If you don't think these people represent all Christians....

Much like the terrorists pictured represent the worst of Islamic fundamentalism.

as old as religion and power lust.

Folks just keep falling for the logical failure because they want to.

to go by, so I don't see how you can say it's a distortion. People make religion into anything they want it to be. It's all subjective nonsense.

Are you now the arbiter of "true religion"? If somebody says their god demands that the kill blasphemers, that is as valid a religious claim as any other.

never represented ME. Although many irrational people around the world blamed ALL Christians for his crusade.

Just like we have fanatics who identify themselves with on religion/ethnicity or another, we also have irrational people who blame entire groups for the actions of a few.

As do the islamic jihadists, so we can really put aside this blathering nonsense that this has nothing to do with religion, or that by noting that it most certainly does have something to do with religion, that is a condemnation of everyone who is religious.

life Fundy in the WH as a front for the War Machine, got a whole lot of Fundies on board, though it repulsed real Christians.

And before you ask what is a 'real Christian'. The word itself refers to Jesus Christ. Fundies go by the Old Testament, the one the actual Christian leader supposedly was sent to fix.

Ask any Fundy what he thinks Christ would have done about Iraq. They will insist he would have been for war. Because THEY are the righteous ones.

There is no way the war mongers who are responsible for our Imperial wars are concerned about religion in any way.

They have a different God, Oil, Money and Power over others. But if it serves their purpose they WILL use religion, ANY religion to try to justify and therefore get, support for their 'cause'.

I am trying to imagine Jesus leading the foray into Iraq, ordering the bombing of men, women and children, and I wonder how these fundies get around that.

The Iraq War was not about religion, it was sold that way.

These fanatics are not about religion, they are about themselves, their way or the highway personalities, to such an extreme they are willing to murder for it.

end times. They view it as fulfillment of prophecy. "Real Christians" - how precisely do you get to declare who is or is not a real christian? This is the same mistake Fred is making - that you can determine that there are real christians and not-real christians. You can't. That is just a dishonest argument.

ignoring the man whose name they have chosen as their symbolic leader. It would be like Alexander the Great calling himself a Ghandi supporter.

Christ never promoted killing people in wars. So how they chose HIM as their symbol is beyond me.

And it may come as a surprise to those who think religious people in general spend their days wondering if everything they do corresponds with their religion. Most people disagree with many things their religion may require of them. They are not frightened by the threats of eternal damnation if they don't live like medieval monks. They take the good from their religions, and try to do the best they can to be decent humans, assuming that overall, THAT is what is required of them.

Jesus was a Social Democrat, a Liberal who believed in Social Safety nets. Free HC, food for the hungry, free of charge etc. His 'followers' are against pretty much everything he stood for.

They need a different symbolic name. Can't think of one off the bat, but it amazes me that War Mongers and anti-Minority, anti Social Programs for the poor, the elderly and disabled still insist that Jesus, as Bush stated as he led the country into a crusade in the ME, 'is my Hero'. Are they nuts?

In case you are not aware of it, some of the atheists on DU like to play the "who are you to say who is a Christian and who is not?" game. About a year and a half ago, one of them said that my saying that Fred Phelps (of Westboro Baptist Church/"God hates fags" fame) was not accepted as a genuine Christian by other Christians was an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

folks get lost in the fallacy and abandon logic in the struggle to fit their opinion into the facts.

It comes from Antony Flew's 1975 book Thinking About Thinking, in which he says

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

You can pretend it isn't, but the WBC is just as legitimate a christian sect as any of the other numerous small christian sects out there, many of whom share the WBC's bigotry.

A "Christian" whose beliefs are rejected by the overwhelming majority of Christians, and claim "he's one of you".

Lyndon LaRouche claims to be a member of the Democratic Party. Do you accept him as a fellow Democrat? It makes no more sense to accept Phelps as a Christian than it does to accept LaRouche as a Democrat.

We can objectively evaluate an individual who also has stated non-allegorical political positions and determine if they do or do not line up with the platform of the party, and to what extent they do or do not line up. On that basis we can make an objective determination of who qualifies as a Democrat.

