Gimme That Old Time Religion

[GeeGolly]

Well, you know, it's the same kind of thing as the Duggars' approach. There have always been plenty of Christians, including very high-profile ones, who elevate the whole conversion/spiritual-has-priority-over-physical/suffering-is-holy stuff. And MT is one of them. (some of them are grifters, of course, but while I've seen that accusation thrown around at MT I don't know whether anybody's ever produced any evidence about that ....)

 

I think it's the danger with any adults who are highly theoretical or who build really intense fantasy worlds in their minds (many artists, sometimes scientists) and certainly adult true-believers in religion -- their concepts about faith or whatever kind of world they have in their heads take precedence over people, totally. If you have a bunch of very strongly held ideas or principles and you lack true empathy, then in your world people for you sort of serve as illustrations of abstract principles. They aren't real to you; they're puppets in your intensely felt play. People like that probably think they're doing well by other people when they tell them how their lives are an illustration of God's plan for the world.

Well said Churchie. 

[Churchhoney]

Oh that is horrible Churchhoney. I hope your loved one can get some relief from their suffering; it must be a terrible ordeal for them as well as those who care about them. And I don't understand the logic behind the idea that one person's suffering would make things somehow better for anyone else. Is human existance a zero sum game?

 

I'm right there with you on that. .... Oddly, thinking that way seems to make some people feel better. I can't fathom why. 

[NewDigs]

Bolding mine

Oh that is horrible Churchhoney. I hope your loved one can get some relief from their suffering; it must be a terrible ordeal for them as well as those who care about them. And I don't understand the logic behind the idea that one person's suffering would make things somehow better for anyone else. Is human existance a zero sum game?

Would almost seem that way.

I think that the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying suggests that the person dying and in pain try to also take on others' pain.

[Churchhoney]

Bolding mine

Would almost seem that way.

I think that the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying suggests that the person dying and in pain try to also take on others' pain.

 

Yeah, I guess there are a lot of philosophies trying to explain the nature of the world with concepts of balance, and things being done or experienced for the sake of someone else and so on.  Trying to make the whole thing fit together like a big coherent picture.

[NewDigs]

Yeah, I guess there are a lot of philosophies trying to explain the nature of the world with concepts of balance, and things being done or experienced for the sake of someone else and so on.  Trying to make the whole thing fit together like a big coherent picture.

Still doesn't excuse those insensitive remarks.

That's just wrong.

[Marigold]

During one of my high school religion classes we had a visit from two very sincere young mormon guys (poor bastards... try explaining your faith in front of a classroom full of snarky, mostly atheist/agnostic teenage little shits who have been drilled in critical thinking for the past three years. I think we almost made one of them cry) and their explanation of the afterlife wasn't the usual dichotomy of heaven/hell where unbelievers get tortured for the crime of not believing.

 

Instead, according to them it was more like, if you believed in god and was a good mormon, you got to spend eternity near him. And if you didn't believe you ended up further away, and if you were a horrible person you ended up waaaay further away. There was some kind of space anology involved as well but it's been fifteen years and my memory is a little dodgy. The point of the whole idea though, seemed to be that the consequence for not having faith or for doing bad things isn't eternal punishment in hell, it's simply the abscence of god's presence. Which actually make more sense to me if one believes in the idea of a benevolent and loving god.

That is pretty much it.

Three levels of heaven and if you were faithful on your earth journey, you will reside in the level of Heaven that is closet with Heavenly Father. Etc.

The interesting thing to me is that (to a Mormon) there is "salvation" in the afterlife.

Let's just say, that Mormonism is the faith that leads to God. So, you are in the level furthest from God...and you realized "whoops, I made a huge mistake. I should've believed in God when I was on earth."

That's not a problem. You can convert in the afterlife. It is believed that Jesus ministers to each and every soul in the afterlife. No one is left behind. Because that is what a parent does for their child; we never give up and we always love them no matter how much they screw up.

I find that to be peaceful. You can see how that appealed to me after years of YOU'RE GOING TO HELL 24/7.

Ben can mock Mormons, laugh at us, tell us we are all going to hell and follow a demonic religion. (remember his anti Mormon videos?). Go ahead, Benny...tell us we are evil. But us Mormons love you no matter how mixed up you are.

In the afterlife, if Mormons are right, I promise you guys, I will help Ben with his conversion! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[kokapetl]

I heard there's personal planets and secret passwords in the Mormon afterlife.

