go into some of my personal stories about the use of church envelopes to make my point, but I won't bore everyone. We all know what the reason for church envelopes is. The churches use them simply to keep track of who gives what. And they require a tithe from their members because they need to project their budgets from year to year. And in some cases, they can go knock on doors and have a little talk with the people who aren't ponying up. The fact that churches have become smarter and distribute end of year donation receipts for their congregation is something they know you'll appreciate, but they sure don't do it just for your convenience.

patty: "The church I attend has envelopes there for your convenience. It is also a record of my giving that is returned to me at the end of each year for tax purposes. It is for my benefit, not theirs."

[KartMan 58]

I have read some of the Quaran and have come to the conclusion that Jesus and Allah could not be the same beings. Their personalities and teachings contradict one another IMO.

I didn’t say that Jesus and Allah were the same, I said Allah and God are the same. Moslems do not believe in the trinity, nor do they believe that Jesus is the son of God. When they refer to God, they are referring to the God of Abraham, the one that you refer to as Jesus’ father. Moslems do believe that Jesus existed, but they believe that he was a prophet and not the son of God.

You are sort of missing the point. I am not necessarily talking about facts here, I am talking about beliefs. I personally am not saying that God and Allah are the same, I cannot say that because I don’t share either of those belief systems. What I am saying is that Moslems themselves believe that the God they refer to as Allah is the same God that you refer to as the father of Jesus. It is a subtle point, but important in that you are both referring to the same God. The difference in the religions is not the personage of God, but in the teachings of God via the Bible or the Quran.

Edited June 21, 2009 by KartMan

[pattygreen 5]

I didn’t say that Jesus and Allah were the same, I said Allah and God are the same.

That's the same thing, because Jesus is God.

Moslems do not believe in the trinity, nor do they believe that Jesus is the son of God. When they refer to God, they are referring to the God of Abraham, the one that you refer to as Jesus’ father. Moslems do believe that Jesus existed, but they believe that he was a prophet and not the son of God.

Jesus 'claimed' to be God. This is why they crucified him. He was either God come in the flesh to save mankind from their sins or a lunatic liar. God said he would send a Messiah to save mankind, and when he did, the Jewish nation refused to acknowledge him, because if they did they would have had to give up their places of high honor in the Senhedrin. Jesus was not a prophet. He was God himslf.

You are sort of missing the point. I am not necessarily talking about facts here, I am talking about beliefs. I personally am not saying that God and Allah are the same, I cannot say that because I don’t share either of those belief systems. What I am saying is that Moslems themselves believe that the God they refer to as Allah is the same God that you refer to as the father of Jesus. It is a subtle point, but important in that you are both referring to the same God. The difference in the religions is not the personage of God, but in the teachings of God via the Bible or the Quran. Even if they refer to their god as the God of Abraham, it still doesn't save them. That God, The God of Abraham, sent Jesus to Save them. They refused to accept his gift of Salvation and therefore, from what I believe the bible states, they will be lost eternally.

..................................................................

Edited June 21, 2009 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

Or it could be that men are human. Human beings wrote the Bible and the Quaran. Whether you believe that the Bible or Quaran are divinely inspired by God or Allah or if you believe that some extremely creative people worked on those books for years and years to come up with the final texts, it all has to do with faith and which doctrine you choose to trust and believe in. That's true across the board with all doctrines.

You can compare off-shoot churches in the same way. That's why there are so many of them.

Like I said, the MAIN teaching of all christian churches is that Jesus is the Savior. That's what is important and needs to be taught. The rest is secondary. Therefore if one denomination wants to teach that 'women can't speak in their church' and some feel very strongly about it and go off and start their own denomination because they disagree on that issue, it's no big deal. They will still get to heaven because the teaching on Jesus being the Savior was taught. Whether women can speak in church will be dealt with when they get to heaven and God tells them whether they were correct on that issue or not. This is the same for every other issue in the bible. They are the gray areas I talked about. Then there are some things in the bible that are black and white areas. There is no mistaking God's intent on those issues. (Thou shalt not murder; If a man has sexual relations with a man, it is an abomination unto me; Love one another; thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, etc.)

That's why the Pilgrims came over on the Mayflower. There is no "one" doctrine that trumps all others - except in the minds of the believers.

No, they came over with the bible. The bible trumped all others as far as our founding fathers were concerned. That's why they came here. To begin a new nation with the bible as their only guide.

