Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
24567…28

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have yet to understand what possible harm is being caused by a group of people building a bigger place of worship for them and all who want to hear about the Gospel. Arguably a lot of it is excessive, but what harm is it causing? Absolutely none I would suspect.

    That's before we start dealing with absurd notions about teaching children about faith being paramount to child abuse.

    About faith? No...


  • Options
    #33
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Jakkass wrote: »
    2. "Moving in"? The evidence seems to be that this church has been in Ireland for a long time.
    Ah, so you are looking for an argument. Why bother querying a part of my post when I address later on in the same post?
    Basis for this? As for intolerant how do you mean?
    My basis is personal experience. They seem to think that other people should hear their message and try to spread it. That counts as disruptive and intolerant in my book.
    Would you prefer it if everyone just agreed with you?
    I'd prefer it if everyone just fncked off and kept their religious opinions to themselves.


  • Options
    #34
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have yet to understand what possible harm is being caused by a group of people building a bigger place of worship for them and all who want to hear about the Gospel. Arguably a lot of it is excessive, but what harm is it causing? Absolutely none I would suspect.

    How are you defining "harm"?

    Most of the complaints seem to be that the building is huge and hideous. So think that would be a good place to start...


  • Options
    #35
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Sounds like someone is looking for an argument :rolleyes:

    Yeah... He'd be fine with the Scientologists opening the same sort of facility in his area... So why should we say anything about this...

    In fairness I thought we were more taking the piss than objecting...

    But...

    Building a church is fine... Telling your children to try to convert other children is more objectionable.


  • Options
    #36
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    seamus wrote: »
    My basis is personal experience. They seem to think that other people should hear their message and try to spread it. That counts as disruptive and intolerant in my book.

    I'd prefer it if everyone just fncked off and kept their religious opinions to themselves.

    How does having ones own beliefs and proselytising count as "intolerant" or "disruptive"? Tolerance is defined as permissiveness towards others beliefs and practices. All these people are doing is offering people to believe in Christianity, and it seems they've had moderate success.

    Why should people not have the right to proselytise? I mean, you have the option to clearly say "Sorry, I'm not interested".

    By your definition, Jesus Christ must have been the most intolerant man in history.
    Matthew 28:19-20 wrote:
    Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’

    There's a difference between you not liking proselytism, and intolerance surely?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    How are you defining "harm"?

    Most of the complaints seem to be that the building is huge and hideous. So think that would be a good place to start...

    If people opposed the construction of the building they should have put in a complaint to the relevant authorities when planning permission was being given out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How does having ones own beliefs and proselytising count as "intolerant" or "disruptive"? Tolerance is defined as permissiveness towards others beliefs and practices. All these people are doing is offering people to believe in Christianity, and it seems they've had moderate success.
    Proselytising by it's very nature is intolerant - if you were tolerant, you wouldn't feel the need to proselytise.
    Why should people not have the right to proselytise? I mean, you have the option to clearly say "Sorry, I'm not interested".
    They have the right. That doesn't mean I can't criticise them for doing so.
    By your definition, Jesus Christ must have been the most intolerant man in history.
    That depends on what he was trying to do. If he truely believed that everyone else was wrong *and* needed to hear his message, then yes he was surpremely intolerant.

    For the record, I'm highly intolerant of religious belief. I criticise the intolerance of various religious groups because they claim to be tolerant. I can respect Islam a little more because it doesn't make any false claims about its intolerance. However by definition, evangelists are intolerant because otherwise they wouldn't proselytise.


  • Options
    #38
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If people opposed the construction of the building they should have put in a complaint to the relevant authorities when planning permission was being given out.

    Ok ..... :confused:

    Are you saying that people should not complain about horrible buildings and the people who construct them unless they objected to the original planning permission?

