12 million euro Church

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

The Good Samaritan passage in Luke 10, has far reaching implications, insofar as it goes much further than what is temporal. As do other passages (such as John chapter 4) that point to marginalised groups in society.

The reality is though, that the Bible very clearly puts forward that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and that people desperately need to know that. That's irrespective of how you interpret it.

For the umpteenth time. I'm not saying that churches doing social work is a bad thing, but actually Gospel proclamation is ultimately what will matter eternally. Christians should be active in both respects. One has an impact in this temporal world, and one has an impact for an eternity. It is therefore obvious to me which is ultimately important.

ceolte: By "a lot" do you mean very few?

I never said, you claimed social work is a bad thing. It's your priorities that are being questioned.

You prioritise proclaiming the Gospel over helping people get out of poverty. Other Christians would not. That position has support in scripture.

I am questioning your Christian faith as apparently I am not allowed to do that, however I am pointing out to you that there are some differences of opinion with the Christian community on what you think is unquestionable fact.

lmaopml

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I never said, you claimed social work is a bad thing. It's your priorities that are being questioned.

You prioritise proclaiming the Gospel over helping people get out of poverty. Other Christians would not. That position has support in scripture.

I am questioning your Christian faith as apparently I am not allowed to do that, however I am pointing out to you that there are some differences of opinion with the Christian community on what you think is unquestionable fact.

Tim, I think you may have misinterpreted what Phil was saying......he said he thinks that both go hand in hand, or at least that's the way I understood him.

It says in Scripture that when Christ examines each heart that he will say..

‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,f you did it to me.’

The theology behind this is that Christ is 'in' everybody, - and that we can always proclaim the Gospel and sometimes use words and other times that actions and showing genuine love for others is pretty much 'letting your light shine...' for Christ, through Christ and 'in' Christ - and this is another way of sharing the Gospel when it is done for the Glory of God and through a genuine Spirit of love....

Anyways, I'm not 100% up on the Church being built or the Christian Church that built it - the idea of the prosperity Gospel doesn't really cut it for me either though, something off about that......Perhaps they 'do' support many charities and help the poor too though, I'm not sure.

philologos

Tim Robbins: What is worse, a life of temporal suffering or a life of eternal condemnation?

The answer for me is the latter. I support serving and helping others materially, but Christians must also be committed to encouraging people to believe and trust in Jesus and recognise what He did on the cross. Jesus' crucifixion and the resurrection are the greatest things that ever occurred on the face of the earth as far as Christianity is concerned, because through these things we can receive forgiveness and a renewed relationship with our Creator. It would be fundamentally cruel to hide this from people.

Essentially you're expecting me to presume that Christianity is false, and obviously I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to hold non-Christian priorities, ultimately as far as I'm concerned they lead to death and destruction. Jesus brought us to eternal life, we are to live on this earth in thankfulness, and live as God has commanded us to. This includes taking care of others, and striving to love them even if they persecute or hate us.

Christianity is based on the cross. That is why we love others (1 John 4).

lmaopml: Yes they do go hand in hand. That's part of my point.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Essentially you're expecting me to presume that Christianity is false, and obviously I'm not going to do that..

No. I am asking you to accept there is actually some diversity within the Christian community on this. Some Christians would not prioritise Gospel spreading and prozelitizing over fighting poverty and for social justice. For example, my understanding is the charity World Vision does this. Well when I emailed them they told me this. The St Vincent De Paul is also a bit like this. If you talk to many Christians they would also say this.

From wiki on world vision...

"Richard Stearns, president of World Vision US, stated that World Vision has a strict policy against proselytizing which he describes as "... – using any kind of coercion or inducement to listen to a religious message before helping someone".

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No. I am asking you to accept there is actually some diversity within the Christian community on this. Some Christians would not prioritise Gospel spreading and prozelitizing over fighting poverty and for social justice. For example, my understanding is the charity World Vision does this. Well when I emailed them they told me this. The St Vincent De Paul is also a bit like this. If you talk to many Christians they would also say this.

From wiki on world vision...

"Richard Stearns, president of World Vision US, stated that World Vision has a strict policy against proselytizing which he describes as "... – using any kind of coercion or inducement to listen to a religious message before helping someone".

Simply put, I don't see how on reading the New Testament that you wouldn't get the idea that Jesus died to save mankind on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day, and this was abundantly important news. The New Testament church committed themselves primarily to evangelisation. However, the New Testament church did give to others, and were encouraged to do so.

