Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl

[ill steelo]

I wish there was someone on NT that went to his church so we could get a perspective from someone that isn't against religion, isn't an atheist, etc.

I'm curious what his congregation thinks. I should ask my aunt.

this chick coaxed me into going to church for the first time in ages today, and the pastor took shots at him

 

[dutchroyalt]

 I ask this in particularly to black people... How has christianity improved, advanced, progressed african americans as a whole, as oppose to the life that was had (ala back before coming to america and adopting christianity) before adaptation of christianity. 

And i mean overall not these cant be proven possibly made up individual accounts...ala i was without a job i prayed and then a employer called and i got a job...or my grandma was diagnosed with cancer and had 3 months to live, i prayed and no she still living bs. I mean black people overall as a whole.

Ive asked this several times and yet still havent heard a response. How has the adaptation and following of christianity improved the life, society perception, or blacks as a whole? What improvements and progressions has blacks made as a whole that can directly be related to the "black church"? 

 

[gwap]

 
 I ask this in particularly to black people... How has christianity improved, advanced, progressed african americans as a whole, as oppose to the life that was had (ala back before coming to america and adopting christianity) before adaptation of christianity. 

And i mean overall not these cant be proven possibly made up individual accounts...ala i was without a job i prayed and then a employer called and i got a job...or my grandma was diagnosed with cancer and had 3 months to live, i prayed and no she still living bs. I mean black people overall as a whole.

Ive asked this several times and yet still havent heard a response. How has the adaptation and following of christianity improved the life, society perception, or blacks as a whole? What improvements and progressions has blacks made as a whole that can directly be related to the "black church"? 

Im not religious but i can see how religion was used as a control mechanism (positively, and negatviely) throughout history. This control mechanism was used to solidify the different communities involved in the civil rights moverment along with making leadership very clear (MLK etc.) Religion did help us unite for this cause.

I'm not saying religion itself brought about the success of the movement, but the leadership and well defined hierarchy and loyalty helped in the process.

 

[darthska]

Tread lightly.

Don't get ya toe tagged.

 

[dutchroyalt]

 
Im not religious but i can see how religion was used as a control mechanism (positively, and negatviely) throughout history. This control mechanism was used to solidify the different communities involved in the civil rights moverment along with making leadership very clear (MLK etc.) Religion did help us unite for this cause.

I'm not saying religion itself brought about the success of the movement, but the leadership and well defined hierarchy and loyalty helped in the process.

on the surface it appears that may be true... but in retrospect integration and the so called "movement" in a essence made things worse for blacks... Independance is almost non existence. the home nucleus, is no longer, the times of blacks running/controlling and governing their neighborhoods is a thing of the past, reliance and dependence on each other is all but done.

Not to mention the church of that era is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar different then of today, and lets face it, a creflo a eddie long is a far cry from a andrew jackson or a mlk, Not to mention a vast majority of the so called changes werent because of the movement, but moreso independent individuals and groups like the panthers who used actions, instead of praying for change and lip service and idle threats.

Not to knock them, but lets be honest, folks in church praying and folks bellowing scriptures wasnt the reason the blacks in the back of the bus were overturned.... it was the fact that folks boycotted and refuse to patronage the buss for several months is what caused the change.

Trust and believe whites didnt give a damn how much you prayed, and how many services you attended... it only hit home and ish became real when folks stop riding the bus and they saw a lost in profits and it was affecting their profits/pockets. 

 

[gwap]

1. I never implied praying helped the movement. I CLEARLY stated the leadership, hierarchy, and loyalty that religion brought as a "control mechanism" is what helped solidify the movement.

2. Integration and civil rights didn't cause our present day problems. Cointel pro, the crack epidemic, the war on drugs, and globalization lead to our present day issues.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

on the surface it appears that may be true... but in retrospect integration and the so called "movement" in a essence made things worse for blacks... Independance is almost non existence. the home nucleus, is no longer, the times of blacks running/controlling and governing their neighborhoods is a thing of the past, reliance and dependence on each other is all but done.

Not to mention the church of that era is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar different then of today, and lets face it, a creflo a eddie long is a far cry from a andrew jackson or a mlk, Not to mention a vast majority of the so called changes werent because of the movement, but moreso independent individuals and groups like the panthers who used actions, instead of praying for change and lip service and idle threats.

