All Blog Comments

AndrewFinden - 33 - Access Ministries and More

AndrewFinden — Sat, 28 May 2011 13:05:31 +0000

Bugger that. If they run a profit-taking business, then they are not a charity.

Many not-for-profit organisations make profit (or income) the issue as far as the ATO is concerned seems to be about where that goes - does it go to shareholders or individuals? It's a business. Does it go back into the running of the group and its activities? Would seem to be a NFP org. It also depends on what you mean by 'charity' - many arts organisations are charities, so it's not simply about giving food to the homeless.

Make 'em do profit-making activities as a commercial entity.

Of course, fairness would then seem to say that this must be the case for all NFP community groups. This would mean, I think, that amongst other things, the practice of individuals claiming donations as tax-deductible would disappear, whether it was a donation to a church, cub scouts, the local youth orchestra or meals on wheels. I do agree that there needs to be much more transparency, and that those groups who are exploiting a loophole ought to be dealt with - but I don't think a blanket revoking of tax-exempt status for churches is at all helpful (counter-productive I think) and I suspect such suggestions stem more from an anti-religion prejudice that just wants to bleed them dry. In the US, it is tax-exempt status that prevents church leaders from endorsing political candidates - does anyone know if this is the case in Australia as well?

AndrewFinden - Defending the Faith

AndrewFinden — Sat, 28 May 2011 12:53:56 +0000

I would assume if Jesus returned corporally that it could be classified as reincarnation

Not by any understanding of either reincarnation or second coming that I'm aware of.

The great book of pick and chose strikes again.

Or rather, the great anti-theist tendency to ignore context and genre strikes again. (see also my response to this allegation here and here)

"Bring them here and kill them in front of me” sounds pretty definitive and immediate.

Presumably, in the parable, at the given point in the story, for the noble man speaking, it is. But to to treat this as a case of Jesus making a command on the spot to his listeners there, is to miss the genre and take the line out of context (a parable of the final judgement) If you ignore this, you are the one guilty of picking and choosing I'm afraid. And in case you're tempted to just dismiss objections about context, let me give you an example of what you're doing: In your last post you wrote "Jesus will judge sin, at the appointed time.' - it's pretty clear and unambiguous then: you think there will be a final judgement of sin. Of course, this is nonsense if we pay attention to the context and realise you were quoting someone else. That is why context cannot simply be dismissed and ignored - proper reading comprehension requires it to be taken into account. I assume you agree that we should try and comprehend what is written and not just see what we want to see? That you think what the parable is saying is a 'boring' 'bogeyman threat' is completely irrelevant. I'm not asking you to believe what the parable is saying, but more simply to recognise what it is saying.

So you are not disagreeing that Jesus will sly[sic] those who refuse him as King, but dispute the timing. This makes it much more palatable.

When did I say it was palatable? I think it's shocking, and terrible - but then most punishment is, and most who deserve justice find it fairly unpleasant. I don't wish anybody to face the justice of God! I'd rather they turned to his offer of mercy. My dispute about the timing is your implication that Jesus is calling at that point in time for his enemies to be brought in front of him, when that is not what is happening there.

But that's not enough, is it? We also have to accept Jesus as our personal saviour (or not), live good lives (or not), and ask Jesus for forgiveness (or not).

We have to trust in it, identify with it. Change teams. I'm not sure how that means 'it's not enough'. (I'm sure you remember a thing called the reformation which rediscovered the biblical teaching that we are not saved by living 'good lives')

Of course, all of these are disputed by many denominations of Christianity, so who can really tell?

Two things - overwhelmingly, most Christian denominations agree on the central tenants of the gospel, so your implication that there is a big difference on salvation doctrines is completely overblown. Secondly, it's a fallacy, anyway, to suggest that because there might be disagreement then everyone is (probably) wrong or that it's impossible to tell. Should we say that because there are disputes about how to understand the constitution, 'who can really tell?'. I think not.

Wrong to who? Oh, yes Jesus himself. So much for being "all merciful" or "all loving" (concepts which are contradictory).

It's a strange kind of love that rejects any concept of wrong-doing or responsibility (and how can you have mercy if there is no such thing as justice and responsibility for wrong-doing?). I touched on the convergence of mercy (who says God is'all' merciful? He is certainly merciful and his grace is sufficient for all who will turn to him for it) and justice here, which will have to suffice for now.