I was surprised to read what you said about envelopes, patty (see below). I could go into some of my personal stories about the use of church envelopes to make my point, but I won't bore everyone. We all know what the reason for church envelopes is. The churches use them simply to keep track of who gives what. And they require a tithe from their members because they need to project their budgets from year to year. And in some cases, they can go knock on doors and have a little talk with the people who aren't ponying up. The fact that churches have become smarter and distribute end of year donation receipts for their congregation is something they know you'll appreciate, but they sure don't do it just for your convenience.

You just need to look around for the right place to worship and get together with other believers.

Maybe there are some churches that do that, but mine doesn't. My pastor and I have a personal friendship as well as him being our church pastor. He doesn't have any idea who gives what. He makes that his policy because he doesn't want to be tempted to 'favor' any one person over another. There wouldn't be any problems financially in any church if all the congregants did as God asked and 'cheerfully' gave their 10%. For example, sometimes the 'catholic' denomination, which is large in America, struggles financially because they don't give their congregants bibles or encourage them to read them, and therefore many don't understand that they should give 10%, and just throw in a dollar or two each week. I used to be catholic, (or I called myself that anyway) so I speak from personal experience with that denomination. Why does supporting the church bother you so much? People seem to get turned off from doing what they should do simply because of the way that some other people act. "I'm not gonna go to church because they're all hypocrites there." or "I'm not gonna give anything to the church because they put out envelopes just to plan their budget and see whose giving how much." Jesus would answer, "what's that to you? You do the right thing." In other words, stop looking at the rest of the church and seeing the things they do that you don't like, and do what you're supposed to do. You only have to answer to God for the things you have done, not others.

patty: "The church I attend has envelopes there for your convenience. It is also a record of my giving that is returned to me at the end of each year for tax purposes. It is for my benefit, not theirs."

............................................................

Edited June 21, 2009 by pattygreen

[BJean 16]

That's interesting patty. Seriously. That you feel so strongly about GOD making sure that people donate 10% of their income. I am convinced that man is responsible for making sure that the Bible reads that God wants us all to tithe to build and support our church - and literally pay tribute to Him.

I have absolutely no problem with churches demanding 10% of people's income to their church. I am the one who pointed out that they need envelopes so that they can do projected budgets and know how to allocate their funds. But it isn't as simple as that in most churches. Just because your pastor says he is blind to who gives what in his church certainly does not make it so in other churches.

I have spent years interlinked with the Catholic church. Your remarks do not hold true with our experiences and those of our extended families. My husband's family and his siblings and their wives and children are all strong Catholics. All of the in-laws are as well which extends our knowledge base even further. Plus the fact that we've lived all over the country and attended Catholic churches in all of those locales.

Some of the people I have mentioned have been so turned off by the requirements of the Catholic church financially, that they finally have broken off from it. In one particular case (and I've told this story before and hate to repeat it but I'll try to keep it short), one couple were unable to get their baby christened right after his birth because they had moved into the town when she was very pregnant and although they had attended Catholic church in their new parish, they had not yet begun using envelopes (they had, btw, been contributing cash each week.) Their new priest denied them that sacrament until they had filled out the forms promising to pay and then using envelopes for a given period of time. It was a crushing blow to a couple who had gone to Catholic schools their whole life, had attended mass every week and every holy day since Catholics are taught to believe that babies will not go to heaven until they are baptized so if their baby had died, he would have been doomed.

My parents were members of the Methodist church and very active in all the church functions, including some missionary work. When they missed turning in the forms one year, pledging their yearly donations, they got a call from the minister. He was extremely nice and they loved him a lot, but it was disappointing that he was so quick to repremand them, those people who helped make up the core of his congregation.

When I began going to the First Christian Church (Disiples of Christ) when I was in high school, I had no intention of being baptized in that church, but they had a terrific program for kids my age and they invited me to attend. But even though I was not a member of the church and the church was out no extra expense for my attending any of the functions (they were self-supporting) they still expected me to use envelopes every week. I was not even an adult, you see, with a reguar income.

I had a similar experience when I joined the Baptist Church with my first husband.

As I said earlier, I do not begrudge churches passing the plate. It is necessary to keep the church in business, but when so much of the focus is on building a bigger building, buying softer pews, buying the minister a bigger parsonage, adding a wing on here, adding another wing on there, when the church and the wings for Sunday school were used essentially one day a week and one night during the week, it seems to be a little beyond the vision of God's realm.