A non-trivial proportion of Christian sects are overtly homophobic and misogynistic, beliefs shared with the WBC. The WBC is just more confrontational about their beliefs, but their beliefs do not appear to be completely different from other fundamentalist sects.

The Unitarians are outliers, both in fundamental theology (the unitarian part) and in their practices - would you like to drum them out of christianity? Or just the embarrassing WBC?

Therefore, by your criteria, Phelps was no Christian.

Many Unitarians themselves would deny that they are Christians in any meaningful way.

Yes, I think far too many believe that is the Jesus described in the New Testament....the
Pope got it right on another of the Christian fundie many fantastical mistakes, ministering to the poor is not communist, it is the Gospel.

they are NOT christians.
Not.. not at all.. nothing to do with it..

or anyone who teaches tolerance, peace, patience, forgiveness.

Well-said oberliner.

Exist in all religions. Unfortunately the can't seem to co-exist.

... http://books.google.com/books/about/Our_Endangered_Values.html?id=qqyUX6KRbZsC

Worth reading widely, IMHO.

Yes, and the extremist fundamentalists do indeed do their deeds in the name of religion, which does not mean the entire religion is responsible.

Every religion has its extremists.But to deny that religious extremists are not of and part of the religion they purport to be of is silly... Al Qaeda of The Arabian Peninsula is no more a cult than the American Ku Klux Klan was a cult at the beginning of last century.

their actions.

"Praise the lord and let's go kill all blacks and Jews?"

Or, "Praise Allah and let's go kill all the blacks and Jews?"

How Christian and Islamic of them.

robes and hoods would be a good start for the "criterion".

"Anyone who isn't with me opposes me, and anyone who isn't working with me is actually working against me."

"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword."


My point isn't to denigrate Christianity or anyone's religion but to point out that the Torah, the Koran, and The Bible are written by authors that wrote in broad swathes and one can find justification for anything including slavery, ergo:




"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

See my post above for examples.

Then wouldn't it be fairer to say there are those that represent the most reactionary, hateful, murderous... et cetera elements of their religions and rely on text, albeit text out of context, to justify their evil actions.

And advocating for murder and genocide towards a defined race, creed or religion is not free speech, it is hate speech.

Seperate the tiny minority of murderous radicals from the vast majority of peaceful folk..stand back...who represents the consensus pillars of that faith?

Torture that was performed unto death of the [strike]victim[/strike] evildoer in some cases.

Tortured. To. Death.

Murderous radicals?

If so, I'd like to see the results.

Perhaps an "outright majority" of American atheists and agnostics support torture as well?

http://religiondispatches.org/christians-more-supportive-of-torture-than-non-religious-americans/

Ironic that the supposed followers of "do unto others" have what appears to be a major empathy gap.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=175723

FYI- the majority of atheists and agnostics do not support torture.

Looks like an interesting article.

That's the point: The ultimate foundation of all three Abrahamic faiths is hate, violence, slavery, genocide, misogyny, infanticide, and more hate. It's all there in the "good" book(s).

wants to start a church just needs to interpret the Bible in his or her own way and convince others to join.

My brother lived in Arkansas for about 10 years and it is amazing how many independent churches exist in that state. Some of them as small as 10 people. By independent I mean not affiliated with another larger church body. And truthfully this happens in all religions. The small group who attacked the cartoonist in Paris interpreted the Koran the way they wanted to.

There is criterion that is ancient in many churches that they follow at least to the point of calling it their doctrine. Many of the rw churches do not have this anymore if they ever did. If you had asked that as far back as the 60s I think at least with the mainstream churches of that time you would have found many of the same doctrines but when the charismatic movement started in the 70s they moved into the churches with a new doctrine that was pretty much the rw tripe we hear about today.

I am a Christian. I believe that Christ was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins, was resurrected, walked the earth for forty days, then ascended to Heaven to be with The Father, and one day will come again.

That being said, there are a lot of folks who call themselves Christians who can find justification for a lot of things you and I, my brother, would find repulsive.

I have been exposed to both extremes of Christianity. I was baptized in a Southern Baptist church whose pastor eventually led his church to break away from the Southern Baptist Convention because they were "too liberal.' Try wrapping your mind around that.

