Pastor Gets Caught Lying for Jesus

Goduznt Xzst

Just reading through my feeds and came across this:

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/20/pastor-gets-caught-lying-for-jesus/

I confronted him about his deceitfulness. He apologized “for upsetting me,” but doesn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. He said:

There were others who wanted to make comments and had ideas, and they simply wanted to share those in the forum; so for those remarks, my sincere apology. I would also suggest attention given to the name-calling and other profanities used in various posts.

I was trying to make a point from a different perspective, of which I hear quite often, regarding morality and where it is derived. There was a debate recently where some of the same questions were asked and were actually given an honest look and answer….

I am in no way a fundie or extremist. Like you I believe in thinking, searching, asking questions, and hearing others from outside my box. I thank you for your allowing various opinions and sides to share.

The Pastor is Chris Fox from here: http://www.kendallsbaptistchurch.org/staff.cfm

I mean he was basically one step away from saying "I'm an Atheist and I'm a stupid head" Seriously how dumb can a person get.

Fanny Cradock

Hold the Press! Some guy on the internet who we have never heard of adopted a persona and then start trolling and telling some lies.

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Hold the Press! Some guy on the internet who we have never heard of adopted a persona and then start trolling and telling some lies.

What... you saying internet people aren't real people...

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

adopted a persona and then start trolling and telling some lies.

I suppose when you put it like that it actually doesn't sound that unusual, pretty much par for the course of your average Christian I don't know why I expected a more intelligent behavior from a Pastor tbh, I mean who would right?

Tim_Murphy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Hold the Press! Some guy on the internet who we have never heard of adopted a persona and then start trolling and telling some lies.

No freaking way?! :eek:

Genghiz Cohen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Hold the Press! Some guy on the internet who we have never heard of adopted a persona and then start trolling and telling some lies.

He wasn't very good at it either, you need to be a lot more circumspect about trolling.

Phototoxin

Hold the Press! Some guy on the internet who we have never heard of adopted a persona and then start trolling and telling some lies.

Right so therefore the only logical conclusion from that one persons trolling is that all Christians are noobs?

In other news I'm an agnostic and diabetic, ergo all agnostics are diabetics and so agnosticsm causes diabetes. :p:p

Fanny Cradock

Tell me Goduznt Xzst, do you see any crossover between your objections to somebody lying in attempts to portray a caricature of an atheist - "I'm an Atheist and I'm a stupid head" - and the intent behind your subsequent quip that it [lying] is "pretty much par for the course for your average Christian" and your current sig, "The Religious are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are Religious"?

(Oh, that was a long sentence!)

Such anti-theism seems to be single reason behind your time on Boards. And other than some terrible injustice that some Christian or Christian organisation perpetrated against you, I really can't imagine what drives your passion.

Genghiz Cohen

And thus the thread took a hard right...

Fanny Cradock

I don't mean my remarks in an insulting manner and I apologise unreservedly to Goduznt Xzst if it has come across this way. However, I think my question was a fair one.

Dades

I have to say that sig is pretty inflammatory.

Gordon

I think maybe Chris Fox was simply trying to give a little milk of human kindness to the world. But it turns out that milk was PASTORIZED!

Hivemind187

Dades wrote: »

I have to say that sig is pretty inflammatory.

So was "On the Origin of Species" and "The Rights of Man".

Not that I would put such a quote on the same level but something simply having the quality of being inflammatory does not negate any truth it may bare.

Dades

Mass generalisations don't generally suffer from being true or untrue. They suffer from being unsubstantiated.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tell me Goduznt Xzst, do you see any crossover...

loosely yes, but I'd say I am genuine to my opinions whereas this Pastor was not. But I posted this not because I have a problem with a Christian masquerading as an Atheist, but because a Pastor of a Church, and a teacher of men, women and children, was resorting to such underhanded and petty behaviour.

Further, my retort to your initial response was laced with sarcasm, due to your sarcastic attempt to undermine my reasons for posting this news as this pastor only being "some guy". I suppose if the Pope was found to be doing this it would be equally as mundane right. I mean he is just "some guy" also.