Not to knock them, but lets be honest, folks in church praying and folks bellowing scriptures wasnt the reason the blacks in the back of the bus were overturned.... it was the fact that folks boycotted and refuse to patronage the buss for several months is what caused the change.

Trust and believe whites didnt give a damn how much you prayed, and how many services you attended... it only hit home and ish became real when folks stop riding the bus and they saw a lost in profits and it was affecting their profits/pockets. 

I disagree. Much of the civil rights movement started in the black Christian church. Many of the black leaders and activist of that time were active Christians. Southern Christian Leadership Conference's influential role in the Birmingham campaign, the march on Washington, the St. Augustine protests, and the Selma-Montgomery march. Many of Dr. Kings speeches were based out of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. There's tons of books and articles on the role of religion in the Civil Rights movement. Dr. King took a passive aggressive non-violent approach. By no means did him and others just pray and attend church services. Every old head I have ever spoken to that actually lived this will attest that the black Christian church was the catalyst and played a major role for the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights in itself is biblical.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Correct. It's incredibly difficult to translate between two languages. It's especially difficult to translate between two time periods. That's why I'm being critical of translations.


Sure, so let's go back to the link I posted. All of the translations contain the same errors which lead to an incorrect understanding of what the verse is saying. 


Which form? What led you to that conclusion?


I think you should have a working understanding of the languages used in the Bible. I also think you should have a good understanding of that time period and the culture. Even trying to translate between modern day Japanese and modern day English can be confusing, and you have the advantage of being in the same time period. 

I don't think my views on homosexuality in the Bible are relevant to this discussion. 

Bro, I feel like I keep answeing the same question. I come to my conclusion on Leviticus 18:22 because of other verses in the Bible where all sex outside the context ofa marriage between a man or woman is sin. To me the Bible is clear on it's stance. I find your views on the topic to be relevant to the conversation, yet you are not willing to answer nor have you provided me with your understanding of the verse.

 

[boris]

Bro, I feel like I keep answeing the same question. I come to my conclusion on Leviticus 18:22 because of other verses in the Bible where all sex outside the context ofa marriage between a man or woman is sin. To me the Bible is clear on it's stance. I find your views on the topic to be relevant to the conversation, yet you are not willing to answer nor have you provided me with your understanding of the verse.

Actually, I feel like you're just dancing around the issue. You've tried to focus on homosexuality, when that is not the topic of discussion. 

If the Bible is clear on its stance, why does Leviticus 18:22 even exist? Leviticus 18:22 is incredibly specific in what it's condemning. 

Since you bring up marriage, do we need to try to analyze the verses that discuss marriage in the Bible? This is kind of my point. You're telling me that the Bible condemns all sex outside of marriage, and you admitted earlier that you study from an English translation of the Bible, so how can I trust what you say?

Why are my views on homosexuality in the Bible relevant? I'm interested to know what the original intent of the Bible is, so how do my opinions affect that? I'll put it differently, I'm interested in viewing the Bible as objectively as possible. 

I did provide you with my understanding of the verse. I said that it seems to me like we can't know what the original intent was given that there are multiple possible interpretations. It sounds like guesswork. 

 

[dutchroyalt]

I disagree. Much of the civil rights movement started in the black Christian church. Many of the black leaders and activist of that time were active Christians. Southern Christian Leadership Conference's influential role in the Birmingham campaign, the march on Washington, the St. Augustine protests, and the Selma-Montgomery march. Many of Dr. Kings speeches were based out of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. There's tons of books and articles on the role of religion in the Civil Rights movement. Dr. King took a passive aggressive non-violent approach. By no means did him and others just pray and attend church services. Every old head I have ever spoken to that actually lived this will attest that the black Christian church was the catalyst and played a major role for the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights in itself is biblical.

All that is true.... but many of the people who spoke with actions... the panthers, the black revolutionist were NOT christians... And as I stated even from a social, economic, and general day to day life... blacks have been at a stand-still, and in some aspects actually regressed. 

Not that i blame religion on this, but it in a way indirectly lead to many of this. Ala its ok to have kids with multiple baby daddies, my kids dont need a daddy cause all I need is lord jesus. Again as I said before integration actually set blacks back.... there were areas/cities throughout the country to which blacks pretty much owned ran and governed... like oklahoma. Now look at it, outside the ball players owning homes, you would be hard press to find a black owning/running anything there.

