panelarrow

34 Comments

  1. Oy! What a black eye for the church. Way to go, “Pastor”.

  2. This is a horrible “witness;” wreaks of pride! Where is the kindness and gentleness of spirit that we’re commanded to have! (Ephesians 4:2)

  3. I don’t think it’s a good witness. I think it’s better to give a good tip, so that if you give something like a gospel tract, they are more likely to read it. Also, people can give more than 10 percent to God if they want to. It’s not a minimum or maximum. The Bible talks about being a cheerful giver to God and what you decide to give.

  4. Waaaaaaay back in the day, I used to work as a server. Sometimes I would get a large group of people, and my “tip” was one of those mini tracts that looks like a $10 bill when you fold it in half.

    This was back when I was a Christian (and therefore I had a bunch of tracts of my own), and I remember how lame I thought it was.

    • Yep. That would be totally lame. My viewpoints are upcoming, Nohm.

    • you’re right – way lame. Servers work hard and those who do their job well deserve a good tip. The gospel tract should be a bonus. The fact that tracts are made to look like money, does NOT mean we use them instead of money. lame! lame! Sorry that happened to you.

      • People who leave money tracts instead of the real stuff are not Christians. A consistent Bible Christian loves his neighbor as himself. Because that is a reflection of who God is and we are made in his image. I have a server in my family who works at a well known sports grill. And has told me of times where a whole table of guys will eat and then walk out without paying. This behavior is horrible and corrupt. When I eat at a sit down restaurant and have it served to my table and everything went will, I just double the tip. So easy. And I leave a tract. Don’t eat out if you don’t have money for a tip. Christian should and ought to be the biggest tippers.

  5. Sadly this Pastor is showing no concern for the lost as well as not being missions minded nor has no idea about the Great Commission and how to win souls, fruit like this points towards being a possible false convert.

  6. Why does the server get 18 percent? Because he or she is real. God isn’t.

  7. Ugh. What is the deal with the tithe? What about those who make pittance and can’t afford to give 10% without causing hardship! I know of one church that asks for the 10% all at once in January of every year! There is a Bible tale of the woman who gave a small coin, but it was all she had. Jesus looked on that more favorably than the wealthy who gave their 10%. Let’s focus on that.

    • George Carlin had it right when it comes to that tithe.

      “Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time!”

      “But He loves you!! He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good BS story. Holy ****!”

  8. Wow, that makes me shutter! Just shameful and unfortunately if they did it once whose to say they don’t do every where they go. What a terrible witness.

  9. It gets worse…

    EDIT: Mark left a link identifying the pastor. I will use it in tomorrow’s post. Thanks Mark!

  10. Awful witness!!!! No wonder the world despises Christians. 🙁

    It should read: Servers get 18%, why does God only get 10%?

  11. Update, in case it isn’t known – The server was actually fired after the pastor filed a complaint claiming that the server ruined her reputation.

    You have to be joking, right? How is that in any way fair.

  12. Bro, no one is telling (making) anyone how to “react” to Christianity. Seeing is not believing. I doubt, that in all cases, if a non-believer saw someone rise from the dead (just like he said he would). With the evidence of the nail marks in his wrist and puncture scars in his side would make him/her believe. Seeing is not believing. You don’t have to see something to believe it. You have never seen your brain…but, I know you think you have one. ha, ha.

    • Hi Richard,

      Seeing is not believing.

      True, but this is not an “either-or” situation; seeing plays a big part in the ability to believe. It’s not the whole thing, but it would be a very important piece of evidence.

      I doubt, that in all cases, if a non-believer saw someone rise from the dead (just like he said he would).

      And this is the problem with your attempts at mind-reading; they usually fail, like here. If I saw someone rise from the literal dead, that would drastically change a lot of views I have of the world.

      Since you don’t know us, please don’t tell us how we’d react to a situation; I don’t do that to you, right?

      With the evidence of the nail marks in his wrist and puncture scars in his side would make him/her believe.

      It made Thomas believe, right? Showing him evidence made him believe. That’s how it works. Again, please don’t tell us how we’d react to that situation, as you have no idea how we’d react. A man who was literally dead, with nail marks in wrists and puncture scars in his side, would drastically change my views on a lot of things.

      Seeing is not believing.

      As I said before, this is not an “either-or” situation.

      You don’t have to see something to believe it.

      Correct, but we do need evidence to believe something that goes against everything we’ve ever known to be true. We may not have to see it to believe it, but seeing it plays a pretty big part.

