Voyager

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/27/almost.christ...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Av5OG...

Many troublesome Bible verses include the statement that God hates this or that.

Surely the pious and learned Christians who translated the Bible would have found a better expression, such as "God honored Jacob more than Esau" or "If you do not respect Jesus more than your father or mother" if the original did not mean exactly what it says: God and his prophets hate, and call his followers to hate, what is not in accordance from time to time with his whim.

Why do some Christians try to introduce wishy-washy paraphrases of such statements? Are they uncomfortable with what the Bible says?

Do people change what they say? Frequently, if not daily.

Do people change what they do? Occasionally, if they're made to.

But do people change what they are?

What does your life experience tell you?

and now you're a Christian, why would anyone think that's an advertisement for Christianity?

Who would rely on the testimony of such a person?

Wouldn't it raise at least a suspicion that Christianity appeals especially to self-indulgent and irresponsible people with below-average intelligence?

Who started this style of evangelism anyway?

Here's some Old English:

"Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum

þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon

hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon."

Complaining about masses in Latin is one thing, but isn't it just a wilful celebration of ignorance to claim you can't understand the KJV?

I've seen this comment several times in the past couple of days and it just seems remarkable. Here's your chance to name and shame your local theocracy.

I'm told that if churches lost their tax-free status, all sorts of charities and schools and hospitals would be crippled:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuulJ...

If a church, or anyone else, runs a soup kitchen, the soup kitchen should be tax-exempt.

If a church, or anyone else, runs a school or a hospital or gives clothes to the homeless or builds wells and schools in Africa and it is not for profit, those operations should be tax-exempt.

If a church, or anyone else, spends 80% of its income on charity, to include properly qualified administration of charity, it should get back 80% of its taxes.

None of this requires a richly decorated hall, a preacher on a full-time salary or a meeting of 200 people every week with attendant use of roads, electricity, water and public services.

Should the state subsidise a church to conduct worship services and to evangelise? Is this a public benefit?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArbTT...

It doesn't seem to work that way these days. Have churches reneged on the deal?

Should churches whose leaders make political statements on their followers' behalf be stripped of tax-free status?

Is this all a bit too cozy, close-knit, facile and corrupt? Is it time for the secular state to scrap this fool's bargain?

Some people have told me that churches provide universities, schools and institutions of knowledge out of their tax-free earnings, and furthermore that the American people are getting the better end of the deal:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200709...

Is it a positive benefit in a secular society for churches to run educational institutions (which, you had better believe, they see benefits to their own future membership in doing)? Are their results SO much better than secular providers that taxpayers ought to subsidise their worship halls and their ministers' salaries as well, as part of the arrangement?

How can we justify in a secular society allowing a group to own properties and investments for private benefit, without paying their fair share for the public services needed to support them?

Did religious groups ever perform a public function that justified them being subsidised by the state?

How do religious people feel about their organisation being registered, licenced and financially supported by the power of this world?

far more than he ever has or will believe the same of Jesus Christ?

Is it right to call such a person a Christian?

when, without appealing to the authority of the Bible, it seems to be the only argument you have?

See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ano4n...

What was said to have happened there?

What person is honored or deity is worshipped? Is this different from the prevailing religion of the region?

What are the practices of worship related to the site?

Major or obscure, current or dead, of whichever orthodoxy - just what stuck in your mind.

Please explain the belief or provide a link.