I also have been exposed to the United Church of Christ in which the church I attended had "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither gay nor straight,nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." on the marque..


I see on some level the motivation to say, "well they aren't really Christians" but that's not our call. David Duke , Osama bin Laden, and Meir Kahane found their inspiration in their respective religious texts. Of course you and and I would argue they used the text and ignored the context.

about getting upset. So often here on DU I read post that just condemn all of us. It is really disheartening. I think that is what I was reacting to.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to throw em all together.

http://religiondispatches.org/christians-more-supportive-of-torture-than-non-religious-americans/

And yet the non-religious are more likely on average than all Christians (again on average) to define the CIA "mistreatment" of prisoners as "torture".

Clearly the evidence shows that religion does just the opposite of conveying a superior sense of morality, it makes the strongest believers worse morally not better.

"I think every religion's own view is they carry a higher moral standard, no? "


Precisely.

The terrorist brothers no less than you or I.

Avenging the honor of the Prophet is the highest moral standard in some branches of Islam.

Killing doctors who murder babies is the highest moral standard in some branches of Christianity.

And from the polling data torturing evildoers is the highest moral standard in a lot of Christianity.

The branch is the group that disapproves of torture, a scant majority of a shrinking minority of Christians.

And should not be lumped in with the rest.

You are OK with guilt by association?

Maybe you should re-think being American then.

You've actually defended people being responsible for the opinions of others.

I'm sure there are some perfectly wonderful Klansmen and Al Qaeda members, it is guilt by association to judge people by their membership in any organization.

I've already provided more evidence on this thread than you have.

Provide some evidence that those with religion are more moral than those without religion.

ISIS is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity.

Evidently your position is that Christians aren't actually evil, just stupid and gullible.

Are you sure you want to go with that?

Different versions of this argument have been popping up here all week, as I'm sure you're aware, and they're just bizarre. One side of the argument is literally nothing but logical fallacies wearing different hats.

In the Religion group this is basically Tuesday or any other day that ends with "y". I don't normally bother to get engaged on this because it's all been played out thousands of times by now but the sheer denial of reality got to me this time.

I do not understand people like this. The older I get the more I dislike organized religion.

What are the Christians who don't agree with them gonna do about it?

They are perverting YOUR religion not mine, I do not have any, so from my POV what are the Christians going to do about their radicals who kill and terrorize in the name of their god/religion?

Just claim the Christian Bad Guys aren't really Christian at all. Done.

DOES NOT MEAN we consider ALL of that particular religion to blame. I Know those of you who want to deny or ignore the religion element need to assume that FALSE premise or your cries of bigotry wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Typical of defense of religion, this cartoon is hypocritical as shit and a simple lie which suggests that only one of the two faiths characterized is anti gay. That's a lie, it's bullshit. Islam and Christianity are both riddled with anti gay actions, persons and rhetoric, many Islamic governments have utterly horrific anti gay laws with punishments including death by stoning. But this bloodthirsty and bigoted cartoon claims that Muslims and gays are both the victims of one bad faith-Baptists- when LGBT people suffer actual physical harm much greater under Islamic oppression than the vulgar picketing of Westboro.
And of course that cartoon is the only cartoon in this OP to use an actual slur, a piece of actual hate verbiage. 'Fags'. And of course a defense of religion does not mind tossing out anti gay slurs in order to imply that a religion that is extremely anti gay stands with and defends LGBT against their mutual enemies, Republicans and Baptists.
Dishonest, slur laden, exploitative and typical of religious defenses.

comic is pro religion? Because you have taken an entirely different tack when the shoe was on the other foot, and have taken it emphatically. There is no reason for that cartoonist to use that slur. None. Westboro Baptist did in fact picket at Muslim funerals, so the 'fags' reference is gratuitous and off topic. It is also very dishonest to imply that only one of the faiths characterized has harsh anti gay views and when in power makes harsh anti gay laws and enforces them.
There is no wheat there, just intentional offense toward a minority group that is not only oppressed, but of which one of the oppressing forces is the benefit of the defense in this cartoon. It's shitty. It's typical of religious people in general, disrespectful, bigoted, needlessly vulgar and harsh.
The word 'fags' in this comic is the only actual slur I have seen in all of this controversy about comics that 'offended' the gun happy killers in Paris who claimed this was all about insults in a cartoon.

