|
|
|
|
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 3/16/2008 11:38:03 PM | Ok instead of ex Christian why don't we use the term ex religious. Because actually Christ was against organized religions too. He called them as he saw them..hypocrits. He spoke against those who prayed long prayers in the synogogues to be heard of men. And those who put their money in the box to be seen for how much they give.
I hate to see these big huge church buildings going up when there are people in the cities without a home or who are starving and people go to these big places and have big dinner parties and throw away enough food to feed a whole city. That's what really irks me and I know it would have irked Jesus too. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/17/2008 12:04:46 AM | Thank you reverend.....for adding to the christian lexicon....wouldabees and couldabeees are also possibilities.....but I suppose it is better to label things by what they are, rather than by what they are not. Christians of my acquaintanceship would find it passing weird if I referred routinely to them as non-atheists or non any other sectarian belief system.
In deference to the optimist's demand for definitional exactitude, I did for a while described my spiritual position to being an apostate.....the only problem was that few could understand the meaning of the word , with most being rather sympathetic, asking whether the operation had been painful, and one asking whether my libido had recovered!  | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 3/17/2008 12:14:37 AM | I think referring to people as ex-christians, when your speaking about a group who specifically used to be a christians is ok.
Simply for clarities sake, and I'm an Atheist. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/14/2008 12:31:07 PM | | -please note; all Christians are catholic, the rest are a result of protests against the dogma of the church, so all other Christian denominations are perversions , of the one and only mother church. Personally, i do not believe in the church, or religion of any sort. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/14/2008 6:37:39 PM | please note; all Christians are catholic, the rest are a result of protests against the dogma of the church, so all other Christian denominations are perversions , of the one and only mother church.
WRONG! Oh so WRONG! And ignorant. And insulting. Actually, you should be spanked by a Mod for such a hateful mischaracterization of an identifiable group, namely referring to them as a "perversion". The English words are not difficult, but here they are for you to help you understand them:
Christian: one who believes in Jesus Christ. I'm not going to get into doctrinal and theological differences. It's sufficiently recognised and universal as to make it a "given".
Catholic: A member church that is part of the group "Christian" (see above)
Protestant: Historically, a member of those groups that were part of the group "Christian", and may have been part of the group "Catholic" who "protested" and broke away form the group "Catholic", specifically during the Reformation. It's historically accurate but offensive to many to refer to these groups as "Protestant" today because they have sufficient history to be regarded as standing alone and not a sub-set of any other group (other than "Christian").
non-X: Not a member of group "X", ALL persons who are not a member of group X. While logically correct, it's can be offensive to refer to a non-member of a group in this way, so it's better to refer to them by the group to which they belong. For example, Atheists, by definition, are part of the group non-Christian, but it would be improper and rude to refer to them that way.
ex-Y: Once a member of group "Y", but now not.
former Y: same as ex-Y
I hope that helps. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/14/2008 7:08:13 PM | As a rationalist/realist I find it mildly amusing when members of the various christian cults on here start pissing on each others bonfires... | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/14/2008 8:43:12 PM | Sorry if you can not accept the fact that all mainstream, protestant, or reformed churches have there roots in the catholic church, but it is a simple fact,take the reformation as an example, Calvin ,Luther, were catholic priests. Henry the 8th wanted a marriage to go away
(Martin Luther wanted to marry the nun he was having sex with). No matter how you slice it, protestants are just that. a sub sect or a cult that derived from the one and only catholic church. I fail to see how this would be offensive, the church they where protesting against needed reform, and is still caught up in the dark ages, more interested in dogma and rituals that have nothing whatsoever to do with the teaching of the bible, or more to the point the ministry of Jesus.
I in no way want to insult anybody that believes in a Christian sect, or cult, they do not have to belong the church.
And I do understand your point of view, or rather your opinion, but you are not even close to the basic facts.
The term 'protestant', is still used by the government of the United States and Canada
I would think the reason is that anybody can start a 'church', and there are so many, that are outside the Catholic religion that it would not be practical to list them all.