The simple matter is, if people deny the fundamental importance of salvation, then I can heavily question as to whether or not they have read the gospels, and the New Testament wholly.

Oh, and you also have charities like Compassion who do both. I think this is by far the best policy.

prinz

I think there's a lot of cross purposes going on here, I'm guessing from the sidelines that philologos is of the position that spreading the gospel is a worthwhile end in itself, and that money can be invested in spreading that message. Fair enough.

On the other Tim is saying other charitable work should come first... and it seems you've both come down to arguing which is more important.

On Tim's side, I agree, I don't think vital aid should ever be ransomed on condition of x amount of missionary work. IMO that would be a backwards approach, i.e. withholding food aid until people convert or promise to study the Bible or whatever. However I don't think Philologos would support that either, contrary to how it's being portrayed. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

On Philo's side, he's arguing that spreading the gospel can be a help in itself and it can. Not every one has to engage in a certain type of charity. If these people have the money and the will to build churches that's their business tbh. You might as well say to anyone building a house, tut tut could have built x number of smaller houses for charity. You might as well complain about the ISPCA because they don't look after children, and moan about the ISPCC because they don't look after animals. There are people who are interested in charitable work, there are people more interested in evangelising etc. It's a bit redundant to hold them all to the same standard.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Simply put, I don't see how on reading the New Testament that you wouldn't get the idea that Jesus died to save mankind on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day, and this was abundantly important news. The New Testament church committed themselves primarily to evangelisation. However, the New Testament church did give to others, and were encouraged to do so.

The simple matter is, if people deny the fundamental importance of salvation, then I can heavily question as to whether or not they have read the gospels, and the New Testament wholly.

Oh, and you also have charities like Compassion who do both. I think this is by far the best policy.

You said:

Biblical Christianity does take temporal needs seriously, but as secondary to eternal needs.

Do you stand by that or are you changing your mind?

If you stand by that, do you accept that there are many Christians who do not share that opinion?

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You said:



Do you stand by that or are you changing your mind?

If you stand by that, do you accept that there are many Christians who do not share that opinion?

Of course I stand by it, because it is the right thing to stand by.

Simply put, there is such a thing as spiritual poverty as well as material poverty. There are many people in this world who are materially rich, yet spiritually poor insofar as they reject God and the chance to know Him, and indeed be justified in His name.

The impetus that Christians have to love and serve their neighbour comes from God alone. Christians are motivated by the cross, to love and serve others both spiritually and materially. If Christians believe that there is a coming judgement, and if they believe that all people must repent and believe in the Gospel as is fairly clearly presented throughout the New Testament, then eternal needs come first. It is by coming to know our Creator through the death and resurrection of Jesus, that Christians find what true love is (1 John 4).

If there is a hereafter, then temporal needs only touch the surface:

Hebrews 9:27-28 wrote:

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

People should be far more concerned about their destiny. Is it to receive eternal life and to dwell with Jesus as Lord, or is it to be condemned for eternity?

If we really believe that as Christians, that should impact our priorities.

It is the transformation that this truth produces in us that will be the impetus of good works (see Ephesians 2). Not that we are saved by works, but we do what is good to glorify God.

It's a similar objection to what non-believers have to when Christians say that they love God above family, and above friends. They seem confused by the idea that this could be the case. However, from a Christian perspective, that is only right and proper. God as the ultimate creator of the universe knows how best to live in it, who better to ask for supreme guidance. It is because Christians believe that God can make them a better husband, a better wife, a better son or daughter, a better brother or sister, a better friend, a better colleague through serving Him first and foremost in their lives, that they put their trust in Him first and foremost.

The question I'm left with is how can the idolatry of self compare to the knowledge and love of Christ? I'm convinced it can't.

lmaopml

Great post Phil. Charity works both in a corporal form and a spiritual one.

The Great Commission comes to mind

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Of course I stand by it, because it is the right thing to stand by.

Do you accept that there are many Christians who do not share that opinion?

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Of course I stand by it, because it is the right thing to stand by.

Do you accept that there are many Christians who do not share that opinion?

I don't believe that one can genuinely hold to Christianity and believe that man and the world have supremacy over Jesus. Or rather that man can ever know better than him. It is as a result of our rejection and our rebellion against Him that we deny we have a problem. That is we need desperately to be reconciled to God and be forgiven.