[Muffyn]

I can't say I've put much thought into the apparently masses of different kinds of lutherans in the world. ;) It's very possible that I'm just clumping several branches into one, since the ones I have come across didn't really make the distinction themselves. Perhaps they all consider themselves the "true" lutherans.

A friend of mine was raised Lutheran.  Her mother used to forbid them from going to certain Lutheran churches because they were the "bad" Lutherans.  In adulthood I was at her mother's house and she had had too much to drink.  The subject of the "bad"Lutherans came up.  she started slurring about the "evil, damn near devil worshiping" Lutherans.  We still joke about.  We'll drive past a Lutheran church and ask, "good or devil worshiping?"  

[Almost 3000]

I love the Lutheran talk here. My Missouri Synod Lutheran mom didn't want me to date Catholics nor Jews because they weren't Christian. When my unmarried self hit 35 she said that I might try a Jewish guy because she heard they made good husbands. I guessed Catholics were still off the table as a mate.

[MargeGunderson]

Another former Missouri Synod Lutheran! My church was very conservative. I can pinpoint the experience that started me down the path to my current non-religious status. At one of my confirmation classes, which was a mixed group of boys and girls, our minister (male, of course), gave the girls a lecture on not dressing in clothes that were too tight, because that might defraud the boys. But we also couldn't dress in clothes that were too loose, because then the boys would start thinking about what was really under the baggy clothes (this was the 80s). No lecture for how the boys were supposed to dress or act. That didn't sit well with me, and the last time I went to that church was to be confirmed. And promptly stopped going.

[queenanne]

A friend of mine was raised Lutheran. Her mother used to forbid them from going to certain Lutheran churches because they were the "bad" Lutherans. In adulthood I was at her mother's house and she had had too much to drink. The subject of the "bad"Lutherans came up. she started slurring about the "evil, damn near devil worshiping" Lutherans. We still joke about. We'll drive past a Lutheran church and ask, "good or devil worshiping?"

Ha ha! I'm guessing that is the denomination that did (or didn't) believe in transubstantiation taking place during communion.

Considering I went back and read some of the descriptions closer, and the scandalous apostasy breakaways seemed to center around that issue, and whether or not women could preach.

First world religious problems, I tell you...

Edited January 15, 2016 by queenanne

[RazzleberryPie]

Also adding that evangelicals are usually Protestant and 'low church' - typically those who believe a person must make a conscious decision to be saved - admit they need to accept Christ as their savior, repent of sin, make a public admittance/statement that they've accepted Christ, instead of Orthodox, Catholic or 'high church' Protestants who believe a person becomes a Christian when christened as children and then confirmed as older kids or adults.

Of course there are ways some variances within everything - some Catholics evangelize, some baptists or Methodists don't, etc.

Fundamentalists are usually the people of any group who take the most extremely conservative, closed off (unless you're willing to become exactly like them), literal interpretation of Scripture with no room for individual interpretation.

[Micks Picks]

I am a Catholic, started out Lutheran. Awards from Lutheran Sunday school. Father's family were Catholic. Mother's family were Baptist. I didn't do well in public school, transferred to Catholic school grade 2. They rarely put me in the classroom, usually I spent time in the convent library, and would go with the priests to their hospital visits or to see elderly folks. Loved it, and learned so much more than being in school. Also didn't have to sit around reading Winnie the Pooh or whatever. Also got boarding school, taught mostly by Jesuits. They didn't teach, they gave propositions and had the students argue them up or down. By golly, you were a good debater if you weren't kicked out. No literal interpretation of the bible, and evolution was presented as what is, period. It still hits me like a slap across the face when I'm around literal interpretation folks. I am actually close to some true fundys and we now know not to talk about it. It's not something I would normally bring up, but feel I must reply if they do. So they don't anymore. Pro choice, not because it is a desired outcome but I feel that not being pro choice renders a woman being a can who is forced to incubate. It feels so horribly wrong to me. It feels wrong to know you have a disease that you have inherited, and that you are passing the genes to the baby, and decide to have a baby anyway. Recently I came across a muscular dystrophy mom, I think, and there is just no upside to this. It seems to me like intentional infliction of deadly illness to your own child. You'll be dead, of course, but the kid is unlikely to get a cure. People can talk themselves into anything I guess. Anyway, I was never taught the things many people say about Catholics, and even Catholics themselves sometimes say. But I wasn't taught much of anything except to tackle a proposition and analyze it to death. I'm happy with that. And I was introduced to a Jewish community center for company, folks to talk to, because when alone and depressed I was told to volunteer, and I do that, but I said, No, What About Me. Well, I need the back and forth banter about topics that frankly the majority of people know nothing about. I volunteer, but my needs are not met in that way. I need to ping pong issues.