Once again, I did not want to insult anyone. I still do not personally follow any religion, or protestant sects. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/14/2008 8:52:31 PM | want to travel said:
Sorry if you can not accept the fact that all mainstream, protestant, or reformed churches have there roots in the catholic church, but it is a simple fact,take the reformation as an example, Calvin ,Luther, were catholic priests. Henry the 8th wanted a marriage to go away
(Martin Luther wanted to marry the nun he was having sex with). No matter how you slice it, protestants are just that. a sub sect or a cult that derived from the one and only catholic church.
Considering that I'm a Catholic, I don't particularly have much dispute with what you said there regarding Protestants' roots in the Catholic Church, although John Calvin was never a Catholic priest. He was a lawyer before joining the Protestant movement. It's true that Luther was an ex-priest and ex-Augustinian monk.
the church they where protesting against needed reform, and is still caught up in the dark ages, more interested in dogma and rituals that have nothing whatsoever to do with the teaching of the bible, or more to the point the ministry of Jesus.
If we're "still stuck in the dark ages", then I'm proud of it.
I believe that all of the dogmas and rites of my church stem naturally from Scripture and all point toward the teachings of Christ. It was for this belief that I joined up in the first place. But if you have a dispute there, you'll have to name some specifics. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 12:03:50 AM | Sure!
Weekly Confession, Rosaries, intercession of the saints and the entire concept of sainthood, the image of Hell, the notion of "mortal" sins, expensive buildings, hail marys, elaborate golden candellabras, the Stations of the Cross, the ranks of religious ministers (cardinals, bishops, etc), plenary indulgences, the entire concept of a "pope", confirmation, the Communion of Saints, childhood baptism, the belief in transubstantiation, the notion of infallability, purgatory, the 7 deadly sins...
The thing I find strange about the Catholic church is that it takes tiny bits of scripture, such as "Confess your sins, one to another" and turns them into elaborate rituals and mythologies such as Confession. A simple suggestion to not have secrets from one another becomes at best an empty ritual, and at worst a tool for power, manipulation and humiliation.
This seems to be the case with much of Catholic dogma. While it's rooted in the exact words of the bible, I don't believe the spirit of the statements are there. It's just... commercialised. Or to use your OWN word... a perversion.
While I'll admit that some of the above listed doctrines and dogmas have now been revoked (plenary indulgences, and I believe purgatory) they were in their time simply invented from whole cloth, and resulted in vast wealth to the church. Or perhaps fashioned from some sort of incomplete cloth. There may have been a print. I'm not sure.
Regarding the OP post of Catholicism or Fundamentalism... I think perhaps that's valid. I think in some ways Catholicism and Fundamentalism represent extremes, and those extremes naturally lose members. Catholicism is at the extreme of the traditional, the uncompromising, and the ritualistic. I think those things and the extreme weight of dogma cause many people to question. On the fundie side (my own background) I think the general feel of "craziness" and the adherence to a worldview with remarkably few good answers to difficult questions (such as dinosaur fossils) and an overall focus on "everyone who doesn't believe what I do is going to hell" mentality... You can only really believe that for a certain amount of time before you really start to think about it, and once you start to question it it begins to unravel.
I know of my social group in high school, ALL of them were fundamentalists. My best friend was also my cousin, and his father was the pastor of our church. Most of my friends were church friends, and all went to our church youth group. I met my ex-wife at church. Very few of us are still believers. In our early to mid 20s there were just too many questions that life makes you ask. And there weren't any answers. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 1:44:27 AM | whitegold765 said:
Sure!
Weekly Confession, Rosaries, intercession of the saints and the entire concept of sainthood, the image of Hell, the notion of "mortal" sins, expensive buildings, hail marys, elaborate golden candellabras, the Stations of the Cross, the ranks of religious ministers (cardinals, bishops, etc), plenary indulgences, the entire concept of a "pope", confirmation, the Communion of Saints, childhood baptism, the belief in transubstantiation, the notion of infallability, purgatory, the 7 deadly sins...
