# All about the children?



## 660griz (Jan 4, 2017)

Children’s Charity Rejects Man’s $25K Donation Because He’s an Atheist

Got to hand it to em. They stood by their principles even if it meant children may suffer.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 4, 2017)

Link to story??


----------



## 660griz (Jan 4, 2017)

http://heatst.com/culture-wars/childrens-charity-rejects-mans-25k-donation-because-hes-an-atheist/
From a link on Foxnews.com


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2017)

That's stupid. Money has no denomination. They only did this with the motive of saying only religious can do good things. An old friend, passed away now once told me of his church raising money for a bell. The large kind that is built into a structure. Old school type. This was likely 75 years ago. They went around everywhere asking for money. Keep in mind, this is a small town where everyone knows everyone. Coming up waaaaaay short, collecting only about 10% they were ready to give up. Someone asked if they had John Doe,  the 1 non church goer in the community, who was a known drinker, who they assumed would automatically say no. Surely an assumed  lowlife like him would say no. But the group decided to send someone to ask since they were at a dead end. He gladly gave the remaining amount. That should have humbled the judgemental.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 4, 2017)

Yep. If it was my kid that needed the money, I would take money from ISIS, Katy Perry, Madonna, Rosy O'Donnell, Ben Affleck, Jessie Jackson, BLM, Hillary, etc. I would thank them but, still maintain they're a bunch of loons.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 5, 2017)

Would have used it as a teaching moment to showcase the fact that ALL men are made in the image of God, and because of this have not only infinite sanctity and dignity and are both worthy of and capable of love.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 5, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Would have used it as a teaching moment to showcase the fact that ALL men are made in the image of God, and because of this have not only infinite sanctity and dignity and are both worthy of and capable of love.



Big jump from a donation to your claimed fact.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 5, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Big jump from a donation to your claimed fact.



Is there a point to your statement?


----------



## 660griz (Jan 5, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Would have used it as a teaching moment to showcase the fact that ALL men are made in the image of God, and because of this have not only infinite sanctity and dignity and are both worthy of and capable of love.



Damage control?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 5, 2017)

660griz said:


> Damage control?



???


----------



## 660griz (Jan 5, 2017)

Who would be the audience for your teaching moment?
What question would they have that you are answering?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 5, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Is there a point to your statement?



Yes, you skipped about a couple hundred million dots to connect those two.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 5, 2017)

Could have been a cultural rejection, I don't see why dragging denominations, other than the size of the bills, has anything to do with this. 

http://www.murrowindianchildrenshome.org/


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Could have been a cultural rejection, I don't see why dragging denominations, other than the size of the bills, has anything to do with this.
> 
> http://www.murrowindianchildrenshome.org/



I find it odd that some people who dislike religion will give Buddhists and Indians a pass on their irrationality because they're trendy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 5, 2017)

660griz said:


> Who would be the audience for your teaching moment?
> What question would they have that you are answering?



Anyone who thinks man can't behave morally without believing in God or understand how he can


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 5, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Yes, you skipped about a couple hundred million dots to connect those two.



Eureka!!!!   I've just had an epiphany.  You hit the nail on the head Bullet.  We all know that unbelievers are spiritually blind as evidenced by you needing a million or so dots to understand what's patently self-evident to believers.  What you reeeeeeally need is spiritual Braille for the spiritually blind.  Something that acts as a physical, tactile, dot-bridge that can also speak to the blind's spirit in a way that is understandable to even the blindest of the blind.  in short, what you need is a Bible.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 5, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I find it odd that some people who dislike religion will give Buddhists and Indians a pass on their irrationality because they're trendy.



Don't let it bother you brother.  Most Athiest ain't exactly Atheist because of the beliefs inherent strengths, but it's a rather trendy pick these days none-the-less.  Wouldn't go all casting stones on the Buddhist and Hindus.  Glass houses and all that stuff you know, but yes, I agree with your point.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 5, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Could have been a cultural rejection, I don't see why dragging denominations, other than the size of the bills, has anything to do with this.
> 
> http://www.murrowindianchildrenshome.org/



All humor aside, on the surface it appears to have been a bad decision for a myriad of reasons and that generally suggests a personnel or personal conflict or perhaps both.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 6, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> All humor aside, on the surface it appears to have been a bad decision for a myriad of reasons and that generally suggests a personnel or personal conflict or perhaps both.



Bad decision based on how bad they needed the money? or how easily they made a decision without compromising their beliefs? 

I don't want to lump Atheism in with Progressive Liberalism, where they think if you don't believe like they do then something is wrong with you. You know, peace, love and freedom, as long as you do it their way. 

Quite dichotomous when considering that is the anchor most Atheist hold over Christians of earlier years heads, and accuse them of. I'm sure there are a good many Christians in modern day even that still drag that timber around, but for the most part they are a dying breed. 

Good thing the charity didn't own a bakery.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2017)

Would anybody here defend them if they said "We don't want any money from The White Man"?  

OK.  "You got it".