Self serving situational ethics is a good definition for all religions. 'If it offends me, it is very bad, it is offends you, so what you are the sinner.'

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/#_ftnref5

Perhaps Christians and Jews as well, but here Islam is the context with respect to that cartoon.

the massive fail of smearing all owing to the actions of the very few, or the many brainwashed by the very few.

(From the comments)

OUR extremists are ... well ... extremists ... outlyers, that have NOTHING to do with the core of OUR religion; THEIR extremists are emblematic of the underlying rot that is their religion. Why can't you see that!

{Do I need to add: ?}

Notice the first image, there is a sharp contrast between the hue of the top row, who folk insist are not true Christians, or they are, but something something, and the bottom row folks clearly represents their religion fully.

Can you tell me why logical fallacy works with the white folks but the same logic fallacy fails the brown folk?

I guess the lesson is that white folks just have a better class of terrorists, the white class.

Thanks for the laugh.

I'm sure ... Because (in America) the Black criminal/jerk is never representative of ALL Black people, and is always considered the, outlying, individual.

always find a few political folks who do not represent the majority of their party. Remember the Blue Dogs? It means little if you look at the big picture.

"I am Muslim", a lot of signs like that in Paris today.

see the same article. So Reid and Howard Dean were "representing the majority of their party" quite effectively.

Someone brought this up conversation the other day at work. He said something to the effect of: If they are not all guilty why do they let their fellow Muslims DO these terrible things.

I replied with, why are YOU letting white males get away with all THEIR crimes.

The jaw dropped and I could hear the faintest sound of an old rusty cog start turning in that media marinated noggin.

Always painful when that happens, starts up a whole new mechanism never used before-logic.

picture represent more people than the obscure Christian figures listed, by several orders of magnitude, and that is the problem.

Obscure, largely irrelevant Christian fundamentalists and militant Islamic fundamentalists with large followings obviously represent different threats and different kinds of threats.

...I believe they represent Islam. Just as Westboro represents Christianity.

As long as THEY claim adherence to their religion and cite the religion's own tenets and scripture to do so.

not bother to actually practise them? Isn't that the entire evangelical and tea party folks?

They are also not Christians.

silly dogmas behind, I invite them to think for their own damn selves. But the fact is that if any extremists are not welcomed by the mainstream, the mainstream has to deal with that, not those who are not in their silly 'Bigotry is Sacred' cults.
The mainstream Christians did nothing about Westboro for many, many years. European Muslims are doing a good job speaking out against violence and extremism this week. But Muslims, like Christians have far too often been slow and weak in response to those who in my view abuse each of those faiths. The people most offended by Westboro should have been 'the good Christians' but they really were not all that bothered. 'We don't approve of the style, but the content is God's word and we can't object to that' they'd say. They should have been the ones saying 'Not In Our Name' but they just let them attack hundreds of LGBT funerals and gatherings over many years, in all 50 States without taking any action at all.

So in Christianity and in Islam, one becomes a Christian or a Muslim by professing the faith. That's it. So if some who profess it are 'not real Christians or Muslims' that is entirely up to the 'real Christians and Muslims' to communicate to the world and to the imposters, hopefully long before the imposters do actual harm to others.
People of faith need to clean their own houses.

...and if by some miracle that is ever achieved, the next step is learning we never really needed the religion in the first place.

...then you've just given them carte blanche, because you can't argue that their interpretation is wrong.

radical Muslims that seek to kill them also.

Many more Muslims are being killed by ISIS and AQ than Christians.

... especially dictatorships that are supported by us like Saudi Arabia, etc. and even "democracies" like Israel that behave like dictatorships such as Israel towards Palestinians.

An argument can be made that their circumstance is just as much a reason for their violence and twisting of religion to these ends as their religious tenets, and that if Christians faced the same kind of oppression that Muslims felt, there would be a lot more "Christian" terrorism as well.

I'll remember to link to this post the next time I see some presumably well-meaning but not very clear-thinking DUer tarring all members of a group based on the aberrant actions of a tiny minority of them.

