Rhema church founder Ray McCauley dies at 75

[Kornhub]

Not all churches are bad guys. I use to attend a Catholic Church that was basically living on nothing aka almost bankrupt. They still helped the poor with feeding schemes etc.Just FYI

 

[Cosmik Debris]

What product is this?

Religion. Buchan and McCauley became millionaires selling religion. And nobody can prove any god exists or that there is a heaven and hell, which only the Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam believe to be true.

Are we all not liberty to purchase anything we want regardless of if prove effectiveness? Why do you want to police people's wallets, tell them what they can spend money on. Did he sell them poison that when ingested kills people?

Yes, we are. But when fear is used to extort people with little or no critical thinking into buying a product, it becomes criminal abuse.

The poison sold invades the critical thinking ability of the mind and is a form of mind control and brainwashing using psychological mob tactics (Political rallies do the same) to produce a dopamine release to those attending whereafter the individual believes that if they don't act in a certain way the seller believes they should, they will be punished after they die. Which cannot be proven.

Does that men we should wish for his untimely demise?

I wish the untimely demise of all ethically challenged charlatans.

Nobody is forcing those men to spend their money. Regardless of what you think, it’s their money let them spend it on what they believe to be valuable to them in peace. It’s the same as those wankers on here that have issue with SUV’s.

Neither did the Nigerian scammer who sold a fake product to a woman for 3 Million force her to spend her money. What are your views regarding the similarity of a scammer persuading someone to spend money for a love they believe might exist or a scammer persuading someone to spend money for a god they believe might exist?

 

[Speedster]

Religion. Buchan and McCauley became millionaires selling religion. And nobody can prove any god exists or that there is a heaven and hell, which only the Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam believe to be true.



Yes, we are. But when fear is used to extort people with little or no critical thinking into buying a product, it becomes criminal abuse.

The poison sold invades the critical thinking ability of the mind and is a form of mind control and brainwashing using psychological mob tactics (Political rallies do the same) to produce a dopamine release to those attending whereafter the individual believes that if they don't act in a certain way the seller believes they should, they will be punished after they die. Which cannot be proven.



I wish the untimely demise of all ethically challenged charlatans.



Neither did the Nigerian scammer who sold a fake product to a woman for 3 Million force her to spend her money. What are your views regarding the similarity of a scammer persuading someone to spend money for a love they believe might exist or a scammer persuading someone to spend money for a god they believe might exist?

And similarly nobody can prove that they don't exist.

 

[vigras rojara]

And similarly nobody can prove that they don't exist.

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pasta Be Upon Him).

 

[Cosmik Debris]

And similarly nobody can prove that they don't exist.

Nobody can prove Father Christmas doesn't exist either.

The burden of proof is upon the person who makes a claim. Not upon the person who disputes that claim.

Further reading for you:

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafarianism, a parodic new religious movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion. It originated in opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools in the United States. According to adherents, Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarianism) is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other".[4] It has received some limited recognition as such.

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in state school science classes. In the letter, Henderson demanded equal time in science classrooms for "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism", alongside intelligent design and evolution. After Henderson published the letter on his website, the Flying Spaghetti Monster rapidly became an Internet phenomenon and a symbol of opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in state schools.

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you see now how religion has affected your critical thinking abilities?

 

[Speedster]

Nobody can prove Father Christmas doesn't exist either.

The burden of proof is upon the person who makes a claim. Not upon the person who disputes that claim.

Further reading for you:

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafarianism, a parodic new religious movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion. It originated in opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools in the United States. According to adherents, Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarianism) is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other".[4] It has received some limited recognition as such.

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in state school science classes. In the letter, Henderson demanded equal time in science classrooms for "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism", alongside intelligent design and evolution. After Henderson published the letter on his website, the Flying Spaghetti Monster rapidly became an Internet phenomenon and a symbol of opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in state schools.

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you see now how religion has affected your critical thinking abilities?

I don't read walls of text. Summarise what you are trying to say in a few coherent sentences and I'll respond.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I don't read walls of text. Summarise what you are trying to say in a few coherent sentences and I'll respond.

Nice excuse to not read something you can't counter. Two introductory paragraphs are too much text for you? Don't ever study for a degree then. But here you go:

Nobody can prove Father Christmas doesn't exist either.

The burden of proof is upon the person who makes a claim. Not upon the person who disputes that claim.

Do you see now how religion has affected your critical thinking abilities?

 

[Speedster]

Nice excuse to not read something you can't counter. Two introductory paragraphs are too much text for you? Don't ever study for a degree then. But here you go:

Nobody can prove Father Christmas doesn't exist either.

The burden of proof is upon the person who makes a claim. Not upon the person who disputes that claim.

Do you see now how religion has affected your critical thinking abilities?

I already have multiple degrees. I don't need any more (for now at least), and haven't enrolled for one on this forum. I don't come here for lectures and in depth content. If I wanted that I'd go to authoritive sources, not self promoting forum gurus.

The point is simple - you can't prove God doesn't exist and I can't prove He does. Rationality however requires that you at least admit the possibility that he might exist, I admit the possibility that he doesn't. When I weigh in my own lived experience I conclude that he does, while your experience leads you to conclude that he doesn't. It is however disingenuous of you to contend that he cannot exist.

