|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 27, 2024 18:17:10 GMT
If they call it a church, it is one. I agree, It is always best to take the religious at their word with what they profess. That does not mean of course that one cannot laugh at their word.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jun 9, 2024 4:09:23 GMT
Yes. A Church of crazed assholes.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jun 16, 2024 18:37:51 GMT
Possibly; it doesn't make them a legit church. What would make a church “legit” according to you? 🤔 The concept of a church is to provide a place of worship for their parishioners. WBS is a place that incites hate, much like the KKK. Some so called charities call themselves charities, but when they have 85% admin fees, they aren't real charities. Bernie Madoff called his Ponzi scheme an "investment vehicle".
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jun 16, 2024 18:42:19 GMT
Well, a Ponzi scheme is frequently called an investment by those who run it. A fundraiser with 90% admin fees is called a charity by those that run it, until they get caught. Could the KKK be called a church if they said they were doing God's work?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 17, 2024 3:23:34 GMT
Well, a Ponzi scheme is frequently called an investment by those who run it. A fundraiser with 90% admin fees is called a charity by those that run it, until they get caught. Could the KKK be called a church if they said they were doing God's work? If any organization that claims to be doing God's work is a church, then I suppose it could. But I can't say whether or not it's a legit church until I understand what a legit church is.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 20, 2024 23:20:59 GMT
What would make a church “legit” according to you? 🤔 The concept of a church is to provide a place of worship for their parishioners. WBS is a place that incites hate, much like the KKK. Some so called charities call themselves charities, but when they have 85% admin fees, they aren't real charities. Bernie Madoff called his Ponzi scheme an "investment vehicle". Didn’t really answer my question at all, but okay.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jun 23, 2024 17:26:40 GMT
The concept of a church is to provide a place of worship for their parishioners. WBS is a place that incites hate, much like the KKK. Some so called charities call themselves charities, but when they have 85% admin fees, they aren't real charities. Bernie Madoff called his Ponzi scheme an "investment vehicle". Didn’t really answer my question at all, but okay. I didn't want to have to do this - get into the weeds on what I consider an obvious question - having to define what legitimate is. A dictionary is helpful. It's not my intention to come off as rude in my response, especially since you and I agree on many points. your responses are quite intelligent as well. A legitimate organization is one that has a formal or informal "mission statement" of offering products or services to the public and conducts itself in accordance to that "mission statement". When the organization deviates from that or acts contrary to the said mission statement, it's no longer the type of organization it states it is. For example, a legit church would be one that holds religious services, serves its parishioners and caters to the community with charitable acts. When it serves as a front to promote bigotry, to harass the community, engages in political activity or otherwise promote illegal activities, it's no longer a church. Same thing for a business or charity. It loses its legitimacy when it deviates from its mission statement and engages in the behaviour mentioned above. As for the WBC, it may call itself a church, but it's a church in name only by being a front for harassment.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jun 23, 2024 17:35:43 GMT
Well, a Ponzi scheme is frequently called an investment by those who run it. A fundraiser with 90% admin fees is called a charity by those that run it, until they get caught. Could the KKK be called a church if they said they were doing God's work? If any organization that claims to be doing God's work is a church, then I suppose it could. But I can't say whether or not it's a legit church until I understand what a legit church is. See may latest response to Bryce. A for having to define the term legitimate, I'm puzzled by your response. I find many Americans usually need things defined for them. I'm not intending to be rude or troll. I find it really odd. It's comparable to someone calling another person's behaviour boorish, then asking the person how they define boorish instead of asking them to explain what specific behaviour they find boorish.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Jun 23, 2024 20:28:33 GMT
If any organization that claims to be doing God's work is a church, then I suppose it could. But I can't say whether or not it's a legit church until I understand what a legit church is. See may latest response to Bryce. A for having to define the term legitimate, I'm puzzled by your response. I find many Americans usually need things defined for them. I'm not intending to be rude or troll. I find it really odd. It's comparable to someone calling another person's behaviour boorish, then asking the person how they define boorish instead of asking them to explain what specific behaviour they find boorish. But the WBC does hold services. And although for may disagree with their activities (and even find them distasteful) they genuinely belief they are spreading what they believe to be the true word of god and as such they are trying to help people hear the real version of christianity. The problem with America offering freedom of religion and freedom of speech is that includes ALL religions and ALL speech. Including religion and speech that a lot of people don't like. If people in America don't like that, then perhaps they should encourage Congress to change the Constitution so only certain religions were allowed? Do you think that would be popular?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2024 8:27:38 GMT
