Uh, you misunderstood me. My problem isn't about those books and DVDs in the library. My problem is that they are in the science biology section.
OK, was ill and sleepless (I suspect bad NM tomatoes) so I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.
The library is a place for people to seek knowledge. It's not a place to spread your propaganda. All I ask is they be put in the right place.
Libraries using the Dewey classification system, most publics, schools, and even many junior colleges, use the rules contained in the DDC 22 (the 22nd version of the Dewey Decimal Classification System). The reason they use a standardized system is so that the books on each subject are in the same place in relation to each other from library to library. The same reasoning applies to the LC (Library of Congress) system used in the largest publics and universities.
The rules change over time. For example in DDC 21, Christianity was 200-289 while all other religions were 290-299. Under DDC 22, Christianity is 200-229 and everything else 230-299.
It appears your main issue is not with the library itself but most likely with the DDC 22. Send your protests to:
OCLC 6565 Kilgour Place Dublin, Ohio 43017-3395 USA T 614-764-6000 1-800-848-5878 (USA and Canada only) F 614-764-6096 E oclc@oclc.org
I feel had you taken up this issue with the Library Director instead of what was probably a 'circulation clerk' it would have been explained better as most directors have at least Master's degrees in the field and are surprisingly well educated compared to the usual public perception.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
But wouldn't people who are desperate and hurting go to someone who hasn't been exposed as a crook yet? I mean all these people are doing is setting themselves up for more desperation and hurt.
Makes you wonder why Jesus allows this disgraceful behaviour to happen in His name.
But wouldn't people who are desperate and hurting go to someone who hasn't been exposed as a crook yet? I mean all these people are doing is setting themselves up for more desperation and hurt.
You do have to wonder.
Brian writes:
Makes you wonder why Jesus allows this disgraceful behaviour to happen in His name.
I guess this is what happens when people are given free will. I know I argued against it, but Taz does have a point that Christians should be doing more to expose these charlatans. I think most of us have no idea how to combat it. What I don't understand is why, when he was exposed he didn't wind up in jail.
I hope this is one of those threads that are for open discussion because we've wandered way off the original subject.
What I don't understand is why, when he was exposed he didn't wind up in jail.
When I first encountered crooks like Popoff, I had no idea they were crooks. Yes, this was when I was still a christian fundamentalist. In fact, for a time I was seriously considering leaving everything and be a full time volunteer to help do the lord's work. I remember hearing some people talking about these people being crooks, and I was absolutely furious. I wanted to believe so much that them not being real prophets was out of the question.
The point is one would hope that we could hold these scam artists responsible for the hurt they've caused. But there are simply too many people like my former self. We can't hold these people responsible for the hurt they've caused like we can with real doctors and other health professionals. Why? Because god may or may not cure people. There's no way to know.
As long as there are still laws in place to protect faith healers from prosecution, people like Popoff will always be able to make huge amounts of cash from desperate religious people.
Now that I think about it, I honestly think it wouldn't have made a difference if these crooks were exposed. My faith was stronger than any fact anyone could present.
And people wonder why I have such a negative attitude toward faith. It makes people stupid!
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Here is another televangelist that used to have my soul.
If you notice on the clip the guy they interviewed denouncing Hinn was from a Christian watchdog organization. Obviously there are Christians trying to do something about the charlatans.
What you have rejected is in my view a perversion of Christianity. If I had to choose between Hinn, Popoff or Atheism I guess I would choose Atheism too.
Taz writes:
And people wonder why I have such a negative attitude toward faith. It makes people stupid!
Obviously the vast majority of Christians are not duped by these guys. I know a lot of people of faith and frankly I don't find them more or less stupid than anybody else. I don't know why you were taken in by theses guys in the first place, but you can hardly judge everybody else stictly based on your own expereince.
I believe in a God that is better represented by Augustine, CS Lewis and N.T. Wright, (who has the advantage of still being alive).
To go back to the other question though. The clip of Popoff showed pretty conclusively that he was gaining information through an ear piece to dupe the people in the audience. Based on this false information, he was raking in great gobs of money. It sure seems to me that would constitute fraud.
I don't know why you were taken in by theses guys in the first place, but you can hardly judge everybody else stictly based on your own expereince.
Sure, I can. Look at the percentage of the population that votes for a ban on gay marriage. Look at how many churches rally to ban gay marriage. Read the other thread to see why I think this is a moral issue and why christians are immoral for not supporting gay marriage.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
We're going to see more of this: evangelicals trying to make room for one to accept the findings of science while keeping one's credentials as an 'evangelical' Christian intact. It starts with broadening the identifying label.
Outsiders will hoot it down as the shift-with-denial that it is. But the effort is not being made for outsiders. It is being made for those inside the camp. People inside are trying to make it OK for others in the herd to move on--to quit lashing themselves, and the herd's credibility, to failed ideas. They are giving each other permission.
First comes the shift with its broadening of terms, accompanied by self-congratulation for showing such characteristically Christian tolerance. (Don't laugh too loud. This is a hard-earned perk, given the censure the pioneers face at first within the herd.) Next, after some progress is made, comes the fun part: the head-shaking and wonderment they may now start expressing toward outsiders. 'Why, we evangelicals don't deny evolution! Where do you people come up with these silly stereotypes?!'
