Faith-based disaster-relief teams on standby as Florence nears

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

On top of all the state and federal disaster relief groups readying for Hurricane Florence as it barrels toward North and South Carolina are a group of expert helpers: the faith teams.
The biggest of these, North Carolina Baptists on Mission and the North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church, have made a name for themselves during previous hurricanes and other natural disasters, feeding people, clearing debris, gutting uninhabitable homes and rebuilding them from stud to kitchen cabinet.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2018/09/12/faith-based-disaster-relief-teams-on-standby-as-florence-nears/

[NeoGreen]

1. I guess this is eveidence that their prayers don't work...

...or maybe only the ones from New York, Florida and Texas got through, this time.

[3Hotdogs]

10. The prayers did work. If you had logged on to D.U. yesterday, you would have seen the video of

a constipated man praying to God to make the Category 5 hurricane go away from his church.

Well, he did and God listened. The hurricane is now Cat. 2 and looks like it is making a left hand turn to Georgia.

See? God listened to Pat Robertson and the church is saved..

[sprinkleeninow]

18. Hi there!

Not necessarily 'his' petitioning the Lord with prayer.

There's tons of others who will be listened to and granted mercy. Living plop on any coast esp. the eastern one carries pleasant benefits and also drawbacks.

[msongs]

2. loving god causes creates and sends a disaster nt

[sprinkleeninow]

8. No, He does not. And no, He did not. eom

[Voltaire2]

12. Not the first cause?

[sprinkleeninow]

17. No, it wasn't supposed to be this way. The only thing is how and what I (believe to) know

and you do not [believe]. I have no criticism of that.

Y'all are my brothers and sisters in humanity.

Ooh, but I lack critical thinking skills. 🤔

[Voltaire2]

19. I'm just trying to understand what you believe your

gods are.

Traditionally the Christian gods are the all knowing/powerful/present creators of the universe.

Not your gods?

[sprinkleeninow]

26. Why do you say--»'gods'?

The God of the Christian Faith as presented to me is not a multitude or combo of different 'gods' as were depicted by the Romans and Greeks in their time.

He is One in three distinct 'personalities' [my words]. Would you mind if I send a link and also copy an explanation from Orthodox Wiki?

[Voltaire2]

36. Seem to be at least three.

Plus a whole pantheon of godlets.

[sprinkleeninow]

37. The Triune God.

"Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in a single God who is both three and one (triune); the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, "one in essence and undivided". The Holy Trinity is three "unconfused" and distinct divine persons (hypostases), who share one divine essence (ousia); uncreated, immaterial and eternal."

[Wikipedia/Orthodox Christian Theology]

[link:https://oca.org/questions/teaching/the-trinity|

The God we know did not purposely create havoc, strife, disease, bloodshed, you name it. These entered in when disobedience took place.
I often wondered if we were 'Adam' and 'Eve', or, IOW, the first humans, if we would have resisted the enemy's enticement to partake of what was already the knowledge of evil. I think we would've succumbed also.

This is the belief presented to me and if I tried to reject it, which I wouldn't anyway, I just could not.

My belief is so very strong. It originates in the spiritual realm. There was no coercion, demanding, no brainwashing. I choose this.

Did you expect an answer in sincerity? This is my answer in sincerity.

[Voltaire2]

39. Still seem to be gods.

Even if you want to refer to them as one.

But this “The God we know did not purposely create havoc, strife, disease, bloodshed, you name it. These entered in when disobedience took place”

Makes no sense. Bad things are your gods’ punishments for disobedience, but your gods did not purposely create them? Sounds like an abusive relationship.

[sprinkleeninow]

40. The Nous: Closed nous? Closed spirit.

[link:https://orthodoxwiki.org/Nous|

[link:http://orthochristian.com/79038.html|

[link:http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/patristic-theology-romanides-chapter-1-what-is-the-human-nous.aspx|

[Voltaire2]

41. But you still have gods you claim are punishing

us with horrible shit for our disobedience while also claiming your gods aren’t responsible for that same horrible shit.

As far as”nous” - it’s just mystical nonsense to me. There is no soul no nous- your consciousness is an emergent property of your brain. No brain, no you.

[sprinkleeninow]

42. I can say no more. Not angry by any means. Have a good one. n/t

[sprinkleeninow]

85. Oh my DOG. My 'godses' did not purposely create 'bad things' in order

to punish for disobedience.