For the record I don't believe that the people involved in the afforementioned charities do either.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that one can genuinely hold to Christianity and believe that man and the world have supremacy over Jesus. Or rather that man can ever know better than him. It is as a result of our rejection and our rebellion against Him that we deny we have a problem. That is we need desperately to be reconciled to God and be forgiven.

For the record I don't believe that the people involved in the afforementioned charities do either.

You are a like a politician not answering the question you'd like to answer instead of the one you were asked.

You believe spreading the word of Jesus to hungry person is more important than other giving food to a hungry person person. Do you accept other Christians do not?

Yes or No.

totus tuus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You are a like a politician not answering the question you'd like to answer instead of the one you were asked.

You believe spreading the word of Jesus to hungry person is more important than other giving food to a hungry person person. Do you accept other Christians do not?

Yes or No.

There were many critics of Mother Teresa, but she always looked after the poor and the dying. You can spread the word of God through actions, and if necessary use words.

Tim Robbins

totus tuus wrote: »

There were many critics of Mother Teresa, but she always looked after the poor and the dying. You can spread the word of God through actions, and if necessary use words.

No-one is saying you can't. The question is about priorities? It's not complicated - so let's stick to it.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that one can genuinely hold to Christianity and believe that man and the world have supremacy over Jesus. Or rather that man can ever know better than him. It is as a result of our rejection and our rebellion against Him that we deny we have a problem. That is we need desperately to be reconciled to God and be forgiven.

For the record I don't believe that the people involved in the afforementioned charities do either.

You are a like a politician not answering the question you'd like to answer instead of the one you were asked.

You believe spreading the word of Jesus to hungry person is more important than other giving food to a hungry person person. Do you accept other Christians do not?

Yes or No.

I've actually answered you very plainly

Ultimately Biblical Christianity teaches that the need to be forgiven from sin is ultimately the most important.

I don't believe many Christians do think this. If they did it'd raise questions as to whether or not they understand who exactly Jesus is.

I've made my position abundantly clear and I think the New Testament does too. Ultimately eternal need is more important than temporal need. Christians should serve in both

Tabnabs

The building in question is this one http://www.iftn.ie/locationsireland/irishlocationstype/sublinks_static6/modernbuildings/?act1=record&aid=90&rid=182&only=1&tpl=archive3locations&force=1

Which includes a "Starbucks" although not listed on the Starbucks website...

If you google the pastor's name, it makes for long and interesting reading.

The congregation is made up of African's in the main and any promotional material does not seem to reflect this.

doctoremma

Have followed this thread and today, came across an appropriate quote/picture which epitomizes my opinion. I won't post the picture as it contains swearing (so anyone who clicks the link should be warned about this):

http://i.imgur.com/K76wl.jpg

totus tuus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No-one is saying you can't. The question is about priorities? It's not complicated - so let's stick to it.

The soul takes priority over the body.

Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and all these things will be added unto you. (Matt 6:33)

doctoremma

totus tuus wrote: »

The soul takes priority over the body.

Can you see how the situation - a church spending a shedload of cash on a building instead of feeding the poor - looks to an outsider who doesn't believe that souls exist? Can you see how you might get short shrift from the same outsider?

Rowley Birkin QC

philologos wrote: »

It's crazy if you're not a Christian. Sure.

If you are a Christian though, ultimately peoples eternal welfare is more significant than temporal suffering.

Not that Christians shouldn't help in terms of temporal suffering, but ultimately whether or not people know about Christ is of first importance. That's why I encourage and endorse evangelism, church planting and Bible awareness in society.

Temporal causes are worthy, but they are not anywhere near as worthy as the Gospel going out, and people being saved.

I never said faith alone will keep you alive. My point is there is something more significant than life on this earth. That is God, and people knowing Him.

Tim Robbins: I'm interested in introducing people to Jesus. I hope that they do believe. It is still very much about people discovering Him for themselves. That's the essence of what I believe was most powerful about the Reformation.

Wow. Thanks for that.

totus tuus

doctoremma wrote: »

Can you see how the situation - a church spending a shedload of cash on a building instead of feeding the poor - looks to an outsider who doesn't believe that souls exist? Can you see how you might get short shrift from the same outsider?

You are saying INSTEAD of feeding the poor - they do both!

