New huge 'Victory Christian Fellowship' centre being completed in Firhouse, Dublin

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm really not so sure that my preconceptions are the same as yours. I mean, if they were I would expect the discussion to go a lot smoother.

As I said, your preconceptions are the same as mine in all cases except your religious beliefs, where the idea that the laws of nature can be broken apparently becomes rational and the standard of evidence is significantly lowered.

Jakkass wrote: »

We are in agreement that the universe is under certain scientific laws. We are not in agreement over the authorship of those scientific laws. This is perhaps the reason why we get stuck on discussions such as these. I am curious about the cause for why this earth or these laws exist in the first place, you aren't as much. Perhaps that's an inaccurate assessment that you need to call me out on. Feel free.

But we're not in agreement that the universe is under certain laws because you think that the laws can be broken at will. I need some compelling evidence before I will accept that the laws of nature have been broken which is the objective and rational approach

Also, I'm very curious about where these laws came from in the first place, I'm just more willing to admit that I currently have no idea where they came from and to work towards finding out, rather than accepting one explanation over all others before it can be shown to be true. If anything my approach is far more open minded because I am willing to consider all possibilities where you think you already know the answer.

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting, but it might be more prudent to focus on this discussion instead of invoking previous discussion into this one. Again it has to do with keeping on one line of discussion rather than on several. You understand how that could be confusing right?

This discussion is about the rational reasons behind Christianity. Past reasons that you have given for the rationality of Christianity are therefore relevant to this discussion

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

So ignoring reality is a good thing to you?

What? No, weighting an opinions relevance to existence is a good thing to me. An Amazonian tribesman can be made aware of the price of milk in Ireland but it would be foolish for him to spend each day of his life taking note of it and caring about it because it has no relevance to his existence.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is entirely dependant on whether or not you think that God would have any interest in His creation.

Okay... but you have yet to explain how you believe you are qualified to form an opinion about this being regardless. To do so requires HUGE leaps in understanding. Even from your wording, it is all about "thinking" and "assuming". Not once did you use the word "knowing" because you can't.

Basically you are reasoning "well I'm willing to assume this about God, I might as well go all in and also assume this about him as well..."

Jakkass wrote: »

So, you are encouraging me to ignore more posts than I am accused of already ignoring :pac:

Or just add more links to your sig :pac:

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't the business of legislators to separate religion from people. If it becomes like that, we will have moved from church - state separation to state atheism.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying the teaching of ideas such as hell and demons should be defined as abuse of a parents position before the child has the reasoning abilities to understand them. Lets say, after they no longer believe Santa is real.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is based on the assumption that Christianity is a lie. I cannot make that assumption, for obvious reasons.

No it based on the assumption that you are making that it is okay to teach a child whatever dogma a Religion may hold if the person teaching it believes it to be true.

Take my previous analogy that you said would be wrong to teach a child. If that child grew up believing that there where undetectable cameras in her room and that a creepy old man down the street who watched them would beat her if she touched herself at night, and she went on to have children of her own.

Would she be wrong for also teaching her children the lie her parents taught her? Even if she believed it because she was raised to believe it?

Is a lie told by someone who believes it to be the truth any less of a lie.

philologos

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What? No, weighting an opinions relevance to existence is a good thing to me. An Amazonian tribesman can be made aware of the price of milk in Ireland but it would be foolish for him to spend each day of his life taking note of it and caring about it because it has no relevance to his existence.

If God is meant to be omnipotent, it seems to be somewhat of a condescension to imply that God can't care for everything in His creation. That's my primary issue with deism. I mean who has created a masterpiece and then has said that they didn't care for it?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Okay... but you have yet to explain how you believe you are qualified to form an opinion about this being regardless. To do so requires HUGE leaps in understanding. Even from your wording, it is all about "thinking" and "assuming". Not once did you use the word "knowing" because you can't.

It depends on how convincing the signs are that God is indeed revealing Himself to people are. This would depend on analysing experience.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Basically you are reasoning "well I'm willing to assume this about God, I might as well go all in and also assume this about him as well..."