[Marigold]

I heard there's personal planets and secret passwords in the Mormon afterlife.

Im not a Mormon theologian by any means.

I will discuss Mormonism in the Prayer CLoset (sounds funny!). I think Mormons are way off this thread topic. (except Ben and his Mormon hating videos)

I'm not a debater and don't enjoy conflict at all. I'm happy to answer anything I can.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Marigold

[louannems]

I just finished reading "Girl At The End Of The World". The author, Elizabeth Esther, escaped from a Fundamental cult religion called the Assembly. Her grandfather started Assemblies all over the place. In reading this book, her grandfather sounded just like Bill Gothard AND her upbringing seems similar to stories I've read on Recovering Grace. Are there lots of different fundie groups each with its own authoritarian leader? Also, these Assemblies are not the same as the huge mega churches known as Assemblies Of God, are they?

[Churchhoney]

I just finished reading "Girl At The End Of The World". The author, Elizabeth Esther, escaped from a Fundamental cult religion called the Assembly. Her grandfather started Assemblies all over the place. In reading this book, her grandfather sounded just like Bill Gothard AND her upbringing seems similar to stories I've read on Recovering Grace. Are there lots of different fundie groups each with its own authoritarian leader? Also, these Assemblies are not the same as the huge mega churches known as Assemblies Of God, are they?

 

Yeah. "The Assembly" and Assemblies of God are completely different.

 

Religions give lots of control-freak nutjobs excuses to bludgeon groups of people. They're so easy to use as cover for somebody's sick need to have a little authoritarian group all to him or herself. And it's especially easy in the more conservative reaches of Protestantism, I think, because it's kind of a kernel of Protestant belief that individuals can get big revelations on their own -- they don't have to wait around for the Catholic hierarchy or even agreement within a more loosely organized denomination, like Episcopalians or something. So the nutjobs can start their own churches.

 

Some might do that because they truly want to serve God or help people. But to me the evidence suggests that most do it because they want to be little tin gods/tinpot dictators/etc on their own.

 

Religion's probably the easiest way to do this, too. If you try to be a little tin god as an individual, you can't give people worldshaking reasons to let you have your way, but if you say God talked to you, then you can. And if you try to be a little tin god through political means, you're going to attract opposition and it'll be much harder to do, because you really have to rule over all the people in a whole local area, at least, if you're going to do it. But if you do it through religion, you just grab a group of vulnerable people that you can snow and go off and form your manipulative "church" with them in isolation. And nobody will stop you.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Churchhoney

[BetyBee]

Another former Missouri Synod Lutheran! My church was very conservative. I can pinpoint the experience that started me down the path to my current non-religious status. At one of my confirmation classes, which was a mixed group of boys and girls, our minister (male, of course), gave the girls a lecture on not dressing in clothes that were too tight, because that might defraud the boys. But we also couldn't dress in clothes that were too loose, because then the boys would start thinking about what was really under the baggy clothes (this was the 80s). No lecture for how the boys were supposed to dress or act. That didn't sit well with me, and the last time I went to that church was to be confirmed. And promptly stopped going.

Sounds similar to my story, Marge.  My Mom was raised in what became ELCA, but sent us kids to the LCMS church so we wouldn't have to cross the railroad tracks on our way to 2 years of confirmation. Both branches believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  I don't believe that and I don't go to any church anymore.  ELCA would suit me better, because yes, woman CAN SO be pastors imo.  I didn't get a how to dress speech from my pastor, but he did explain that women could not be pastors and that did not sit well with me, even at 14. I've come to believe that all the organized religions are a racket to keep us in line and to keep us from complaining about our lot in this life.  