America and the world.

The lesson of peace, logic, and rejection of false equivalency and false religious mad men. I really feel a great lesson is being taught by the French, a very good lesson.

Sid

a world where there is separation of church and state. Many Islamic peoples live in lands governed by religious dogma, making it difficult to separate the lunatics from the ones running the asylum.
We experience a freedom that is lacking in a large part of the world and we need to acknowledge that those not living in a state free of religious dogma are not responsible for their political situation.

I don't like the statistics for women in societies that are Muslim, or Islamic, or christian based. Ditto for the rates of child abuse.

adversaries.

Organized religion is as well. Christianity and Islam generally are examples of misogyny, hate and violence. And both attempt to inject these horrible beliefs into society, governments and law. And I, for one, won't hold back on criticizing Islam just because the RW does.

They criticize because it's not Christian. I criticize because its existence in its current form is in direct conflict with my core values. We think it's hypocritical when the Christian RW wants to exclude Islam while pushing their agendas (and it is!), but I ALSO think it's hypocritical to defend Islam or pretend their harmful beliefs do not exist and I won't. I am well known on DU for my criticism of Popes, the RCC and any other religious person or belief that is discriminatory or otherwise harmful to a secular society. I don't like any of it.

I cannot and will not respect it. Any of it.

By the fundie Christians. They can't seem to get off our backs can they?

free not to.

I used to say that, while the Fascist and the Communist have different reasons for oppressing you, the boot on your neck feels much the same either way. The same applies to Fundies.

them what they want, more fear or you do as France does and tell them we will not exchange our liberties for a bit less fear because we no longer have fear, we have no fear at all to give up.

are not Muslims." Led by the President of France , the Prime Minister of Israel, the Sultan of Qatar.

You are either for them or against them, this is my kind of crowd.

Anyone wanting to join the "The Terrorists ARE Muslims crowd" can start their own thread and gather their own crowd.

?crop=0.63671875xw:1xh;0.158203125xw,0xh

HD:

"Noisy celebration of defiance and unity"

https://www.google.ca/search?q=massive+unity+march+in+paris&biw=1024&bih=649&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bquyVID0No2uyATJoYDQCA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#imgrc=hyiP5ItOf__9fM%253A%3B70ORpa5RNbjkDM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fassets-news.vice.com%252Fimages%252Farticles%252Fmeta%252F2015%252F01%252F11%252Fmassive-crowds-gather-at-paris-unity-rally-to-honor-charlie-hebdo-victims-1420986318.jpg%253Fcrop%253D0.63671875xw%253A1xh%253B0.158203125xw%252C0xh%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fnews.vice.com%252Farticle%252Fmassive-crowds-gather-at-paris-unity-rally-to-honor-charlie-hebdo-victims%3B2228%3B2228

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

million. How you liking that?

Guess I, the President of France and 5 million marching in the streets folks, not tapping on their keyboards folks like you and I, will have to disagree......with you.

It doesn't make it false either, the number of people who say something has no relationship at all to the truth or lack of such of what is being said.

I think you may have hit some sort of record for number of logical fallacies in a single DU thread, I'm impressed.

Not so much when I was kid but as a teenager in Flagstaff, I did. I liked going over there because of the people, we often did things together without the pastor but for some reason I liked him too.

He said great things like when Jesus turned the water into wine, well what is new wine? Grape juice. (After 9/11) It is a good thing we have a military man & christian man in charge for a time like this, if Al Gore was in charge we'd be at war with China right now (spy planes). He also once said during a sermon, "I broke all of the 10 commandments" He qualified the Do not kill part as he used to use drugs so that counted as a kill ok killing, I can see.

They are more similar to Wahabbi as to Islam as The Door is to Christianity.

What I mean is they have very strict rules, you can't cuss, that pastor didn't own a TV my uncle & aunt keep TV watching to a few sporting events and they were big sports fans. They do not want you to visit, associate, socialize with people who aren't Christian. They play up the gender roles, they actually didn't vote for McCain because Palin should be at home taking care of the kids, I shit you not.

