A Baptist Children’s Home Rejected an Atheist’s Donation, So He Started a GoFundMe

[Hank77]

Yep. What's so scary about admitting that even people who don't share your religious faith are people rather than demonic pawns?

Because they have been taught that anything that appears to come from the world is from satan.
They should read their Bibles, two Babylonian kings bless the Israelites, the King of Egypt is used to bless them through Joseph when they would have died from starvation. God looks out for His people and He doesn't always use believers to do that.
But if they admit that the world is helping care for children,, through their charity, that will take away from their testimony that God is their benefactor and He won't get all the glory. That is only true if they won't teach what God has done in the past for His people, and yet they will say that God has used modern secular governments to return Israel to the Jews.

 

[South Bound]

As I wrestled with if the subject here was right or wrong, I was wondering if there was a bible reference to cover it, and that may be it.

I would think it would fall under 2 John

 

[farout]

By far the largest Christian denomination, and many of the others, have alcohol at the heart of their most significant sacrament.

If you are referring to the RCC the Southern Baptist are almost as large in the US, and believe me that is not acceptable. The wine they use is a slice very small of thin bread dipped in wine, now is that really fair to use as an example?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I would think it would fall under 2 John

You point out scripture certainly worth considering here:

8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you are referring to the RCC the Southern Baptist are almost as large in the US, and believe me that is not acceptable. The wine they use is a slice very small of thin bread dipped in wine, now is that really fair to use as an example?

As a child brought up as SB, it was Welch's Grape Juice... seems they've lightened up a little...very little.

Honestly, I never could understand how the Baptist couldn't see their view on alcohol was traditions of man and not biblical. As far as I know, Alcohol was the only recreational intoxicant that was specifically allowed.

 

[keith99]

Yes it is, the Observer article is absolutely one sided. How can you say no it isn't and as proof, switch to another source? My post was concerning the Observer.

Your definition of one sided is that the Church comes out looking bad. The problem is that is exactly the conclusion a even handed person would come to based on all existing evidence. YOU ASSUME that they did no investigation. The channel 2 piece is substantially the same with one exception and that exception makes the church look even worse, that is explicitly saying they tried to get the other side and were stonewalled and worse. The piece you find one sided was most likely kind in having done the research and omitting any reference to it.

 

[Picky Picky]

If you are referring to the RCC the Southern Baptist are almost as large in the US, and believe me that is not acceptable. The wine they use is a slice very small of thin bread dipped in wine, now is that really fair to use as an example?

In the US. In the world the RCC is the biggest by a country mile. Add Lutherans and Anglicans and of course Orthodox and ... I didn't know Southern Baptists used wine as well, but that just reinforces my point.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Not everybody has some sort of insidious agenda against Christianity when they want to help, but then again, his insistence of using the atheist group he is a part of, by more than double the amount tells me there is more to his side of the story than just him being a good guy. If he really cared, he would have just gave them the money anonymous just to be sure they had the money. Instead, in spite of them he creates a rival gofundme? Whats is his problem?

 

[keith99]

Not everybody has some sort of insidious agenda against Christianity when they want to help, but then again, his insistence of using the atheist group he is a part of, by more than double the amount tells me there is more to his side of the story than just him being a good guy. If he really cared, he would have just gave them the money anonymous just to be sure they had the money. Instead, in spite of them he creates a rival gofundme? Whats is his problem?

Probably the same as theirs, he wants some credit for his 'good works' the only difference I can see is that the Christians were told by their Christ NOT to seek earthly credit while atheists have no such instruction.

 

[cow451]

So are you saying that God wouldn't use an atheist's money to do Godly work? Or are you saying that if they had taken the money they would be causing someone to stumble? Or just what is the problem specifically?

That the atheist was trying to use the charity's status for his groups aggrandizement.

 

[dgiharris]

That the atheist was trying to use the charity's status for his groups aggrandizement.

For all those who find it logical to refuse atheist money because it is atheist.

What if your child is involved in a horrific car accident, he needs critical brain surgery immediately or else he is going to die. The only brain surgeon on call is an atheist. There is a Christian brain surgeon but he is several hours away.

You are informed that seconds count. Would you allow the atheist to perform surgery on your child or would you insist on waiting a few hours for the Christian surgeon?

In any event. I find this thread so disturbing. Views are so warped here there are members missing the forest for the trees.

I seriously have to question your moralty. On one hand we have starving children. On the other hand we have our delicate sensibilities that depend on our individual interpretation of cherry picked bible verses that only we have the wisdom to understand (everyone else is wrong). Similarly we must believe that accepting money from atheists is in fact accepting money from Satan? Wow.... so atheists are defacto Satanist. And not only that but apparently Satan is so much stronger than God that Satan money can undo a Church's good deeds and intent. Satan money is so much stronger than church faith that we can't even touch that money, we have to turn it away even if we suspect it might be Satan money???

Logic is logic and the above is the logical extension of the "don't take Satanist money" argument.

 

[SarahsKnight]

These children will be better off in the long run dying from starvation than taking Satan’s money for a miserable few hot meals but having to spend an eternity in damnation and hellfire

Yeah, I am so sure these children would understand perfectly where the money came from to feed them and thus God would take it as a personal affront from the poor starving seven year-olds and damn them to everlasting torment. *sigh* Surely you see how this is just a little bit ridiculous ....