Westbro Baptist Church DO get their "god hates fags" message directly from the Bible - you know this.

I know that they think and claim they do.

askegg - Defending the Faith

askegg — Sat, 28 May 2011 04:48:34 +0000

What does the bodily return of Christ have to do with reincarnation??

I assume Shane McCarty is somewhat disparaging the beliefs within Hinduism and Buddhism or reincarnation. I would assume if Jesus returned corporally that it could be classified as reincarnation. Hence my statement:

I suppose Jesus will not return corporally, which skirts the reincarnation issue whilst remaining on the fringes of believability.

Why don't you ask Shane McCarty for a detailed answer? Moving on.

...but 'hate your enemy' is what Jesus counters with 'love your enemy'...

So which is it? Love thy enemy or sly them before me? The great book of pick and chose strikes again.

It's worth noting that Luke 19:27 are still the words of the nobleman in Jesus' parable...

And who exactly is the nobleman meant to represent?

Jesus is not saying to those in his presence 'let's kill my enemies right here and now'...

"Bring them here and kill them in front of me” sounds pretty definitive and immediate.

That Jesus will judge sin, at the appointed time...

So you are not disagreeing that Jesus will sly those who refuse him as King, but dispute the timing. This makes it much more palatable.

Jesus loved us when we were enemies, giving his life for ours.

But that's not enough, is it? We also have to accept Jesus as our personal saviour (or not), live good lives (or not), and ask Jesus for forgiveness (or not). Of course, all of these are disputed by many denominations of Christianity, so who can really tell?

But that is not to say that he will just ignore rebellion - eventually he will judge it.

More bogeyman threats. Boring.

Indeed, how could someone be loving if they simply ignored wrong?

Wrong to who? Oh, yes Jesus himself. So much for being "all merciful" or "all loving" (concepts which are contradictory).

Jesus call to us to love our enemies and not repay evil for evil is because that it is his job, not ours.

You're right. It is wrong to kill. We should leave that to Jesus.

So I really cannot see how Luke 19:27 in any justifies Westboro's actions...

When did I suggest it did?

To suggest that they're just getting it from the same 'holy text' is, I think, completely mistaken.

Westbro Baptist Church DO get their "god hates fags" message directly from the Bible - you know this.

AndrewFinden - Defending the Faith

AndrewFinden — Thu, 26 May 2011 09:55:15 +0000

, there seems to be no rational reason to suspect they are theologically wrong.

Well, perhaps not if one is inclined to the kind eisegesis you seem to enjoy (and generally do not respond to critique of) ;)

One must therefore ask in what manner Jesus shall return as prophesied in the Bible most hallucinogenic book – Revelations? I suppose Jesus will not return corporally, which skirts the reincarnation issue whilst remaining on the fringes of believability.

Er... what does the bodily return of Christ as referred to in Revelation (note the lack of 's' - just being pendantic) have to do with reincarnation??

he claims the popular idea that “the Bible makes it very clear that God loves people, all people regardless of their race, beliefs or lifestyle” and points out Jesus said to “‘love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” Perhaps Mr. McCarty can explain this: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me” – Jesus in Luke 19:27

More pedantry - but 'hate your enemy' is what Jesus counters with 'love your enemy' - I'm assuming that's what you meant though. It's worth noting that Luke 19:27 are still the words of the nobleman in Jesus' parable, so it is not a case of Jesus making a declaration in reference to his present location and time (i.e. Jesus is not saying to those in his presence 'let's kill my enemies right here and now'). That Jesus will judge sin, at the appointed time, does not in any way contradict his command that we are to love our enemies. Jesus loved us when we were enemies, giving his life for ours. He graciously gives us time to turn in faith to him. But that is not to say that he will just ignore rebellion - eventually he will judge it. Indeed, how could someone be loving if they simply ignored wrong? Jesus call to us to love our enemies and not repay evil for evil is because that it is his job, not ours. So I really cannot see how Luke 19:27 in any justifies Westboro's actions or excuses them from Jesus' command to love our enemies. To suggest that they're just getting it from the same 'holy text' is, I think, completely mistaken.