      For example, think of the difference between you seeing someone hit four holes-in-one in a row, versus being told about it. See the difference?

      You have never seen your brain…

      Wrong, I have. It’s called a CT scan. Also, we can cut open the heads of dead people and amaze that every single one has had a brain. Amazing.

      but, I know you think you have one.

      But do you know why we think we have one? Mull it over. Do some research. There’s an answer, and it doesn’t end with “ha, ha.”

      • Bro, seeing is not believing. Nor will the presentation of evidence cause
        one to change. Our senses can fool us..our memories can be wrong. What we know must be established on a foundation that cannot change. One changes his understanding when he/she comes to grip with the fact that the way he/she looks at this life is false.

        A clear example is found in scripture, Matthew 28: 17 “When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.” Seeing and evidence together will not change you.

      • Hi Richard,

        Bro,

        I would prefer that you not call me that, please.

        seeing is not believing.

        I didn’t disagree with this statement of yours, but you saw that I didn’t agree with it either. No, seeing is not 100% of believing, but it is a substantial part.

        Like I asked, do you see the difference between seeing someone make four holes-in-one, and hearing them *say* that they got four holes-in-one?

        Nor will the presentation of evidence cause one to change.

        This sounds like projection on your part. Maybe the presentation of evidence does not cause you to change, but you can’t engage in failed mind-reading and tell me what does and does not change me.

        I can promise you that the presentation of evidence definitely can cause one to change. The question is whether or not the evidence is *persuasive* and *supported*.

        Our senses can fool us..our memories can be wrong.

        I’m happy to say that you and I both agree on this. But those facts do not mean that they are 100% unreliable, especially when combined with the senses and memories of others.

        These are not “either-or” situations, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that you are implying that they are.

        What we know must be established on a foundation that cannot change.

        I agree. That foundation is called “reality”. In other words, that which exists.

        One changes his understanding when he/she comes to grip with the fact that the way he/she looks at this life is false.

        Sure, and that’s a good thing, and something I’ve gone through quite a few times in my 40 years on this Earth.

        The problem is that not only have you not convinced me that the way I look at this life is false, but that your consistent use of failed mind-reading leads me to believe that the way you look at this life is false. That’s just what I’m getting from you.

        A clear example is found in scripture, Matthew 28: 17 “When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.” Seeing and evidence together will not change you.

        I do not view Christian scripture as the least bit authoritative and, in fact, I tend to view it as dispersuasive, just like how you probably view Islamic scripture.

        Your scripture does not trump what my views actually are, what my opinions actually are, how I think, or what reality is.

        Fortunately.

    • Hi Richard,

      Bro, no one is telling (making) anyone how to “react” to Christianity.

      I didn’t claim that you were. My issue is that you were telling us how we’d react if God was visible. You said, and I quote: “You would still not believe.

      That’s why I said, please don’t tell us how we’d react, because you have no idea (obviously) how we’d react.

      • Mr. Noah, your the second person who objects to me calling him Bro. I’m sorry if I offended you. The Bible says we were made in God’s image.

        And please forgive me if you think I’m using failed mind reading on you. I’m not. Believe me, when it comes to using mind games I only use reverse psychology on little kids to get them to eat their vegetables.

        By the way, I like your exchanges on these issues. However, are you seriously wanting to know the truth? Or do you simply want to argue for arguments sake?

        Now you say that truth is reality. That which exists. So, how do you account for things that can’t be seen in nature? Like the objective/absolute laws of morality? They can’t be observed.

        Now I know you will admit to being wrong in your life time. One thing you don’t want to be wrong about is where you will spend eternity. Now that is the truth because God said it.

        Lastly, in reading up on Secular morality it seems to me (since you did not explain it to me)..that it is what brings the most happiness to oneself. Now if this is true, what is to say that me shooting someone won’t bring me happiness? Do you see what I’m saying?

        Jesus said you either are with me or you are against me.

      • Hi Richard,

        Mr. Noah,

        My name is actually “Nohm”, not “Noah”.

        your the second person who objects to me calling him Bro. I’m sorry if I offended you. The Bible says we were made in God’s image.

        I’m not offended, per se; I simply prefer that only people I’m close friends with call me a name like “bro”.

        And please forgive me if you think I’m using failed mind reading on you. I’m not.

        Actually, you are. You might not be doing it with negative intentions, but you quire clearly are.

        You are telling me what I supposedly think. You are telling me what my opinions supposedly are. You are telling me how I would supposedly react to a situation.

        Instead of asking me how I think, what my opinions are, or how I would react to a situation, you’re telling me. And you’re almost always wrong.