Edited January 17, 2016 by BetyBee

[momofsquid]

A friend of mine was raised Lutheran.  Her mother used to forbid them from going to certain Lutheran churches because they were the "bad" Lutherans.  In adulthood I was at her mother's house and she had had too much to drink.  The subject of the "bad"Lutherans came up.  she started slurring about the "evil, damn near devil worshiping" Lutherans.  We still joke about.  We'll drive past a Lutheran church and ask, "good or devil worshiping?"  

 

Love this. My MIL is Evangelican Lutheran (this is in Canada, don't know if the American breed is the same) and has said things like, "I wouldn't be caught DEAD in a Missouri Synod church!" She also has nothing positive to say about Catholics or Anglicans, who from my brief experience at her church, look pretty much the same as her EL cronies. It really is consistent with the whole "love thy neighbour" philosophy, is it not?

[riverblue22]

The more I think about it, the more it pisses me off that those SOS missioncationers were going after people INSIDE a Catholic Church.  And promising some poor man with huge problems that all would be well for him if he just believed like they did and joined their cult.  What crap!

 

What happened to doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?  I'd like to see some other religious group invade their space and try to steal their members.  Seriously, I wish someone would do that.  Anyone.

[smittykins]

I've heard of fundegelicals in this country going into Catholic churches and placing "Bible tracts" into the missalettes(although not during Mass), and it also apparently happened in my Episcopal church once.

[Micks Picks]

Why don't they go for the big score and sneak into a mosque with those tracts?  

[Muffyn]

I have a full set of Chick Tracts, you know, just for fun.  After all, who doesn't enjoy poorly drawn comics of hell and damnation?  I've never felt the need to leave them in churches.   

[mbutterfly]

I sort of wish they would sneak in and put their tracts in our Methodist bulletins. Everyone would get such a hoot over it. I think we're too boring or too pathetically worldly for the fundies to care to evangelize us. 

[galax-arena]

I need somewhere to vent. So this "heartwarming" story about a Chick-fil-A manager's encounter with a homeless man has been making the rounds:

We took a booth right next to the spot where you wait for your drink to be "refreshed," and we had a front row seat to this beautiful scene: a homeless traveler had walked in and asked if they had any extra food. Mud was wet and caked on his well-traveled shoes. His hair was matted, and his beard wasn't a statement as much as it was a necessity and a sign that he doesn't get to shave as often as most of us do. People near him kept their distance, but that didn't stop him from being kind. He spoke to people who reluctantly spoke back, and he smiled while he waited on a manager. All I could pick up on of the conversation was the manager saying that he'd love to give him a full, warm meal--not just scraps or extras--, and the only thing he required was that the man let him pray with him.

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?? I have a huge problem with Christians - or anyone, really - who make assisting the needy contingent on being prayed over. Just give him the freakin' meal, no strings attached. I don't see this as a heartwarming story of Christian ministry, I see this as someone in power taking advantage of the marginalized and vulnerable. To be fair, I don't think that was the manager's intention, I honestly don't believe he was cackling to himself about forcing this poor guy to listen to him. But it's a case of privilege in action. 

 

I liked what this blog post had to say:

The hungry man is only a prop in this story.

 

The man in the story is identified only by his circumstances. It is assumed he is homeless, but as the story is told, we don’t hear that from him. He is only identified by his lack. And it really doesn’t matter who he is, the way the story is told. We only know this man by his poverty and his filth. Any poor, dirty man would work just as well in this story.

 

In other words, he is replaceable. He is not seen as a human, made in the image of God, but as a prop. He is an extra in a story about the manager and Chic-fil-A and exists to provide a lesson for the daughter of a housed man.

 

[snip]

 

There are no preconditions to the Love of God. No prayer is needed, no act of supplication, no demands for public piety. As it is right now, in all its mess, God loves the world.

 

To demand that someone do something that makes you happy before you will give them food is not to show the love of God, nor is it loving like God does. It abuses people in the name of God and bears witness to the idea that God is abusive and power-hungry to someone who has good reason to doubt God’s love in the first place. It is, instead, to work against the love of God and the message of Jesus. It is anti-gospel and, in fact, anti-Christ.

[GeeGolly]

I need somewhere to vent. So this "heartwarming" story about a Chick-fil-A manager's encounter with a homeless man has been making the rounds:

 

 

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?? I have a huge problem with Christians - or anyone, really - who make assisting the needy contingent on being prayed over. Just give him the freakin' meal, no strings attached. I don't see this as a heartwarming story of Christian ministry, I see this as someone in power taking advantage of the marginalized and vulnerable. To be fair, I don't think that was the manager's intention, I honestly don't believe he was cackling to himself about forcing this poor guy to listen to him. But it's a case of privilege in action. 