I have no beef with people assuming a persona online and trolling, my point was that this person is not just "some guy" but is entrusted by a community to teach them what is moral and what is right from their bible, yet in his personal time he spends it lying about individuals he knows nothing about.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I really can't imagine what drives your passion.

It's understandable. Being mainly driven to secure ones self with immortality can blur the plethora of other driving forces an individual can have for their passion in life. Personally the pursuit of knowledge is what drives me, and I'm a firm believer that a blade does not get sharper without a whetstone. Religion and the religious are a perfect whetstone as it pushes a greater understanding of the sciences, psychology, philosophy and the art of debate in me.

Dades wrote: »

I have to say that sig is pretty inflammatory.

Dades wrote: »

Mass generalisations don't generally suffer from being true or untrue. They suffer from being unsubstantiated.

Like this bus slogan from RichardDawkins.net, which I don't remember anyone objecting to when it was linked here.

I'd say a lot of Atheists would hold the same opinion as me, but due to not wishing to be blunt will not say it in so many words.

i.e. syllogistically, an Atheist may post the opinion that The Bible is a fairytale, while thinking to themselves people who believe fairytales are stupid. The end result is the same opinion as my signature. Plus I would not say it is an entirely unsubstantiated opinion.

Would you disagree with the statement:

Atheists are not necessarily intelligent, but most intelligent people are Atheist

Being a Mensan, I have to say I have never come across any devoutly religious members. At most a person would philosophically be agnostic, which at least I respect. I can't remember there ever being an Article in the magazine extolling the merits of religion and belief in the supernatural.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Would you disagree with the statement:

Atheists are not necessarily intelligent, but most intelligent people are Atheist

Being a Mensan, I have to say I have never come across any devoutly religious members. At most a person would philosophically be agnostic, which at least I respect. I can't remember there ever being an Article in the magazine extolling the merits of religion and belief in the supernatural.

Whether any of the above statements are true or not doesn't really matter to me. I just find the statement in your sig puerile (and unbecoming of a 'mensan' I might add).

That's just my opinion.

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I have no beef with people assuming a persona online and trolling, my point was that this person is not just "some guy" but is entrusted by a community to teach them what is moral and what is right from their bible, yet in his personal time he spends it lying about individuals he knows nothing about.

The story really isn't newsworthy, and I suspect that you wouldn't be remotely interested in it if the protagonist wasn't specifically a 'man of the cloth' masquerading in some shabby wolf's clothing.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I suppose if the Pope was found to be doing this it would be equally as mundane right. I mean he is just "some guy" also.

I'm not sure why you are bring the Pope into this; I'm not Catholic and therefore don't necessarily place a special importance on him as a man. Of course, he just so happens to be head of the largest Christian denomination on the planet, so in this regards, there is little no valid comparison between the Pope's fictional exploits on the internet and what some chap none of us have heard of before got up to. Besides all of this, the Pope has demonstrated time and again that he is quite capable of being controversial - dare I say outrageous - without needing to resort to an internet persona.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Being a Mensan, I have to say I have never come across any devoutly religious members. At most a person would philosophically be agnostic, which at least I respect. I can't remember there ever being an Article in the magazine extolling the merits of religion and belief in the supernatural.

Yes, well, heaven forbid that intelligence is ever determined upon the basis that a person is a card carrying member of Mensa.

It seems more than a little ironic that it is left to me, a bog standard 'norm', to point out that your perspective on the beliefs held by other Mensa members isn't worth a jot. There are many reasons behind this, of course. For instance, your posts clearly demonstrate that you are not even remotely objective when it come to matters of religion.

How does that tenet of Mensa go? Humm... something about 'broadening the mind'.

Still, despite all my words above, I sincerely hope that you keep your sig. Why not put that impressive thinking organ of yours to good use and see if you can come up with a reason why.

Genghiz Cohen

Fanny Cradock wrote:

The story really isn't newsworthy, and I suspect that you wouldn't be remotely interested in it if the protagonist wasn't specifically a 'man of the cloth' masquerading in some shabby wolf's clothing.