If any organization that claims to be doing God's work is a church, then I suppose it could. But I can't say whether or not it's a legit church until I understand what a legit church is. See may latest response to Bryce. A for having to define the term legitimate, I'm puzzled by your response. I find many Americans usually need things defined for them. I'm not intending to be rude or troll. I find it really odd. It's comparable to someone calling another person's behaviour boorish, then asking the person how they define boorish instead of asking them to explain what specific behaviour they find boorish. What mattered is what you meant when you asked the question, and I wasn't asking for a definition of legit. So it's not at all comparable to that. It's more like someone asking you what clean dirt is and you responding with definitions of "clean" and "dirt." At any rate, if a legit church is one that operates in accordance with its mission statement, then a quick read of their statement seems prudent. All I really know about them is that they stand on street corners with signs that say "God hates fags," so I wouldn't know if they run contrary to their own statement.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jul 1, 2024 9:14:36 GMT
A refuge for refuse.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jul 1, 2024 14:25:28 GMT
See may latest response to Bryce. A for having to define the term legitimate, I'm puzzled by your response. I find many Americans usually need things defined for them. I'm not intending to be rude or troll. I find it really odd. It's comparable to someone calling another person's behaviour boorish, then asking the person how they define boorish instead of asking them to explain what specific behaviour they find boorish. What mattered is what you meant when you asked the question, and I wasn't asking for a definition of legit. So it's not at all comparable to that. It's more like someone asking you what clean dirt is and you responding with definitions of "clean" and "dirt." At any rate, if a legit church is one that operates in accordance with its mission statement, then a quick read of their statement seems prudent. All I really know about them is that they stand on street corners with signs that say "God hates fags," so I wouldn't know if they run contrary to their own statement. The English language is an odd thing; it's a living language that changes as it ages. It started around 1000 AD, between the Anglo-Saxon invasion and the Norman conquest in England. Old and Middle English isn't understood by 99.9% of people today. Shakespeare's English is semi understood. Past 1800, most people understand it. Even terms like "gay" had a different meaning than it did 100 years ago. Even today we get cute with our language; we refer to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as rapid depopulation of an area we measure in sunshine units. A person who uses extreme violence in an area is either a terrorist or freedom fighter; the damage caused is referred to as collateral damage or a war crime/murder. Me - I'm fairly direct and to the point. My meaning behind certain words is always the dictionary version of that word. I also enhanced this by giving examples. For example, a fraudster could call his so called Ponzi scheme a legit investment. I know I'm in the minority here on this opinion of whether WBC is a legit church or not. An organization can try to call itself a church and put up appearances, but when the vast majority of its efforts are political and criminally harassing in their nature (God hates fags; protesting funerals), has it become a church in name only? How many of you remember that incident in 2008 where a young guy had his head decapitated on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba Canada? A sad scenario; the WBC exploited this and were going to try picketing the funeral. They claimed that the murder was punishment for Canada's endorsement of gay marriage - a political statement.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jul 1, 2024 14:37:47 GMT
See may latest response to Bryce. A for having to define the term legitimate, I'm puzzled by your response. I find many Americans usually need things defined for them. I'm not intending to be rude or troll. I find it really odd. It's comparable to someone calling another person's behaviour boorish, then asking the person how they define boorish instead of asking them to explain what specific behaviour they find boorish. But the WBC does hold services. And although for may disagree with their activities (and even find them distasteful) they genuinely belief they are spreading what they believe to be the true word of god and as such they are trying to help people hear the real version of christianity. The problem with America offering freedom of religion and freedom of speech is that includes ALL religions and ALL speech. Including religion and speech that a lot of people don't like. If people in America don't like that, then perhaps they should encourage Congress to change the Constitution so only certain religions were allowed? Do you think that would be popular? WBC could also be called a church in name only. It could also be argued that the WBC is involved more in political agitation than genuine religious activity. As for Congress curtailing religions, perhaps it would be better if they removed the tax exempt status of churches that are churches in name only. Charities lose their "Official Charity" status if they don't follow the rules. As for freedom of speech, the US completely lacks a backbone when it comes to enforcing unacceptable speech. Speech that threatens public safety, Alex Jones comments on Sandy Hook are examples of this.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 1, 2024 20:37:58 GMT