I could go on and on from chicago, to d.c., to atlanta, areas that 40+ years ago were not only predominate black, they were governed, ran etc... by predominate blacks...

Yes they still are predominate black in terms of population, but in terms of social, political, and economically goes... that is far from the truth. 

Church as I have stated before is blacks folks shrink, psychologist... except for healing them and improving them, and progressing them, they instead pacify, excuse, and have blacks ignore issues and problems on the premise of you dont have to worry or concern yourself, or make an effort to eradicate or change things.... they are what they are cause its gods will, and just sit back because things will be much better in another life. 

And the facts and statistics more then prove this.

Lets be honest the black church and its premise and overall purpose and effectiveness from yesteryear is far far removed from what the black church is today..

It is utterly asinine to compare a mlk, to a td jakes or a creflo dollar. 

 

[dutchroyalt]

 
Actually, I feel like you're just dancing around the issue. You've tried to focus on homosexuality, when that is not the topic of discussion. 

If the Bible is clear on its stance, why does Leviticus 18:22 even exist? Leviticus 18:22 is incredibly specific in what it's condemning. 

Since you bring up marriage, do we need to try to analyze the verses that discuss marriage in the Bible? This is kind of my point. You're telling me that the Bible condemns all sex outside of marriage, and you admitted earlier that you study from an English translation of the Bible, so how can I trust what you say?

Why are my views on homosexuality in the Bible relevant? I'm interested to know what the original intent of the Bible is, so how do my opinions affect that? I'll put it differently, I'm interested in viewing the Bible as objectively as possible. 

I did provide you with my understanding of the verse. I said that it seems to me like we can't know what the original intent was given that there are multiple possible interpretations. It sounds like guesswork. 

Also in the bible it states that marriage is the union of two bodies a man and woman, coming together to form one.... 

So pretty much by definition, according to the bible, there isnt such a thing as a baby momma/daddy and pretty much conception of a child equates marriage... not a dress or ring or ice sculpture etc... yet most christians would not acknowledge or state they are married because they procreate with someone... its more likely they would deny visitation, put them on child support before they would state they are forever tied/linked together...despite backing a religion to which they swear to a god they would. 

 

[gwap]

1. I never implied praying helped the movement. I CLEARLY stated the leadership, hierarchy, and loyalty that religion brought as a "control mechanism" is what helped solidify the movement.

2. Integration and civil rights didn't cause our present day problems. Cointel pro, the crack epidemic, the war on drugs, and globalization lead to our present day issues.

 

[crcballer55]

 

Bro, I feel like I keep answeing the same question. I come to my conclusion on Leviticus 18:22 because of other verses in the Bible where all sex outside the context ofa marriage between a man or woman is sin. To me the Bible is clear on it's stance. I find your views on the topic to be relevant to the conversation, yet you are not willing to answer nor have you provided me with your understanding of the verse.

Actually, I feel like you're just dancing around the issue. You've tried to focus on homosexuality, when that is not the topic of discussion. 

If the Bible is clear on its stance, why does Leviticus 18:22 even exist? Leviticus 18:22 is incredibly specific in what it's condemning. 

Since you bring up marriage, do we need to try to analyze the verses that discuss marriage in the Bible? This is kind of my point. You're telling me that the Bible condemns all sex outside of marriage, and you admitted earlier that you study from an English translation of the Bible, so how can I trust what you say?

Why are my views on homosexuality in the Bible relevant? I'm interested to know what the original intent of the Bible is, so how do my opinions affect that? I'll put it differently, I'm interested in viewing the Bible as objectively as possible. 

I did provide you with my understanding of the verse. I said that it seems to me like we can't know what the original intent was given that there are multiple possible interpretations. It sounds like guesswork. 

No, there is actually a very specific way of interpreting the Bible and its original intent by cross examining it with other verses and words that were used in the original text. It's called exegesis. For example, the OT refers to a "rod" in many different contexts, all of which had different words in the original Hebrew text. However, many of our English translations only refer to it as a rod, which may lead a lay person to believe they are all the same. However, depending on the use, it would have been referred to as a Maqqel, Matteh, or Shevet, all of which had very different purposes.

