Is there a GOD? - ding! ding! ding ding geeeeet reaaaaaady toooooo rummmmble!!!!

[Hemodoc]

Dear willowtreewren,

I readily understand not understanding what the gospel of Christ is really all about since I didn't as well until I was 36 years old myself.  The Bible tells us to give food and shelter to those that are less fortunate.  It also does tell us to spread the gospel. Missions have been a wonderful area to do both of these things.

I have preached in the California prison system for several years.  The purpose of preaching was not to make people feel unworthy of help, it was just the opposite, to show the worth of men that others have thrown away so to speak.  Reaching out to the prisons where society has given up on them, reaching out to skid row for those that no one else pays attention to is a true outreach from teachings of the Bible.  Thus, the message of prison ministries and mission work here to the less fortunate is the message that God finds them worthy of His attention and He sends us to do His will for these people.  I must take exception that the missions make them feel unworthy when the entire thrust of the mission work is the message that God finds these people worthy even though society does not.

Once again, having preached in the prisons myself to rapists, killers and others in maximum security, the purpose was never to show someone that I am more worthy because I am a Christian.  Just the opposite, the Bible tells us that Christ died for us even when we were all sinners.  I am overwhelmed by the love of God that He sent His son to pay the consequences of my many sins.  That is the greatest act of love anywhere and anytime in this universe.  It is a free gift to all.  Love must be free, so God gives us the free will to choose.  The choice of heaven and hell is given to the individual.  The gift is offered to all, including the lowest parts of society including the homeless. The success of the missions is in reaching people with the means to elevate their life out of the gutter and to foresake the lifestyles that led to where they are.  It is a story with many successes, yet people can eat over and over again and never accept Christ, and they will keep feeding them.  They don't place conversion as a condition to help these people.  They are fed food for the body and food for the soul.  Then, the people are given the free choice to accept or reject the offer of salvation. 

Most of these people are not eligible for government services and I am not aware of any atheist missions to the poor.  If they are out there, that would be interesting to know about.  The Christian missions have an incredible history of serving the poor and disenfranchised people in this nation and around the world.  Once again, conversion is not a requirement to obtain food and shelter.  I find it one of the most admirable endeavors of the human kind.

I find it difficult to find anything at all wrong with Christian missions doing this sort of work.  I placed my own life at risk to preach in prisons every time I went by myself among a group of mureders and rapist and drug dealers.  It is an act of sacrifice to serve the people that the rest of society neglects. I simply can't find any aspect of this to criticize myself having been a part of the same giving that leads us to support mission work at home and abroad.  The message ultimately is that God finds all sinners, no matter how low on the totem pole of society worthy of the sacrifice of His only begotten son.  I am just overwhelmed by this message and grateful that He would forgive completely a sinner such as I.  It is the most amazing story ever written mainly because of its truth which I have found personally in my own life.  Prayers are real as are His answers.  Quite an amazing thing. 

[cariad]

Aleta, I really do not belong in this discussion because I find Bible talk is crazy-making, but I did want to say I hear you on being an Atheist. An Atheist in the bible belt, I cannot even imagine. I believe you when you say you've been called all sorts of names, and I find it odd that Paul would imply that if he has not witnessed something personally, it does not exist, which is how I interpret his comments. I think BigSky using an offensive racial slur like Indian giver to describe your husband is uncalled for. (The term comes from Europeans not understanding American Indian cultural beliefs on possession.) I also feel exactly the same way about describing God as omnipotent. If He knows the future, then this is just a pointless exercise.

Paul, if you are an atheist, you are certainly an unusual brand of atheist. I have no problem with religious people if they respect the idea that I do not appreciate proselytizing. I have had wonderful, deeply religious friends (the maid of honor at my wedding, for example) but our conversations on beliefs are respectful and informative, not preachy or argumentative. I have never been a client of a homeless shelter, but I also worked at women's shelters which accepted the homeless. I am sure I am not telling you anything you do not know when I say you do not want to cross the staff at a homeless shelter. They truly can make your life miserable, and of course, can throw you out (which does happen, but hopefully only for issues like drugs or violence). If I were ever a client at a shelter, I would keep my head down and try to blend. If that meant masquerading as a Christian, I can and probably would.