The Potter’s House grew out of Mitchell’s determination to establish what he perceived to be a New Testament church. Many of those attending Potter’s House churches are converts who came out of the counterculture of the 60s and 70s and were influenced by the Jesus Movement which reached its peak during that same time period. Mitchell seized the opportunity to provide what many of these individuals were lacking: direction in life, a personal dynamic experience with Jesus Christ, and an opportunity to exercise real commitment to a local church body.

Beliefs

The Potter’s House is a Pentecostal denomination which claims to hold to the same doctrinal distinctives as the Assemblies of God (a mainstream Pentecostal church). Although the Potter’s House has not published a public “statement of faith” or doctrinal statement outlining their particular theological views, they do adhere to the teachings espoused in Duffield and VanCleave’s Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (published through L.I.F.E. Bible College). The Potter’s House appears to hold to essential biblical doctrine (i.e. the Trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone, etc). In non-essentials, they hold to a pretribulational rapture and a premillenial return of Christ. Because the Potter’s House is Pentecostal, the exercise of “spiritual gifts” plays a major role among Potter’s House fellowship. Speaking in tongues and gifts of healing are a common place in their worship services. (Tongues are exercised in prayer and praise as well as prophecy in a congregational setting.) The emphasis on “gift” ministries stems from the fact that Mitchell was influenced at an early age by such men as William Branham (who denied the Trinity and was very influential in the early stages of the “Latter-Rain” Movement) as well as by A. A. Allen, another early “Latter-Rain” preacher who emphasized a five-fold ministry in the church. Although Mitchell rejected the excesses of Branham and Allen, he did, however, hold on to some of the concepts which arose out of what became known as authentic “gift” ministries.

Organization/Ministry

The thrust of the Potter’s House has been primarily to focus on street evangelism. Consequently, many of those attending the Potter’s House are new converts between the ages of 18 and 35. Because there are relatively few older “saints” in the body, there tends to be an imbalance where spiritual leadership is concerned. (We are told, though, that there seems to be a trend towards establishing an older, mature congregation in the church which will help correct this imbalance.)

The Potter’s House is “governed” by the Pastor along with a group of elders (referred to as the church council). As each church is established, the pastor involved in setting up a new church is responsible for the leadership in that church. (This responsibility includes monitoring the financial, doctrinal, and moral accountability of the church in question.) The Potter’s House is governed overall by the Bylaws established by Wayman Mitchell and others at the initial incorporation of the church.

Though we feel that the Potter’s House is doing an invaluable service in reaching lost souls, we do have a few concerns which should be recognized. They are as follows: 1) its structural authority and accountability; 2) its aberrant view of tongues and healing; 3) its steady hyperactive atmosphere which could result in potential “burn-out” for some members; 4) its lack of a strong healthy doctrinal statement; and 5) negative reports from ex-members and others alleging mind control and conditioning over its members by the leadership of local churches.

STRUCTURAL AUTHORITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY — Though the Potter’s House has made some effort in setting up a structure of authority, those chosen to be on the “church council” with the pastor are relatively young men who have little or no biblical training and who are very young in the Lord. Church boards should consist of men who have walked with God for some time having developed spiritual maturity and discernment over the years. Without the governmental element of older godly men and women, a church can suffer very weak spiritual counsel. Biblical guidelines for eldership in the church can be found in 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1 and 2.

BALANCED VIEW OF TONGUES AND HEALING — The Potter’s House churches believe in and practice the “gifts of the Spirit” in a congregational setting.*

However, their exercise of certain gifts do not follow the biblical pattern as set forth in I Corinthians 12 and 14. In a typical Potter’s House worship service, tongues are exercised in unison by the entire congregation generally with no interpretation following. The Scriptures teach, on the other hand, that biblical tongues in a congregational setting must be followed by two or three interpreting for the sake of the edification of the body of Christ and as a sign for the unbeliever (1 Cor. 14:22-33). As with the Assemblies of God, the Potter’s House teaches that tongues is the “initial evidence” of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.”
http://www.equip.org/article/the-potters-house/#christian-books-1

The members of the potters house believe in evangelism, as a effective way of bringing unbelievers in to the church, by doing so they will receive salvation, as also a important part of outreach is to proclaim the message of the word through the potters house and not by any traditional or conservative means of preaching as such, methods are used to influence and means of making a individual feeling obliged by manipulation.