Better examples would be the televangelists and the lifestyle of those folks. I lived very close to Oral Roberts University when I lived in Tulsa and when you see what that man not only accomplished from raking in the dough but how he lived, you know that the sums of money we're talking about is hardly just about keeping the church running. PTL ring a bell? My sister in law worked for Oral Roberts when she was young and going to college. She worked in the "counting room." Now that was an enlightening experience, I can tell you.

So if you have a minister who turns a blind eye to who gives what in his church, I suggest you hang onto that fellow because he is not the norm, he's unique.

Edited June 21, 2009 by BJean

[pattygreen 5]

bjean, it's interesting what you wrote here. IMO, there are many churches that do not put all their focus on the funding. Funding is important, and should be talked about sometimes at church. Not every Sunday, mind you, but sometimes it does need to be brought up to the congregants.

The last chapter in the book of Malachi chapter 3 speaks of man robbing God by not giving their tithes and offerings to him. He promises that those who do so, he will take care of their needs and bless them. (It doesn't say specifically financial blessings, but just that God will bless you)

It is a shame that the priests or ministers at these churches that you spoke of made the 'giving' to their church a top priority, even over their love and service to their congregants. This was unfortunate, and the Father will deal with them for their mistakes at some time, but what they have done doesn't make giving to your church to support it any less not our responsibility as God's children.

I'd like to touch on the subject of 'how' some churches spend the money that the congregants give. As the congregant, it is my responsibility before God to do what he says is right. So, I give my tithes and offerings to God. What the board members choose to do with the funds, is now their responsibility before God. Of course, we need to be wise in choosing a church that will be good stewards of the money that they take in. We should check these things out before we begin attending there. If we know that they don't give anything to missionaries, it might be wise to go somewhere else where they do, because it says in the word that we should support those who preach to the lost. If they are spending foolishly, you should probably find a church that is more financially fiscal.

About televangelists... I believe that they start out with good intentions when they begin their ministry. They soon become overwhelmed with the flow of financial gain that their ministry brings in. Because they have more than enough money to do many, many things that are worthwhile they feel that there is more than enough to give themselves a lavish lifestyle as well. This is where the sinful flesh of mankind takes hold. Before you know it, the love of money has taken its hold on them. They fall. This is wrong, no doubt. Especially, because they are to be an example to the new believers in Christ. It's a shame, but it's a reality. They are merely human. All eyes are on them, and their sinfulness is noticable to all. Jesus tells us to be obedient to him and let him deal with those who aren't. Don't allow other peoples actions to keep you from having the relationship with God that he wants to have with you. (this wasn't directed specifically for you, bjean, but for everyone who feels that the 'church' is hypocritical.)

[BJean 16]

I have no problem with religious threads or participating on them. I just get tired of religion permeating every other thread to the point of dominating the threads and getting too far afield from the original topics that the people started.

I don't even have a problem with discussing religion on any thread if it is in relation to or in the context of the original topic. But highjacks happen and rather than the discusion being invigorated, it causes frustration.

You're right people are hypocritical. And the Bible can be contridictory. But you're also right, we shouldn't allow that to influence our own beliefs. Sometimes that is difficult. And I'm sure you do understand that when the hypocritical people are the ones who are preaching and/or running a church, or if they are prosletyzing ad nauseum, it is going to turn people off rather than turning them on to religion.

And when the church is founded on the premise that it is created to help their congreation/parishioners, but they become all about making money and building bigger and bigger buildings, it can turn people off too.

Have you ever visited the Vatican, gone through St. Peter's, etc.? Ever wonder how much could have been be done for the people who are starving rather than for glorifying the Pope and Bishops? Ever wonder what it costs just to maintain the Vatican? That's a large-scale example, there are smaller ones in communities across the nation. And as I said, the televangelists are in a category all their own when it comes to raising money and using it for their own personal gratification instead of for people who are in need. I believe that we bear some resonsibility for who we donate our hard-earned 10% to, especially if we want to God to think that it is in His name.

Edited June 23, 2009 by BJean

[pattygreen 5]

I have no problem with religious threads or participating on them. I just get tired of religion permeating every other thread to the point of dominating the threads and getting too far afield from the original topics that the people started.

I don't even have a problem with discussing religion on any thread if it is in relation to or in the context of the original topic. But highjacks happen and rather than the discusion being invigorated, it causes frustration.