What mattered is what you meant when you asked the question, and I wasn't asking for a definition of legit. So it's not at all comparable to that. It's more like someone asking you what clean dirt is and you responding with definitions of "clean" and "dirt." At any rate, if a legit church is one that operates in accordance with its mission statement, then a quick read of their statement seems prudent. All I really know about them is that they stand on street corners with signs that say "God hates fags," so I wouldn't know if they run contrary to their own statement. The English language is an odd thing; it's a living language that changes as it ages. It started around 1000 AD, between the Anglo-Saxon invasion and the Norman conquest in England. Old and Middle English isn't understood by 99.9% of people today. Shakespeare's English is semi understood. Past 1800, most people understand it. Even terms like "gay" had a different meaning than it did 100 years ago. Even today we get cute with our language; we refer to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as rapid depopulation of an area we measure in sunshine units. A person who uses extreme violence in an area is either a terrorist or freedom fighter; the damage caused is referred to as collateral damage or a war crime/murder. Me - I'm fairly direct and to the point. My meaning behind certain words is always the dictionary version of that word. I also enhanced this by giving examples. For example, a fraudster could call his so called Ponzi scheme a legit investment. I know I'm in the minority here on this opinion of whether WBC is a legit church or not. An organization can try to call itself a church and put up appearances, but when the vast majority of its efforts are political and criminally harassing in their nature (God hates fags; protesting funerals), has it become a church in name only? How many of you remember that incident in 2008 where a young guy had his head decapitated on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba Canada? A sad scenario; the WBC exploited this and were going to try picketing the funeral. They claimed that the murder was punishment for Canada's endorsement of gay marriage - a political statement. And the example I gave was "clean dirt." The dictionary definitions of "clean" and "dirt" don't define "clean dirt," and I'm not finding "legit church" in any dictionary. Now, since you already covered "legit" (unnecessarily) maybe it's time to look at "church." Do any of the following definitions square with how you meant it? 1. One of the groups of Christians who have their own beliefs and forms of worship 2. (church service) a place for public (especially Christian) worship 3. A service conducted in a house of worship 4. The body of people who attend or belong to a particular local church If I'm not mistaken, the Bible says a church is simply two or more people gathered in His name, and it could be argued that Jesus' "church" was wherever He was, be it a house, a street, or a hillside. But do semantics really apply here? You said a legit church is one that adheres to its own mission statement. Here is WBC's: www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.htmlIf there is anything in that statement that contradicts their actions (and not necessary the Bible, mind you), then according to your definition, it would not be a "legit church."
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jul 2, 2024 0:53:28 GMT
The English language is an odd thing; it's a living language that changes as it ages. It started around 1000 AD, between the Anglo-Saxon invasion and the Norman conquest in England. Old and Middle English isn't understood by 99.9% of people today. Shakespeare's English is semi understood. Past 1800, most people understand it. Even terms like "gay" had a different meaning than it did 100 years ago. Even today we get cute with our language; we refer to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as rapid depopulation of an area we measure in sunshine units. A person who uses extreme violence in an area is either a terrorist or freedom fighter; the damage caused is referred to as collateral damage or a war crime/murder. Me - I'm fairly direct and to the point. My meaning behind certain words is always the dictionary version of that word. I also enhanced this by giving examples. For example, a fraudster could call his so called Ponzi scheme a legit investment. I know I'm in the minority here on this opinion of whether WBC is a legit church or not. An organization can try to call itself a church and put up appearances, but when the vast majority of its efforts are political and criminally harassing in their nature (God hates fags; protesting funerals), has it become a church in name only? How many of you remember that incident in 2008 where a young guy had his head decapitated on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba Canada? A sad scenario; the WBC exploited this and were going to try picketing the funeral. They claimed that the murder was punishment for Canada's endorsement of gay marriage - a political statement. And the example I gave was "clean dirt." The dictionary definitions of "clean" and "dirt" don't define "clean dirt," and I'm not finding "legit church" in any dictionary. Now, since you already covered "legit" (unnecessarily) maybe it's time to look at "church." Do any of the following definitions square with how you meant it? 1. One of the groups of Christians who have their own beliefs and forms of worship 2. (church service) a place for public (especially Christian) worship 3. A service conducted in a house of worship 4. The body of people who attend or belong to a particular local church If I'm not mistaken, the Bible says a church is simply two or more people gathered in His name, and it could be argued that Jesus' "church" was wherever He was, be it a house, a street, or a hillside. But do semantics really apply here? You said a legit church is one that adheres to its own mission statement. Here is WBC's: www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.htmlIf there is anything in that statement that contradicts their actions (and not necessary the Bible, mind you), then according to your definition, it would not be a "legit church." Wow, talk about overly complicating a very simple question. If there were a finance section and I mentioned that Bernie Madoff was not a legitimate investment advisor nor were his investments, I think you would make the same arguments to say he was legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 2, 2024 1:46:54 GMT