Hemodoc, I can certainly hear the sincerity in your writing, but you honestly see nothing wrong with missionary work in other countries? Have you really thought about this critically? I do not doubt that some mission work is incredibly noble, but honestly, barging into another culture with no respect for their beliefs or traditions, creating "mission Indians" who become dependent on missionaries rather than self-sufficient, condemning their traditional practices as evil - you see nothing wrong with that?! These people are not stupid - if they see that shouting "praise Jesus" gets them help, they are going to do it. I don't know what you mean by "atheist missions" but there are plenty of NGOs/charities with no religious affiliation nor talk whatsoever. Doctors without Borders. Heifer International. Amnesty International. I am an atheist, and I too have risked my life to try to help battered and homeless women. One woman at a shelter, a client, threatened to assault me in the car lot when I left work when I asked her to leave the staff only area. Ironically, her vanity plate on her car had the word GOD on it. Oh, and I was about 4 months pregnant at the time. I had to demand that the shelter follow its own no-violence policy and "evict" her.

Rendering the death penalty unto a serial killer is justice in my eyes.

What part of “Thou shalt not kill” allows for exceptions of any nature? The ten commandments represent the very foundation of JudeoChristian belief, yet you seem to see a loophole here. I am honestly interested in how you reconcile this. If my husband commits adultery, can I do the same back to him with impunity?

I do agree with you that obviously there is a great deal of history in the Bible. I come from a family of atheists, and frankly, my father has always told me to read the bible because it is an important historical document. It is clearly embellished though, and borrows liberally from other belief systems (Greek mythology, paganism, etc.) I have only managed to read parts of the Bible, because the way women are treated from Genesis onward sickens me, and that is to say nothing of homosexuals. I have read GOD: A Biography twice (that man is a genius), though, and this discussion reminded me to start the sequel Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God. I recommend the first to anyone of any religion who wants to read riveting Biblical analysis.

[tyefly]

    I prefer to think that humans are social creatures  and need to have a high power.... it could be God, the eagle, Buddha, or what ever.... I think that its important for the development of our social nature and most of all I think that we need to think that there is something bigger out there....   To me its the part of the brain that likes rules and guidelines.... it gives us hope and love   even when those things are hard to find....  The idea of eternity  sounds pretty good to me....   I think that is has to do more with fitting in and following rules....    I think that the notion of God is good for most people and it keeps them in good mental health.......   
    Am I  a  Atheist........    Yes....     I that in it self helps keep me mentally healthy....... and a free bird 

[BigSky]

I think BigSky using an offensive racial slur like Indian giver to describe your husband is uncalled for. (The term comes from Europeans not understanding American Indian cultural beliefs on possession.)

Its only a racial slur if you fail to have an complete understanding of the word and its history.

That of it being that one who gives a gift and then wants it returned.  As inthe broken promises and treaties by the whites to the Indians.

[Hanify]

Hasn't this gotten interesting?  I have felt the same attitude from 'born again Christians' as Aleta has am I am actually a Christian. I'm just not the 'right' kibnd of Christian.   So I have no problem believing that 'some' Christians have what I think of as an awful attitude to others.  I certainly don't.  I cannot  and will not believe in a God who would look at people who are good people and turn them away.  Are you saying Rerun that a baby who is not baptised would be sent to hell?  Are you saying that a person fro the middle of Papua New Guinea who has never heard of Christ would go to hell?  As a Christian I have no interest in that kind of attitude.  Jesus Christ would not have turned people away, and that's what I believe.

[monrein]

With all due respect, BigSky, I think you are mistaken in your "complete understanding of the word (or technically speaking, expression) and it's history".
My very cursory research shows that most sources corroborate cariad's understanding of the origins of the term "indian giver" and whatever the origin, current usage appears to categorize it as a slur with racial overtones.


http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v2n3n4/baird.html

Gifts Must Move: Gift economies require a cycle of giving. The racist expression "Indian giver" has its source in this aspect of gift giving. In his 1764 history of the Massachusetts colony, Thomas Hutchinson said, "An Indian gift is a proverbial expression signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected" (quoted in Hyde, 1979, p. 3). Hyde goes on to describe how the Massachusetts Indians may have shared a peace pipe with the Puritan settlers, leaving the pipe with the newcomers. But the Indians expected the pipe to be returned, or better, recycled and given to others as part of the socially binding cycle of giving peace making: "The Indian giver (or the original one, at any rate) understood a cardinal property of the gift: whatever we have been given is supposed to be given away again, not kept. Or if it is kept, something of similar value should move on in its stead" (Hyde, 1979, p. 4).