You're right people are hypocritical. And the Bible can be contridictory.

People can be hypocritical, and that includes christians. I agree, but I don't agree that the bible is contradictory. I have been reading it for 25 years now, pretty much daily, and I have never found not even one contradiction.

But you're also right, we shouldn't allow that to influence our own beliefs. Sometimes that is difficult. And I'm sure you do understand that when the hypocritical people are the ones who are preaching and/or running a church, or if they are prosletyzing ad nauseum, it is going to turn people off rather than turning them on to religion.

This I agree with you on. Those who share God's words with others need to walk the talk. I know that we are all human and that we all sin and do wrong, so I have an understanding of mankinds struggles, but I also understand God's mercy and grace towards his children. This is of great value to a christian, because we know that we can not get through a day without sinning. God does say that those who teach will be judged more harshly. Therefore, they need to set an example for others. When they fail, it does much harm to the furthering of the gospel, and maybe this is why God says they will be judged more harshly. Either way, we shouldn't allow them to affect our own walk with God.

And when the church is founded on the premise that it is created to help their congreation/parishioners, but they become all about making money and building bigger and bigger buildings, it can turn people off too.

true.

Have you ever visited the Vatican, gone through St. Peter's, etc.?

No. But I've seen pictures.

Ever wonder how much could have been be done for the people who are starving rather than for glorifying the Pope and Bishops?

I totally agree. Like I said, we need to choose a christian denomination (church) that we feel will be good stewards of the money we give them and one who teaches from the word of God only, instead of from their own doctrines and traditions.

Ever wonder what it costs just to maintain the Vatican? That's a large-scale example, there are smaller ones in communities across the nation. And as I said, the televangelists are in a category all their own when it comes to raising money and using it for their own personal gratification instead of for people who are in need. I believe that we bear some resonsibility for who we donate our hard-earned 10% to, especially if we want to God to think that it is in His name.

You are so right here. We bare all the responsibility for what we do with not only our tithes and offerings, but all our finances.

it really felt good to agree with you on somethings, bjean.

[BJean 16]

That put a smile on my face too, patty!

[KartMan 58]

I just turned on the news to see if Middle East peace had been solved or if the North Koreans gave up their nukes. The answer was no on both of those, but with you two agreeing on something I think even those are possible:wink2:.

[pattygreen 5]

That's really funny. Truth is, even though we disagree on alot of issues, I like bjean a whole lot.

[plain 12]

I just turned on the news to see if Middle East peace had been solved or if the North Koreans gave up their nukes. The answer was no on both of those, but with you two agreeing on something I think even those are possible:wink2:.

Bwahahaha.....See, I was going to go the other way and express surprise as to how hell must be freezing over, but your optimisim has won me over, KartMan!!

[BJean 16]

Peace and love to all of youse. You peeps make my day! Seriously.

As for North Korea, dudes, what's up with that? Do you think that this whole trash going on in Iran is some kind of diversion? Do you think they are in cahoots? I mean I guess we know they are to some extent, but geez, this is all rather odd.

I mean if there were any way that N. Korea could somehow slide past our intelligence, and actually fire a weapon of some sort at Hawaii, what do you think would happen? Gives me goose bumps. And not in a good way.

[plain 12]

As for North Korea, dudes, what's up with that? Do you think that this whole trash going on in Iran is some kind of diversion? Do you think they are in cahoots? I mean I guess we know they are to some extent, but geez, this is all rather odd.

N. Korea is simply doing what they've always done....making a rather weak threat so the US will send them food. As long as I can remember, our presidents have caved and sent the supplies (I haven't looked this up, I'm just going from memory....but this is very google-able if anyone cares to find the exact dates) from the time of Bush the Elder, Clinton, Dubya, and I expect President Obama to cave as well. My theory is that N. Korea represents such a minor "real world" threat that it's easier to just give them some food and shut them up.

I mean if there were any way that N. Korea could somehow slide past our intelligence, and actually fire a weapon of some sort at Hawaii, what do you think would happen?

In theory, that could certainly happen. In reality, China pulls the strings of N. Korea. China has waaaaaay too much money invested in America to let their pissboy pick a fight with us like that.

By far the bigger threat to world peace is the middle east. Full disclosure, I'm strongly pro-Isreal (there's the tie-in to this religious thread, I guess). I think they'll bomb Iran before they let Iran become nuclear-capable. Then all hell will probably break loose