Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity: For entertainment purposes only?
VirtuousGuile
Junior Member (Idle past 5782 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 05-28-2008


Message 19 of 64 (468366)
05-29-2008 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brian
05-28-2008 9:59 AM


Self-Righteous Christians???
Well, the onus should now be on Christian churches to prove that they are not misleading the people that they give Bibles and help to.
Being that Britain is the colonial home of New Zealand(YAY!!!) I would be interested in who does the social work over there.
A common charge against Christians is that they only talk about their faith rather than living it. Thus Self-Righteous Christians. But the one thing that keeps my mind in check if I near that charge now is that in New Zealand about 70% percent of the social welfare work is done by Christians.This amazed me as they are a minority of our population.
My question to you Brian is what do you do to help people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 05-28-2008 9:59 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brian, posted 05-29-2008 5:31 AM VirtuousGuile has not replied

  
VirtuousGuile
Junior Member (Idle past 5782 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 05-28-2008


Message 20 of 64 (468368)
05-29-2008 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
05-28-2008 7:18 AM


Rubbish
Under the 1951 Fraudulent Mediums Act, prosecutors had to prove that the psychic, medium or faith healer had intended to be fraudulent in order to secure a conviction.
But under the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive the onus is now on the person providing the service to prove that they did not intentionally mislead their customers.
This is directly affecting Spiritualist churches in the UK, who now have to inform their congregations that everything they read of hear at their Church is “for entertainment purposes only”.
Even if this Litz did publish this they would be abnormal or at least there would be faiths where it would not be.
Secondly, they only need to show that they were not misleading the person. Or rather that they believed that the person would be healed.
In New Zealand a bartender is not allowed to serve an 'intoxicated person'. Yet it happens regularly every week. Point is as long as the bartender says that in my judgment he wasn't then he is sweet.
Prove it.
Certainly gold diggers will go after Spiritual Healers.
The stats show that this improves peoples recovery rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 05-28-2008 7:18 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brian, posted 05-29-2008 6:12 AM VirtuousGuile has replied

  
VirtuousGuile
Junior Member (Idle past 5782 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 05-28-2008


Message 23 of 64 (468378)
05-29-2008 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Brian
05-29-2008 6:12 AM


Yes how would you convince a jury?
Firstly, Brian good for you. Sadly my experience is that you are an exception. I was hoping for a positive response.
How would a psychic medium prove that they weren't misleading a client? How can they prove that they get messages from dead people?
They have to prove that were not misleading. Essentially based on subjective interpretation.(that is if my understanding of the amendment is complete)
This is my point. If psychics have to prove that what they offer is genuine then why don't Christian ministers? If psychics need to provide a disclaimer that what they provide is for 'entertainment purposes only', then why shouldn't ministers provide the same disclaimer?
Once again they can only be prosecuted if found guilty of misleading. As in my case of the N.Z. bartender they have to admit that they served a person who they believed to be intoxicated otherwise prosecution is useless(p.s. no one has ever been charged under the law because you cannot prosecute - was he drunk 'well I didn't think so'...)
My point is that it will be difficult to prosecute under this law.
[qs]When a minister takes 50 donation or blessing fo rhis church for providing a funeral service, then why shouldn't that minister have the burden of proof that your loved one is indeed safe in the arms of Jesus? At funerals, Christian ministers always go on about Jesus victory over death, well let them proove this victory or make the statement "Jesus rose from the dead so that we can have eternal life, however this information if for entertainment purposes only".[/ps]
Now I don't understand U.K. economics nor the particulars of the case, nor the particulars of what that money was used for. My experience people in ministry is that they do not get paid a lot in fact it is a joke.
A relevant issue regardless is this. Do you get paid teacher? Teaching is a good service that is required why do I pay taxes or school fees to pay you teach my kids? You've gotta eat too buddy, so does a minister.
Edited by VirtuousGuile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Brian, posted 05-29-2008 6:12 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Brian, posted 05-29-2008 7:47 AM VirtuousGuile has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024