        That’s why I call it “failed mind-reading”. It’s “failed” because you’re nearly always wrong. It’s “mind-reading” because you are acting as if you know what I think, when you clearly have no idea what I actually think.

        “Bro” isn’t offensive, but failed mind-reading definitely is.

        Believe me, when it comes to using mind games I only use reverse psychology on little kids to get them to eat their vegetables.

        Failed mind-reading is not a mind game; it’s a way of interacting with another person.

        Imagine if you and I passed each other on the sidewalk, having never met before. Compare these two options:

        1. I ask you, “Why do you hate the Constitution? Why do you want to put people in concentration camps? It’s people like you — people who hate people who are different — that are causing all of the problems in this world.”

        2. I say to you, “What’s your opinion on the Constitution? Do you think people should be put in concentration camps? What’s your emotional reaction to people who are different from you?”

        Do you see the difference, Richard? The first option is failed mind-reading, and the second option is not. How would you prefer to be treated? If it’s the second option, then please stop telling other people what their opinions are and how they would react to a situation, because you don’t know because you can’t actually read minds.

        Does that make sense now?

        By the way, I like your exchanges on these issues.

        Thank you.

        However, are you seriously wanting to know the truth?

        Yes, but that’s not why I come to this blog.

        Or do you simply want to argue for arguments sake?

        No. There’s another option, which is the actual reason why I come to this blog and write comments to people like yourself and Steve Sanchez: I am fascinated and interested in people who think differently than I do. Therefore, I like to go to places online that contain people who think drastically differently than I do.

        Now you say that truth is reality. That which exists.

        Basically, yes.

        So, how do you account for things that can’t be seen in nature?

        Because “observation” doesn’t always mean viewing something with your eyes. For example, we can observe and measure the effects of things that are not seen.

        Like the objective/absolute laws of morality?

        “Objective” and “Absolute” are not equivalent words. Please let me know which one you actually mean. For example, while I believe in objective morality, I don’t believe in absolute morality (and, when the rubber meets the road, I doubt that you really live your life as if you believe in absolute morality).

        They can’t be observed.

        Correct, because they exist conceptually. Still, their effects can be observed.

        I can account for conceptual things because of how the brain works. It’s not an issue to me.

        Now I know you will admit to being wrong in your life time.

        Absolutely I will admit to being wrong.

        One thing you don’t want to be wrong about is where you will spend eternity.

        I guess so, but if that’s the truth, then why should I believe a Christian over a Muslim? By Islamic standards, you are destined for Hellfire, yet it doesn’t appear that you are concerned about that, even though you claim that the one thing you don’t want to be wrong about is where you spend eternity. Do you consider that you might be wrong and the Muslims are right?

        If not, then why do you expect me to do something that you yourself don’t do?

        Now that is the truth because God said it.

        No, you claim that God said it, and you make this claim to someone who doesn’t believe in God.

        Lastly, in reading up on Secular morality

        I am betting that you did not read very much.

        it seems to me (since you did not explain it to me)

        As an aside, I want to explain why I didn’t explain secular morality to you: it is NOT a simple subject. It is, in fact, a massive subject, requiring a large background in philosophy to fully understand.

        If you didn’t appear to me to do much research on determinism, or respond when I tried to explain it, then why would I spend precious time writing up a huge essay on secular morality? Especially because, if you were actually interested, you could do the research from a much more knowledgeable source than myself.

        If you had shown me in the past that you have an interest in actually learning about these issues, I might have attempted it, but again, it would be a MASSIVE essay, and I simply don’t have the time to do that, especially since it’s so easily researched from the same device that you’re using to post your comments.

        ..that it is what brings the most happiness to oneself.

        No. Please, spend time doing research, if you’re actually interested in learning about secular morality. It is certainly not “what brings the most happiness to oneself”; that already has a name, and it’s “hedonism”.

        Now if this is true,

        And it’s not.

        what is to say that me shooting someone won’t bring me happiness? Do you see what I’m saying?

        Sure. Let’s say that brings you happiness, to shoot someone. Here’s a thought experiment: what would happen next? How long would you survive after that?

        That’s why shooting people, whether or not it brings you happiness, doesn’t work.

        Jesus said you either are with me or you are against me.

        Well, I’m neither with Him or against Him, so maybe He forgot about that third option (or it wasn’t written down for some reason).

        Be well.

      • I came back to this blog because Steve missed me. =) and debating with the fundies can be occasionally entertaining.

      • Glad to have you back! 🙂 🙂

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.