Am I? Or am I basing it upon something?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Or just add more links to your sig :pac:

It's so hard to choose what is appropriate for it. I might look around the Christianity forum for any posts from some of the others that could be helpful.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying the teaching of ideas such as hell and demons should be defined as abuse of a parents position before the child has the reasoning abilities to understand them. Lets say, after they no longer believe Santa is real.

That's an outward denial of freedom of religion, and a clear sign of favouring atheism above peoples faith. That's why I am opposed to it.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

No it based on the assumption that you are making that it is okay to teach a child whatever dogma a Religion may hold if the person teaching it believes it to be true.

That is the only way faiths and none can coexist. If you aren't interested in coexistence you might try to impose your aggressive secularism on the rest of the population.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Take my previous analogy that you said would be wrong to teach a child. If that child grew up believing that there where undetectable cameras in her room and that a creepy old man down the street who watched them would beat her if she touched herself at night, and she went on to have children of her own.

I said it was wrong because it would be clearly contrived. There's a difference here. If it isn't clearly contrived, and if it is regarded to be true, that is very different than the former.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Would she be wrong for also teaching her children the lie her parents taught her? Even if she believed it because she was raised to believe it?

This is still dependant on the notion that her parents had taught her a lie. She would personally have no blame because she personally believed it to be true. Her parents would have blame for teaching an outward lie in the first place.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Is a lie told by someone who believes it to be the truth any less of a lie.

You have yet to justify how Christianity is a lie in any way. Your analogies all fall short unless you can present a proper case against it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If God is meant to be omnipotent, it seems to be somewhat of a condescension to imply that God can't care for everything in His creation. That's my primary issue with deism. I mean who has created a masterpiece and then has said that they didn't care for it?

The point is not that he can't, it's that there is no hard evidence that he has. The evidence points to the idea that the universe follows very specific laws that are never broken, even for the odd resurrection. Lots of people throughout history have claimed otherwise but none of them have been proven right and many of them have been proven wrong

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

This is based on the assumption that Christianity is a lie. I cannot make that assumption, for obvious reasons.

Just about sums up all your difficulties there mate;)

Try this one, try to forget EVERYTHING you know about the world and explain in your own honest opinion what you think of it...

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

If God is meant to be omnipotent, it seems to be somewhat of a condescension to imply that God can't care for everything in His creation. That's my primary issue with deism. I mean who has created a masterpiece and then has said that they didn't care for it?

[Deleted text which violates forum rules]

Jakkass wrote: »

It depends on how convincing the signs are that God is indeed revealing Himself to people are. This would depend on analysing experience.

You mean how convincing it is that the Judeo-Christian God is revealing himself. I mean any signs that Egyptian or Pagan Gods exist can be flatly ignored right.

Jakkass wrote: »

I said it was wrong because it would be clearly contrived. There's a difference here. If it isn't clearly contrived, and if it is regarded to be true, that is very different than the former.

This is still dependant on the notion that her parents had taught her a lie. She would personally have no blame because she personally believed it to be true. Her parents would have blame for teaching an outward lie in the first place.

[Deleted text which violates forum rules]

Jakkass wrote: »

You have yet to justify how Christianity is a lie in any way. Your analogies all fall short unless you can present a proper case against it.

I don't care to present a case against it. [Deleted text which violates forum rules]

However I will ask, do you believe Scientologists teach the truth to their members? Now I don't want to hear the usual "they are misguided..." or other such misdirections. Is the information they teach their members the truth in your opinion or is it lies?

philologos

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Masterpiece... from your perspective. If I take a crap in the woods you can be damn sure I don't care what happens to it after I've left the scene. Now the flies may think it is a masterpiece to hover around, but as its creator, I damn sure couldn't care less about it.

Luckily, I know that excreting is a biological function. Whereas Creation is an entirely different thing. You know that, and I know that. Although I find it quite curious that you have such a low point of view about the universe and all that is within it.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You mean how convincing it is that the Judeo-Christian God is revealing himself. I mean any signs that Egyptian or Pagan Gods exist can be flatly ignored right.

I'm open to hearing about other faiths, I personally hold Christianity to be true based on what experiences I've had, and based on indication.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Wow, honestly, Wow!... so much for your objective morality there. Remind me to never live in a country you rule.

