We Are In The Last Days So wake up ppl ...wake up

[RedAlert 0]

I've never heard of Jack Chick or of his practices, but believers tend to know the implications of what is meant by living your life for Christ. Better yet would be if the following verses were referenced: Matthew 25:34-40.

 

 

Here's a short list: link. Here's another as a back-up: link. From this you should be able to derive that i can keep the list coming, along with Islamic and other Abrahamic religion charities. However, i do not necessarily mean to exclude every other theistic religion, but the topic is related to the Abrahamic religion. But i can also provide an argument, though i consider it slightly weak, that implies that most world-problem solvers or helpers are believers. We can use the world's population for this. Though i prefer not to use Wikipedia as the supplier of the world's population, they tend to provide references themselves. Click. From this we can conclude that approximately 3.614 billion people in the world are professing that they belong to an Abrahamic religion. According to this page the world's population is 6.794 billion. 6.794 - 3.614 = 3.18, which means the Abrahamic religions fill over 50% of the world's population. However, this is not to exclude other theistic religions. But giving to charities and volunteering requires motivation, of which believers get from their churches, Bibles, and other believers. Unbelievers do not have many, if at all any, sources for motivation that would want them to provide for those outside of their self or families. Though you could argue that believers providing for others could be a motivation for unbelievers, whether it be out of envy or other, but that is desired and wanted by believers anyway.

 

Now, if you would be so kind as to provide me with charities that are proclaiming unbelievers, we can have a decent discussion.

jack chick was last generation's ray comfort, the neo-apologist.

 

And your 'sources' for religious charities are just more religious websites. It might also be of worth pointing out that many religious charities get very little in donations from members, and actually run off public funding.

[truefusion 3]

Do you get it when i said problem solving was related to Problem solving in terms of some respective work in science, arts, or whatever domains that contribute to humans. Not like forming charity under the missionary work for preaching and increasing number of followers of religion by bribing. If this missionary propaganda is under definition of solving problem then i fail to get that point.

Truthfully, i had trouble following that part of your other post. However, i fail to see how the charities i provided are not solving what is problematic. And i can only be disappointed in you for taking up the same assumption that the charities that i have provided are merely forcing others to convert in exchange for help, while providing no evidence for your claim. Will you provide evidence for your statements or continue to avoid the burden of proof?

Did i said that "evil is religion" anywhere in my post or you're making claims on your own for sake of debate? Sorry, not going to pick such baits for religious debates. You're making assumptions here by putting people in believer and non believer category when it comes to problem solving. And ad-hominem are you kidding me ? If you can take pain to visit to india i can prove my claim that what charity organization with religious intentions do here (be it any religion,you pick the charity religious organization at my place, i'll show you their intentions).

You don't have to explicitly say it to imply it—after all, i did say "whether directly or indirectly." But you still have a lot of claims on your own end to prove. And you say if i take the time to visit India, you can easily prove to me their intentions. You should, however, be able to provide me with multiple websites (for you said "be it any religion") that show clearly the intentions you say they have. Nevertheless, you add "at your place;" but to pick one organization or very few (for how many could you possibly have in "your place"?) and then give the impression that all, no matter the religion, are the same is hasty generalization.

They're hiding cause of fear of death. Those who are hiding and not disclosing their agnosticism or unbeliever status are into greenpeace,old-age homes and many other organization like cry etc. They do voice out their opinion when they go outside their territory. It's not easy for them to do this. Muslims kill when person in their religion turns to Christianity or agnosticism. Are you unaware of this ? Besides that before you say about this check youtube for zakir naik videos for Islamic preaching, charity,conversion and what their opinion about converting from islam to Christianity.

Why are they hiding? Not even the Arabic and other Eastern Christians hide in those countries, so why are they hiding? The Islamic religion, as stated in the Qur'an, perfectly allows those from other religions to live in the Islamic-believing countries. All that has to be done is adhere to the laws of the land, just like with any country. No one is going to barge in and believe that they own the place and start doing whatever they want, unless perhaps they are brave. The consequences of failure to comply with the rules are irrelevant. Everyone, no matter the religion, are subject to the laws of the land, regardless of country.
Also, i have seen Zakir Naik before. I am not sure what you want me to see from him. I'm not really sure what you are trying prove here, as i do not see anything from what i've heard him say that reflects or proves what you have said concerning those who try to convert others. It'd be better if you post a direct link to the video that explicitly states what you are trying to illustrate. If merely stating his name was supposed to imply that all of his videos illustrate what you have been saying, then i have to say i don't really see it.