The bad things are the result in converse of any good and beneficent thing that can be, is presently in pockets, and should've been. The peoples have brought destruction upon their own heads. Me included. What do you think that I have attained Godly perfection?

The stupid devil has lost and is more aggravated than ever. God coming for us and having it all finalize. Why are my words showing up in Italian and it's not one of my keyboard downloads?? 🤔

[Major Nikon]

43. So Jesus on the cross was asking himself why Jesus had forsaken Jesus?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A46&version=NRSV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+15%3A34&version=NRSV

[sprinkleeninow]

54. I am prepared to have y'all make something outta this.

Jesus, in His humanity, asked this of The Father while experiencing extreme suffering.

Seeing we accept the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, we understand He, Jesus, was expressing Himself as would another human in the flesh.

Jesus, before He became the Christ, asked His Father to let the cup of the future suffering pass from Him. Asked in His humanity. Then, in His Divinity and why He became incarnate to begin with, He assumed the reason He came for all of us in the first place.

I am no theologian with erudite words. Just me explaining in terms of the 'laos'.

[Major Nikon]

55. So Jesus isn't the "Father"?

Seems to defeat your allegation that Eastern Orthodox doctrine is monotheistic.

Either Jesus was asking himself why he had forsaken himself, which seems more than a bit ridiculous, or the whole "triune" god thing is little more than an idea of convenience which not only has no basis in the synoptic gospels, but lots of evidence against it.

[sprinkleeninow]

57. There is basis in the gospels. I provided some links explaining

The Holy Trinity so far.

I have an Orthodox Bible, New and Old Testament from which I can provide more succinct answers with clarity. Eventually.

We just came out of a major hurricane unscathed and I am so grateful, but have enormous distress for all others who got hit so hard. So, I need to suspend this chat for a time.

Peace be unto you.

[Major Nikon]

58. There is no evidence in the synoptic gospels

Turning Christ into a god came much later, as in centuries later.

[sprinkleeninow]

59. Christ is in the OT. He is not named, but is in there in types, figures, epiphanies.

Toodles.

[Major Nikon]

60. Believe it or not, so am I

I'm not mentioned by name, but it's in there all the same I promise.

[sprinkleeninow]

61. My afternoon isslippingaway. Why yes. Yes you are. (Mentioned.)

[Major Nikon]

62. I'll be awaiting your worship

[sprinkleeninow]

63. That's not in the cards. But to honor you and give you some earthly deference is

acceptable. 😊

[Major Nikon]

64. Why not? The evidence is the same.

For all you know I could be your creator.

[sprinkleeninow]

65. 'He' wouldn't give me a hard time. Just sayin'....

[Major Nikon]

66. Certainly "He" never gave anyone a hard time, right?

Unless you count the 2 million or so killed and countless suffering rendered.

[sprinkleeninow]

68. Human beings are the cause of death, destruction and suffering.

Guess what. I will hold to my knowledge of the Divinity and accompanying faith I willingly accept and adhere to [in my still fallen condition], AND, if I have been deceived or it was totally in vain, I will relent and admit to you that you were correct.

[marylandblue]

71. What about natural disasters? What did we do to cause those?

[sprinkleeninow]

77. As our ' belief' is

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2018, 12:14 AM - Edit history (2)

that in the very beginning, in principal, the human being creation, our human 'mother' and 'father', named, but not necessarily only one female and one male, chose to disobey what their Transcendent and Eternal Father asked them not to partake of, out of His immeasurable and unfathomable Love for them.


And then, 'they' did otherwise. Decay, corruption, flip-side stuff was given place to.

Some have claimed they wouldn't have been beguiled and succumbed if it were them. Yeah, right.

[Major Nikon]

73. Not according to your reference

Just sayin’

[sprinkleeninow]

79. Yeah, I know. God's primary aim is to inflict hurt on the very creation He

holds as His Crown of Creation. Oh, yeah, He takes great delight in it.
I 'smilied' this, just in case.

The animal kingdom or the plant kingdom. They didn't deserve any of this corruption, and were pulled into it by the original humans that had understanding and they blew it.

This age will not go on forever and it will cease to be thanks to the introduction of disobedience and contrariness. Just sayin'.

Ready, 1-2-3. Ever'body, POUNCE!

[Major Nikon]

82. How would you know either way?

[sprinkleeninow]

83. How would you know anyway? 😘

I added a googly face to soften my reply, just in case.