 

I liked what this blog post had to say:

Shit like that gets my cackles up and makes me want to swear! I hope this is like a David Weller script of life and not factual.

[NewDigs]

I need somewhere to vent. So this "heartwarming" story about a Chick-fil-A manager's encounter with a homeless man has been making the rounds:

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?? I have a huge problem with Christians - or anyone, really - who make assisting the needy contingent on being prayed over. Just give him the freakin' meal, no strings attached. I don't see this as a heartwarming story of Christian ministry, I see this as someone in power taking advantage of the marginalized and vulnerable. To be fair, I don't think that was the manager's intention, I honestly don't believe he was cackling to himself about forcing this poor guy to listen to him. But it's a case of privilege in action.

I liked what this blog post had to say:

I see something wrong with this!

I think that Chickfila manager's demand of prayer does nothing more than feed that manager's ego.

I guess he has not read his bible. Least not Matthew:

Matthew 6:1-8. New International Version (NIV)

Giving to the Needy

6 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

A quite honorable sentiment.

Quite a few years ago 60 Minutes (I think) did an article on a homeless guy who was court-ordered into some kind of program. The only one available was Slavation Army but in order to use that program he would have to profess his belief in God-Almighty. Which he refused. And was subsequently punished for not availing himself of said services.

The God Patrol. Ugh.

Edited February 2, 2016 by NewDigs

[galax-arena]

I've seen people defending the manager by saying that the manager most likely would have given the man the food even if he had refused to be prayed over. And sure, I can see that as a distinct possibility. Chick-fil-A at the very least seems more generous with their food than, say, McDonald's. BUT that ignores the fact that the manager should not have put the man into that position in the first place. When you're so hungry that you're resorting to asking a restaurant for scraps, are you really going to turn down a prayer request on the chance that the manager will give you food anyway? How would the guy know? I don't think it takes tremendous amounts of empathy to pick up on that.

 

I have had people ask if they can pray for me. Done in the right spirit/situation, it's something that I appreciate even if I don't agree with the person's religious beliefs. But this wasn't appropriate at all. 

[queenanne]

It's not the worst thing I ever saw, but if it were me I would think the tactful way to phrase it would be (1) "May I pray for you?" and (2) "Would you like us to pray right now, together?" (or whatever phrasing you prefer).  The reason why I include #2 is, because we don't know everyone's story, and plenty of strangers might find comfort in prayer.  You could also function simply with just #1, because the Bible is perfectly OK with you interceding for someone secondhand and adding them to your regular private prayer list. 

 

I dunno, maybe others don't like #2 any better because the idea is the person is going to feel compelled or just plain stunned into acquiescing, but if they would find comfort in it and that is your belief system, I wouldn't like to see the harder-done-by person done out of the comfort.  I feel I've also seen more than one memoir from previously homeless people who said "hey, I never minded sitting through a sermon if it came with food.  it cost me nothing to lend my ears for that 15 minutes, and I was not obligated to follow them".

Edited February 2, 2016 by queenanne

[NewDigs]

It's not the worst thing I ever saw, but if it were me I would think the tactful way to phrase it would be (1) "May I pray for you?" and (2) "Would you like us to pray right now, together?" (or whatever phrasing you prefer).  The reason why I include #2 is, because we don't know everyone's story, and plenty of strangers might find comfort in prayer.  You could also function simply with just #1, because the Bible is perfectly OK with you interceding for someone secondhand and adding them to your regular private prayer list. 

 

I dunno, maybe others don't like #2 any better because the idea is the person is going to feel compelled or just plain stunned into acquiescing, but if they would find comfort in it and that is your belief system, I wouldn't like to see the harder-done-by person done out of the comfort.  I feel I've also seen more than one memoir from previously homeless people who said "hey, I never minded sitting through a sermon if it came with food.  it cost me nothing to lend my ears for that 15 minutes, and I was not obligated to follow them".

I don't think that a call-to-prayer has a place in any retail/private/gov't, etc. venue. Especially by an employee. But then Chickfila makes me especially twitchy.

I excised the second paragraph of that Matthew verse for brevity but now that I look at it...

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."

How are they defining synagogues?