Escapism. From the start when i posted to you,do you know who holds the burden of proof ? Do you know which part i quoted ? Check my first reply to you again. And please don't repeat this"i would expect the same standard from you" line.

When i posted in this topic, to which you responded to, i will agree that, though i was not the only one, i made a statement that required some evidence. However, i said it knowing that it would not be hard for me to prove. Now i no longer bear the burden of proof for the statement i made, as i have already provided an exhaustive list. It is your turn now to provide evidence that overwhelms the lists (evidence) i have provided. That's how a debate works: after one person provides their argument with evidence, it is the opposing side's turn to prove otherwise or to accept what was argued—even if "to accept" is merely "to allow to pass for the time being." I'm already used to unbelievers avoiding the burden of proof—it is nothing new to me. I just wish that i could see at least one unbeliever who attempts to provide evidence for their claims besides continuing to assert things.

Did i said believer is not believer ? Where in my earlier post i said that can you point me that out.

It was the only way i could make sense of your statement considering the part of my post you were addressing with that statement of yours. You were responding to the part that i talked about motivation. But for some reason (as it did not follow from my statement) you talked about charities that help only in exchange for converts. Do you see what i mean now? Exchange for converts? Where did that come from? It doesn't make sense, since the part of my post you were addressing was talking about those who already believed.

They do this in charity organization ? and preaching this stuff with problem-solving charity organizations, if so let me know about those charity organization you know personally.

I wouldn't say the Freedom from Religion Foundation is a charity organization. Nevertheless, just doing research on the "foundation" is more than enough to conclude that they obviously see religion as a problem (if you could not tell from the name alone). So i'm sure in some way they see themselves at trying to solve a "problem."

Do you know how many unbelievers are into charity or social work but don't show-off ? Are you counting them ? If you don't then even though you lost interest in this "exhaustive list of unbeliever charity organization list" here you can say you have ignored them in your stats. And about list that you provided for chartities are not all fall in my region and i never claimed them ALL to be in my comments, So care to read my posts again for that reference. Those who fall in my region i can show you conversion propaganda hidden inside their preaching. Do you want to know about that then come to india and i'll show you those charities.

Truthfully, before i searched for Christian charity organizations, i searched for those that proclaim to be non-believers, but i could not find any. You yourself should know that to list an apparently neutral organization as evidence would have been absurd of me. But if i say "i don't know," would i expect you to provide an outside source showing at least an approximation, or will you just say, "Well, there are many"? Secondly, it is an assertion to state that just because one charity proclaims to be doing work in the name of Christ (or for their religion) that they are "showing off." The reason why the Christian organizations do the things they do is not to show off, but to proclaim the Gospel. Proclaiming the Gospel in no way implies forcing belief onto others, nor is it forced upon them. They declare themselves a Christian organization in the name of Christ, not to say, "We are better than you." You need not go any further than their website to see this (if you request for evidence). If you are going to, again, argue otherwise, it would be best if you provided some actual, objective sources rather than continue making assertions. Also, you bring up "in your area" again. Is it really so hard to provide some sources other than me buying a plane ticket and flying to your area? That can only mean that those you are talking about are too insignificant to even be trying to argue with.

I'm done with such escapism debate if person fails to see the point i made that "problem-solving is irrespective of theological stance and there is religious preaching with intention of charity".

My starting statement was that believers do more problem solving than unbelievers, not that problem-solving was limited to believers alone. You can make your point, sure. But that doesn't mean that there aren't more believers than unbelievers doing problem solving. If you understood differently from my starting statement, then i do not know what to say. However, i will say that you attempted to show that religious charity organizations bear different intentions/motives more than you tried to show that problem-solving is independent of theological stance.