Rule #1 in the Kingdom of Jakkass: Ignorance is an excuse.

I believe that God would factor in things such as ignorance. You mightn't be aware but unintentional sin, and intentional sin are different in the eyes of the Biblical text.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

However I will ask, do you believe Scientologists teach the truth to their members? Now I don't want to hear the usual "they are misguided..." or other such misdirections. Is the information they teach their members the truth in your opinion or is it lies?

Your approach is incredibly simplistic. I obviously believe that Scientology is false. This isn't a reason for me to attempt to criminalise Scientology but rather a reason for me to offer people to consider Christianity and a reason for you to introduce people to irreligion.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Luckily, I know that excreting is a biological function. Whereas Creation is an entirely different thing. You know that, and I know that.

I don't know that. Human beings are in no position to be confidently stating much of anything with regard to the creation of the universe and we certainly don't know enough to say that some higher being must have been involved

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

Luckily, I know that excreting is a biological function. Whereas Creation is an entirely different thing. You know that, and I know that. Although I find it quite curious that you have such a low point of view about the universe and all that is within it.

You clearly don't grasp what I am trying to say. It is not that I view this Universe any less than you, it's that I would not be so presumptuous to say that my opinion, as a minute internal observer of this Universe who only has an infinitesimally small experiential opinion of this reality would be in anyway qualified to comment on a Deity's nature, emotions and motives towards this Universe .

You assume that if a God created this Universe then he must care about it. This obviously falls under the flaw of, from the outset, taking the biased Christian understanding about the creation of this Universe. Disregard the Bible as evidence for a Deistic God, and explain how you can so arrogantly claim to be able to think like and predict the motives of an omniscient being.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that God would factor in things such as ignorance. You mightn't be aware but unintentional sin, and intentional sin are different in the eyes of the Biblical text.

Curious. Can I ask, when should society step in to protect a child? What about physical abuse. Do you think it is right that corporal punishment has been banned in countries where there are Christian Sects that still take Proverbs 23:13-14 literally?

Jakkass wrote: »

Your approach is incredibly simplistic. I obviously believe that Scientology is false.

Justify this opinion the Scientology is false.

Denalihighway

seemed a shame not to hit 400 posts...

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is that my preconceptions come from the laws of nature and the knowledge that humans make up sh!t like this all the time. Your preconceptions are exactly the same as mine because we both know that dodgy claims are made all the time and we both know that nature follows certain rules, but you make an exception for one guy 2000 years ago with no evidence bar the unsubstantiated claims of one of thousands of old books. I see no reason to make such an exception

Jakkass, why do you make this exception, and in what way is this exception logical to you?

Overblood

liamw wrote: »

Jakkass, why do you make this exception, and in what way is this exception logical to you?

Don't..... just don't.

Goduznt Xzst

Overblood wrote: »

Don't..... just don't.

B-B-B-Bird bird bird, b-bird is the word, A-well-a bird, bird, bird...

MrPudding

kiffer wrote: »

The work men have stopped angel grinding out side the window so I can take a nap before I go mad.

Foul fiends. Why would they grind angels?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also it is worth noting this quote (the exact wording escapes me):

All that is needed for a lie to become the truth is for a charlatan to meet a fool

Was it Voltaire that said "Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool...?"

MrP

Splendour

Ok, have read some of the threads on this but not all as don't have time.

My tuppence worth on this (and I know I'm not going to be popular with my Christian colleagues here) is I personally don't like the Victory Church ethos.
I attended Victory for a while as far as I'm concerned they don't have a proper biblical attitude.

I was introduced to this church by a friend and for the first couple of weeks though it was fine but then bit by bit I realised they were all a bit phoney and that didn't sit well with me. At every service the whole congregation were 'slain in the holy spirit' - that is apart from yours truely here :rolleyes:

Before every service there was a mini sermon about tithing-as far as I could see they were obsessed with money and often preached the 'name it and claim it' message.I remember at one 'tithing' sermon the pastor basically slagged off 'the person' who put 5 euro on the plate the previous week and 'did that person think that was good enough for God?'
Another time they arranged for a preacher to come over from the States and he was a complete nutter. He was so proud telling us how much God had blest him and had his own private plane with the words 'Jesus loves Jessie' inscribed on it!
I was told at one stage I didn't have 'enough faith' having been prayed over and yet still had back problems.