[Hanify]

Of course the term Indian Giver is racist.  It is meant as a put down to Indian Americans.

[Hemodoc]

What part of “Thou shalt not kill” allows for exceptions of any nature? The ten commandments represent the very foundation of JudeoChristian belief, yet you seem to see a loophole here. I am honestly interested in how you reconcile this. If my husband commits adultery, can I do the same back to him with impunity?

I do agree with you that obviously there is a great deal of history in the Bible. I come from a family of atheists, and frankly, my father has always told me to read the bible because it is an important historical document. It is clearly embellished though, and borrows liberally from other belief systems (Greek mythology, paganism, etc.) I have only managed to read parts of the Bible, because the way women are treated from Genesis onward sickens me, and that is to say nothing of homosexuals. I have read GOD: A Biography twice (that man is a genius), though, and this discussion reminded me to start the sequel Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God. I recommend the first to anyone of any religion who wants to read riveting Biblical analysis.

Dear cariad,

I responded to the false premises that Christians of 2000 years ago had the intellect of a 4 year old, that mission workers make people feel demeaned if you don't accept Christ,  that the Bible says nothing about cleanliness and now you are asking me to respond to another false premise about whether you should commit adultery against your husband if he did it first. Where did you get that premise from? It certainly does not come from any part of the Bible.  I have deliberately stayed away from this thread for quite a while, but do we really as Christians need to keep responding to one false premise after another?

The thread is supposed to be about whether there is a God which is a most fascinating issue discussed and considered by not only the majority of people in the world, but by a majority of people at IHD.  I have already answered that question for myself.  My participation once again was due to the several false premises I saw regarding my faith.  Perhaps instead of talking about someone's religion in a negative sense, we would be better to return to the original intent that Epoman set forth: Is there a God?  My answer is an emphatic yes for a host of reasons.

[Hanify]

What this thread shows most for me is that it shows how different people can be within the same very wide groups.  Look how varied our beliefs are even though some of us are all Christians.  We should try to understand that because it is the same in the Muslim faiths.  A Muslim can have beliefs just as varied as a Christian.  And we all believe in God - Muslims and Christians, so you could put us all together under that umbrella.

[willowtreewren]

Oh my.

I did not intend to open such a can of worms! And I have been busy with dialysis this evening and logged back in to find such a long list of posts!

I hope I have not offended my dear faithful friends. I hope I have not offended anyone, in fact. It was never my intention to do so. I have merely been trying to get a better understanding of of others views while giving others a chance to get a better understanding of mine.

I certainly didn't think I was being negative (as I'm generally not a negative person) and I apologize for coming across that way to anyone who took my comments as being negative toward those of faith. Although one might take some of the responses as personal attacks against me, I prefer to take it as an emotional response to an emotional issue. It isn't that emotional for me, but I understand that for many religion is a very emotional topic. I appreciate those of you who leaped to my defense (truly, quite wonderful of you), but I did not take offense at the responses.

My intent has also not been to try to change anyone's mind, "win" an argument, or prove a superior point. I just wanted to open the door for some interesting dialog.

Aleta

[BigSky]

With all due respect, BigSky, I think you are mistaken in your "complete understanding of the word (or technically speaking, expression) and it's history".
My very cursory research shows that most sources corroborate cariad's understanding of the origins of the term "indian giver" and whatever the origin, current usage appears to categorize it as a slur with racial overtones.

No you would be mistaken in your understanding and research.  This is clear by you only relying on how the word first originated and not how it has evolved into other definitions.  I am Ojibwa and I know the other definition of this word.

That being as I stated.  How one gives one something and then turns around and wants it back.

I.E How whites broke promises and treaties with the Indians and took back land from Indians once it was given and so forth.

Of course the term Indian Giver is racist.  It is meant as a put down to Indian Americans.

Only if its used in the manner of its original origin of which it was not.  So in fact since it was not used in that manner it is therefore not a put down to my people as you try to claim.

[Hemodoc]

Thank you Aleta, it is a difficult topic to discuss among those that have differing views.  For those that believe not in God, I have never taken offense to someone asking me of the reasons for my faith.  I became a believer after my formative years in a Boston/Cape Cod liberal family having voted for Ted Kennedy and even congressman Studds in my prior life as a Boston liberal until the age of 36.  The rest of my family is still puzzled how I could turn out the way I did.