When we are interpreting God's punishment for different people throughout the Bible, we also need to remember that He is the only one able to know someone's heart and intent, which is why he kills certain people outright and redeems others. But ultimately, everyone has some consequence for their actions. It is not up to us to judge, but to love our neighbor (Matthew 7:1-2).

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Actually, I feel like you're just dancing around the issue. You've tried to focus on homosexuality, when that is not the topic of discussion. 

If the Bible is clear on its stance, why does Leviticus 18:22 even exist? Leviticus 18:22 is incredibly specific in what it's condemning. 

Since you bring up marriage, do we need to try to analyze the verses that discuss marriage in the Bible? This is kind of my point. You're telling me that the Bible condemns all sex outside of marriage, and you admitted earlier that you study from an English translation of the Bible, so how can I trust what you say?

Why are my views on homosexuality in the Bible relevant? I'm interested to know what the original intent of the Bible is, so how do my opinions affect that? I'll put it differently, I'm interested in viewing the Bible as objectively as possible. 

I did provide you with my understanding of the verse. I said that it seems to me like we can't know what the original intent was given that there are multiple possible interpretations. It sounds like guesswork. 

You don't have to trust what I say nor am I asking you to. I told you why I believe that is what the Bible is saying in that specific verse. You asked me the question of how I came to my conclusion on the verse you provided. You don't have to like my answer or agree with it, but that is my view And I believe that is the Bible's and God's view. You came to your conclusion and I came to mine. I believe what I believe and you are more than entitled to believe what you believe. Once again, you brought up the topic ofew different translations that focus on one verse about homosexuality in the Bible. The link you posted focuses on the verses about homosexuality in the Bible. Every page on that site that I clicked on was about homosexuality in the Bible. You haven't focused on any other verse with different translations except for the the one on homsexuality and from what I can tell, neither has the link you posted. I am only focusing on what you have focused on. You set the tone for our conversation. Now if you want to talk about strictly translations that have different meanings then show me another example verse. I already told you which English translations that are seen as the most literal to the original scriptures and languages. I showed you an example of different translations on a verse that is about having compassion. All used different words or phrases yet the meaning of the verse was the same in each of the translation provided. I also said that you could go to Biblehub.Com or the Bible app to compare translations on any verse. I also said you can get software to translate the original languages so that you can read the Bible as objectively as possible. Or you can learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and read it for yourself. If you only wanted to know how I read,study and understand the Bible then I have answered your question, but I'm not telling you to do as I do.

 

[dutchroyalt]

You know whats funny, ironic and damning about all this, is that people are professing and trying to stand ground on the premise of "belief".... a word which root definition means... "to be lied to"...lol

You basically have folks taking a stance, and trying to show validity and credence based on their acknowledgement and acceptance of being lied to

 

[boris]

You don't have to trust what I say nor am I asking you to. I told you why I believe that is what the Bible is saying in that specific verse. You asked me the question of how I came to my conclusion on the verse you provided. You don't have to like my answer or agree with it, but that is my view And I believe that is the Bible's and God's view. You came to your conclusion and I came to mine. I believe what I believe and you are more than entitled to believe what you believe. Once again, you brought up the topic ofew different translations that focus on one verse about homosexuality in the Bible. The link you posted focuses on the verses about homosexuality in the Bible. Every page on that site that I clicked on was about homosexuality in the Bible. You haven't focused on any other verse with different translations except for the the one on homsexuality and from what I can tell, neither has the link you posted. I am only focusing on what you have focused on. You set the tone for our conversation. Now if you want to talk about strictly translations that have different meanings then show me another example verse. I already told you which English translations that are seen as the most literal to the original scriptures and languages. I showed you an example of different translations on a verse that is about having compassion. All used different words or phrases yet the meaning of the verse was the same in each of the translation provided. I also said that you could go to Biblehub.Com or the Bible app to compare translations on any verse. I also said you can get software to translate the original languages so that you can read the Bible as objectively as possible. Or you can learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and read it for yourself. If you only wanted to know how I read,study and understand the Bible then I have answered your question, but I'm not telling you to do as I do.

I feel like I'm going in circles with you. I showed a very specific issue and it's been difficult to get you to focus on it without deviating to irrelevant topics. I think it's best if we just end here. 

 

[rellireloaded]

 

[girlthatsblanco]

All that is true.... but many of the people who spoke with actions... the panthers, the black revolutionist were NOT christians... And as I stated even from a social, economic, and general day to day life... blacks have been at a stand-still, and in some aspects actually regressed. 