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You are a like a politician not answering the question you'd like to answer instead of the one you were asked.

You believe spreading the word of Jesus to hungry person is more important than other giving food to a hungry person person. Do you accept other Christians do not?

Yes or No.

Given that no one here is suggesting exploiting the needy, in what possible scenario is a hungry person given either Jesus or food?

doctoremma

totus tuus wrote: »

You are saying INSTEAD of feeding the poor - they do both!

But they could feed more poor people if they didn't spend £12m on a church?

mrac

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given that no one here is suggesting exploiting the needy, in what possible scenario is a hungry person given either Jesus or food?

The church has a finite amount of money.....a very large amount of money but still finite. If you spend 12m on an overindulgent church then that money is gone and cannot be spent on food for the hungry.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

in what possible scenario is a hungry person given either Jesus or food?

Daddy or chips?

ETA: this will only work if you had the advert in Ireland...

Fanny Cradock

mrac wrote: »

The church has a finite amount of money.....a very large amount of money but still finite. If you spend 12m on an overindulgent church then that money is gone and cannot be spent on food for the hungry.

And how is that an answer to my post? Again, in what scenario do we find this either or offer being made available?

Out of interest, have we actually established what this particular church cost to build?

ceolte

totus tuus wrote: »

You are saying INSTEAD of feeding the poor - they do both!

They do both for self serving reasons. Firstly for good PR to be seen as a group that helps those in need. Secondly to increase their congregation numbers. Now one might say, what would a prosperity church want with a down and out homless or broke person, but they can still be a valuable asset in terms of labour. I know of one individual who entered into one of their rehabilition programs and thought it was excellent for a while however after a few weeks he reached a level in his recovery where the church expected a return on their investment and put him to work going door to door and chugging on street corners to collect for these programs. He was given weekly targets and when he fell well short of the targets he was criticised by the program leaders as being "a taker and not a giver" as he wasn't giving back enough to the programs. They reminded him that they'd taken him from the gutter and he would end up back their if he didn't start to meet his collections targets. Needless to say this hapless individual eventually found himself back on the streets and even more disillusioned with life and christianity itself.

To anyone who wants to pat Victory Firhouse on the back for their community efforts they need to think long and hard about this. Its not really about reaching the lost or impacting lives, its about increases numbers. Jesus wasn't into revenue, he was in to people. Judas spent his time focused on the coffers and look what happened there.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Out of interest, have we actually established what this particular church cost to build?

The cost of the building was approximately €15 million as revealed by a close associate of Brendan Hade, Kevin Sanford during a ceremony where he handed his church over to Brendan Hade. The figure was given to the Galway congregation as validation of the stability of Victory Firhouse. What Kevin Sanford failed to mention was the heavy indebtedness of Victory and the pending court cases and litigation over the debts. I could go into details but you can just google Kevin Sanford and Brendan Hade which will return lots of articles about the financial situation of Victory and the controversies surrounding their finances.

mrac

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And how is that an answer to my post? Again, in what scenario do we find this either or offer being made available?

Out of interest, have we actually established what this particular church cost to build?

Either the church can spent its vast wealth on building indulgent churches, the palace that is the Vatican etc. or they could used that money to help those around them.


Matthew 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

totus tuus

doctoremma wrote: »

But they could feed more poor people if they didn't spend £12m on a church?

So what you're saying is that the Church should look after ALL the poor, while Governments who collect our taxes to alleviate such situations, not to mention the ordinary person who can afford to contribute and the mega rich should do nothing!!! If EVERYONE chipped in, there shouldn't be any poor!

doctoremma

totus tuus wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the Church should look after ALL the poor, while Governments who collect our taxes to alleviate such situations, not to mention the ordinary person who can afford to contribute and the mega rich should do nothing!!!

Where did I say that?

ceolte

mrac wrote: »

Matthew 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Victory has their own twist on this scripture stating by giving to the church, you are giving to the poor as the church supports the poor and thus by giving to the church you are in fact storing up treasures in heaven with the greater your giving is, the greater your treasures in heaven will be. The often quote Jesse Duplantis and his nonsense "visit to heaven" telling people about the Gold plated mansions and the streets laden with gold bricks in heaven. According to them and Jessie Duplantis the size of your literal mansion in heaven is dependent upon how generous people are on the earth.