Paul Murray - 33 - Access Ministries and More

Paul Murray — Wed, 25 May 2011 05:45:10 +0000

"not-for-profit organisations will have to pay tax on profits that are kept for commercial purposes and not redirected towards the organisation's altruistic purpose." Bugger that. If they run a profit-taking business, then they are not a charity. Make 'em do profit-making activities as a commercial entity. If that entity chooses to give its profits to the charity and claim a tax deduction - fine. But keep them on separate books.

Cynskeptical - After the rapture

Cynskeptical — Sun, 22 May 2011 12:05:32 +0000

Now that was cool. If only it were bloody true!!

Richard Leslie Whereat - Rapture? What's the harm?

Richard Leslie Whereat — Sat, 21 May 2011 15:57:48 +0000

I like this idea OBluePrint.

OBluePrint - A pit full of vipers

OBluePrint — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:48:49 +0000

I've been away from 1984 for a few years, but I'm quite sure it's Doublethink. Speak was Duckspeak which, by your report, may be applied to Reverend Denise Nicholls' statement. "I gotta buy you, like, a proverb book or somethin'. This mix-and-match shit's gotta go." - The Boondock Saints 7:18-24

OBluePrint - Rapture? What's the harm?

OBluePrint — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:14:52 +0000

I'm not worried about their mental well being. With their childish thinking most of them would very likely "bounce back" mentally as easily as children "bounce back" physically. What I have in mind is a monetary fund of unmistakably atheistic source, to "rub reality in their face" by helping them stay on their feet financially.

askegg - Rapture? What's the harm?

askegg — Thu, 19 May 2011 13:50:22 +0000

You mean rehabilitation and counselling services for the poor unraptured non-true Christians who are "left behind"? Sounds like a great idea!

OBluePrint - Rapture? What's the harm?

OBluePrint — Thu, 19 May 2011 13:46:55 +0000

Has anyone thought of starting some kind of "aftermath atheists" charity for theists who spent themselves broke over such silly ideas?

askegg - 33 - Access Ministries and More

askegg — Thu, 19 May 2011 11:33:22 +0000

On that we agree - Gloria Jean's coffee is abysmal.

AndrewFinden - 33 - Access Ministries and More

AndrewFinden — Thu, 19 May 2011 11:17:34 +0000

From the SMH tax link:

The Hillsong church has links with the Gloria Jean's coffee shop franchise Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/charities-face-profits-being-taxed-in-budget-20110506-1ec2u.html#ixzz1MnOQyk2P

AFAIK, GJ's only link is that two of the board - the chairmain and co-founder are "prominent" members of Hillsong. They severed their sponsorship of Mercy Ministries, and furthermore, it's a Pty Ltd corporation, so the tax change is surely irrelevant to them. It seems a little misinformed of SMH to compare them with Sanitarium. The real problem is that their coffee is over sugarised drudge like every other coffee chain! :D

askegg - 33 - Access Ministries and More

askegg — Wed, 18 May 2011 09:48:33 +0000

Thanks David. I will check it out.

David_Gibson - 33 - Access Ministries and More

David_Gibson — Wed, 18 May 2011 03:21:30 +0000

Out of interest there was a movie about Kellogg, and if I recall it included some of the stranger views he held. Decent cast too. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111001/

AndrewFinden - Probing ACCESS Ministries

AndrewFinden — Sun, 15 May 2011 08:33:04 +0000

+ Jensen has stated he is not against ethics classes - he has called for them to be made available to all children, not just those who opt out of SRE.

askegg - Probing ACCESS Ministries

askegg — Sun, 15 May 2011 06:49:04 +0000

I sometimes wonder how evangelical Christians can be against ethics classes if all things great come from God. But then again, no aspect of religion makes much sense.

markken57 - Access at it again

markken57 — Sun, 15 May 2011 03:45:48 +0000

Bring on the Scientologist chaplains!

markken57 - Probing ACCESS Ministries

markken57 — Sun, 15 May 2011 03:44:17 +0000

How aweful indeed. It's OK for the ACL and a cabal of the frocked to openly agitate against secular ethics classes (and be pandered to with private audiences with Premiers and Prime Ministers) but any person who values the separation of church and state should just shut up?

askegg - Back to the Dark Ages

askegg — Wed, 11 May 2011 05:23:24 +0000

It's a bit melodramatic. I was in a bad mood.