It's been done before. See topic Divorce and Remarriage, dates 1960-1990. If you're in the mood to browse a little further back in the archives, check out Temperance Movement and Slavery.
Evolution denial now is like those other positions then. The stance is losing ground and the losses will continue. But in this case no one will run any white flags up over the fort. That's not how most failed ideas go out.
Usually, they just fade away. The fort falls into ruin, abandoned.
Today's YECs will have grandchildren who, like their elders, profess Christianity. But those grandchildren will have no problem at all with scientific findings on evolution, plate tectonics and the speed of light. They will find their grandparents' ignorance of science faintly embarrassing, perhaps a little amusing, but a period piece in any case. They will not see it as their fault. And they will be right.
You made an excellent point in Message 34 about coercion. Certainly anyone who says 'I have food. Now accept my religion or starve' is behaving like a monster.
But I think you lost the thread of it in Message 36.
Um, there are other ways you can preach beside using your mouth, you know. Some do it with songs. Some do it with bill boards. You'd be surprised what kinds of creative ways christians come up with to spread the "good word".
Preaching (sharing one's message, in this case) is not the same thing as 'forcing someone to give up their culture,' which was the scenario you presented earlier.
Lutheran World Relief (Lutheran World Relief), for example, sends food and emergency supplies all over the world. They don't preach (Phat's definition), don't coerce anything, and don't expect anyone to give up their culture.
But the bags of grain they send do have Lutheran stencilled on the sides as part of the identifier 'Lutheran World Relief.' The superhero still wears a modest emblem on his spandex--or, in this case, burlap.
By your definition this constitutes a 'billboard' and thus 'preaching' and thus--big stretch here--coercion and cultural genocide and even (as you imply with your example about the Spanish) actual genocide.
Sorry. I don't buy it.
If food = genocide for a burlap bag from LWR then the same principle applies to the Red Cross, Red Crescent, the UN and any other source of help that gets acknowledgement. The only ideologically pure way to help anyone, in The Gospel According to Taz, is to give all gifts anonymously.
Perhaps this is the purest way to do it. If so, then perhaps every other way of doing it--every way in which the giver's identity is known or acknowledged--is less pure. But does 'less pure' mean 'invalid' or even 'damaging'? Is it practical to ask that all help given to anyone anywhere be 100% pure in its anonymity or don't bother?
Nope. Don't buy it.
This looks like a GWB 'I don't do nuance' cartoon: absolute purity versus absolute evil.
If you really believe this, please feel free to make a more persuasive case. Or just cut the Lutherans and the UN some slack. Your call.
Evolution denial now is like those other positions then. The stance is losing ground and the losses will continue. But in this case no one will run any white flags up over the fort. That's not how most failed ideas go out.
The question is of course is not whether you beleive in evolution or not but whether you belive evoultion is contrary to the Bible. I'm not a biologist and can't comment on evolution from that point of view, and although I take the Bible very seriously I don't believe that in anyway precludes evoltion.
This isn't a new position. C.S. Lewis had no problem with evolution. For the most part it has never been an issue for the majority of orthodox Christians.
You might find this new talk by N. T. Wright interesting.
The only ideologically pure way to help anyone, in The Gospel According to Taz, is to give all gifts anonymously.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. They can certainly identify themselves. But they need to realize that people who live day by day not knowing when they'd starve are very vulnerable physically and mentally. There is a difference between identifying oneself as being a secular organization and a religious organization when trying to help these people out. With a secular organization, the question of spirituality and faith is neutral. Anyone can approach and be approached without touching the sensitive issue of culture and religion. But with a religious organization, the question of assimilation comes into the picture. Whether there are actually conscious coercion involved is beside the point. People who are physically and mentally vulnerable will most certainly see all the mentioning of christ as a way at converting them.
When I said think superhero, I didn't actually mean cover your face and don't let anyone know you're there. I meant not talk about your faith while people are eating. It is immoral to do so especially when you know for a fact that these people are in no physical or mental condition to defend against conversion and assimilation.
And that's the point that people seem to ignore. Why is it that everyone keeps comparing feeding the poor to having a "cook out"? I've already explained why the two are incomparable. In a "cook out", I can just stand up and walk away without feeling any loss. The same cannot be said about being fed when you have absolutely nothing.
Certainly anyone who says 'I have food. Now accept my religion or starve' is behaving like a monster.
Archer, coercion isn't always as obvious. If it's ever that obvious, I don't think anyone would actually fall for the crooks like Popoff and Hinn.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
The UN is a community of many different people from many backgrounds. There's no chance in hell at converting or assimilating anyone to any particular religion or culture simply because of the diverse background of the people involve. Lutherans... as a matter of fact I love them. They're one of the friendlier christians I know. The only complaint I would have about their missionary works is that they need to realize that it's not fair to even mention christ to people who are in no physical or mental condition to defend against coercion. There's a difference between educating these folks of ideas that would help uplift their lives and "educating" them of the god of abraham.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
™ Version 4.2