Beliefs.

The network of churches appears to adhere to an orthodox
Christian theology with a decidedly Pentecostal/Charismatic
bend (see, for example, these Statements of Faith Off-site Link, as posted at the website of The Potter's House, Carson City, Nevada).

After about 6 months my youngest brother left the church. Like a good PH disciple I shunned him and basically treated him with contempt. My parents were distraught over this. For the next year or so I hardly spoke a word to my youngest brother, acting as if I was doing the `right' thing. Obviously the rest of the church was doing the same. During this period, my other younger brother married one of the single girls from the church who had been there when we joined. At their wedding the pastor preached a sermon which expounded rather harshly on adultery. This is rather unfortunate because it related to our father, with my brother, who was about to be married, being the `fruit'. So, instead of being a joyous occasion where the parents can celebrate their success of bringing a son to manhood, it turned into a severe humiliation for them. Needless to say, my father now had another reason to hate the church. For the next six years our family was basically split. We would see each other, but there was no joy and no meaningful communication.

After about a year and a half of shunning my younger brother, I finally realised that what I was doing was completely insane. I realised that no good thing could come from it and that it defied all Christian principles of love. How can one love if one actively shuns and condemns? Yet if one does not love then one must wonder if they are even in the faith. Of course, the PH has some rather sick justifications for shunning and to this day the die-hard of the church see no problem with it, despite the fact that it hardens them more than it does the person being shunned. My younger brother and I were reconciled to some degree and we basically agreed to disagree on many things. Needless to say, our relationship was not overly good, but it was there and through it we could communicate. We never fellowshipped as such while I was at the PH. How could we?

In the years following salvation, I committed to some of the `ministries' of the church. I did the mixing, played guitar in a band, served as an usher and helped clean the church. However, in the course of time the steadily increasing grind of life in the PH began to take its toll. There was no `abundant life', just abundant drudgery. There was no spontaneity in worship and very little opportunity for individual expression in worship, just choreographed posturing. There was no genuine relationships, just postured relationships. There was much back biting, much frustration, much rebuking, much barely concealed temper and much innuendo. There were never any sermons simply describing the goodness of God, for example, but all were based on morality. All put the focus on the believer, magnifying the believer's problems while neglecting God. As a result, there was no vision, no power and no anointing in the preaching or in the church as a whole. Such relentless moralising provided the basis for legalism, which was rampant. If you wanted to be in `ministry', there was a bunch of things you could not do, none of which are actually immoral in themselves. Of course, anyone who has any
experience with the PH knows about these `rules'.

<snip>

The departure of yet another couple from the church was probably what really set the wheels in motion for my own departure. They were an older couple, and their two daughters were also members of the church in Ballarat. One of them was the single girl that married my younger brother. Initially, the husband left the church for reasons unexplained. He just informed the pastor that he was leaving and that his wife was free to continue to go if she so desired. Well, straight away the church, and in particular her own children, began to drive a wedge between her and her husband. They were willing to sacrifice their mother's own marriage to their father in order to keep her in the church! Well, after a couple of days, she decided to leave as well, and her daughters turned on her and told her that she will not be seeing her grandchildren again because they do not want her influence upon them. It was then that she realised the sickness of what she had been involved with (she had her suspicions in the past) and was distraught because now thought her family was shattered. The next Sunday morning, her husband appears in the church service and attempts to disrupt it by sharing with the church his version of events, or something to that effect. The pastor ordered the ushers (which included myself) to physically remove him from the building while the rest of the church praised God loudly. It was a pathetic scene. Anyway, this man was not cooperating in his removal and we did not want to hurt him by forcing him. So his son in law (not my younger brother) sees the difficulty we were having and joins the fray. He screams at his father in law "get out" while pointing to the door, face red and veins bulging in his forehead and teeth exposed in a snarl of rage. It was one of the most inhumane things I have ever seen, coming from the guy's own son in law, in front of his daughters and grand children, and delivered by a person who claims to be a Christian and has ministry in the church. It was then that I realised something was fundamentally wrong with the church. I had always known there were things that did not seem right but I chose to ignore them, believing that these things were typical of any church. Remarkably, there was no fall out from the event. There was no introspection. Was there anything that we had done that had caused them to leave? There was no compassion toward them at all. They were just rebels and the church, and especially their own family, completely shunned them, such that they were not even informed of the birth of another grandchild.