The way that people are converted is our own personal testimony of Jesus working within our lives.  For myself, the question that Epoman posted of "Is there a God?" is the story of my adult life.  In college, I sought the truth through philosophy and science.  Later, I was married in a Buddhist ceremony to my first wife who practiced this religion.  I took a gander at this as well.  It was not until several years later when a colleague of mine began to preach to me about Bible prophecy that I become a born again Christian.  I could see the accuracies of the prophecies, but I could not in my mind prove when it was written.  I never voiced this to anyone including my friend Kevin, a family practice physician.  Yet, one day, I was confronted with a prophecy that I knew was written two thousand years ago and being fulfilled exactly today.  I have since found many such things.  It was through logic and evidence that I became a born again believer.

Since that day, I have learned to pray and to seek the will of God who has graciously answered my prayers many times over.  For those that doubt that there is a God, keep looking and seeking.  He is real.  Being in unbelief the majority of my early life, I readily understand the many issues that could lead to doubt.  I had them myself until my conversion.  I have found several issues since becoming a Christian that the Lord has given me confidence in over time over time as well. These are difficult issues for anyone to understand and comprehend, believer or unbeliever.

I firmly believe that there will come a day when God Himself shall answer all of your questions and doubts Himself.  I am also equally sure that there is a heaven and a hell where we do and believe here does matter.  It is my hope and prayer that all could know what I know to be true.  I am more than ready to give an answer of the faith that resides within me, but I really would like to avoid discourses about false premises.  This is a difficult topic which Epoman himself knew could be quite contentious.  Now that Epoman is now gone himself to eternity, I suspect that from his new perspective that this thread may actually be the most important one of all that he started.  That is my belief.  I believe that there is a God who wishes for all to know Him personally.  That is my sincere belief for many reasons.

[cariad]

The OT does contain harsh examples of judgment by God against ungodly nations.  Many use these as an example of an "immoral god," when in fact, it is an example of God dealing with these nations according to the law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Hemodoc, the (rhetorical) adultery question was meant as an analogy. I certainly meant no disrespect of Christianity. I was sincerely seeking further insight into your initial defense of the "eye for an eye" principal. I was trying to show with a deliberately absurd example how the only way to strictly implement an eye for an eye in certain cases is to encourage further sin. You said the death penalty is justice for killers. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, the death penalty is one of those issues where I can see both sides and have yet to clearly work out for myself how I really feel about it. I am genuinely interested in how Christians can find Biblical support for the death penalty given the  unequivocal nature of the ten commandments.

Further, I never said that I believed committing adultery as revenge against an adulterer is a premise of the Bible, but that it seemed to follow from your argument. In fact, my recollection of the small amount of biblical study that I had in school has left me thinking all these years that the Bible condemns an eye for an eye as barbaric. My husband seems to think that the ten commandments sprang out as a response to that law. I don't know, I am thinking aloud.

Myself, I believe in the saying "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."

I believe that Epoman wanted to start discussion, and that he used the initial question as a way to get people talking about the different aspects of their beliefs. I found the discussion interesting and informative, but it seems I have offended you, so I want to apologize. Actually, I want to apologize and quote Aleta, because she says these things so well:

I certainly didn't think I was being negative (as I'm generally not a negative person) and I apologize for coming across that way to anyone who took my comments as being negative toward those of faith. Although one might take some of the responses as personal attacks against me, I prefer to take it as an emotional response to an emotional issue. It isn't that emotional for me, but I understand that for many religion is a very emotional topic.

Aleta, I just love your attitude. I can learn a great deal about social grace from you.

[Hemodoc]

With all due respect, BigSky, I think you are mistaken in your "complete understanding of the word (or technically speaking, expression) and it's history".
My very cursory research shows that most sources corroborate cariad's understanding of the origins of the term "indian giver" and whatever the origin, current usage appears to categorize it as a slur with racial overtones.

No you would be mistaken in your understanding and research.  This is clear by you only relying on how the word first originated and not how it has evolved into other definitions.  I am Ojibwa and I know the other definition of this word.

That being as I stated.  How one gives one something and then turns around and wants it back.

I.E How whites broke promises and treaties with the Indians and took back land from Indians once it was given and so forth.

Of course the term Indian Giver is racist.  It is meant as a put down to Indian Americans.

Only if its used in the manner of its original origin of which it was not.  So in fact since it was not used in that manner it is therefore not a put down to my people as you try to claim.