It amazes me that people really believe that Jesus personally visited Jesse Duplantis and brought him to heaven to let people know about the riches that await them. Apparently Jesus is more concerned about making people rich than anything else.

Here is a video of Jesse telling people about his experience in Heaven and a story that Victory uses time and time again to get people to give generously to them so they can avail of the heavenly treasures he speaks of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCh2o8Ow0-U

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given that no one here is suggesting exploiting the needy, in what possible scenario is a hungry person given either Jesus or food?

It's primarily a philosophical question. But, in real sense it may determine how you view your Christianity and how you should act about it.

Mr. World Vision would have a different view of Christianity to philologos.
The question is does he accept Mr. World Vision and many other people like him who also call themselves Christian who prioritise rather give food to a hungry person are Christians? Just as much as he thinks he is.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Mr. World Vision would have a different view of Christianity to philologos.
The question is does he accept Mr. World Vision and many other people like him who also call themselves Christian who prioritise rather give food to a hungry person are Christians? Just as much as he thinks he is.

Is there an answer to my question in there somewhere?

philologos

Tim I've answered your question 3 times. Also I don't believe that because World Vision only deals with material needs that it means it's founders think material needs come before our ultimate need to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ

Fanny Cradock

mrac wrote: »

Matthew 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Now that is a good point. Do the words spoken by Jesus to a particular person apply to all Christians at both an individual and corporate level? I don't know.

philologos

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Now that is a good point. Do the words spoken by Jesus to a particular person apply to all Christians at both an individual and corporate level? I don't know.

Passages like those are a reminder that you need to read Scripture as a whole rather than isolating quotes.

Here's the whole of the dialogue that Jesus has with the rich man:

Matthew 19:16-34 wrote:

And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

Here's another dialogue in the Gospel of Luke that Jesus has with a rich man:

Luke 19:1-6 wrote:

He entered Jericho and was passing through. And behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small in stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.” So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all grumbled, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Why does Jesus expect less of Zacchaeus than of the rich young ruler in Matthew 19?

The question is what is the point of Matthew 19.

The rich young ruler asks Jesus how can one receive eternal life. Firstly, Jesus questions why the rich ruler is calling Him "good". (Is it because Jesus is a mere man, or is it because Jesus Himself is God?)

Secondly, the rich young ruler seems more interested in doing the bare minimum. "Which ones?". Rather he fails to realise that he must lose his life now for the sake of the Gospel (as we saw previously in Matthew 16).

Matthew 16:24-28 wrote:

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Simply put, Zacchaeus in being willing to put Jesus first, and money second has shown Jesus that He regards Him as Lord over money. The rich young ruler walking away "sorrowfully" shows that money was His Lord, and not Jesus.

Jesus knew that money was the god of the rich ruler. That's why He probed into it. Money can be our god as well, as can anything else, as can lustfulness, as can alcohol, work can become our Lord. Essentially, anything that puts Jesus second and other things first is idolatry.

Helix

Onesimus wrote: »

Do we have to justify it? is it any of your business what our organization spends?

when the taxpayer is footing the bill for decades of child rape at the hands of the clergy, it's most certainly their business

Fanny Cradock

Helix wrote: »

when the taxpayer is footing the bill for decades of child rape at the hands of the clergy, it's most certainly their business

If reports are true then I think they preach a heretical version of the Gospel, but are you suggesting that members of the leadership of the Victory Centre are responsible for systematic child abuse?

Or did you just play the "look at the RCC and their child rape" card without understanding who this thread is about?

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is there an answer to my question in there somewhere?

Some Christians prioritise giving the bible to the impoverished, some prioritise giving food and getting them out poverty. Just look at the way the various organisations work in Africa.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Some Christians prioritise giving the bible to the impoverished, some prioritise giving food and getting them out poverty. Just look at the way the various organisations work in Africa.

Tim, I think you are misunderstanding the position of "Mr World Vision". Having read Rich Stearns' book, and having met him in Cape Town a couple of years ago, he most certainly is not opposed to churches spending money on church buildings or in evangelistic work.

Rather he recognises that preaching the Gospel is done both by word and by caring for the poor. He also recognises that the members of churches that buy buildings etc are the primary donors to the work he is involved in.

Statistically, people who meet regularly for religious worship donate more on average to charities (including non-religious charities) than do people who don't meet regularly for worship. So presenting this as an either/or scenario is a non-starter.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Statistically, people who meet regularly for religious worship donate more on average to charities (including non-religious charities) than do people who don't meet regularly for worship. So presenting this as an either/or scenario is a non-starter.