Sorry to interrupt, but i dont think continuing your campaign is not a good idea hereYou can provide everything you have, but that's all happen, nothing gonna change (you know, christian will still be christian, hindu will still be hindu, and atheist will be atheist)
In short, your debate wont be any "problem-solving" at all, just make each side uncomfortable
sooner or later the other will come to speech and, you know, it's an endless fight
Thank you before, if you mind reading this post

We are not (or at least i'm not) trying to convert each other. He asked me to prove my statement, so i did.

And your 'sources' for religious charities are just more religious websites. It might also be of worth pointing out that many religious charities get very little in donations from members, and actually run off public funding.

Well, many ministries do more than just preach. Generally, only the smaller ministries do not go out world wide to help, as they only earn enough to do things locally. Also, how many members can one organization have? Anyone looking to grow will outsource. But that runs along the lines of what i touched on concerning the human population.

[anwiii 17]

sorry, old post, but that statement about non believers is the most ridiculous concept that you could ever create in your own head and way of thinking.

first of all, you intimate that if you are not a believer, you are obviously a non believer. this is not true as i am a prime example and proof of this. i am not a believer and in no way shape or form do i consider myself a non believer. in fact, i will go so far as to say that there will never be a label put on my own personal beliefs.

secondly, i am also a prime example to discredit your concept of how non believers have very little motivation or sources for motivation. first of all, just because someone doesn't believe doesn't mean they don't believe in good and the good concepts churches and charities provide. i wouldn't care to even guess, but my intuition tells me that most all people are born with compassion. believers AND non believers. although there may not be a lot of "sources" for motivation in your way of thinking, the sources that are left are GREAT. compassion is a source of great strength and motivation to do an unselfish act. it's a greater source than any charity ever created or any church ever built and it's what i call a NATURAL source for motivation which can lead to selfless acts.

but i also disagree when you try and define a selfless act because from my experience and knowledge, there is no such thing when you break the act down and the consequences of the act and why people would create that act in the first place. in this case, you are talking about satisfying a motivation. if this is true, then the act itself can't be considered unselfish.

now i know you like to post things for the sake of arguements and rarely will give your own personal views and beliefs, but i thought i would reply to this old post to strike up something to ponder on and rethink what you were trying to get across

this post is a minor insult for those "non believers" who actually do some good in this world, helping others whether it is convenient or not convenient at the time for the sole purpose of lending a hand to another human being.

lastly, it's sad to know what the preachers say on the subject of non believers. these non believers can still be all about good and understanding life and the way it works and dedicating part of their life to helping others and still be damned because they weren't saved. does this actually mean that their acts of kindness and dedication to helping others will never be taken in to consideration? for those who want you to join the largest man made cult in world history, that answer is abviously YES. for those non believers who believe everything we do in this world holds a purpose and a place and who deny what the true believers talk about in general, that answer is a definate NO.

if we were meant to hold all the answers, we would have been born with them and not feel that our soul can be man made with thoughts, words, and guidance that could never come from with what were were born with inside our own selves. religion is man made. not god made. the most important thing to consider without referring to labels(believers and non believers) is what we were actually born with. our own gifts. and that can only come from truely knowing our own selves...

But giving to charities and volunteering requires motivation, of which believers get from their churches, Bibles, and other believers. Unbelievers do not have many, if at all any, sources for motivation that would want them to provide for those outside of their self or families. Though you could argue that believers providing for others could be a motivation for unbelievers, whether it be out of envy or other, but that is desired and wanted by believers anyway.
Now, if you would be so kind as to provide me with charities that are proclaiming unbelievers, we can have a decent discussion.

[networker 0]

The way most people interpret Christianity, it justseems so hypocritical of a religion that wouldbe so infatuated with the "end", while at the same time,going on about eternal life. The way I interpret it though, I don't take the "end" literally,but instead as a "change". A spiritual cleansing perhaps.I believe in the internal life aspect of Christianity.So who knows when this end is? Besides, I'm sure there have been several "ends" that thedoom merchants have talked about through history. Everythingfrom the bubonic plague, through to the great depressionand the world wars, yet we are still here. I like to think positively, and if that means my own spin on Christianity, then so be it. Religion and spirituality shouldbe a positive thing anyway. Not just doom and gloom.

[truefusion 3]

first of all, you intimate that if you are not a believer, you are obviously a non believer. this is not true as i am a prime example and proof of this. i am not a believer and in no way shape or form do i consider myself a non believer. in fact, i will go so far as to say that there will never be a label put on my own personal beliefs.