I must confess that my impression of the term indian giver has always been from the perspective of the government taking back all that was given to the indians and breaking every single treaty ever signed if that is a correct statement.  I have never seen it from the other perspective until today.  Notwithstanding, I don't believe that bigsky used it as a racial slant.  I take him at his word.

[Hemodoc]

The OT does contain harsh examples of judgment by God against ungodly nations.  Many use these as an example of an "immoral god," when in fact, it is an example of God dealing with these nations according to the law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Hemodoc, the (rhetorical) adultery question was meant as an analogy. I certainly meant no disrespect of Christianity. I was sincerely seeking further insight into your initial defense of the "eye for an eye" principal. I was trying to show with a deliberately absurd example how the only way to strictly implement an eye for an eye in certain cases is to encourage further sin. You said the death penalty is justice for killers. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, the death penalty is one of those issues where I can see both sides and have yet to clearly work out for myself how I really feel about it. I am genuinely interested in how Christians can find Biblical support for the death penalty given the  unequivocal nature of the ten commandments.

Further, I never said that I believed committing adultery as revenge against an adulterer is a premise of the Bible, but that it seemed to follow from your argument. In fact, my recollection of the small amount of biblical study that I had in school has left me thinking all these years that the Bible condemns an eye for an eye as barbaric. My husband seems to think that the ten commandments sprang out as a response to that law. I don't know, I am thinking aloud.

Myself, I believe in the saying "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."

I believe that Epoman wanted to start discussion, and that he used the initial question as a way to get people talking about the different aspects of their beliefs. I found the discussion interesting and informative, but it seems I have offended you, so I want to apologize. Actually, I want to apologize and quote Aleta, because she says these things so well:

I certainly didn't think I was being negative (as I'm generally not a negative person) and I apologize for coming across that way to anyone who took my comments as being negative toward those of faith. Although one might take some of the responses as personal attacks against me, I prefer to take it as an emotional response to an emotional issue. It isn't that emotional for me, but I understand that for many religion is a very emotional topic.

Aleta, I just love your attitude. I can learn a great deal about social grace from you.

Thank you cariad, the framework of your current question is certainly a legitimate question to ask.

First, an eye for an eye was a mirror to the transgressor to come to repentance for what they had done to another.  It was one of the ways in which God chose to teach man to look internally at his own sin.  That is still an issue today.  Most think of themselves as good people but fail to see the impact that our little white lies and other sins have on other people.  David when he committed adultery later confessed this sin to God when confronted by Nathan the prophet and stated that he had sinned against God alone.  If He is our creator as the Bible states, then we need to consider what our sins do against Him.  That is the Bible perspective.  Understanding the consequences of our sins was brought forth even further when a man who confessed his sins then went and sacrificed an innocent lamb for his transgressions.  The final lamb was Jesus when He paid for all of our sins.

The issue of the 10 commandments is simply that the killing is an admonition against murder.  This is clearly delineated in further parts of the law where God commands murderers to be put to death to remove evil from the land.  There is no conflict from a Bible perspective.

The OT law was in place until the promise of the messiah given to Abraham could come.  Since then, we are under the law of grace.

I am quite ambivalent about the death penalty as practiced in America since the rules of evidence are quite lax today leading to many wrongly convicted as DNA has shown in over a hundred death row cases.

[Hemodoc]

Dear cariad, thank you for your apology.  I spent 36 years as an unbeliever, so discussing my faith is one of the things I enjoy the most now in my old age of 51.  Your questions are appreciated.  Unfortunately, most threads on the nature of Christian faith often devolve into spurious dialogues based on false premises.  That was the reason for my response to prevent that since several other posts seemed to be headed that way.  IHD has spirited discourses on many issues where people have strong opinions, but for the most part, IHD is able to keep the discussions polite.  I see no reason why this thread should be any different.

[cariad]

The cultural linguistics professor that I had in grad school taught that 'Indian giver' was most definitely an insult against American Indians. He never mentioned the alternate meaning. Perhaps it has widely taken on that other sense, but since he devoted his career to studying the politics and ideology of his own culture, I wish he would have commented on that. He wrote his dissertation at Harvard on the 'linguistic suicide' that he felt his own people, First Nations, were committing. He loved to say "Words matter, language matters" and the case he makes for this is powerful.

I do not think BigSky meant it to be racist - I think he has already mentioned being American Indian so that would be a little strange to deliberately insult your own people. However, I think people use words like 'gyp' and 'welsh' without giving it a second thought. The word Welsh (which my husbands happens to be 100%) derives from an ugly little poem that apparently the English used to sing on St. David's Day of all days (roughly the Welsh equivalent of St. Patricks Day for the Irish). If you want to read it, google "Taffy was a Welshman".