Things that make me go, Whaaat?

[DangerousMinds]

I am so offender by the word "traveler" to describe a homeless man.

[duggarshow]

I need somewhere to vent. So this "heartwarming" story about a Chick-fil-A manager's encounter with a homeless man has been making the rounds:

 

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?? I have a huge problem with Christians - or anyone, really - who make assisting the needy contingent on being prayed over. Just give him the freakin' meal, no strings attached. I don't see this as a heartwarming story of Christian ministry, I see this as someone in power taking advantage of the marginalized and vulnerable. To be fair, I don't think that was the manager's intention, I honestly don't believe he was cackling to himself about forcing this poor guy to listen to him. But it's a case of privilege in action. 

 

I liked what this blog post had to say:

 

I don't see anything wrong with it. The story doesn't say prayer was a contingency to the food offered. If it didn't bother the man in need, I'm not sure why it would bother anyone. 

 

When my children were small - about a gazillion and eleven years ago - I was treating them to breakfast at Denny's. A homeless man was there drinking a cup of bottomless coffee and warming up, I'd imagine. I asked the waitress to let him order any breakfast he wanted and add it to my bill without telling him who was paying for his meal. After we'd eaten and were leaving, my oldest son (at the time, he was about 9 or so) asked if we could pray with the man. We did. He didn't seem to mind and he had a nice, hot meal that day. I'm not sure why that would bother anyone.

[Vaysh]

After we'd eaten and were leaving, my oldest son (at the time, he was about 9 or so) asked if we could pray with the man. We did. He didn't seem to mind and he had a nice, hot meal that day. I'm not sure why that would bother anyone.

 

Except your son asked after you payed for the man's food, not as a condition for giving the man food. And you don't actually know if it bothered the man in the Chik fil a or not because we only have the Chik fil a manager's word to go on. I can see a lot of reasons why demanding a declaration of faith from someone who might not even share that faith in exchange for a life necessity like food would be problematic.

 

The thing is, I think you and your son did it in the right order: first give food (or whatever necessity is needed) then ask for prayer. I have no problem with that. The manager however did it the other way around, he offered food on the condition of prayer. And then he went on to brag about it on social media which I'm pretty sure is pretty much the opposite of what Jesus said you should do (at least according to Matthew 6).

[galax-arena]

The story doesn't say prayer was a contingency to the food offered.

But it does. The blog post uses the word "require." 

 

And maybe that particular guy didn't have a problem. (I mean, Christians exist!) But why should the default assumption be that he'd be fine with it? And regardless, it's still an exploitation of power. If I'm starving, I'll pray to whatever god you want me to if I get food out of the deal, and I'll probably be too grateful to feel anything but happy about having a full stomach for once. Doesn't make it okay.  

The manager however did it the other way around, he offered food on the condition of prayer. And then he went on to brag about it on social media which I'm pretty sure is pretty much the opposite of what Jesus said you should do (at least according to Matthew 6).

To be fair, the manager wasn't bragging about it (as ostentatious as I thought his display was). It was a fellow diner who witnessed the incident. So it's possible that the diner was (to quote GeeGolly) pulling a David Waller and embellishing/misremembering the manager's words. As the story is told, however, I am definitely not a fan. 

[Vaysh]

To be fair, the manager wasn't bragging about it (as ostentatious as I thought his display was). It was a fellow diner who witnessed the incident. So it's possible that the diner was (to quote GeeGolly) pulling a David Waller and embellishing/misremembering the manager's words. As the story is told, however, I am definitely not a fan.

I missed that bit, thank you! Feeling slightly less sour about the manager but still finding the initial premise of demanding prayer for food to be abhorrent behaviour.

[GeeGolly]

The story - "We took a booth right next to the spot where you wait for your drink to be "refreshed," and we had a front row seat to this beautiful scene: a homeless traveler had walked in and asked if they had any extra food. Mud was wet and caked on his well-traveled shoes. His hair was matted, and his beard wasn't a statement as much as it was a necessity and a sign that he doesn't get to shave as often as most of us do. People near him kept their distance, but that didn't stop him from being kind. He spoke to people who reluctantly spoke back, and he smiled while he waited on a manager. All I could pick up on of the conversation was the manager saying that he'd love to give him a full, warm meal--not just scraps or extras--, and the only thing he required was that the man let him pray with him."