Alright. Well, I doubt anyone is interested in reading a complete defense of every single one of those items, but yes, I do believe that each of them have a solid basis in Scripture as well as the historic teaching of the Christian Faith, or at least do not stand against them. But if you are actually interested, I'll provide.
The thing I find strange about the Catholic church is that it takes tiny bits of scripture, such as "Confess your sins, one to another" and turns them into elaborate rituals and mythologies such as Confession.
Well, alright... I'll offer a defense on this point of doctrine. The primary understanding of Catholic and Orthodox confession is derived from John 20:23, where after the Resurrection, Christ breathes the Holy Ghost on the Apostles and says "whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained". Bishops and priests who bear the apostolic succession, passed from bishop to bishop through the laying of hands in an unbroken chain all the way back to one of the twelve Apostles, bear this authority today.
Interestingly, I came to believe in Catholic confession after attending a Bible study in a Protestant church about Old Testament confession practices. In the Levitical law, Israelite men confessed their sins before a priest of the Old Covenant while laying their hands upon a sacrificial lamb (or other animal). The sin symbolically transferred from the man to the lamb, and the lamb was slain by the priest, the sin dying with it. To me, this illustrated the Christian doctrine of Christ as the Agnus Dei, the Lamb of God, very well; and to me, the best way of expressing it is through oral confession before a priest.
In the early Church, confession was practiced by confessing before the entire church assembly. After the Constantinian shift, this method became impractical simply because the congregations had become so large. It was necessary for people to confess their sins to a priest individually throughout the course of a day or by appointment, rather than in a public gathering. The confessional booth comes to us from medieval Irish monastic practices. However, today, many Catholic churches offer public confession services (as in ancient times) as well as private (whether behind a screen in a traditional booth, or face to face).
A simple suggestion to not have secrets from one another becomes at best an empty ritual, and at worst a tool for power, manipulation and humiliation.
With what I said above in mind, I've never thought of confession as an empty ritual, but rather, one that's full of sacramental power and spiritual healing. I've had many life-changing experiences through oral confession.
While I'll admit that some of the above listed doctrines and dogmas have now been revoked (plenary indulgences, and I believe purgatory) they were in their time simply invented from whole cloth, and resulted in vast wealth to the church.
We Catholics believe that a dogma or doctrine is eternal; it can never be changed or revoked, although a better understanding of it may develop over time. We still believe in purgatory and indulgences. I've been working to start a purgatorial society; a group of friends and I attend Catholic funerals and Requiem Masses to pray for the souls of the faithful departed in purgatory. We're working on learning how to pray the Office of the Dead. Needless to say, purgatory is an essential belief of the Catholic faith.
I obtain indulgences on a fairly regular basis. Partial indulgences are granted by acts as simple as devoutly making the sign of the cross or reading Scripture. Plenary indulgences are attached to specific acts of devotion, such as singing the Veni Creator Spiritus on the feast of Pentecost, or visiting the grave of a loved one on All Souls' Day. The sale of them, however, has been forbidden since the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
Or perhaps fashioned from some sort of incomplete cloth. There may have been a print. I'm not sure.
I believe that Scripture is clear about a state of purgation after death. This isn't a comprehensive examination into the issue, but for example, 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, "Every man's work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any mans work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
There is a particularly strong text in 2 Maccabees 12:43-46. However, 2 Maccabees may not be found in any Bible you were familiar with because Martin Luther removed it from his canon into an appendix, and a later trend among Protestant Bibles was to dispose of it altogether.
"And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."
I hope that helped you understand this side of the divide a little more, even if you may disagree. But at any rate, it was once very common for completely rational and intellectual people to convert to the Catholic Church (John Dryden, King James II, John Cardinal Newman, Augustus Pugin, G.K. Chesterton, Fr. Ronald Knox, Sir Alec Guinness, etc.), and it is slowly becoming a trend again today. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 3:51:04 AM | Heh, I think there is a difference between stating that the protestant churches as we know them preversions, or stating that they're divergent strains.