Most of the stuff in the news isn't actually newsworthy :pac:

This story would be less interesting if it wasn't a pastor/priest, the reason it got my attention is that a man who teaches people to respect their neighbor and tell the truth was caught lying to try to make a point. It's completely hypocritical, and delicious.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'd say a lot of Atheists would hold the same opinion as me, but due to not wishing to be blunt will not say it in so many words.

If that was true then the majority of television which aims for the lowest common denominator, would be religious. In reality, it is completely secular.

The statement also leaves no room for differences in cultures, implying that it is a universal observation.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

Whether any of the above statements are true or not doesn't really matter to me. I just find the statement in your sig puerile (and unbecoming of a 'mensan' I might add).

That's just my opinion.

Well I completely disagree with it being puerile. Controversial and tactless? Yes. But then I believe there is always a time to be blunt in ones convictions. However as you are law around here I've changed it :pac: I will keep my convictions under wraps in my sigs.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I suspect that you wouldn't be remotely interested in it if the protagonist wasn't specifically a 'man of the cloth' masquerading in some shabby wolf's clothing.

Correct. The same way PDN would not post here about Mao or Stalin where they openly devout Christians.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, well, heaven forbid that intelligence is ever determined upon the basis that a person is a card carrying member of Mensa.

I agree with you! I never suggested otherwise. You seem to be taking the example of a microcosm that I gave as the basis of my opinion and exaggerating it to a superlative degree. I was merely giving the example that in my experience the higher a persons IQ the greater their skepticism is. Regardless, in any objective statistical survey a disputant can always just say the sample size was too small to be accurate.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

your posts clearly demonstrate that you are not even remotely objective when it come to matters of religion.

Ha! That should be the mantra of the Christianity forum tbh :rolleyes: I frankly have no interest in a lecture on objectivity from an individual who believes spirit creatures are flying around right now jumping in and out of peoples bodies and controlling them. What was that scripture again... matthew something, plank in your own eye and all that... you may need to work on that.

Húrin wrote: »

If that was true then the majority of television which aims for the lowest common denominator, would be religious. In reality, it is completely secular.

Care to back that up with a shred of evidence? I mean I would imagine it would be fairly big news. Although I think the FOX news network would beg to differ.

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Correct. The same way PDN would not post here about Mao or Stalin where they openly devout Christians.

We aren't talking about Mao, Stalin, the Pope, Wayne Rooney or Jesus. Again you attempt to conflate major historical figures with some bloke who told some lies on the internet. I'm actually not all that interested in this scoop, but I'm considerably more fascinated by your general belligerent attitude towards religious people.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ha! That should be the mantra of the Christianity forum tbh :rolleyes: I frankly have no interest in a lecture on objectivity from an individual who believes spirit creatures are flying around right now jumping in and out of peoples bodies and controlling them. What was that scripture again... matthew something, plank in your own eye and all that... you may need to work on that.

And where exactly have I stated any belief that 'spirit creatures are flying around right now jumping in and out of peoples bodies and controlling them'? Really, my faith in God is not under the spotlight in this thread, so let's not paint a caricature of them.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I agree with you! I never suggested otherwise. You seem to be taking the example of a microcosm that I gave as the basis of my opinion and exaggerating it to a superlative degree. I was merely giving the example that in my experience the higher a persons IQ the greater their skepticism is. Regardless, in any objective statistical survey a disputant can always just say the sample size was too small to be accurate.

You know, instead of all your circumlocution and attempts to deflect the focus away from yourself, you might just want to admit that your perception of others in Mensa isn't necessarily accurate. Furthermore, your sig - which I note with some regret you have changed - did not discuss a link between IQ and levels of scepticism, so let's not pretend that that is what we are talking about. You categorically stated that most stupid people are religious and attempted to back this up by making some rather tenuous observations about the beliefs held by the members of a select club for smart people. Like that has any relevance!

Here's an idea: at your next Mensa confabulation why don't you try to figure out what other members believe rather than superimposing your ideals on them.