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Eureka!!!!   I've just had an epiphany.  You hit the nail on the head Bullet.  We all know that unbelievers are spiritually blind as evidenced by you needing a million or so dots to understand what's patently self-evident to believers.  What you reeeeeeally need is spiritual Braille for the spiritually blind.  Something that acts as a physical, tactile, dot-bridge that can also speak to the blind's spirit in a way that is understandable to even the blindest of the blind.  in short, what you need is a Bible.


I cannot see what you are unable to show. That is not blindness. It is reality.

Being that I have a Bible, and have had Bibles my entire life, and have read those Bibles and am familiar with the contents....what is your new excuse?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 6, 2017)

When I read the Fox News article Wed. morning I saw a guy who tried to buy some advertising for $100.  It didn't work so he came up with an idea to get a bunch of other people to buy the advertising for him — that worked.

Having now looked at (scanned) this thread, I didn't notice anything about the advertising, which I thought was the keystone of the story.

What did I miss?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Eureka!!!!   I've just had an epiphany.  You hit the nail on the head Bullet.  We all know that unbelievers are spiritually blind as evidenced by you needing a million or so dots to understand what's patently self-evident to believers.  What you reeeeeeally need is spiritual Braille for the spiritually blind.  Something that acts as a physical, tactile, dot-bridge that can also speak to the blind's spirit in a way that is understandable to even the blindest of the blind.  in short, what you need is a Bible.



I've got and read a Bible as well.  I forgot, are you in the "You can understand if you try just right" or "You can't understand unless God lets you" camp?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Bad decision based on how bad they needed the money? or how easily they made a decision without compromising their beliefs?
> 
> I don't want to lump Atheism in with Progressive Liberalism, where they think if you don't believe like they do then something is wrong with you. You know, peace, love and freedom, as long as you do it their way.
> 
> ...



Anyone can think whatever they want.  They don't even need good reasons.  If you want to get people to agree with the way you think you have to compel them with good reasons.  

If acting on one's beliefs causes harm then those beliefs should be very heavily scrutinized.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Bad decision based on how bad they needed the money? or how easily they made a decision without compromising their beliefs?
> 
> I don't want to lump Atheism in with Progressive Liberalism, where they think if you don't believe like they do then something is wrong with you. You know, peace, love and freedom, as long as you do it their way.
> 
> ...


It does not take much reading in these threads to find evidence that many believers also fit your definition of Progressive Liberalism.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 6, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Anyone can think whatever they want.  They don't even need good reasons.  If you want to get people to agree with the way you think you have to compel them with good reasons.
> 
> If acting on one's beliefs causes harm then those beliefs should be very heavily scrutinized.



Apparently in today's Politically Correct environment, harm is a highly subjective term.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2017)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Apparently in today's Politically Correct environment, harm is a highly subjective term.



That nonsense is gonna dry up and blow away like the Tea Party.

I've talked with some young men, my nephew in high school and some college students that I occasionally employ and they recognize that the attempted indoctrination in high school is losing traction among their peers. 

Some very vocal and visible college professors are champions of Classical Liberalism and are pushing back hard against Marxist notions like compelled speech, safe spaces, trigger warnings, identity politics and silencing of opposing view points.

Look up Jonathan Haidt and his Heterodox Academy  

http://heterodoxacademy.org/

Susanna Hoff Sommers and Janice Fiamengo, both huge critics of modern Feminism, and Jordan peterson, who gives the most thoughtful discussion of the merits of Christianity I've ever heard:



Here's him again. Look at that suit!! He looks like an injured NBA player!:



But look into his beef with Canadian Bill C-16.  He's a BOSS.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 9, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I've got and read a Bible as well.  I forgot, are you in the "You can understand if you try just right" or "You can't understand unless God lets you" camp?



Understand and Accept are two totally separate concepts.  I don't think anyone here (well, maybe One who appears to suffer from flight of ideas) has any problem understanding the Bible from a comprehension standpoint.  The blindness I referred to is in regards to the acceptance aspect.  I tend to lean more toward free-will as evidenced by what I have observed of unbelievers.   So I guess in short, it's a self-imposed spiritual blindness.  That concept doesn't appear in your analysis of choices, which either makes it lacking or a straw man.  Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Understand and Accept are two totally separate concepts.  I don't think anyone here (well, maybe One who appears to suffer from flight of ideas) has any problem understanding the Bible from a comprehension standpoint.  The blindness I referred to is in regards to the acceptance aspect.  I tend to lean more toward free-will as evidenced by what I have observed of unbelievers.   So I guess in short, it's a self-imposed spiritual blindness.  That concept doesn't appear in your analysis of choices, which either makes it lacking or a straw man.  Wouldn't you agree?



I would not agree because they are indeed two different concepts.  The way that you 'understand' the Bible leads you to believe in free will.  Someone else's 'understanding' leads them to believe in predestination.  One could 'accept' either notion without any consideration or investigation.  Does your definition of Spiritual Blindness apply to you as well?  Could it not be said that you are Spiritually Blind to the notion of a different God than yours or even the notion of no God?

Upon further reflection I recognize the error in my investigation of 'understanding' the Bible.  So which is it?  Is it so easy a child can understand it or is it beyond our comprehension?


----------