[Major Nikon]

84. I'm not claiming otherwise

Just sayin’

[Girard442]

3. "God's opened a lot of doors..."

That line kind of creeped me out a little. Otherwise a good article.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. To read more:

North Carolina Baptists.

Go on. Keep singing their praises. And then tell us how these homophobic theocratric pricks "aren't perfect".

[guillaumeb]

5. Whataboutism?

From you?

[sprinkleeninow]

9. Guillaume,

😍

[Voltaire2]

13. Er no. It's about the same group.

If the poster had pulled up a secular relief agency for example to divert from this grand gesture by these god fearing upright citizens you are so proud of, you would have a point.

Instead the poster pointed out that these people’s religious beliefs are basically horrendous.

[guillaumeb]

23. And the intent was ony to divert from the actual article.

So yes, it is whataboutism.

[Major Nikon]

44. You funny

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Whataboutism generally doesn't apply when one is discussing the same group of people.

Your local heroes are an auxillary of North Carolina Baptists. Next time, Google harder.

[guillaumeb]

24. It is whataboutism.

And the fact that you deny it shows that you do not understand the fallacy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. Perhaps you could take time out of your busy day to explain.

Blathering idiots such as myself, incapable of grasping even the most rudimentary elements of logic, could benefit from your vast knowledge and experience. Fire away, professor.

[guillaumeb]

33. Or, you could do some research for yourself.

The emotional benefit would be great.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Thought not.

[Mariana]

11. "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband..."

She's his servant?

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Yep.

But POBODY'S NERFECT AMIRITE???

[Mariana]

16. IT'S GOT NOTHIGN TO DO WITH THERE RELIGOIN!!1!1

Besides, once upon a time, the Boston Atheists expelled a disruptive member for being disruptive (that's what the disruptive member said, anyway), so whatabout that???

[trotsky]

25. ATHEIST INTOLERANCE, THAT'S WHAT THAT IS!!!

ZOMGWTFBBQLOL!!!

[guillaumeb]

28. No, the Boston atheist group, a non-political group,

expelled a member for being a Trump supporter. If you wish to refer to the story, it would help to refer to it accurately.

[Mariana]

30. That is not what you said at the time, Gil.

Perhaps you should put more effort into keeping your stories straight.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218242092

By the way, several of the participants on that thread have been banned from DU, and yet, here you are, tolerating the intolerance of the DU admins who censored them.

[guillaumeb]

31. Sorry, but the article and the link make it clear that you are incorrect.

As to the participants, and what you call "intolerance by the Administrators", that is a subject for a question by you to the Administrators.

[trotsky]

34. No, it's a question for you to ponder, gil.

Because your criticism of Boston Atheists is exactly as hollow as criticism of the DU Admins for banning certain people.

[Mariana]

47. I didn't refer to the article, Gil.

I referred to what you had to say at the time about the expelled member. Here, I will repeat my exact words from the headline in post #30: "That is not what you said at the time, Gil."

[Major Nikon]

45. You mean the train wreck of a thread that proved you have no clue what "intolerance" means?

Not to mention the fact you unsurprisingly dodged the question of why the DU admin aren't "intolerant" in the exact same way you ridiculously allege the Boston Atheists are "intolerant".

[Mariana]

48. Not to mention, the accusation of "intolerance" by the Boston Atheists

is based entirely on the word of a known liar. The expelled member falsely accused the Boston Atheists of violating his First Amendment right to free speech. Of course, they did no such thing.

[Major Nikon]

50. Pretzel logic used to rush to the defense of a Trump supporter

Very telling that, especially when it's completely moronic to anyone who bothered to read just the first word of the First Amendment.

[guillaumeb]

53. No, the thread that provided specifics about a group of atheists

behaving intolerantly. Unless your position is that atheists cannot be intolerant.

[Major Nikon]

56. Would banning a Trump supporting asshole on DU be an example of "intolerance"?

Think harder before you answer.

And while you are thinking on that one, please don't expect that your false dilemma fallacy which you used as a weak attempt at a reply went unnoticed. I suppose if I wanted to use your same gibberish logic I could ask if your position is that believers can't be ignorant.

[guillaumeb]

67. DU is reserved for Democrats.

Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2018, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

The Boston group was a non-politically restricted group, until they discovered the Trump supporter.

Perhaps you should do more research before you respond.

[trotsky]

69. Tell the whole story, gil. Not just the part you're cherry-picking.

They booted him because he was disruptive. Democrats and liberals can get booted from DU for being disruptive, too.