 

This story is filled with assumptions and judgement. I really should have bolded the whole thing. And the gentleman was REQUIRED to pray for the meal. The only 'facts' are that a man came into the restaurant and asked for food. The manager then required a payment of prayer, the rest is assumption & judgement.

 

Did the man state that he was homeless or wished to trim his beard? Matted hair? Look at Donald Trump. Muddy and worn shoes?  Look at the average construction worker (& maybe your own shoes if the mud was WET). And being kind and "keeping distance" don't belong in the same sentence.

 

EVERYTHING is wrong with this story!!!!!

[queenanne]

I dunno, if you know homeless people you know homeless people (assuming the speaker, in fact, does; in a large city you get to assess them every day, in a variety of disguised attempts at blending in.  Sometimes, not to be crude, you can only peg them by their heavily unwashed scent, after which the other pieces of the puzzle start falling into place).  I would assume the PC "people spoke back, but reluctantly", was a way to get around the original reporter reporting, "the man was panhandling everyone in the restaurant for money", not that the man was wandering around pleasantly chitchatting to tables about the weather.  Thus, unlikely to be Donald Trump or construction worker.

[RazzleberryPie]

Oh good grief the chick fil a story probably isn't even real. The writer may not have used the most precise words, but the assumptions and judgement here are equal to or worse than ones in the story. Story and not unbiased news report btw.

The manager meant well. He was trying to be thoughtful and generous in asking for a prayer instead of money. No where does it say he did anything ostentatious or self serving. Most homeless people I've encountered who are hungry don't mind a bit if you're asking God to help keep them safe and provide them with food, while reminding them God loves them and they have value.

My assumption is that's what the prayer was, not some condemnation or show. The writer says he/she overheard the convo, and this is the writers interpretation. The manager may have asked, and not rehired, not demanded, so he could have a conversation and some personal attention to the man instead of shoving scraps and pushing him out the door.

Traveler - in America that doesn't mean dirty gypsy thief. That means he is transient - you see a lot of homeless transient people outside chic fil as or other restaurants t hat seem to be strategically placed at intersections of shopping centers and major travel routes. You also see a lot of professional panhandlers - people who are very clean, well fed, healthy, etc but would rather stand on a corner with their printed signs sayjng 'stranded, veteran, hungry and need money'', but who refuse food or offers of rides to shelters, etc. I'm also assuming the dirty description was to distinguish a real person in need from a pro pan handler.

The homeless man may be a Christian, or may be something else but still appreciate a prayer. Prayers in any religion are usually kind conversations with God. The man may have thought 'ok, sucka, pray all you want, I'm getting a $10 sammich and tasty lemonade even if you're talking to the sky.'

[crazycatlady58]

Oh good grief the chick fil a story probably isn't even real. The writer may not have used the most precise words, but the assumptions and judgement here are equal to or worse than ones in the story. Story and not unbiased news report btw.

The manager meant well. He was trying to be thoughtful and generous in asking for a prayer instead of money. No where does it say he did anything ostentatious or self serving. Most homeless people I've encountered who are hungry don't mind a bit if you're asking God to help keep them safe and provide them with food, while reminding them God loves them and they have value.

My assumption is that's what the prayer was, not some condemnation or show. The writer says he/she overheard the convo, and this is the writers interpretation. The manager may have asked, and not rehired, not demanded, so he could have a conversation and some personal attention to the man instead of shoving scraps and pushing him out the door.

Traveler - in America that doesn't mean dirty gypsy thief. That means he is transient - you see a lot of homeless transient people outside chic fil as or other restaurants t hat seem to be strategically placed at intersections of shopping centers and major travel routes. You also see a lot of professional panhandlers - people who are very clean, well fed, healthy, etc but would rather stand on a corner with their printed signs sayjng 'stranded, veteran, hungry and need money'', but who refuse food or offers of rides to shelters, etc. I'm also assuming the dirty description was to distinguish a real person in need from a pro pan handler.

The homeless man may be a Christian, or may be something else but still appreciate a prayer. Prayers in any religion are usually kind conversations with God. The man may have thought 'ok, sucka, pray all you want, I'm getting a $10 sammich and tasty lemonade even if you're talking to the sky.'

Thank you for saying what I have been thinking. You said it a lot better than I could.