PDN, do you have reference for that? My Christian friend is head of fundraising for a charity and is always interested in these kinds of figures for her reports etc.

By people who don't meet regualrly for worship give less, do you include even religious people who don't meet regularly for worship? And do the higher donations of those who meet regularly for worship go beyond the collection plate at the time of worship?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Tim, I think you are misunderstanding the position of "Mr World Vision". Having read Rich Stearns' book, and having met him in Cape Town a couple of years ago, he most certainly is not opposed to churches spending money on church buildings or in evangelistic work.

Rather he recognises that preaching the Gospel is done both by word and by caring for the poor. He also recognises that the members of churches that buy buildings etc are the primary donors to the work he is involved in.

Statistically, people who meet regularly for religious worship donate more on average to charities (including non-religious charities) than do people who don't meet regularly for worship. So presenting this as an either/or scenario is a non-starter.

It it not an either / or question. It is one of priorities.

I am an atheist. However, I would prioritise my donations to charities and actions to get people out of poverty above trying to convince people people religion is crackers.

Full on religious people, will always prioritise their religion over everything and will claim anyone who doesn't isn't really a Christian / Muslim whatever even though they are many who hold those terms dearly as defining their viewpoints but would prioritise feeding people over Bible bashing.

Stalin prioritised abusing people over convincing people that atheism was a logical position.

lmaopml

Tim, I think most Christians, and by the way I am a Catholic one, and we're all human beings, just like others - would understand that love of God and faith is being in Communion with Christ and others.

When they 'give' to the poor, their time, effort, understanding, a willing ear, or a comforting shoulder, they do it in Christ's name, not in their own name because they are a member of that 'community' - or necessarily require a person to all of a sudden become a Christian in order to benefit and know that they have somewhere to go when the chips are down...

What these people are doing is 'genuine' love and imo 'witnessing' for Christ - It's because of their understanding and love for Christ first and foremost, and I guess a lot of that has to do with understanding the Cross and suffering, that they feel compassion and an urge to help others who need it, no matter whom.

Jesus once said, 'and now abide these three, faith, hope and charity (love), but above all of these is 'charity' (love) - Why? because it binds the others and makes those virtues perfect, that's why it comes first.

Again, I don't really know too much about the prosperity Gospel or this particular Church they are building, but I'm just following the thread and giving a two pence every now and then lol...

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

PDN, do you have reference for
that?

There's a book by Robert Putnam called 'Bowling Alone' contains a chapter on the effects of religion and more importantly participation in religious meetings/services/groups etc the info for your friend is contained within.

He contributed to an article in the Wall Street Journal too on the issue

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009361375685394.html

lmaopml

ceolte wrote: »

They do both for self serving reasons. Firstly for good PR to be seen as a group that helps those in need. Secondly to increase their congregation numbers. Now one might say, what would a prosperity church want with a down and out homless or broke person, but they can still be a valuable asset in terms of labour. I know of one individual who entered into one of their rehabilition programs and thought it was excellent for a while however after a few weeks he reached a level in his recovery where the church expected a return on their investment and put him to work going door to door and chugging on street corners to collect for these programs. He was given weekly targets and when he fell well short of the targets he was criticised by the program leaders as being "a taker and not a giver" as he wasn't giving back enough to the programs. They reminded him that they'd taken him from the gutter and he would end up back their if he didn't start to meet his collections targets. Needless to say this hapless individual eventually found himself back on the streets and even more disillusioned with life and christianity itself.

To anyone who wants to pat Victory Firhouse on the back for their community efforts they need to think long and hard about this. Its not really about reaching the lost or impacting lives, its about increases numbers. Jesus wasn't into revenue, he was in to people. Judas spent his time focused on the coffers and look what happened there.



The cost of the building was approximately €15 million as revealed by a close associate of Brendan Hade, Kevin Sanford during a ceremony where he handed his church over to Brendan Hade. The figure was given to the Galway congregation as validation of the stability of Victory Firhouse. What Kevin Sanford failed to mention was the heavy indebtedness of Victory and the pending court cases and litigation over the debts. I could go into details but you can just google Kevin Sanford and Brendan Hade which will return lots of articles about the financial situation of Victory and the controversies surrounding their finances.