Additionally, they booted him because one of the group's primary goals was to support strict separation of church and state. They were supporting Hillary Clinton because she did as well. Trump's stated policies went against their group's goals.

You have tried SO LONG to make that incident "stick" as your most egregious example of "atheistic intolerance", and you have to whitewash and deceive to do it.

That's deplorable, gil.

[guillaumeb]

70. Go to the post,

read the entire article at the link.

His behavior was judged "disruptive" in that some members of the group decided to change what was a previously non-political group.

Speaking of cherries, and picking, you should make a pie.

[trotsky]

86. FFS gil, you're STILL going to bat for a Trump supporter.

The group always WAS political. They always supported church-state separation. Hillary supported that goal, Trump did not.

Your poor little Trump supporter was disruptive and did not support the same goals of the group, so they kicked him out.

You're REALLY barking up the wrong tree looking for sympathy for that dude on DEMOCRATIC Underground. Fucking deplorable.

[Major Nikon]

72. So if "intolerance" is stated by rule it's no longer intolerance

Brilliant!

[guillaumeb]

74. Once again, you missed the point.

The actual point is that it was not established as an explicitly political group.

Brilliant indeed.

[Major Nikon]

75. So the point is had they done so, it would no longer be "intolerance"

Please continue. This level of brilliance is a sight to be hold, not to mention the lengths you will go to in order to defend a Trump supporter is only exceeded by the lengths you will go to in order to defend a culture of child rape.

[guillaumeb]

76. That was your third strike.

Did you miss that inconvenient fact that this group was not a political group?

[Major Nikon]

78. Wow, an actual attempt at a dodge that wasn't canned

I’m not convinced this dodge is any better, but at least you get credit for effort albeit not much in this case.

Meanwhile your point was a half-fast allegation of “intolerance” so if you don’t want to or can’t support that allegation the most honest approach would be to say so rather than coming up with lame excuses as to why you won’t.

[sprinkleeninow]

81. Guillaume,

Mon cher frère:-
Rain's gonna fall, sun's gonna shine, peacocks gonna strut.
💙

[guillaumeb]

88. Very true.

One must be true to one's nature.

And, in keeping with your own bi-lingual post:

Ce qui resemble, s'assemble.

[sprinkleeninow]

89. Would that be ''Birds of a feather...''

à la Française? 😊

Tous adorable. [Phonetically speaking!] 🤗💙

[guillaumeb]

90. Correct.

And they do. And often the birds sing quite harmoniously. (I am trying to avoid using the word choir.)

[sprinkleeninow]

91. Ah. 😄

Yours truly,
Ms. Googly Faces

[trotsky]

87. It has always been politically active, advocating for strong church-state separation.

You are SO desperate to try and pin this as some kind of "atheistic intolerance," you are making a fool of yourself by trying to garner sympathy for a Trump-loving disruptor on DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[sprinkleeninow]

80. Ooh, false dilemma fallacy! Lemme have some o' dat... 😋

[trotsky]

20. Neat.

Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.

Interesting, isn't it, the types of Christians gil chooses to promote?

[MineralMan]

6. Good for them. They can join all the other groups rushing there to

help. We have a bunch of power line maintenance trucks on their way. People from all over the country are heading there to be of assistance.

[guillaumeb]

7. Agreed.

[trotsky]

21. Are they helping because of their religion?

Or because they are human?

Think about that one before you answer.

[Mariana]

22. It's a great opportunity for recruiting, and for soliciting donations.

"God's opened a lot of doors..."

[guillaumeb]

35. Or.....

are they helping for both reasons?

[trotsky]

46. I asked you.

Take care with your answer. It WILL be quoted in the future if necessary.

[Mariana]

49. It must be against Jesus's message to answer questions directly. nt.

[MineralMan]

52. Only the inconvenient questions. As Jesus said:

"If thine enemies question you, answer only those questions you wish to answer."

[Croney]

27. As an atheist, I think this is exactly what churches should be doing.

Helping people in need. That's fine, if churches have to exist anyway. It's when their help is just an excuse for proselytizing, and the holier-than-thou declarations of God is Good! begin that I want to puke. Gimme a break.

[guillaumeb]

29. Yes, this is a good role for churches,

and other groups. But the primary role should be an effective government response. And the GOP has no interest in effective governance.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. It's nice that they're ready to clean up God's messes.