By definition, to say that you are not a believer but consider yourself a believer is mutually exclusive. The only way to make sense out of that is if what you define by "belief" is anything in general, rather than the specific belief i implied within my post for the term "believer," given the topic. In other words, you are a believer concerning only what you believe, which does not necessarily include what i had in mind. What i had in mind is one that upholds Scripture concerning the Abrahamic religion; and i don't mean some small parts here and there, i mean a good majority of it.

secondly, i am also a prime example to discredit your concept of how non believers have very little motivation or sources for motivation. first of all, just because someone doesn't believe doesn't mean they don't believe in good and the good concepts churches and charities provide. i wouldn't care to even guess, but my intuition tells me that most all people are born with compassion. believers AND non believers. although there may not be a lot of "sources" for motivation in your way of thinking, the sources that are left are GREAT. compassion is a source of great strength and motivation to do an unselfish act. it's a greater source than any charity ever created or any church ever built and it's what i call a NATURAL source for motivation which can lead to selfless acts.
but i also disagree when you try and define a selfless act because from my experience and knowledge, there is no such thing when you break the act down and the consequences of the act and why people would create that act in the first place. in this case, you are talking about satisfying a motivation. if this is true, then the act itself can't be considered unselfish.

I remember giving you my definition for "selfishness" in another topic. "Selfishness," as i currently define it, is where only one person (i.e. the one providing) bears the most benefit among those who can benefit, rather than equal distribution or providing more to others than yourself. In this way, though one may "satisfy their motive" (as you put it), doing so would not be considered a selfish act given the context. Also, bearing a belief is not a motivator. Many, even all, can believe in good things like mercy and compassion, but that doesn't mean they'll be motivated by it. For example, "Oh, i wish someone would have mercy on me!" But concerning the person who acts, all it means is that when it is time to act, whether by being told to, asked of or other matters, there's a high chance of other things not getting in the way that would normally prevent a person from helping in the first place. In other words, if you believe you should help except under certain conditions, then if those conditions are met, they'll just get in the way. But in order to bear a belief in the first place, one requires that they are aware of their own existence. Over time, depending on the person, any immature beliefs can be dropped for others. Therefore, if one is to expect the belief of putting others before yourself, you have to make sure it doesn't get replaced by something less than that. However, you and i should both know that no matter the efforts of the motivation, if the person stands firm with their belief that bears exceptions, they will not help if the conditions for the exceptions are met. When we consider natural motivation, "natural" can be ambiguous. But it nevertheless includes instincts and self-preservation. I know how a person who feels they've been wronged will act without the beliefs that will keep them wanting to turn the other cheek. One who could not be brought up with high standards, or one that does not accept high standards, will consider revenge than turning the other cheek. It is ironic to see that one is more willing to put out more effort in order to get revenge when they are wronged than to help at equal effort when the time to do right arrives.

[anwiii 17]

you can't just say selfishness is something where one bears the most benefit until you can properaly judge the benefits. this would be different to different people.

for instance, let's speak in terms on your level of the church where someone makes 100k a year is a member of a church and attends every sunday and puts in $20 a week in to the offering plate. would that be selfish or unselfish?

i can think of many scenario. some of which would be harder to answer than this simple example.

to even answer the question of benefits and who is benefiting more is judging people selfishly as many would believe that nobody would have that right unless you want to discriminate against a certain group of people you put labels on as selfish or unselfish. to even contemplate what i am talking about is to take it even further and take all the unselfish people in the world and manage to try and distiguish who has given more and make the others feel less of a person.

i wouldn't excpect anything more from someone who believes in the churches as a gateway to motivation(in your own words) where the born agains and the people who have found god have that need to belittle others who don't....preaching someone that intimates that they are better people for believing.

I remember giving you my definition for "selfishness" in another topic. "Selfishness," as i currently define it, is where only one person (i.e. the one providing) bears the most benefit among those who can benefit, rather than equal distribution or providing more to others than yourself. In this way, though one may "satisfy their motive" (as you put it), doing so would not be considered a selfish act given the context.

[RedAlert 0]

http://www.bloomberg.com/businessweek

top 3 are non-christians, top 2 are atheists.