[bigskygirl]

Normally, religion is a topic we don't really allow since it's bound to start disputes. This space was created to discuss theological points that might be brought up by the Duggars. It is not the place to get into heated sniping over what Chik Fil A does. Take the discussion some where else please. I am sure there are other places on the internet to talk about Chik Fil and the homeless guy. Thank you.

[RazzleberryPie]

Thank you for saying what I have been thinking. You said it a lot better than I could.

Youre welcome. The Duggars - they do a whole lot of self serving, loud, ostentatious, things in the name of religion and open the doors wide open for criticism. This chic fil a story - emphasis on story vs reality show clips and direct interviews - totally different people and situations.

As a person of faith myself, i know I'm human and make mistakes, I know I'm not nearly as gracious, forgiving or compassionate as I should be, but seriously, I detest being lumped in with idiots like the Duggars who are often blind rule followers who carry bibles. I also hate any expression of faith or mention of prayer being torn apart and criticized

Edited February 3, 2016 by RazzleberryPie

[Sew Sumi]

Final amendments to the case against Bill Gothard are listed in the following blog post. Note that a couple men have now joined the suit. 

 

http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/02/18/second-amended-complaint-filed-in-bill-gothard-iblp-sex-abuse-lawsuit-18-victims-in-lawsuit/

[Tabbygirl521]

Final amendments to the case against Bill Gothard are listed in the following blog post. Note that a couple men have now joined the suit.

http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/02/18/second-amended-complaint-filed-in-bill-gothard-iblp-sex-abuse-lawsuit-18-victims-in-lawsuit/

These effing bastards. Please let this legal action rain down hell fire on all these f@ckers. And please let their followers gain some courage to break free of this and any other CULT.

Those poor victims. I sure hope they are awarded enough $$$ for major counseling. Or maybe they can do the Old Testament "eye for an eye" thing and lock these jerks in a prayer closet and forget to feed them. Permanently.

[Aja]

 

JANE DOE VI eventually approached two IBLP Board member’s wives about Gothard’s behavior and the Board apparently implemented a policy in 1997 that prevented Gothard from having female assistants because of the sexual harassment. Apparently that policy was never enforced and the abuse continued.

That's incredible. HIS OWN BOARD knew he was a straight-up perv and tried to curb it. Pretty incriminating.

Lol (glee)

 

ETA: Also...am I making this up, or did I learn at some point that Gil Bates is on the IBLP board? If that's true, you would have thought Gil, after dealing with these repeated complaints against Gothard, would have had the decency to tell his bff Jim Bob not to send his daughters there.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Aja

[Sew Sumi]

He is, but he's the most recent addition. However, he was on the board when they launched that bogus "internal investigation"

Edited February 19, 2016 by Sew Sumi

[Sew Sumi]

The plot thickens. Gothard threatens Recovering Grace with a $1MM lawsuit. 

 

http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/02/19/bill-gothard-threatens-recovering-grace-with-a-1000000-lawsuit/

[NewDigs]

The plot thickens. Gothard threatens Recovering Grace with a $1MM lawsuit.

http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2016/02/19/bill-gothard-threatens-recovering-grace-with-a-1000000-lawsuit/

WTF?

Edit: n/m I'm so confused. (more coffee, stat!)

Edited February 20, 2016 by NewDigs

[Churchhoney]

WTF?

Edit: n/m I'm so confused. (more coffee, stat!)

 

Wonder whether Gothard is so delusional that he truly believes he's done nothing wrong or whether he's intimidated people into silence for so long that he thinks he can continue doing it. If the latter, I believe that ship has sailed.

[NewDigs]

I'm going with delusional.

To draw even more attention to this?

Wow.

[GeeGolly]

Wonder whether Gothard is so delusional that he truly believes he's done nothing wrong or whether he's intimidated people into silence for so long that he thinks he can continue doing it. If the latter, I believe that ship has sailed.

He wouldn't be the first, or the last to think he can quash a scandal. Look at Clinton, Lance Armstrong, Martha Stewart, etc, they all get found out in the end.

[NewDigs]

He wouldn't be the first, or the last to think he can quash a scandal. Look at Clinton, Lance Armstrong, Martha Stewart, etc, they all get found out in the end.

But did they all come out swinging or did they more let the scandal run its course?

Gothard is doing himself no favors, imho, by attempting to sue/shoot the messenger.

Seems more inflammatory than anything.

I like that this suit could maybe just as easily bite him in the ass.