    I object to the Department of Health building on Poolbeg street, it is horrendous, but it was build before I was born :)


  • Options
    #39
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Jakkass wrote: »
    1. Evangelical nature. What is so wrong with evangelicalism? Most of the critics of evangelical Christianity tend to be those who have never had any experience with it.
    Perhaps people (myself included) are unfairly associating evangelical churches with American conservative fundamentalist churches which also typically have an evangelical element with their rigid literal interpretation of the bible.

    The same organisation which also seek to influence the political landscape and that of science so that they conform to their own interpretations of scripture.


  • Options
    #40
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have yet to understand what possible harm is being caused by a group of people building a bigger place of worship for them and all who want to hear about the Gospel.

    Jakkass you are inherently biased in regards to this and thus your opinions on the matter are inutile.

    It's akin to a stripper arguing that the proposed phallic shaped strip club being built in front of your house is harmless. Well of course she would as it's self serving for her for more strip joints to pop up so she can continue to nurse her low self esteem and daddy issues.

    But the community, and society as a whole, has a right to see beyond this biased subjectivity.

    I for one though have no problem with them expanding in Ireland. The more watering down and fragmenting of Christianity in this country the better. A true separation of Church and State will come when not one single sect can claim to speak for the majority.


  • Options
    #41
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Why would any atheist be content to have evangelists move into their neighborhood?

    From an atheist point of view, these people are filling the minds of the young or the vulnerable with myths and untruths. If it wasn't done in the name of 'religion' nobody would be comfortable with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    My issue is with yet another indoctrination centre being opened to warp young childrens minds. What's worse, this place is the Wal-Mart equivalent of this.


  • Options
    #43
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    1. Evangelical nature. What is so wrong with evangelicalism? Most of the critics of evangelical Christianity tend to be those who have never had any experience with it.
    plenty of experience with exposure to evangelical types and the aftermath of other peoples experiences... Much like I don't have much experience in getting hit by a bus but ... Ah crap I hate that analogue

    2. "Moving in"? The evidence seems to be that this church has been in Ireland for a long time.
    Yeah. Don't know where that whole Philpino thing came from...
    Still "Taking Ireland for God" makes it sound like an invasion...
    Basis for this? As for intolerant how do you mean?

    I could say, groups of atheists and agnostics tend to be interfering, disruptive, intolerant, and altogether a complete pain the the ass for the community at large. However, it would be evident that this is mere fearmongering. Is it really helpful in a cohesive society to engage in this kind of suspicion. If you want to find out what they are about, go and see instead of making assumptions from the outside.

    We don't need to go and see to get the general gist (Though it would probably be a good idea anyway to get a better picture) because they've kindly given us a web page full of information...

    Well, that and they wouldn't have the funding to if they didn't have the demand.

    Funding comes from people that are already members, not the people that they are trying to recruit... They are spreading by building churches. We don't know how many members are locals... Do you know? The goal is not (just) to build a nice place for their congregation to worship but to "take Ireland for God"...

    Would you prefer it if everyone just agreed with you?

    wouldn't you?


  • Options
    #44
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Jakkass you are inherently biased in regards to this and thus your opinions on the matter are inutile.

    Really? Bear in mind, that I do not attend a Pentecostal church on a regular basis.

    I would argue that the bias is largely from those who are criticising based on idle suspicions. It is better to get to know what these people are about before making false assumptions.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    It's akin to a stripper arguing that the proposed phallic shaped strip club being built in front of your house is harmless. Well of course she would as it's self serving for her for more strip joints to pop up so she can continue to nurse her low self esteem and daddy issues.

    Do you generally object to the construction of new churches?
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    But the community, and society as a whole, has a right to see beyond this biased subjectivity.

    You mean dabble in idle suspicions and prejudices? Of course they do, but it is dangerous to do so if one wants a cohesive society.