 

[Hank77]

That the atheist was trying to use the charity's status for his groups aggrandizement.

That is probably true. I don't really care why he did what he did. My question is why the church did what they did.

 

[dgiharris]

...Surely you see how this is just a little bit ridiculous ....

Sadly no, they don't see.

I remember studying some of the crazy Salem witch trial stuff. I remember there was a test to see if someone was a witch. You tied big heavy stones around their body, threw them in a lake and if they drowned they were a witch.

I always wondered what sort of brain comes up with that logic?

And then I read some of the arguments in this thread and realize there are a few members who would have made great witch hunters and medieval inquisitors. ..

 

[Oafman]

There was a rather nice, if slightly cheesy, comment next to a donation on the Gofundme page. It simply said "I believe in the children, whatever they believe in"

 

[cow451]

For all those who find it logical to refuse atheist money because it is atheist.

What if your child is involved in a horrific car accident, he needs critical brain surgery immediately or else he is going to die. The only brain surgeon on call is an atheist. There is a Christian brain surgeon but he is several hours away.

You are informed that seconds count. Would you allow the atheist to perform surgery on your child or would you insist on waiting a few hours for the Christian surgeon?

Couldn't find a pertinent comparison, so just had to create a strawman, huh?

In any event. I find this thread so disturbing. Views are so warped here there are members missing the forest for the trees.

Yes, you seem to be.

I seriously have to question your moralty. On one hand we have starving children. On the other hand we have our delicate sensibilities that depend on our individual interpretation of cherry picked bible verses that only we have the wisdom to understand (everyone else is wrong). Similarly we must believe that accepting money from atheists is in fact accepting money from Satan? Wow.... so atheists are defacto Satanist. And not only that but apparently Satan is so much stronger than God that Satan money can undo a Church's good deeds and intent. Satan money is so much stronger than church faith that we can't even touch that money, we have to turn it away even if we suspect it might be Satan money???

Logic is logic and the above is the logical extension of the "don't take Satanist money" argument.

Personal attacks are against TOS, so I'll give you a chance to correct yourself. I can make my argument without attacking you personally. Surely you can do the same.

I have at no point here or ever equated atheist thinking with Satanism or any other pejorative term. Most of the atheists I know are great people. This guy happens to be an exception.[/quote]

 

[dgiharris]

Couldn't find a pertinent comparison, so just had to create a strawman, huh?

I feel that denying starving children food equates with delaying a seriously injured person medical treatment. No comparison is exact but I felt I did a good enough job being fair. However, I will ask you to provide an equivalent comparison that you feel is accurate. But I suspect you will not. You see, whenever someone throws out the strawman fallacy argument when they feel an inept comparison was made, they NEVER substitute in a comparison they feel is more appropriate.

So, since you feel I put forth a strawman, I invite you to submit an analogy that properly compare denying starving children resources because the donors don't share your beliefs.

Yes, you seem to be.

So I/m the one who can't see the forest for the trees???

Organization XYZ's mission is to provide for starving children.
Organization QRS has legally donated funds to Organization XYZ.
Organization XYZ rejects those funds because they do not approve of Organization QRS

I put forth the argument that refusing said money means you value your belief system more than your mission to provide for starving children.

I then put forth the analogy that if my mission was to provide for poor black and hispanic families and the KKK sends me money inside of a pinata of a black person being lynched that I would still accept their money because I can do good with that money and that helping those poor families mean more to my than my wounded ego and pride...

So please, explain exactly how I am the one missing the forest for the trees?

Personal attacks are against TOS, so I'll give you a chance to correct yourself. I can make my argument without attacking you personally. Surely you can do the same.

I did not attack anyone personally. I said, "I have to question your morality"

and I do. I have to question the morality of ANYONE who would let children starve to prove a point of principle. There is an infinite need out there in terms of poor starving children. Money rejected by an organization whose charter is to help poor children means that less children will be helped, less aid will be rendered.

So I 100% stand by my statement. I question the morality of anyone who can rationalize putting their delicate sensibilities ahead of the needs of starving children. That is not a personal attack. That is a very sincere question.

....I have at no point here or ever equated atheist thinking with Satanism or any other pejorative term. Most of the atheists I know are great people. This guy happens to be an exception.

There are a couple of people in this thread who equate atheists with satanists. If that is not you, then disregard my comments in this arena.

 

[SteveB28]

Why did the Atheist insist on donating in the name of an Atheist organization? Why didn't they just give in the givers name, or need a non anonymous name at all for that matter? Looks like both the Atheist and the charity had agenda's.

Whatever the case, looks like the exposure ended up creating a good deal for the needy.

He was invited by the recipients to make it in the name of an organisation, if he wished. Until then, he was going to simply donate as a private individual. They invited, he accepted.

 

[SteveB28]

Agreed. There are plenty of reasons why he might have wanted it to bear the name of his organisation, we shouldn't leap to the conclusion that he was trying to stir up controversy.

Correct. He was invited to do so by the recipients.

 

[SteveB28]

I didn't leap. A review of what he did and how he responded leads me to believe it was a blatant publicity-seeking stunt.

He was invited to name his organisation. Originally, he was simply going to donate as a private individual.

You leaped.