http://crackedpots.topcities.com/testimony_david_butt.htm

They are similar in cowardice. Brothers and sisters in cowardice. Both of those sets of extremists MUST be cowards. Since, after all, nobody on either side feels like they can, or should, show their faces. If you're so gutsy, so solid and confident and sure of yourselves in these quack "belief systems", then show your damn faces already! Let the world see who you are. What? Guess you're AFRAID??????????

"Fear Everything Then Give US YOUR power........so we can save you."

We are "grouped" by various societal mechanisms. We are born, and put in a "nursery" with other newborns born at roughly the same time. We have a few years alone with our parents if we don't have siblings, but when we hit school, we are grouped with a bunch of kids the same age. We are not allowed to drink until we hit 18 or 21, depending on laws in your area. We hit adulthood, and may go to college or to work, once out of college, we all grouped as laborers, except for a lucky few, born into great wealth. We are all grouped as taxpayers. Etcetera.

My only point is that "grouping" is something that we are trained with from day one by folks who have power and authority over us. Thus the idea of holding a group responsible is familiar to average folks.

The views most folks get from the media are highly skewed, the view promulgated are always going to reflect the views of the owners, mostly Disney, CBS, NBC, and NewsCorp.

Most Christians admit we have some nuts among our ranks and some of these nuts are or can be violent.

Why is it so hard for other religionists to do the same?

Why?

A thousand times why...

both of these are religious organizations. They don't represent all Muslims or Christians, but they are Islamic and Christian organizations.

Here's one Im sure you've all seen before, or maybe not. It asks to one "explain the difference".

These two are examples of RADICALS within their respective religion. The sad truth is that there is absoultely no difference between them, right down to that disgusting smug arrogant little smirk on both their faces. Each one of them is SURE that their religion is the only true one, and that their "GOD" is the Only one. Both of them hold their holy books proudly, and imply by their automatic weapons that they have the means to fight for and die for their religious beliefs.






Here we have two photos that seem rather serene and innocuous of two religious moderates. They both have that look of spiritual conviction and sincerity in their eyes. They look harmless and peaceful and they probably are. They don't look like the two in the example above. No threat is perceived from them.






Of the four people pictured anyone can see who is a radical and who is not. You may also notice the ONE similarity in all four pictures, that they are all holding their "holy books". It's obvious then to understand that their religious beliefs come from these books, whether or not they practice it literally. In Both books, if you like admit to it or not, have the same verses printed in them. No one anywhere can deny that both have, at some point their history, or still have allowances for murder, rape, slavery, torture, and even genocide in the name of "GOD". How many examples in the last 2014 years can you think of ? How many in the past 15 years ?

The two above may be more inclined to act literally on the violent acts advocated by the "gods" in these books, the two below would probably not; However, the problem is the violent verses are still in there and there are people acting on them. The two moderates may then politely make excuses for it. They'll claim it's not meant literally , or "it's just metaphor", or "that's just the way it was back then" in the attempt to conveniently dismiss it all as harmless to close any further discussion. Many will only speak up in times of great turmoil when the religion is being ridiculed for the violence perpetrated by it's extremists. Though some are speaking out against these recent events (which is GOOD), the odds are a great majority are probably hoping for it to blow over so they can once again ignore it. The truth is there are no meaningful unilateral actions being taken to stop further destruction, and most likely never will be.

So in the end it comes down the dogma in the books themselves, and the people who cling to them despite all the harm they continue to bring the world at large with no end, or real solution in sight. It can only be ended when we wake up from our primitive theological infant fantasies, and start pursuing more relevant and important real world goals in order to evolve as a species.

Love it, Fred.

We've found our common ground!

It is interesting how pacifists can become eerily mean when the objects of their derision "talk funny" or "look different".

Peace, brother.

The last one not only hits the nail on the head, it drives it into the wall.

Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

Because fear = $$$$$$$$$