The Catholics acknowledge the reality of evolution, if you look at it from that perspective, the various protestant denominations, along with the Catholics and Islam, are mearly various sub species of the original Judaic faith | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 4/15/2008 5:11:11 AM | hey op if this helps
i was once christain but now iam a Atheists i have know reason to believe in some thing that dont exsist but that me here iam now. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 6:25:51 AM |
Sorry if you can not accept the fact that all mainstream, protestant, or reformed churches have there roots in the catholic church,
And the RC church (and the rest of Christendom for that matter)has it's roots in ancient Pagan mystery religions.Jesus is a recycled Pagan sun god and the gospel fable is merely a retelling of the same birth,death and resurrection story of the sun's movement across the sky. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 7:17:04 AM | from the op:
"There is something I have noticed about ex-Christians, not just on this forum but elsewhere as well. They all seem to have been either Catholic or Pentecostal/Charismatic."
Maybe it's becoming clear to many that Oz never gave anything to the Tin Man that he didn't already have; that eternal life is a birthright which becomes due to us each time we die no matter what church we attend or what we do or don't believe. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 8:12:12 AM | Jacobouse 101
about Calvin, i feel I need to clarify ,he studied and wanted to be a catholic priest, the roman church denied him this, it was after his not being accepted into the priesthood that he became a lawyer.Is it possible that because of this he went on to pick apart the roman church, using his intellect to attack the church that rejected him. As I understand faith,it can not be explained intellectually, rather it is a simple willingness to accept as truth the teachings of the church by believing.
I agree with your reasoning, that the dogmas and rites of the roman church stem naturally from the scriptures and all point towards the teachings of christ, I also agree with your conversion to the church, it is the only pure representation of christs teachings, all others are, or have been founded in and by people and causes that have nothing to do with faith, but rather personal or political motivations. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 8:46:44 AM | perversion, n, change to what is unnatural, abnormal, or wrong 2,a twisted or distorted shape or character,ie perversion of facts
As far as the argument that the church is a natural evolution from pagan or the jewish religion, this is nuts, (but very popular now a days) the whole 'reson d'etre' of jesus (and the church) is to bring a new testament, a new covenent or relationship with god, it is the fulfillment of prophesy .
As an ex roman catholic, (or non believing RC would be more accurate), I believe that there is only one true church, the rest, all the rest are founded by people with there own personal agendas, and that goes against simple faith, something that is the corner stone of the teachings of jesus.
AS for me I do not believe in any religion, I do not have faith, I believe in science,and logic. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 10:09:18 AM | want to travel said:
about Calvin, i feel I need to clarify ,he studied and wanted to be a catholic priest, the roman church denied him this, it was after his not being accepted into the priesthood that he became a lawyer.
Ah, okay. Makes sense.
As I understand faith,it can not be explained intellectually, rather it is a simple willingness to accept as truth the teachings of the church by believing.
I would recommend reading Pope John Paul II's letter to the bishops of the world on the relationship between faith and reason, Fides et Ratio. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
The Catholic tradition, at least as far back as the medieval scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas, is to view faith and reason as two spheres which are both important in understanding God. One assists the other. This view was rejected by Martin Luther, hence his infamous quotes on that subject. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 10:14:00 AM | CharlesEdm said:
The Catholics acknowledge the reality of evolution, if you look at it from that perspective, the various protestant denominations, along with the Catholics and Islam, are mearly various sub species of the original Judaic faith
I think it's more accurate to say that Catholics don't feel a need to bind themselves to one side or the other (creationism or evolutionism). Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all expressed their opinion that God may have used evolution as His way of developing life. That does not mean, though, that all Catholics are evolutionists. At the same time, the creationist movement is driven almost entirely by American Protestantism. As for me.... I'm on the fence, but right now, I lean toward old-earth creationism. But the idea of evolution doesn't particularly bother me. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 10:52:50 AM | From your own post:
perversion, n, change to what is unnatural, abnormal, or wrong 2,a twisted or distorted shape or character
Help me out here (maybe it's a language thing), which part of the above definition do you think is not insulting to those whose religion you so glibly label as "perversions"?