Having said that, I recognised a few people on the video and they are good Christians-albeit caught up in a very mixed up church. Also they are doing great work with getting people off drugs which can only be good. I met one such person when I attended Victory last year when Shane Lynch gave a talk on his book 'The Chancer'.

sharkman

Aparently its costs 2K a year to attend this church and is costing 14 Million to build , I was in it last week installing some equipment . No shortage of money being spent !;)

PDN

Splendour wrote: »

Ok, have read some of the threads on this but not all as don't have time.

My tuppence worth on this (and I know I'm not going to be popular with my Christian colleagues here) is I personally don't like the Victory Church ethos.
I attended Victory for a while as far as I'm concerned they don't have a proper biblical attitude.

I was introduced to this church by a friend and for the first couple of weeks though it was fine but then bit by bit I realised they were all a bit phoney and that didn't sit well with me. At every service the whole congregation were 'slain in the holy spirit' - that is apart from yours truely here :rolleyes:

Before every service there was a mini sermon about tithing-as far as I could see they were obsessed with money and often preached the 'name it and claim it' message.I remember at one 'tithing' sermon the pastor basically slagged off 'the person' who put 5 euro on the plate the previous week and 'did that person think that was good enough for God?'
Another time they arranged for a preacher to come over from the States and he was a complete nutter. He was so proud telling us how much God had blest him and had his own private plane with the words 'Jesus loves Jessie' inscribed on it!
I was told at one stage I didn't have 'enough faith' having been prayed over and yet still had back problems.

Having said that, I recognised a few people on the video and they are good Christians-albeit caught up in a very mixed up church. Also they are doing great work with getting people off drugs which can only be good. I met one such person when I attended Victory last year when Shane Lynch gave a talk on his book 'The Chancer'.

I don't think that opinion would make you unpopular at all. In fact I think most, if not all, of the regular posters in the Christianity forum would, if they visited that church, totally agree with your critique.

It's just a shame it took 400 posts and a fair bit of misinformation before anyone finally put their finger on the real problem with VCF.

They don't have anything to do with a group in the Philippines with a similar name.

They don't receive money from America. In fact, if anything, they send money to America by facilitating charlatans like the nutter you mentioned. He could quite easily have painted "Jesus and a bunch of mugs from Dublin love Jessie" on the side of his plane.

As for sharkman's allegation about it costing 2K to attend VCF - if you're going to spread lies and urban legends about a religious minority then why not go the whole hog and accuse them of ritual cannibalism or of trying to install a New World Order via the Lisbon Treaty?

sharkman

PDN wrote: »

As for sharkman's allegation about it costing 2K to attend VCF - if you're going to spread lies and urban legends about a religious minority then why not go the whole hog and accuse them of ritual cannibalism or of trying to install a New World Order via the Lisbon Treaty?

Only telling you what the guys on the build were told .

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

As for sharkman's allegation about it costing 2K to attend VCF - if you're going to spread lies and urban legends about a religious minority then why not go the whole hog and accuse them of ritual cannibalism or of trying to install a New World Order via the Lisbon Treaty?

Ritual cannibalism is the Catholics dear, you're getting confused.

PDN

sharkman wrote: »

Only telling you what the guys on the build were told .

Ah well, if someone on a construction site said it then it must be true.

sharkman

PDN wrote: »

Ah well, if someone on a construction site said it then it must be true.

And you know better :rolleyes:

PDN

sharkman wrote: »

And you know better :rolleyes:

That sentence is rather ambiguous, but yes, I do know better.

a) I personally know dozens of members and ex-members of the church in question, and I have met with some of the leaders of that church. So, while having serious disagreements with some aspects of VCF, I have enough knowledge of the subject to know that nobody has to pay anything to attend the church.

b) I know better than to believe a construction-site rumour and then to post it on an internet discussion board as if it were fact.

sharkman

No Nobody HAS to pay anything , BUT you are frowned upon for not donating enough . I was told that 2K would be seen as minimum donation .

kiffer

If a fiver in the collection plate is considered stingy ... then the minimum non stingy donation each week is €10 (notes, no coins, that would look stingy)... or €520 a year... not counting any extra donations made at Easter, Christmas or any other special occasion that can be drummed up to fill the coffers.