I'll get you started on the path. You might also want to consider the case of Chris Langan. With an IQ in and around 200, he is reputed to be the 'smartest man in America' or 'in the world' depending on what headlines you read. He believes in God, though it would be a stretch to say he was a Christian.
meta-context and how it helps us answer the God question.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ha! That should be the mantra of the Christianity forum tbh :rolleyes: I frankly have no interest in a lecture on objectivity from an individual who believes spirit creatures are flying around right now jumping in and out of peoples bodies and controlling them. What was that scripture again... matthew something, plank in your own eye and all that... you may need to work on that.

You're relying on your own partisanship to dismiss the valid criticism from another poster. You're just being deliberately abrasive now. I am amazed that you are saying, in other words, that your conditioned western European common sense judgements about the supernatural approximate objective truth.

Care to back that up with a shred of evidence? I mean I would imagine it would be fairly big news. Although I think the FOX news network would beg to differ.

I think it is you that needs to offer evidence. Where's the prayer time on Big Brother then? Or MTV? Or the televised death of Jade Goody? Or The Sun newspaper? If your statement was informed by evidence and not egotism, then you can surely give us plenty of examples of how the lowest common denominator media is indoctrinated with religion. Are you saying that it is?

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

meta-context and how it helps us answer the God question.

That should have read:

After doing all this, you can then point out the significance in terms of the meta-context and how it helps us answer the God question.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again you attempt to conflate major historical figures with some bloke who told some lies on the internet.

Wrong. I was providing motivation for posting this article, not comparing this Pastor to being equal to Mao or Stalin.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And where exactly have I stated any belief that 'spirit creatures are flying around right now jumping in and out of peoples bodies and controlling them'? Really, my faith in God is not under the spotlight in this thread, so let's not paint a caricature of them.

Well now it is, how about that :rolleyes: I see no reason for you to not state whether or not you believe in demon possessions, so do you? You take this thread off topic by highlighting something I have in my signature and my motivation for posting this article, then try to define what should and should not be discussed in this thread.

It is important imo to define your level of objectivity if you are planning to school me in how I am not objective. So, to ask formally then, do you believe in demon possessions and why? I will be happy to address the further points in your reply once this question has been answered.

Húrin wrote: »

I am amazed that you are saying, in other words, that your conditioned western European common sense judgements about the supernatural approximate objective truth.

heard it before hurin, heard it before, it's actually so soporific that I'll be heading to bed after this post. You really need to get a new schtick. I suppose I would have to be a sphere in a vacuum before you'd allow me even the chance of having an ounce of objectivity... It's a conundrum alright.

Húrin wrote: »

I think it is you that needs to offer evidence. Where's the prayer time on Big Brother then? Or MTV? Or the televised death of Jade Goody? Or The Sun newspaper?

Ah, the old Christian "we'll make an outlandish claim then its up to you to prove us wrong" tactic, still being used today I see... I never made any such claims about the media being "completely" secular, YOU did. Now add weight to your claim with evidence, retract it, or just stop arguing along this ridiculous tangent altogether. I will not be providing evidence to prove your claim wrong...

good night all and sweet dreams :P

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Well now it is, how about that :rolleyes: I see no reason for you to not state whether or not you believe in demon possessions, so do you? You take this thread off topic by highlighting something I have in my signature and my motivation for posting this article, then try to define what should and should not be discussed in this thread.

It is important imo to define your level of objectivity if you are planning to school me in how I am not objective. So, to ask formally then, do you believe in demon possessions and why? I will be happy to address the further points in your reply once this question has been answered.

As to why we are now discussing your sweeping statements on the relative intelligence levels of religious people or even our apparent untrustworthiness, please look back over the thread to see the progression if you are confused.

Given that you already know I believe in God and such a thing automatically makes me the focus of your derision, I'm going to take a guess here and say that everybody can see why you pretend that my beliefs about demon possession is in any way relevant. Such matters are entirely irrelevant and it's nothing more than a transparent attempt to nudge this little chin wag out of an area you really don't appear to be able to defend, i.e. your scurrilous generalisations - even the 'humorous' ones.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ah, the old Christian "we'll make an outlandish claim then its up to you to prove us wrong" tactic, still being used today I see... I never made any such claims about the media being "completely" secular, YOU did. Now add weight to your claim with evidence, retract it, or just stop arguing along this ridiculous tangent altogether. I will not be providing evidence to prove your claim wrong...