Still, take the racial slur context away and I still read it as insulting someone. However, Aleta has a more generous interpretation, and therefore it really is none of my business. Sorry for the lengthy tangent.

[cariad]

Dear cariad, thank you for your apology.  I spent 36 years as an unbeliever, so discussing my faith is one of the things I enjoy the most now in my old age of 51.  Your questions are appreciated.  Unfortunately, most threads on the nature of Christian faith often devolve into spurious dialogues based on false premises.  That was the reason for my response to prevent that since several other posts seemed to be headed that way.  IHD has spirited discourses on many issues where people have strong opinions, but for the most part, IHD is able to keep the discussions polite.  I see no reason why this thread should be any different.

Completely agree, Hemodoc. I hear what you are saying and can see where your frustration was coming from now. I appreciate you elaborating on your beliefs (which I do find fascinating). I have definitely learned something from your responses. 

[Rerun]

My understanding of the Ten Commandments is that they were put in place to prove that everyone of us will sin and therefore need the Saviour.  I still say the Lord's name in vain and know I shouldn't.

Christians are not perfect, but we know we are forgiven under the blood of Jesus.  The ultimate dialysis.

When the homeless person said "God bless you" for the money and you asked for it back would be the same as if you were the beggar and someone took the money back because you didn't give God the credit.  It that still funny?  Sounds mean to me.  Do you also give blind people wrong directions?

You have to hear the message of God and the Lord Jesus Christ before you can accept it or reject it.  Condemnation is for those who have heard the word but do not accept it.  New born babies and people in the outback who have not heard .... are not accountable and I believe go to heaven.

I still say if I'm wrong, no big deal.  But if you're wrong.........

My friend Dean works at the Union Gospel Mission.  Anyone can come in and have a free meal.  Towards the end of the month they have normal families come for dinner because they are just out of food at home.  Anyone can eat a meal.  They have to leave the weapons at the door and no drugs or alcohol.  If they come more than 5 times they are asked to do a chore.  Like help clean up.  Some get mad and leave and never come back.  They also have a church service everynight where people can stay after dinner to join in.  Men who want to turn their life around can join a Program which does include Church.  No one can force you to accept  the Lord.  Only He knows your heart anyway.  But, The Union Gospel Mission is Church Sponsored all by donations from the community.  If you join a weight loss program are you going to refuse to exercise?  The Mission has food, clothes and beds and provides a program to get back on your feet.  All the employees are Christians with the gift of service. 

                                                           

[tyefly]

    There are many people who do nice things for other people.....   And it seems like there is less and less of it.....  People are not as nice as they use to be.... seems like to me.... but it does depend on who you hang with and where you stand in the world.....  I like people and I have help many.... but I don't help those people because of God.... I help them because I want to ....   God is a subject that is hard to talk about....  I like people who believe in God for the most part..... (there are some really phonies though)   they seem like they have better than most intentions....  I  helped  start a community garden here in my town and we have really brought the community together...  there are many people who now are talking and helping each other and yet they have lived by each other for years...and never really talked....  We help the local food bank with fresh produce..... We give many seniors fresh produce and most of all      we bring smiles to many faces..... God or no God     its is what we do that makes the difference....      there is only one thing that is bigger than that.....  and that is passion..... When someone is passionate about something ( anything) and really shows it, and tells the world....  Well I just get choke up about some peoples passion.....  There are many people here at IHD  that are very passionate about many things....   There is a handfull of members that are the foundation of this group... and we all certainly  appreciate everything that they do for all of us....... 
    Hey    ReRun....... You are one of those special people......   

[Des]

Dear willowtreewren,

I readily understand not understanding what the gospel of Christ is really all about since I didn't as well until I was 36 years old myself.  The Bible tells us to give food and shelter to those that are less fortunate.  It also does tell us to spread the gospel. Missions have been a wonderful area to do both of these things.

I have preached in the California prison system for several years.  The purpose of preaching was not to make people feel unworthy of help, it was just the opposite, to show the worth of men that others have thrown away so to speak.  Reaching out to the prisons where society has given up on them, reaching out to skid row for those that no one else pays attention to is a true outreach from teachings of the Bible.  Thus, the message of prison ministries and mission work here to the less fortunate is the message that God finds them worthy of His attention and He sends us to do His will for these people.  I must take exception that the missions make them feel unworthy when the entire thrust of the mission work is the message that God finds these people worthy even though society does not.