And your last point is simply hubris of the highest order.

 

[The Trutherizer]

How on earth did he amass a R580 million net worth?

Pentecostalism... It's all about the money.


You know... Like... "God makes you rich. And you can buy your way into heaven" [sic]

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I already have multiple degrees.

Yet did not know of the philosophical concepts of Russel's teapot nor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I already have multiple degrees. I don't need any more (for now at least), and haven't enrolled for one on this forum. I don't come here for lectures and in depth content. If I wanted that I'd go to authoritive sources, not self promoting forum gurus.

The point is simple - you can't prove God doesn't exist and I can't prove He does. Rationality however requires that you at least admit the possibility that he might exist, I admit the possibility that he doesn't. When I weigh in my own lived experience I conclude that he does, while your experience leads you to conclude that he doesn't. It is however disingenuous of you to contend that he cannot exist.

If you have multiple degrees you will know you can't prove a negative and the burden of proof lies upon the claimant, not upon the person calling the claim into dispute.

Rationality nor experience come into it when you're asked for evidence for your claim and can't produce it.

And your last point is simply hubris of the highest order.

Claiming multiple degrees that will require a critical thinking ability and not being able to apply that ability to religion and the rules of evidence brings your critical thinking abilities into dispute. Thus my statement is an observation, not hubris.

 

[Speedster]

Yet did not know of the philosophical concepts of Russel's teapot nor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?



If you have multiple degrees you will know you can't prove a negative and the burden of proof lies upon the claimant, not upon the person calling the claim into dispute.

Rationality nor experience come into it when you're asked for evidence for your claim and can't produce it.



Claiming multiple degrees that will require a critical thinking ability and not being able to apply that ability to religion and the rules of evidence brings your critical thinking abilities into dispute. Thus my statement is an observation, not hubris.

Your hubris is in thinking that you alone have the answers and everyone else needs to conform to your views.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Your hubris is in thinking that you alone have the answers and everyone else needs to conform to your views.

I don't have the answers. I'm asking you to prove your God exists before I believe He does. You can't. Thus Buchan and McCauley sold an insurance product that can only be activated after death and whether it works or not can never be known.

I notice you're silent on the multiple degrees you obtained without knowledge of philosophical concepts and not knowing the rules of evidence. But making unbelievable claims is part of religion.

 

[Hamster]

Afrikaans brought me sorrow.

Hey, nou het jy te fokken ver gegaan! Ek gaan jou so hard moer jy gaan blerrie sorrow wees!

 

[Speedster]

Yet did not know of the philosophical concepts of Russel's teapot nor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?



If you have multiple degrees you will know you can't prove a negative and the burden of proof lies upon the claimant, not upon the person calling the claim into dispute.

Rationality nor experience come into it when you're asked for evidence for your claim and can't produce it.



Claiming multiple degrees that will require a critical thinking ability and not being able to apply that ability to religion and the rules of evidence brings your critical thinking abilities into dispute. Thus my statement is an observation, not hubris.

I must admit, you almost got me. I promised myself I won't get sucked into pointless debates with internet trolls and I was well on the way. So here's me stepping back again.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I must admit, you almost got me. I promised myself I won't get sucked into pointless debates with internet trolls and I was well on the way. So here's me stepping back again.

There was no intention yo "get" anyone.

Whether your God exists or not is a pointless debate? What happens after you die? Maybe you should read up on Pascal's wager? Another philosophical concept you would have known about had you had multiple degrees.

I hear crickets about your multiple degrees too.

 

[Speedster]

There was no intention yo "get" anyone.

Whether your God exists or not is a pointless debate? What happens after you die? Maybe you should read up on Pascal's wager? Another philosophical concept you would have known about had you had multiple degrees.

I hear crickets about your multiple degrees too.

It's a pointless debate when it's with you. Also, I most certainly don't need to prove anything to you. If you want to doubt my academic credentials you are most welcome to.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I most certainly don't need to prove anything to you.

You can't prove your God exists to anyone.

If you want to doubt my academic credentials you are most welcome to.

Of course, your multiple degrees as claimed by you are in doubt if you didn't know about basic philosophical principles and the rules of evidence.

It's a pointless debate when it's with you.

Nice cop out. Run along now.

 

[Grant]

evangelicals at full speed - entire video

 

[CB40]

Something like this?

Programmes at a Glance - Hands of Compassion

A list of some of the programmes we do at Hands of Compassion. Recovery Programme The Rhema Recovery Programme is a halfway house for recovering substance abusers. It is a six-month live-in programme. After being at a rehab or imprisoned it is very difficult for anyone to face the hardships of...

handsofcompassionsa.org

I went to the "church" a couple of times to try and stop drinking...I thought the fokker was going to drown me in the doopbad.Needless to say I never went back.
A word of advise,go to church,synagogue whatever for religion and AA for your addiction to booze and or drugs.

 

[Calkem]

When I was unemployed, I thought of starting my own church but I soon realized I'm too honest.

It's not too late, you can start your own satanic "church" and make billions like Markus Jooste, sacrifice children and blow your brains out in the end.