I would argue that Christians don't have to prove anything. It is up to you to look at and listen to the evidence and then decide for yourself. I would hope that we Christians would then have enough respect to leave you to it if you choose not to engage us in debate.

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Being a Mensan, I have to say I have never come across any devoutly religious members. At most a person would philosophically be agnostic, which at least I respect. I can't remember there ever being an Article in the magazine extolling the merits of religion and belief in the supernatural.

Classic!!

We're talking about a guy going online telling lies aren't we? *giggles*:pac:

I sense intellectual insecurity myself. 'Look at me, I'm smarter than you, and some smart guys approve of me.'

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Classic!!

We're talking about a guy going online telling lies aren't we? *giggles*:pac:

I sense intellectual insecurity myself. 'Look at me, I'm smarter than you, and some smart guys approve of me.'

I'm ashamed to say that I was a member of Mensa for one year. Then I realised I should be smarter than to pay good money to be part of of an IQ willy-waving club.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Well I completely disagree with it being puerile. Controversial and tactless? Yes. But then I believe there is always a time to be blunt in ones convictions. However as you are law around here I've changed it :pac: I will keep my convictions under wraps in my sigs.

FYI, I am not the Sigpo. It's not my place to tell you what you can and can't have in your sig.

I was only offering my thoughts on the content of it, and have no power to tell you to remove it. Reinstate at will.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As to why we are now discussing your sweeping statements on the relative intelligence levels of religious people or even our apparent untrustworthiness, please look back over the thread to see the progression if you are confused.

Yes I can, I posted an article about a lying pastor, you then proceeded to make an ad hominem attack towards me by dragging my signature into the discussion, thus taking the thread off topic.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Such matters are entirely irrelevant and it's nothing more than a transparent attempt to nudge this little chin wag out of an area you really don't appear to be able to defend

Equally as irrelevant to the main original topic of this thread as your respective tangent. If you are going to question my ability to be objective then I am allowed to rebut by saying you are in no position to make that judgment, and to request evidence for such. I find you refusal to say whether or not you believe in demon possession odd though. I didn't realize it was such a gray area for Christians.

Anyway I am not interested in a lengthy analysis of my statement. I am not saying I am even remotely in their league, but you could equally take any one of the truths from great minds like Mark Twain, Friedrich Nietzsche or Oscar Wilde and say that they are false. It still doesn't stop them resonating as true with a lot of people.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would argue that Christians don't have to prove anything.

Tell that to the Christians here then that spend most of their time trying to fastidiously prove everything about Christianity. I would also remind you of the Carl Sagan quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

PDN wrote: »

I'm ashamed to say that I was a member of Mensa for one year. Then I realised I should be smarter than to pay good money to be part of of an IQ willy-waving club.

Well if you where paying to be in the organization to only be in an "IQ willy-waving club" (how trite :rolleyes:) then I think you missed the point. It's mainly about community and meeting together with like minded individuals in your area to debate, play chess, explore opinions... etc. As I said I met agnostics, or people who where open to the idea of a Gods existence, which I generally respect, like Chris Langan that FC linked to, but none that admitted to tying themselves to a specific religious dogma.

Lets be honest, the Christians here are not just trying to prove God exists, they are trying to prove that the Christian God exists and is dragging all of his dogmatic commands and laws behind him. I have no problem with individuals speculating about Gods existence, as, in most cases, most scientific hypotheses start as mere speculation. It is the unfounded dogma that they graft onto their speculations, which they already practice, and say they "know" will get them immortality.

Anyway, this thread has gone off topic enough for me. If you want to discuss the article then by all means, I'll discuss it. If you wish to continue with this tirade on the contents of my previous signature then there is always the PM system. Or continue with this garrulous tangent for yourself, I feel no need to entertain it anymore in this thread.

Fanny Cradock

I'm lost for words if you argue that my challenge amounts to an ad hominem attack (a charge I reject) but then see not a trace of irony in your 'tar and feather' treatment of people who believe in God(s). I think I'll bow out of this debate - fun though it was.