And the example I gave was "clean dirt." The dictionary definitions of "clean" and "dirt" don't define "clean dirt," and I'm not finding "legit church" in any dictionary. Now, since you already covered "legit" (unnecessarily) maybe it's time to look at "church." Do any of the following definitions square with how you meant it? 1. One of the groups of Christians who have their own beliefs and forms of worship 2. (church service) a place for public (especially Christian) worship 3. A service conducted in a house of worship 4. The body of people who attend or belong to a particular local church If I'm not mistaken, the Bible says a church is simply two or more people gathered in His name, and it could be argued that Jesus' "church" was wherever He was, be it a house, a street, or a hillside. But do semantics really apply here? You said a legit church is one that adheres to its own mission statement. Here is WBC's: www.godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.htmlIf there is anything in that statement that contradicts their actions (and not necessary the Bible, mind you), then according to your definition, it would not be a "legit church." Wow, talk about overly complicating a very simple question. If there were a finance section and I mentioned that Bernie Madoff was not a legitimate investment advisor nor were his investments, I think you would make the same arguments to say he was legitimate. The simple question was: "What's a legit church?" My response addressed some (but not all) of the things you put on the table when you were asked it. You said a legit church is one that doesn't betray its own mission. Twice now I've suggested that you read theirs and compare it to their actions to confirm whether or not it's a legit church according to your own statement, and you completely ignored it both times, so that's bust. How about this instead... I thought you were legitimately asking. Looks like the joke's on me. Ha! Good one. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by jimmyboy on Jul 15, 2024 0:35:13 GMT
Wow, talk about overly complicating a very simple question. If there were a finance section and I mentioned that Bernie Madoff was not a legitimate investment advisor nor were his investments, I think you would make the same arguments to say he was legitimate. The simple question was: "What's a legit church?" My response addressed some (but not all) of the things you put on the table when you were asked it. You said a legit church is one that doesn't betray its own mission. Twice now I've suggested that you read theirs and compare it to their actions to confirm whether or not it's a legit church according to your own statement, and you completely ignored it both times, so that's bust. How about this instead... I thought you were legitimately asking. Looks like the joke's on me. Ha! Good one. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) I wasn't trying to be difficult or anything or play a joke on anyone. I admit I was a little taken aback when asked to define what legit was. I worked with a couple of people whose work habits were either substandard or incompetent. They always used to reply to me "what does that mean?" or say "we should ask a supervisor (higher than me) to decide on what to do" whenever I would ask them to do a simple routine task. I was their immediate supervisor. They wouldn't do it with others. Many others would not dare to try this with me. They were good at playing passive-aggressive. I'm not suggesting you or Bryce were being passive aggressive. I think you just wanted clarification. As for the WBC being a legit church, I lean towards them not being legit as I think that organization is merely a front for their homophobic and racist ideals.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 15, 2024 1:12:23 GMT
The simple question was: "What's a legit church?" My response addressed some (but not all) of the things you put on the table when you were asked it. You said a legit church is one that doesn't betray its own mission. Twice now I've suggested that you read theirs and compare it to their actions to confirm whether or not it's a legit church according to your own statement, and you completely ignored it both times, so that's bust. How about this instead... I thought you were legitimately asking. Looks like the joke's on me. Ha! Good one. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) I wasn't trying to be difficult or anything or play a joke on anyone. I admit I was a little taken aback when asked to define what legit was. I worked with a couple of people whose work habits were either substandard or incompetent. They always used to reply to me "what does that mean?" or say "we should ask a supervisor (higher than me) to decide on what to do" whenever I would ask them to do a simple routine task. I was their immediate supervisor. They wouldn't do it with others. Many others would not dare to try this with me. They were good at playing passive-aggressive. I'm not suggesting you or Bryce were being passive aggressive. I think you just wanted clarification. As for the WBC being a legit church, I lean towards them not being legit as I think that organization is merely a front for their homophobic and racist ideals. Again, I never asked you to define legit. As for the WBC being a legit church (as you mean it) I provided a handy link above that might help. Personally, legit or not, I don’t support it. Then again, I don’t support Catholicism either, so what do I know…
|
|