As for what I said, I stand by it. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant to me.
And when did this turn into a bash the Catholics thread? Some people simply can't pass up the opportunity to air their insults at every opportunity. Pity. And Pathetic. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 1:56:53 PM | Op,
I don't know any ex Catholics or ex Pentecostals who are now non-Christians but I know many ex sinners who are now Catholics or Pentecostals. Maybe you're just on the wrong side of the road. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 2:20:36 PM | I'll simply voice my experience and if I end up carrying into opinions, then that's what will happen.
I was raised a Catholic. I went to a Catholic school for first grade, and had to leave because as a "difficult child" (I asked questions instead of being quiet, and I hit kids and told on them when they bullied me instead of letting them abuse me), I was too much for the school to handle.
I went to predominantly Christian-populated public schools until high school. Then, I went to a Jesuit College Preparatory. Each year I thought I had felt a calling to become a Jesuit. Then I was introduced by a friend to Satanism.
But Satanism wasn't for me. It was immature, stupid, and rather mean-spirited, so I wanted to avoid it.
Still, the next time I went to church, I noticed things in the mass wordings that really freaked me out.
"It is right to give him thanks and praise." Why would I need to remind myself? Am I supposed to be compensating for something?
"The Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want." Um, I'm not a member of the herd. I'm unique, and valuable, and I have pity on anyone who embraces self-mediocrity.
The list went on and eventually I decided to never go to church again. I've felt really good since then.
I later looked into Thelema, which again was a bit silly. That led to Wicca and Druidry, which were long-time favorites until I discovered the film "What the Bleep do we Know!?". Then, I discovered Gnosticism. Then, I discovered the A.M.O.R.C., which was a surprise because I live in their headquarters city of San Jose, and have visited the Egyptian Museum that they have, and yet I had no idea who they were.
Anyway, I put all this together, among a multitude of other things, like Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Ancestor Worship, Goetia, etc., and I discovered that the common thing in all of it was my interaction with the universe on a greater level than the physical.
I've lived by the ideal of experiencing as many levels of the universe as I could, and I felt empowered by this experience, and it has made me as successful at fully appreciating life as I am, not to mention jumpstarted my intellectual and emotional development many times over.
I don't hate Christianity because I didn't get goodies.
I love non-Christianity because now, I DO get the goodies.
~ David | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/15/2008 9:24:59 PM |
Ok instead of ex Christian why don't we use the term ex religious.
Why say your X husband or wife. Why not just call them X spouses. It is all semantics. Organized religion is not necessarily religious. Religion is following your religious beliefs. Agreed some churches are organized social clubs, which collect money, while still others follow a preacher who is a money grubber. There are crooks in every organization, including the government, the legal system or whatever. I believe Jesus existed and am an "X" minister, however; my belief system and world view changed. I consider myself religious, even though I do not go to a church. I follow a set of beliefs which, are spiritual and mystical in nature.
As far as church building going up, so be it. It is their money and I am sure they don't care if you build a big home or throw out food, instead of feeding the poor. I am poor. I don't care about money. It is there to feed me and make me comfortable, in a poor way. Poor people will always exists. Feeding the world is as easy as using your computer to send a grain of rice for a correct answer. Feeding the poor is as easy as teaching people to fish, or how to farm. Feeding the poor is as easy as going there yourself and helping. Give to your food bank, collect money for the poor and share the wealth. Better yet, sell everything you have and give it to the poor. Jesus ate with the rich, mingled with the tax collectors, and was criticized by John the Baptist followers for eating so well.
 | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/16/2008 8:50:54 PM | All i can say is thr rich gets richer the poor gets poorer when i had my house fire it was a 2 alarm fire mind you 100.000 in damages done when i ask my church for help there reply was we cant help unless you been to the church on a normal basis and dontaed money so here again is a christain church that gets money from there followers and there suposed to be there for there members didnt want to help me and family because i dont go to there churc every sunday.
that was one maine reason why iam no longer a christain another reason was that i became a atheist and now been one for some time and im happy for who iam.
still others follow a preacher who is a money grubber
ii have to agree on that thats what religion has turn out to be is money,power,ect | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/16/2008 10:01:11 PM | timber_wolf said:
All i can say is thr rich gets richer the poor gets poorer when i had my house fire it was a 2 alarm fire mind you 100.000 in damages done when i ask my church for help there reply was we cant help unless you been to the church on a normal basis and dontaed money so here again is a christain church that gets money from there followers and there suposed to be there for there members didnt want to help me and family because i dont go to there churc every sunday.
I think it's simply a matter of prioritizing.
Let's say I'm the pastor of an ordinary parish church. I have, perhaps, 800 families who are registered in my books. That's a lot of people to take care of. I have a general parish treasury of, say, $5 million.
Now, let's say that on a particular week, I have five different parishioners approach me for relief of some kind. 2 unexpected deaths in the family, 1 armed robbery victim, 1 guy who couldn't control his gambling, and 1 guy whose house was on fire (you, or someone like you).
I can dismiss guys like the gambler off-hand because that was his fault. I must give him as much counsel as he needs, but it would be unjust to give my parishioners' money to him.
The robbery victim and one of the unexpected death people were both active members of the parish who not only attended regularly and gave generously, but served the parish community "above and beyond the call of duty". Naturally, the more you give, the more you reap. I'm obligated to provide a decent amount of monetary assistance to both, because they gave so much to me in the past.
The other unexpected death guy and the guy with the house fire are irregular parishioners. I see them every so often and their names are hazy to me or I don't know them. After some careful discerning, I've decided that, with the limited amount of money I have, I need to reserve that for those parishioners who regularly attend and donate more generously. Why? Not because I like them more, but because I'm entrusted mostly with their money, not that of parishioners who come irregularly. One of the responsibilities of a parishioner is indeed to come regularly. I won't slap them on the wrists if they don't, but it's also unjust for them to ask for the church's assistance if they haven't provided their own.
And for good measure, let's take two unusual cases. Let's say that one of those guys doesn't show up very often at all, but he routinely sends me ginormous checks. I still won't provide him relief because my church isn't a bank. I'd rather have that guy's prayers than his money, anyway. Now for the other case, there's a guy who shows up not only every Sunday, but every day of the week. However, he doesn't donate a penny, nor does he serve in any non-monetary form (altar serving, singing, maintaining the garden). That's freeloading. Hey, candlewax and electricity aren't free. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 4/17/2008 5:20:15 AM | Jacobus101,
iam not in to religion nor do i ever believe in god,
but i was baptised as cristain but as i said befor i converted over to be a athiest .
The church is a place to worship god just like in asian countrys they have there temples and such.
But also i was a member sense i was a small lad and i was forced to go i hated it then one day we had the fire and my father was on strike lost the insurance on the house so we went to the church for help but if u know or if u dont know a church dose not pay taxes at all the money the church gets is for the repairs,maintaince the food for the preacher also for his living exspences he's got it made now with all this money they gets where is it realy going if it is not to help the member's.
Now the only way to get help you have to at least been in that church for so much time and how many times you have donated your hard worked money so the church can pay of every thing including the living exspences for the preacher.
but i will get of that subject now the other reason is to believe in a god or gods and bow down and worship some thing and pray for healing, money, a new car chances is u wont get it and why because it is false a made believe god a dilousion to be believe that that if you pray it will happen i must of pray seval times growing up not one pray ever came true . | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