Thanks ceolte. It's been an education -

The criticism is justified. I don't understand how they slipped through the radar and are continuing to preach this kind of skewed Gospel...it's important to warn people. Good job! Very strange ideas all together..

I tend to think these things are 'American' and confined - nothing against the Americans lol, they're a mixed bunch doing ok...but it's odd to see them in Dublin but then, maybe not - obviously.

Thanks for posting.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think it would be more objective to ensure people have sufficient access to health, education, standards of living so that they can make their mind up for themselves on an objective basis.

Good for you - and boards.ie have provided you with an Atheism and Agnosticism Forum where you can proclaim such beliefs to your heart's content.

I'd have said that Tim's view, strictly speaking, was secularist, not atheist or agnostic -- people can still be members of many religions while believing that the basic human needs that Tim mentions can or should supercede religious needs, or at least have equal footing. Unfortunately, boards.ie doesn't have a forum devoted specifically to secularism, so I suppose A+A is happy enough to stand in and offer itself until such time as there is.

Only in the case where a religion asserts that its own memetic needs supercede in all cases the needs of the human population, as it appears to in phil's original comment, does it have any relevance to an agnostic (believes such a belief might be wrong) or atheist (believes such a belief ist wrong) belief system.

In such a case, I entirely agree with you: A+A certainly is the right place to discuss such a preposterous belief.

Splendour

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I think it's a Filipino Non-Denominational Church. There is an old thread discussion about it here!

My thoughts on this church from the above thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61984468

philologos

robindch wrote: »

I'd have said that Tim's view, strictly speaking, was secularist, not atheist or agnostic -- people can still be members of many religions while believing that the basic human needs that Tim mentions can or should supercede religious needs, or at least have equal footing. Unfortunately, boards.ie doesn't have a forum devoted specifically to secularism, so I suppose A+A is happy enough to stand in and offer itself until such time as there is.

If one genuinely believes that Jesus is Lord, and if one genuinely believes that there is a coming judgement, and if one genuinely believes there is life after the grave, then that is going to change those priorities.

What Tim seems to be consistently doing is suggesting that Christians don't care for material needs. Evidently this is untrue, many Christians commit themselves heavily to supporting others materially, many Christians commit themselves heavily to supporting others spiritually so that they might know the living God and live.

Tim seems to be implying that these are mutually exclusive. Tim also seems to be suggesting that Christians should regard this life as more important than what is to come. The reality is that Biblically a Christian can't hold that position.

Christianity would have to be heavily compromised in order to hold that position. So heavily compromised that you wonder what would be left of the Gospel.

robindch wrote: »

Only in the case where a religion asserts that its own memetic needs supercede in all cases the needs of the human population, as it appears to in phil's original comment, does it have any relevance to an agnostic (believes such a belief might be wrong) or atheist (believes such a belief ist wrong) belief system.

Memetics is a pseudoscience. I don't see why it is worthy of discussing.

Simply put, the reality is if the Gospel is true, people need to know about it, and if it is true eternal needs far supersede these ones.

Whatever about memetics, or similar rhetoric, that's the issue at hand. If Christianity is true, then mans eternal welfare is of first importance. This does not mean that Christians shouldn't care about material welfare, it just means that Christians should be aware that there are many around us who are in spiritual poverty insofar as they don't know the living God, as well as those who are in material poverty.

NotForResale

IS this really a lot of money for a large church?, maybe they got ripped off?

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

I
What Tim seems to be consistently doing is suggesting that Christians don't care for material needs. Evidently this is untrue, many Christians commit themselves heavily to supporting others materially, many Christians commit themselves heavily to supporting others spiritually so that they might know the living God and live.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

My point is about priorities. Some Christians prioritise spreading the word of Jesus above the needs of helping people get out of poverty.

That doesn't mean they do nothing to help people get out of poverty they just think spreading the word of Jesus is of higher priority.

Tim seems to be implying that these are mutually exclusive.

Never did that - see above.

You obviously have not even bothered reading anythign I have written. What a waste of time.

Tim also seems to be suggesting that Christians should regard this life as more important than what is to come.

No never said that either. I don't know what is to come either do you. We just have opinions on it.

The reality is that Biblically a Christian can't hold that position.

Well many do.

You just deny the reality that is around you and are absolutely certain of the next reality after this one...

Surprise, surprise...