    I mean the mere fact that people are referring to freedom of religion and expression as being a hindrance to society on this thread is infinitely more unnerving than what could be perceived as an excessively large church structure. I would love to hear what the quotation was for all of this.
    Denalihighway wrote: »
    well opening a right can o worms there...but yes the various freedoms that democracy affords all have their cost - particularly religious freedom. The States have taken it to another level as always.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Are you saying that people should not complain about horrible buildings and the people who construct them unless they objected to the original planning permission?

    Such complaints have absolutely no legal value. If one is genuinely interested in stopping construction of such buildings one should be pragmatic and complain to the council.
    Dades wrote: »
    Why would any atheist be content to have evangelists move into their neighborhood?

    From an atheist point of view, these people are filling the minds of the young or the vulnerable with myths and untruths. If it wasn't done in the name of 'religion' nobody would be comfortable with it.

    I think its curious that its perceived as being such a big problem. If you believe that you have the correct point of view on this argument, how could people with another opinion possibly be any harm to you?

    As for myths and untruths, I don't believe it is your responsibility to tell any other parent how to raise their child in respect to religion.
    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    My issue is with yet another indoctrination centre being opened to warp young childrens minds. What's worse, this place is the Wal-Mart equivalent of this.

    That is only if you believe that educating your child about Christianity is child abuse. Most reasonable people do not think this. One would also have to believe that education as a child secures your faith for life, which again I would find disagreeable.
    kiffer wrote: »
    plenty of experience with exposure to evangelical types and the aftermath of other peoples experiences... Much like I don't have much experience in getting hit by a bus but ... Ah crap I hate that analogue

    Have you attended evangelical services ever? Again, I feel you are tarring all with one brush here. Perhaps, I'm regarding my experience as slightly different as a number of my best friends are Evangelical Christians.
    kiffer wrote: »
    We don't need to go and see to get the general gist (Though it would probably be a good idea anyway to get a better picture) because they've kindly given us a web page full of information...

    To truly assess what they are about one would need to.
    kiffer wrote: »
    Funding comes from people that are already members, not the people that they are trying to recruit... They are spreading by building churches. We don't know how many members are locals... Do you know? The goal is not (just) to build a nice place for their congregation to worship but to "take Ireland for God"...

    I'm aware of that, but the congregation obviously felt that they needed a bigger premises to call their spiritual home. If they have the finances to cover it, and if the planning permission is given after the application being deemed successful there are absolutely no legitimate grounds for protest. I think it is slightly excessive, but if that is how they have determined to spend their money that is up to them entirely.
    kiffer wrote: »
    wouldn't you?

    I don't believe that all are going to share the same opinion as me. I'm half and half on this question though. I genuinely want people to know about Christianity and the potential impact that it has on their lives. I also like discussing with people of differing views to my own.


  • Options
    #45
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Jakkass:
    That is only if you believe that educating your child about Christianity is child abuse. Most reasonable people do not think this. One would also have to believe that education as a child secures your faith for life, which again I would find disagreeable.

    Telling a child that people burn for eternity for being bold is abusive. Of course, you will say that you merely need to leave the nasty bits out. But that's not teaching a child about Christianity now, is it?


  • Options
    #46
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I have no issue with teaching about hell in respect to God's justice, that there will be consequences for how we live in the here and now, and that there is hope through Jesus Christ. I have yet to see how it is abusive. Is it abusive to teach someone that they will most likely go to jail if they steal?


  • Options
    #47
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have no issue with teaching about hell in respect to God's justice, that there will be consequences for how we live in the here and now, and that there is hope through Jesus Christ. I have yet to see how it is abusive. Is it abusive to teach someone that they will most likely go to jail if they steal?

    What utter, utter nonsense you believe. The lengths you will go to, in order to ram that square peg in.

    :(


  • Options
    #48
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have no issue with teaching about hell in respect to God's justice, that there will be consequences for how we live in the here and now, and that there is hope through Jesus Christ. I have yet to see how it is abusive. Is it abusive to teach someone that they will most likely go to jail if they steal?

    By that logic, you have no problem with me teaching people that they should dive off a cliff because the Flying Spaghetti Monster saves cliff divers and catches them in his noodley tentacles before they hit the ground?