Once again, having preached in the prisons myself to rapists, killers and others in maximum security, the purpose was never to show someone that I am more worthy because I am a Christian.  Just the opposite, the Bible tells us that Christ died for us even when we were all sinners.  I am overwhelmed by the love of God that He sent His son to pay the consequences of my many sins.  That is the greatest act of love anywhere and anytime in this universe.  It is a free gift to all.  Love must be free, so God gives us the free will to choose.  The choice of heaven and hell is given to the individual.  The gift is offered to all, including the lowest parts of society including the homeless. The success of the missions is in reaching people with the means to elevate their life out of the gutter and to foresake the lifestyles that led to where they are.  It is a story with many successes, yet people can eat over and over again and never accept Christ, and they will keep feeding them.  They don't place conversion as a condition to help these people.  They are fed food for the body and food for the soul.  Then, the people are given the free choice to accept or reject the offer of salvation. 

Most of these people are not eligible for government services and I am not aware of any atheist missions to the poor.  If they are out there, that would be interesting to know about.  The Christian missions have an incredible history of serving the poor and disenfranchised people in this nation and around the world.  Once again, conversion is not a requirement to obtain food and shelter.  I find it one of the most admirable endeavors of the human kind.

I find it difficult to find anything at all wrong with Christian missions doing this sort of work.  I placed my own life at risk to preach in prisons every time I went by myself among a group of mureders and rapist and drug dealers.  It is an act of sacrifice to serve the people that the rest of society neglects. I simply can't find any aspect of this to criticize myself having been a part of the same giving that leads us to support mission work at home and abroad.  The message ultimately is that God finds all sinners, no matter how low on the totem pole of society worthy of the sacrifice of His only begotten son.  I am just overwhelmed by this message and grateful that He would forgive completely a sinner such as I.  It is the most amazing story ever written mainly because of its truth which I have found personally in my own life.  Prayers are real as are His answers.  Quite an amazing thing.

I am so touched by this message.... I could never word my faith in God in such lovingly way. I could not think of the words to describe the way I feel or the way I am blessed at all. Thank you so much for these words. Now I can describe what I feel to others.
 

[Des]

I still say if I'm wrong, no big deal.  But if you're wrong.........

Oeps!
 
I put my head gear on and I am ready to rumble.

We should not be a Christian just "in case" that there is a hell.
That should not be a reason to be a Christian at all. Maybe that is where the "so-called" false Christians come from.

(just a thought... not directed at anyone)

[Stoday]

Living in the UK, I'd never come across the expression "Indian Giver" until I read this thread. Indeed, the "Indian" initailly created the image of a person from India/Pakistan rather than a Native American.

Is it racist? I have no doubt it has racist implications. In England, if you "play the white man" you are honest. That's racist in the implication than a non-white man is dishonest. It's so racist that I would think twice about posting the expression if this forum were UK rather than US based. At first sight, "Indian Giver" seems to me to carry similar implications.

  (well, two penn'orth in the UK  )

[Bajanne]

I am so grateful to Hemodoc for weighing in on this discussion and giving a lucid explanation of this faith in Jesus Christ.  He makes me think of C.S.Lewis and his book 'Mere Christianity'  He was a eminent intellectual, an Oxford scholar and an atheist, who came to believe.
Blaise Pascal (renowned French mathetician in the 17th century) in his book "Pensées", throws out a wager to his atheist friends. 
[Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. (Wikipedia)]
I remember, in my university days, studying "Pensées" as part of my 17th century French literature course.  It was an eye-opener.  My lecturer was atheist, but as he explained to us what Pascal was saying, at times I felt like shouting 'Hallelujah!'  It was as if he was preaching. I found it amazing that someone three centuries away from me could so express a faith that I was experiencing, having had a life-changing experience with the living Jesus Christ just before I started university.

[Hanify]

I find it really difficult when I have to have auditions at my school for choir.  I often have 50 children auditioning for only 30 choir positions.  Some of them are absolutely useless, and some of them are fine, but just not as good as the really good ones.  I feel so bad when I have to tell them they didn't get in.  The God - being - whatever I believe in could not possibly send anyone to Hell - (not that I believe there is such a place) - let alone send good people there!  But that's just my belief - I think it's great that we can all believe different things.