Seeing as 2k is 10% of 20k and 10% is a not unusual tithing amount I have no problem believing that members of the church that are not hard up financially would be expected to be giving about 2k a year.

Expected does not mean required.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

a) I personally know dozens of members and ex-members of the church in question, and I have met with some of the leaders of that church. So, while having serious disagreements with some aspects of VCF, I have enough knowledge of the subject to know that nobody has to pay anything to attend the church.

Given that nobody has to pay anything to attend the church, but that you do know dozens of members and ex-members, do you have any estimate of what people do pay?

As with Kiffer, the €2,000 doesn't seem an unreasonable guess to me, given the general expectation of something around 10%, and the average wage in this country being around 30k or so.

Zillah

They also happen to be building a state of the art super church, so the money has to be coming from somewhere.

kiffer

Zillah wrote: »

They also happen to be building a state of the art super church, so the money has to be coming from somewhere.

hmmm... good point. the church cost what? 14 million to build? is that right? I seem to remember that number floating around but sharkman said it and his honesty has been called into question here...

Do churches get loans to build their buildings? If so do they not have to make reasonably estimated projections for future income? Churches cost money to build and run... this can be broken down to cost per parishioner... do we have any idea how many members they have?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Given that nobody has to pay anything to attend the church, but that you do know dozens of members and ex-members, do you have any estimate of what people do pay?

Nobody pays anything to attend. Members of the church would be taught and encouraged to tithe (give 10% of their income) but since most giving is anonymous nobody knows how many of them do so. I know the giving patterns of many Pentecostal/Evangelical churches and, unless their members average about €100 a week income, then most members do not tithe.

Incidentally the fact that most of the giving at VCF is anonymous should demonstrate that sharkman's claim that they would frown at you for giving less than 2K a year is bogus. You can't frown at someone's level of giving if you don't actually know what they're giving.

Zillah wrote:

They also happen to be building a state of the art super church, so the money has to be coming from somewhere.

Their money comes from three sources:
a) The giving of their members.
b) For several years VCF provided accomodation for asylum seekers. The State paid them millions for providing this contracted service.
c) VCF bought 11 acres of land in Firhouse when prices were low, developed some of it as apartments and housing, and then sold these units when house prices were near their peak. In fact, some of the posters who complain that they can see the new church from their homes might even be paying for the church themselves by having bought one of these properties! That would be a delicious irony.

So, Zillah, sorry to scotch any conspiracy theories, but the money has come from old fashioned capitalism and the now extinct Celtic Tiger.

kiffer wrote:

Do churches get loans to build their buildings? If so do they not have to make reasonably estimated projections for future income? Churches cost money to build and run... this can be broken down to cost per parishioner... do we have any idea how many members they have?

Churches can get mortgages just like anyone else. The bank generally goes by whether they can reasonably meet the payments from current streams of income.

For example, my own church has a mortgage for €2 million. This was based on the giving of about 600 members being sufficient to meet repayments of approx €15,000 per month.

I don't know if VCF needed a mortgage or not. It may be that the money they made from housing asylum seekers and property development (together with the sale of their previous building in Westmoreland Street) will enable to build in Firhouse debt free.

but sharkman said it and his honesty has been called into question here

His posting construction site rumours on the internet would be an indication of credulity rather than of dishonesty.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

So, Zillah, sorry to scotch any conspiracy theories, but the money has come from old fashioned capitalism and the now extinct Celtic Tiger.

I wasn't implying anything beyond what I said; they have a ton of money and I was wondering where it came from. Pretty funny about the people living in the houses they built though.

Still, I'd be curious to see the statistics on donations and what sort of pressures and expectations there are.

Zamboni

Just read this thread and just saw the youtube video.

Now, will someone please tell me this is an elaborate pisstake?

Just googlemapped this thing.
How crap would it be to have bought a house in the Kilakee estate and be in negative equity beside this!