    Of course, the rest of us being mere mortals do not see his saving the person, all we see is someone going splat.


  • Options
    #49
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Such complaints have absolutely no legal value. If one is genuinely interested in stopping construction of such buildings one should be pragmatic and complain to the council.

    Legal value? This is Boards.ie ... I complain about cheese rolls here, I don't want them illegal :p


  • Options
    #50
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    seamus wrote: »
    By that logic, you have no problem with me teaching people that they should dive off a cliff because the Flying Spaghetti Monster saves cliff divers and catches them in his noodley tentacles before they hit the ground?

    If I believed it was false like you clearly do, then that would have to be the logic I applied. If I believe it is true, like I clearly do, then I believe it is only correct that people are told that people will be punished for their iniquities there if they do not repent and accept Christ's salvation.

    Diving off a cliff is likely to cause harm, believing that one should aim to do what is right and follow God, isn't particularly harmful at all.


  • Options
    #51
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    @Jakkass, would you consider it abusive to tell a young child that they are likely destined to wind up in a fire and brimstone hell?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Diving off a cliff is likely to cause harm, believing that one should aim to do what is right and follow God, isn't particularly harmful at all.

    tell that to the 9/11 suicide bombers

    <sidenote>Is there a law for 9/11, like Godwin's law?</sidenote>


  • Options
    #53
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have yet to see how it is abusive. Is it abusive to teach someone that they will most likely go to jail if they steal?

    Well yes, if you replace "jail" with "lake of eternal fire" and "steal" with "live your life normally simply without believing in my god"

    If I genuinely believe that at any moment a demon from the Doom world is going to rip though space time and steal my children away to eternal suffering (ie I'm nuts) that doesn't make it less abusive to continuously tell my children this could happen at any point. I could argue that this is going to happen so my children need to be aware of it, but everyone else would simply tell me to stop scaring my children.

    The justification that you genuinely believe in hell and genuinely believe that people who do not do what your religion says end up in hell isn't going to persuade anyone (particularly here) that teaching this to children isn't mentally abusive. It is mentally abusive even if it is true, which to me would make someone seriously question the notion of a "loving" God setting things up like this (but that is a different issue)


  • Options
    #54
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dvpower wrote: »
    @Jakkass, would you consider it abusive to tell a young child that they are likely destined to wind up in a fire and brimstone hell?

    I think I would be far more interested in telling them that if they have faith in Jesus, they have nothing to fear. We have victory already (pardon the pun), and we can aim to live our lives according to God's holy standard.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well yes, if you replace "jail" with "lake of eternal fire" and "steal" with "live your life normally simply without believing in my god"

    Humans are all guilty of sin. From the Christian point of view, it is kind of like people are destined to be punished, but if they would only just accept the pardon and accept the chance to change their ways they would never have to experience such punishment, but grace instead.


  • Options
    #55
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Humans are all guilty of sin. From the Christian point of view, it is kind of like people are destined to be punished, but if they would only just accept the pardon and accept the chance to change their ways they would never have to experience such punishment, but grace instead.

    And teaching that to children is abusive. The fact that you believe it is true may convince you that it isn't abusive but it doesn't convince the rest of us.


  • Options
    #56
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    And teaching that to children is abusive. The fact that you believe it is true may convince you that it isn't abusive but it doesn't convince the rest of us.

    I disagree that teaching people that there are consequences to their actions is abusive in any way. So yes, I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one.


  • Options
    #57
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Have you attended evangelical services ever? Again, I feel you are tarring all with one brush here. Perhaps, I'm regarding my experience as slightly different as a number of my best friends are Evangelical Christians.

    Pretty sure my service record (:D) is limited to Catholic, COI and a few Pagan services.
    Have you ever been to a LaVay Satanist ritual? If not then how can you possibly judge them? based merely on what other people have said about them and what they have said about themselves? pfft!
    To truly assess what they are about one would need to.