Not that i blame religion on this, but it in a way indirectly lead to many of this. Ala its ok to have kids with multiple baby daddies, my kids dont need a daddy cause all I need is lord jesus. Again as I said before integration actually set blacks back.... there were areas/cities throughout the country to which blacks pretty much owned ran and governed... like oklahoma. Now look at it, outside the ball players owning homes, you would be hard press to find a black owning/running anything there.

I could go on and on from chicago, to d.c., to atlanta, areas that 40+ years ago were not only predominate black, they were governed, ran etc... by predominate blacks...

Yes they still are predominate black in terms of population, but in terms of social, political, and economically goes... that is far from the truth. 

Church as I have stated before is blacks folks shrink, psychologist... except for healing them and improving them, and progressing them, they instead pacify, excuse, and have blacks ignore issues and problems on the premise of you dont have to worry or concern yourself, or make an effort to eradicate or change things.... they are what they are cause its gods will, and just sit back because things will be much better in another life. 

And the facts and statistics more then prove this.

Lets be honest the black church and its premise and overall purpose and effectiveness from yesteryear is far far removed from what the black church is today..

It is utterly asinine to compare a mlk, to a td jakes or a creflo dollar. 

It seems like you are saying people's actions always line up with what the Bible teaches because your baby daddy example is in no way biblical. Any woman that thinks that's it's ok to do that strictly because she has Jesus as severely underestimated consequences for her own actions.

And I believe the Bible teaches that all races are to come together and function in society as well as church. Churches are the most racially segregated places on earth. When in fact, the Book of Revelation tells us thst people from every nation and tribe will worship God in heaven. So, I'm all for integeation.

The problem with blacks in America is no different than any other race in America. It starts with the break down of the family and the decline of personal responsibility, but I don't see how that is the fault of the Bible.

Any church telling it's members to sit on Their Hand And Just Simply Wait On God, is doing their members a diservice. I can personally tell you my Pastor and my church is a church that is about action particularly with our impact being focused on the family structure and community. I'may not saying there are not churches like the one you described, but my church is far from that as well as many others I know.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

I feel like I'm going in circles with you. I showed a very specific issue and it's been difficult to get you to focus on it without deviating to irrelevant topics. I think it's best if we just end here. 

That's probably best because you only want to ask me questions, but not answer mine. Nor am I clear on which topic you actually want to focus on. I don't think you are either. You have had many opportunities to provide other scriptures with different translations that would show different meanings, but you haven't. With that said, I wish you the best on your efforts to understand the Bible and it's meaning objectively.

 

[mivish06]

creflow still a thief tho

 

[crcballer55]

 
You know whats funny, ironic and damning about all this, is that people are professing and trying to stand ground on the premise of "belief".... a word which root definition means... "to be lied to"...lol

You basically have folks taking a stance, and trying to show validity and credence based on their acknowledgement and acceptance of being lied to

We all have beliefs, whether we are able to prove them or not. There are MANY things you and I believe that we have no way to prove ourselves, but instead trust others with their expertise to prove for us. For instance, you believe that the law of relativity is true based on other people's explanation, but there's no way you're going to be able to articulate it like Einstein did. You "believe" you're going to make it to work or school safely, but you can't prove it until it's already happened. Does that mean you were lied to?

 

[boris]

 

I feel like I'm going in circles with you. I showed a very specific issue and it's been difficult to get you to focus on it without deviating to irrelevant topics. I think it's best if we just end here. 

That's probably best because you only want to ask me questions, but not answer mine. Nor am I clear on which topic you actually want to focus on. I don't think you are either. You have had many opportunities to provide other scriptures with different translations that would show different meanings, but you haven't. With that said, I wish you the best on your efforts to understand the Bible and it's meaning objectively.

Haha, ok. I stated my interest from the beginning and I even repeated it multiple times. It's pretty clear that you wanted to focus more on the homosexuality aspect instead of the issues with using a poorly translated book. 

 

[dutchroyalt]

It seems like you are saying people's actions always line up with what the Bible teaches because your baby daddy example is in no way biblical. Any woman that thinks that's it's ok to do that strictly because she has Jesus as severely underestimated consequences for her own actions.

And I believe the Bible teaches that all races are to come together and function in society as well as church. Churches are the most racially segregated places on earth. When in fact, the Book of Revelation tells us thst people from every nation and tribe will worship God in heaven. So, I'm all for integeation.

The problem with blacks in America is no different than any other race in America. It starts with the break down of the family and the decline of personal responsibility, but I don't see how that is the fault of the Bible.

Any church telling it's members to sit on Their Hand And Just Simply Wait On God, is doing their members a diservice. I can personally tell you my Pastor and my church is a church that is about action particularly with our impact being focused on the family structure and community. I'may not saying there are not churches like the one you described, but my church is far from that as well as many others I know.

Its not the words again its the people delivering the message.... As i stated earlier with my gun analogy. Guns dont kill people, people with ulterior motives and ill will kill people. And the same applies with the word and the black church. 

And as far as your first sentence, you do realize that the vast majority of attendees of the black church are black woman, and the vast majority of them are single never married, possibly never will be married black woman. And they feel comfortable in this skin just by example that you stated as well as I did "the black church" so by virtue it would stand that narrative is the majority.

And its not the "bible" fault per se... but it is the preachers/deacons etc... who alternate the word and message, from a book that was misinterpreted, all to pacify, sooth and provide a crutch...from accepting personal responsibility, with the bottom line being turning a profit.

I in no way am I saying that this is fact in all cases, but the numbers and stats show that it is overwhelmingly in most cases. And that is why it is a detriment. 

Again that is no different then iuno me saying fire is good because it provides warmth and a means to cook food, and not acknowledging that it is also used for arson, to kill etc... 

And in this case in reference to church...its far more ppl using it for arson then for warmth... and as stated above the numbers/stats prove so.

 

[dutchroyalt]

 
We all have beliefs, whether we are able to prove them or not. There are MANY things you and I believe that we have no way to prove ourselves, but instead trust others with their expertise to prove for us. For instance, you believe that the law of relativity is true based on other people's explanation, but there's no way you're going to be able to articulate it like Einstein did. You "believe" you're going to make it to work or school safely, but you can't prove it until it's already happened. Does that mean you were lied to?

No we dont all accept and acknowledge a lie and state it as truth... Thats a pretty big assumption. 

No i dont believe I will like your example will wake up in the morning... I hope I wake up in the morning, I think the likelihood is in my favor i will but i dont believe i will wake up in the morning.

By definition and by your words that would be like stating cavs are 2015 nba champs because i "believe" they will win.... which in fact is a non truth. It only becomes factual and a truth, when i see lebron hoisting the larry o'brien. And to state it as fact would in fact be a lie.

If i state i "believe" in aliens.... does that make them exist? If i believe xyz stole my car, does that factually make xyz in possession of my ride?

No... no it doesnt, so how does this line of thinking apply to every facet of life with the exception of religion?

 

[girlthatsblanco]

We all have beliefs, whether we are able to prove them or not. There are MANY things you and I believe that we have no way to prove ourselves, but instead trust others with their expertise to prove for us. For instance, you believe that the law of relativity is true based on other people's explanation, but there's no way you're going to be able to articulate it like Einstein did. You "believe" you're going to make it to work or school safely, but you can't prove it until it's already happened. Does that mean you were lied to?

Its not the words again its the people delivering the message.... As i stated earlier with my gun analogy. Guns dont kill people, people with ulterior motives and ill will kill people. And the same applies with the word and the black church. 

And as far as your first sentence, you do realize that the vast majority of attendees of the black church are black woman, and the vast majority of them are single never married, possibly never will be married black woman. And they feel comfortable in this skin just by example that you stated as well as I did "the black church" so by virtue it would stand that narrative is the majority.

And its not the "bible" fault per se... but it is the preachers/deacons etc... who alternate the word and message, from a book that was misinterpreted, all to pacify, sooth and provide a crutch...from accepting personal responsibility, with the bottom line being turning a profit.

I in no way am I saying that this is fact in all cases, but the numbers and stats show that it is overwhelmingly in most cases. And that is why it is a detriment. 

Again that is no different then iuno me saying fire is good because it provides warmth and a means to cook food, and not acknowledging that it is also used for arson, to kill etc... 

And in this case in reference to church...its far more ppl using it for arson then for warmth... and as stated above the numbers/stats prove so.

I'm interested in where you are getting all these stats and numbers.