    Yes, hence the part that post in brackets. I'm sure they talk all love and light during services... God is Love, God want's you to be happy... the usual pretty good sounding stuff... God will torture (or allow to be tortured) in hell the vast majority of all humans ever to have lived hardly gets mentioned at all.
    I'm aware of that, but the congregation obviously felt that they needed a bigger premises to call their spiritual home. If they have the finances to cover it, and if the planning permission is given after the application being deemed successful there are absolutely no legitimate grounds for protest. I think it is slightly excessive, but if that is how they have determined to spend their money that is up to them entirely.

    Yup. I agree. Spend your money however you like. It's yours. and if the law agrees with you all the better. Which is why you would have no objection to a Scientology Church with the exact same premise built beside your house... or an Ideology building a similar building. Communist, Satanist, Islam, Wicca... If they have the money they you should not object to them building a massive church/centre near you... if they get the planning permission.
    I don't believe that all are going to share the same opinion as me. I'm half and half on this question though. I genuinely want people to know about Christianity and the potential impact that it has on their lives. I also like discussing with people of differing views to my own.

    Yeah... it's a tricky one all right.
    You know people aren't going to agree with you, but you'd like it if they did.
    I like discussing things with people of differing views... but what can be discussed reasonably depends on the people involved... some times the point of views are so different that common ground can not be easily reached... such as with the Hell issue.


  • Options
    #58
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think I would be far more interested in telling them that if they have faith in Jesus, they have nothing to fear.
    this implies that they do have something to fear if they dont have faith. And what they have to fear is eternal suffering without respite. I hate using the term 'child abuse' about religion but it does seem appropriate.


  • Options
    #59
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Really? Bear in mind, that I do not attend a Pentecostal church on a regular basis.

    No but you do see the spread of Christianity, regardless of sect, expanding as a good thing... the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Do you generally object to the construction of new churches?

    Not generally... but the standard of architecture in them has really declined in the last few centuries so I may just have to.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You mean dabble in idle suspicions and prejudices? Of course they do, but it is dangerous to do so if one wants a cohesive society.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have no issue with teaching about hell in respect to God's justice

    What about Demon possessions? Do you think children should be taught that they are being watched all the time by invisible evil creatures who wish to hurt them and take control of them?


  • Options
    #60
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I disagree that teaching people that there are consequences to their actions is abusive in any way.

    So do I, but again that is not what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches you deserve your place in hell no matter what because Adam ate an apple. And the only way to get out of that is to embrace your religion and ask to be forgiven ("forgiven for what exactly?" would be a question I would be very interested in listening to a Christian parent explain to a child)

    Teaching a child that no matter what they are going to do they deserve punishment (particularly horrific punishment) is abusive. Teaching a child that they are inherently evil and wicked, is abusive.

    The fact that you believe that is true is, again, irrelevant.

    If a parent was teaching a child that they were stupid or wicked or evil outside of religion I would imagine you would agree that they shouldn't do this.

    Parents are told these days to take particular care not to scold children by telling them that they are bold or naughty, but that the actions they do are bold and naught.

    That difference may seem trivial to an adult but as far as I know there is a lot of evidence that suggests negative re-enforcement that they are bad has a poor effect on children, and that is when the parent is simply causing a slip of the tongue (you are bold rather than that was bold)

    Teaching the child that they are inherently prone to wickedness and deserving of eternal torture, well I really can't see how that wouldn't have as bad if not worse effect on the child.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If I believed it was false like you clearly do, then that would have to be the logic I applied. If I believe it is true, like I clearly do, then I believe it is only correct that people are told that people will be punished for their iniquities there if they do not repent and accept Christ's salvation.

    Diving off a cliff is likely to cause harm, believing that one should aim to do what is right and follow God, isn't particularly harmful at all.

    Round and round the merry go round. Are you Kelly1's clone?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement