# STP preaching religion....



## jsherman02 (Oct 9, 2006)

So I am about to check out at STP and I see this...



I am all for religion, but I really do not need it when I am purchasing clothing on line.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Are you serious? They really put that in your shopping cart page???


----------



## medhat (Jan 15, 2006)

A STP shopper would have to click the "about us" link on the website to get to the Mr. Richardson's story. I recognized the religious link several years ago in their print catalogs, somewhere in small print near their company statement and vision. For the casual, or casual and frequent, shopper I think one can go about shopping at STP without ever being exposed or even recognizing that the owner(s) have a strong religious belief. As it is a private company, I have absolutely no problem with the degree and manner in which Mr. Richardson expresses his faith at it relates to his business. I would maintain this opinion regardless of his underlying religion, be it Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, wiccan, etc... I think it's there, but exceedingly subtle. Now, if you might have an issue with it, you're certainly entitled to having a say; vote with your wallet! Just don't pretend to tell me or others on the forum what to do.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Yeah, they have stuff like that in all their print catalogues, too. It definitely puts me off. I used to live in Grand Rapids, and there you could actually pick up a directory of Christian businesses (would you believe Karate for Christ?). It seems to be part of the general idea of all religions: "God says the adherents of our religion are the best, and the rest of you guys better line up or else."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

medhat said:


> Just don't pretend to tell me or others on the forum what to do.


I haven't seen any posts on this thread yet that pretends to tell people on the forum what to do.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I sense a rapid bump to The Interchange.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

I noticed this rather awhile back and simply wrote it off as a quirk of the company. Sure, I'm a godless, secular humanist, but I know better than to be offended by this sort of thing.

In my area, there's a limestone quarry company that regularly pays for thirty second tv ads in which some scripture selection is read while the viewer sees front end loaders and dumptrucks going about their business. This, in my opinion, is rather more bizarre.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

I wish whoever bought that Orvis silk jacket marked down to $70 before I had a chance to check out this morning had been so offended by the religous message that they had cancelled their purchase. In fact, I strongly suggest anyone buying 42R Southwick's or 32W Bills please boycott STP.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Oh yeah. Especially don't subsidize this Christian zealotry with purchases of AE's in 8.5D. That'll show'em.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

If not for this thread I'd have never noticed and gone cheerfully on my lapsed Catholic way...


----------



## medhat (Jan 15, 2006)

AldenPyle said:


> Oh yeah. Especially don't subsidize this Christian zealotry with purchases of AE's in 8.5D. That'll show'em.


Now that's really unfair... I'd boycot AE's in 9D as well. Well, I'm off to church now...


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

Even though this bothers you, it's not going to stop you from shopping at STP. God has a perfect plan to make you look good!



jsherman02 said:


> So I am about to check out at STP and I see this...
> 
> I am all for religion, but I really do not need it when I am purchasing clothing on line.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I asked them about that a month or so ago as I had never noticed it before. The answer was that they have always had these messages on their site. Whether they have or not I am not sure...do I like it, nor really, will it stop me from buying, no, but I do not like when folks put their religious beliefs in public, especially business public..I find it a bit distasteful, but not enough to not buy from them...I just tune it out. Being reborn is more than a religion, it is a mission. I cannot tell you how many times some friends that were reborn or maybe just devoutly religious have asked me to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. I have found a way out, I tell them that Jesus was a Jew when he died and that I practice HIS chosen/born to religion.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I can deal with the messages, but I get an email from them everyday and it's really annoying. I tried to unsubscribe but it does not work. I'll email the company at this point.

I think retailers need to understand that they generate ill will when they send more than one email a week unless it's some big event or announcement.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

*CORRECTION:*
STP is not "preaching religion". Just like every other successful business the vision, mission, and shared values involve a single personality leading a team of others - an entrepreneurial leader that is the driving force of the business (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell). The founder's vision is living according to God's plan for his life and on his ABOUT US page he tells you the story about the business and what their mission and corporate values are just like every other successful business.

From the 'About Us' page:

The concept for Sierra Trading Post came to my mind, along with a special promise. It was God's answer in response to my prayers and my step of faith. Sierra Trading Post was God's idea not mine. He guided me in the Bible to Proverbs 16:3,9. "Commit your works to the Lord and your plans will be established," and "The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps." My task remains to commit the business to God and to plan every facet. He promises that my plans will become a reality.

I prayerfully planned every aspect of the business. Harder than the planning was deciding how to commit a business to God. To do this, we ensure that this business reflects God's principles in the way we treat employees, vendors and customers. Each catalog includes three "We believe" statements. In addition, we print a quotation from the Bible on our order blank. *These statements serve to hold me accountable. In other words we try to follow Jesus injunction to treat others the way we want to be treated.*


----------



## FIHTies (Jun 24, 2004)

Artisan Fan said:


> I can deal with the messages, but I get an email from them everyday and it's really annoying. I tried to unsubscribe but it does not work. I'll email the company at this point.
> 
> I think retailers need to understand that they generate ill will when they send more than one email a week unless it's some big event or announcement.


You haven't gotten etailer emails until you have joined the Neiman Marcus email list...

Sigh...And I only send out once or twice a season.

With regard to the original topic, I think that any religious or political statements are just bad business sense but its their business so its up to them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> I noticed this rather awhile back and simply wrote it off as a quirk of the company. Sure, I'm a godless, secular humanist, but I know better than to be offended by this sort of thing.


Excellent viewpoint, AQG.


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

Until I have to check a box accepting Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior in order to check out I say live and let live.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gong Tao Jai said:


> Until I have to check a box accepting Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior in order to check out I say live and let live.


LOL Well done!


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

god doesnt need any salesmen.

when people realise there are 6 billion unique paths to god we will all start to levitate.

jesus was a poor , holy man who gave all his possessions away and dressed in rags.

erm .. what was the question again?


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

But bless those discounts!!


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

The founder/owner of the company has had sucess, he is giving you his testamony of why he has had that sucess. I don't see it as him trying to convert you, he is sharing what has made his business a sucess.

It's a mandate from Jesus that his followers share his word with others so that they too may know Christ.

It is a small private company, the owner can post pretty much what he/she desires on the company web site, if you are offended, stop contributing to the sucess of STP.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

the teachings of jebus was about spirituality not capitalism.

and as such fragments of scripture being peddled alongside items for commerical profit , sit very uneasy.

when jebus did the surmount on the mount , he had no sponsors. :icon_smile_big:

if the owner of STP was a true spirtitual man and followed the teachings of jebus ... he should give away all his stock .. then the fragments of scripture would be very apropriate.

and yes .. i'm looking for another freebie ! :icon_smile_big:

_and the lord spaketh and said ; '' blessed are the gentleman confidence tricksters , for they shall inherit/steal half a million pounds worth of diamonds from cartier and de beers by merely asking to borrow them ''_


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

Do I get a discount if I pretend to be Christian?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

There is nothing wrong with being vocal about religion. I find it strange that Christians are supposed to tolerate every other group but somehow we are never given the same respect. Quit worrying about STP or others who speak what they believe and just enjoy the diversity... and the great prices and service.


----------



## PuppetBoy (Jan 9, 2007)

*yes, but do you have a sword?*

Luke 22:35-36

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered.

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

Gong Tao Jai said:


> Until I have to check a box accepting Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior in order to check out I say live and let live.


All I can add to this is (before it goes to Interchange):

... and save and let save.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

(Flashing banner)
Jesus saves

40-50% off department store prices.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

This is a discussion of an apparel store's policy as regards religion. It is not a discussion of religion. As I see it there is no reason whatsoever to move it to the Interchange.


----------



## NYCguy (Feb 4, 2007)

Gong Tao Jai said:


> Until I have to check a box accepting Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior in order to check out I say live and let live.


Agree completely. I've noticed this or similar statements in STP's print catalogs for several years, although I've never come across the statements on the website. I never understood the statements to be proselytizing but rather just statements of the owners' personal principles.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

I have to say that I'm not the least offended by the Christian messsage on the STP website--and I've never seen it in the checkout section, only in the "about us" link. I'm not a highly-religious person--what is commonly called a "backslid" anglican (episcopalian)--but it seems to me that STP's founder has every right to make his beliefs known if he so chooses. It is, after all, his business. The only downside for him is that someone might be offended enough to take his business elsewhere. Obviously, Mr. Richardson feels that the advantages to him personally of stating his views outweigh any potential loss of business. If someone is offended, s/he shouldn't buy from STP. All the evidence, however, would suggest that there has been insufficient offense taken to keep this business from becoming an enormous success!

Actually, I have to admire Mr. Richardson for being a standup guy about his religious views, and it seems to me that one could point to a logical connection between these views and his business, in that one could conclude from his statements that he (the customer) could expect to be treated fairly and honestly in any transactions with STP. I think that, to those who think that people should park their religious views outside when they enter the business arena, a real Christian (or any other truly religious person) would probably say that one cannot, or should not, that, in fact, one's _entire_ life should be guided by these views. Again, as a not-very-religious person, what gets me is that had the STP website quoted a Buddhist saying or lesson (or maybe even a Muslim one), for example, everyone would have thought it cool, but heaven help the guy if it's Christian. All of a sudden, the guy has no right to "mix religion with business." I've noticed this phenomenon to a greater extent here in Canada (a less religious country than the US). Here, to even acknowledge that one has Christian beliefs is to invite ridicule and censure. Now, it's true that I spend most of my life in the academy, where this phenomenon is most pronounced, but it exists in almost all of society. To acknowledge that one follows an Eastern religion, however, brings only smiles and approbation!


----------



## Thomas (Jan 30, 2006)

An owner of a business has every right to run his business the way he chooses.
I’m sure the owner of STP knew he would be turning off customers do the inclusion of his personal beliefs in his business and that was a price he was willing to pay. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to shop there… it’s as simple as that.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

It's his business, he should run it as he sees fit. If he can make it an effective evangelical tool, more power to him.

Complaining about it is what's in poor taste.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

PuppetBoy said:


> Luke 22:35-36
> 
> Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered.
> 
> He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.


That's an interesting quote. Seems to advocate both luxury goods and self defense! Can any bible-scholars offer up a little interpretation?


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Country Irish said:


> There is nothing wrong with being vocal about religion. I find it strange that Christians are supposed to tolerate every other group but somehow we are never given the same respect. Quit worrying about STP or others who speak what they believe and just enjoy the diversity... and the great prices and service.


I was going to post my own simple reply, but I saw this and it struck a chord. I think you're right. It's his company, he can put what he wants there. Shoppers should be strong enough to ignore it if they don't want to believe it.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

It's a record of Jesus's instructions just after His prediction of Peter's betrayal and just prior to His own arrest and crucifixion. He basically seems to be saying dangerous times are ahead, be ready for it. It is stated by the disciples that they have two swords, and Jesus remarks that is enough. Peter, of course, uses a sword during Jesus's arrest when he cuts off Malchus's ear, which Jesus heals. One assumes that Peter--a fisherman--was not a good enough swordsman to have been aiming at an ear.

There is no record that Jesus was opposed to luxury goods. His own cloak was seamless, which is why the Roman guards cast lots for it rather than dividing the cloth between them. Mary anointed Jesus with a pound of nard, an extremely costly item that Judas claimed could have been sold for 300 denarii. That would have been a year's wages for a laborer. Jesus rebuffs the idea that it should have instead been sold to benefit the poor. Jesus also availed himself of the Garden of Gethsemane, likely a private garden owned by a rich patron. He was also buried in the new tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a privilege reserved for the wealthy.

Jesus did oppose greed and laying up treasure on earth rather than in heaven.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Country Irish said:


> There is nothing wrong with being vocal about religion. I find it strange that Christians are supposed to tolerate every other group but somehow we are never given the same respect. Quit worrying about STP or others who speak what they believe and just enjoy the diversity... and the great prices and service.


Amen!


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

AlanC said:


> It's a record of Jesus's instructions just after His prediction of Peter's betrayal and just prior to His own arrest and crucifixion. He basically seems to be saying dangerous times are ahead, be ready for it. It is stated by the disciples that they have two swords, and Jesus remarks that is enough. Peter, of course, uses a sword during Jesus's arrest when he cuts off Malchus's ear, which Jesus heals. One assumes that Peter--a fisherman--was not a good enough swordsman to have been aiming at an ear.
> 
> There is no record that Jesus was opposed to luxury goods. His own cloak was seamless, which is why the Roman guards cast lots for it rather than dividing the cloth between them. Mary anointed Jesus with a pound of nard, an extremely costly item that Judas claimed could have been sold for 300 denarii. That would have been a year's wages for a laborer. Jesus rebuffs the idea that it should have instead been sold to benefit the poor. Jesus also availed himself of the Garden of Gethsemane, likely a private garden owned by a rich patron. He was also buried in the new tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a privilege reserved for the wealthy.
> 
> Jesus did oppose greed and laying up treasure on earth rather than in heaven.


Pound of Nard would be a really good name for a Christian rock band.


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

I will gladly purchase from any business who wants to operate in a manner pleasing to Jesus. The fun you can have with those who don't...


----------



## mclean5 (May 16, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman wrote, _"I noticed this rather awhile back and simply wrote it off as a quirk of the company. Sure, I'm a godless, secular humanist, but I know better than to be offended by this sort of thing."_

Quite proper. It's the way I feel, being a devout Roman Catholic, about godless secular humanism. I patronize a used book store whose evangelical owner places Catholic books in the section on "Cults." I cheerfully buy his Catholica, and he cheerfully takes my money and offers me some coffee.

Every gentleman, no matter what his creed or beliefs, must find a way to live congenially with other men who are, in his view, foolish and misguided. I don't presume to speak for A Questionable Gentleman, but if I were a godless secular humanist I would think Christians at least a bit foolish and misguided, and I would see no reason for Christians who entertain the same perspecive on non-Christians to complain about the fact.

The line, in my opinion, is drawn when the other fellow makes assent to his beliefs a condition of interaction on even the most basic human level. If, for example, one had to assent to the teachings of Jesus, Muhammad, or who have you in order to buy Samuelsohn, that would be very objectionable indeed. STP doesn't come anywhere near that standard; patronizing them while they proclaim their beliefs doesn't assent to the truth of those beliefs, and since the truth of those beliefs is the only real ground from which a different creed can be criticized, no offense is given and no offense should be taken.


----------



## juniper (Aug 20, 2006)

mclean5 said:


> A Questionable Gentleman wrote, _"I noticed this rather awhile back and simply wrote it off as a quirk of the company. Sure, I'm a godless, secular humanist, but I know better than to be offended by this sort of thing."_
> 
> Quite proper. It's the way I feel, being a devout Roman Catholic, about godless secular humanism. I patronize a used book store whose evangelical owner places Catholic books in the section on "Cults." I cheerfully buy his Catholica, and he cheerfully takes my money and offers me some coffee.
> 
> ...


Amen.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

jsherman02 said:


> So I am about to check out at STP and I see this...
> 
> I am all for religion, but I really do not need it when I am purchasing clothing on line.


If you do not like it then do not shop there. You have a choice.


----------



## hasa (Dec 13, 2004)

I was also going to post a reply,but I believe that I can't say it any better than Roger already has done.


----------



## fullgrain (Jan 5, 2007)

*it's worse than that*

I wrote the President, after finding a particularly offensive quote from John whose message was essentially that everyone who is not an evangelical Christian is going to hell. I suggested there were plenty of quotes from Jesus 99.9% of customers could agree upon--love thy neighbor, feed the poor--but this was particularly divisive and had a long history of being so. He essentially told me to go f-- myself.

I did some research, and STP is a major donor to the Republican Party and conservative causes at the local, state, and national level. I'm sure as many members will find this a reason to shop as not to, but since the cat is out of the bag, thought folks might want to know one way or the other.


----------



## steveincharlotte (Aug 24, 2006)

If STP's business style is a direct result of Mr. Richardson's beliefs, then I wish every e-retailer out there would put something like that on their website. STP is hands down the easier place to buy from, when you want to talk to them on the phone they are the friendliest people on earth and will actually go and get the item in their hands and talk to you about it, and STP has the best return policy on the planet (that's why I frequently order two different versions/size/colors/etc. and return one). I'll put up with a lot of stuff to get that kind of service. Kudos to STP -- they can give me any comments they want on the way out.

steve


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Gong Tao Jai said:


> Until I have to check a box accepting Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior in order to check out I say live and let live.


Wise words!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

fullgrain said:


> I wrote the President, after finding a particularly offensive quote from John whose message was essentially that everyone who is not an evangelical Christian is going to hell. I suggested there were plenty of quotes from Jesus 99.9% of customers could agree upon--love thy neighbor, feed the poor--but this was particularly divisive and had a long history of being so. He essentially told me to go f-- myself.
> 
> I did some research, and STP is a major donor to the Republican Party and conservative causes at the local, state, and national level. I'm sure as many members will find this a reason to shop as not to, but since the cat is out of the bag, thought folks might want to know one way or the other.


An Evangelical Christian is supporting the Republican Party?! I'm sure all members appreciate you bringing this shocking revelation to our attention! There should be a law against that or something. Perhaps Madam Pelosi will turn her attention to this important commerce issue soon! 

May we assume you also do not shop at Walmart, drive an automobile or buy gas because the CEOs of these companies also support Republicans? You should probably also stay off the internet and your computer for that matter just to be consistent.


----------



## jsherman02 (Oct 9, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> If you do not like it then do not shop there. You have a choice.


It struck me a bit odd that is all. 99.99% of companies that sell anything would not suggest promoting any form of religion. (It is usually bad for business)

He can continue to run his company and promote religion all he wants, just keep the deals rolling in! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## fullgrain (Jan 5, 2007)

> An Evangelical Christian is supporting the Republican Party?! I'm sure all members appreciate you bringing this shocking revelation to our attention!


Actually, there are many many liberal Democratic evangelical Christians, quite a few quite prominent in national affairs. But given that this is a privately owned company whose president has made a particular political cause a mission, I thought indeed members might appreciate knowing, so that they could make an informed decision one way or the other. Some of us shop Sam's Club, some of us shop Costco. As to your other snarky comment, no one who lives in the world can be 100% consistent with their beliefs. But like any good citizen/consumer, I try to make choices in line w/ them. Many of us here, for example, buy certain brands partially because they are still made in America, or made by hand, and thus support individual artisanship. Politlcal decisions all.

In any case, being told that one is not going to enter the kingdom of heaven when all one wants to do is buy a pair of AEs is not a pleasant experience.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

fullgrain said:


> Actually, there are many many liberal Democratic evangelical Christians, quite a few quite prominent in national affairs. But given that this is a privately owned company whose president has made a particular political cause a mission, I thought indeed members might appreciate knowing, so that they could make an informed decision one way or the other. Some of us shop Sam's Club, some of us shop Costco.
> 
> *In any case, being told that one is not going to enter the kingdom of heaven when all one wants to do is buy a pair of AEs is not a pleasant experience.*


But how does that affect the price of the AEs you are/were trying to buy? Did you go to the site to be assured of being heaven bound or to buy a pair of AEs?

Is this not a country that propagates "freedom of expression"? It is the gentleman's private business enterprise and if he feels strongly enough about his religion to add a line or 2 proclaiming his belief on his company website, so be it. If anyone doesn't like it, they can easily stop shopping there.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

fullgrain said:


> Actually, there are many many liberal Democratic evangelical Christians, quite a few quite prominent in national affairs.


Really? You are saying you know a prominent, practicing evangelical that supports issues like abortion and gay marriage? Wow I find that interesting. I've yet to hear about or meet one of those. I know many conservative democrats that are evangelicals, but they carry guns and do not support either abortion or gay marriage.

However, accepting there are such misaligned creatures, what then is the point of singling out the STP Founder as one who supports Republicans? Is it "ok" to be an evangelical believer as long as you are a liberal Democrat politically? Do you think that liberal Democrat evangelicals believe you are not going to hell, but conservative Republican evangelicals do?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

None of us seem to mind it when Mr. Richardson's Christian principles trickle down to his customer service staff and they "cheerfully," and consistently in the customer's favor, reconcile any concerns we may experience regarding our purchases with STP. STP is perhaps a better place to do business, in some degree, because of Mr. Richardsons beliefs.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

I believe this discussion has moved beyond a particular store's policy and is now venturing into the inter-relationship between religion, politics, and commerce. This is not an innappriate subject for this community. However, to keep it within the bounds of the fashion Forum will probably constrain the discussion more than assist it. I see no harm -- and some benefit -- in moving it to The Interchange.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I had a drycleaner who was an active pentecostal businessman. One day I noticed a statue of kuen-Yin ( kanon in Japan) as part of a gifted flower arrangement in his store. Kanon is the only female buddha ( sometimes even represented as a hermaphrodite!) and represents infinite compassion. Some pavlovian residue of my buddhist studies made me give a nod of the head in her direction. "Oh, how cute, your bowing to Cio Cio San! I just LOVE the Mikado don't you?" I gently explained the statue's identity. My horrified host grabbed the white porcelain image, marched it outside like a misbehaving child and flung it in the dumpster with loud commments about ' oriental, pagan idolatry.' Unfortunately, this coincided with the arrival of his landlord, Mr Fukazawa, veteran of the italian campaign and a rather well known combat unit. He was also a regular churchgoer, but very concious of his family's homeland culture. I climbed in to the dumpster and retrieved kanon, no worse for wear having landed ( as did I) in a large mass of compostig grass clippings and the remains of pasta and tomato sauce from the next door italian restaurant. Mr Fukazawa gently wiped her clean with his irish linen handkerchief. His business had been to discuss extending the lease, which sadly ended shortly thereafter. Personally, I care little if people choose to express religosity if I receive full value for my time and money. And if they contribute to a particular political persuasion that is a constitutional right. Like everything else, it's not so much the message sometimes as the intent and delivery.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

guitone said:


> I cannot tell you how many times some friends that were reborn or maybe just devoutly religious have asked me to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior.


This typically means that they like you and have concern for your soul. I can think of worse things.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

english_gent said:


> jebus


Not cool.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

fullgrain said:


> In any case, being told that one is not going to enter the kingdom of heaven when all one wants to do is buy a pair of AEs is not a pleasant experience.


I weep for your suffering.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

As long as this kind of soft sell doesn't get in my face, I'm fine with it. E.g. I spent many years eating at In 'N Out Burger before I discovered the Biblical passage numbers under their drink cups and burger wrappers. Not quite an effective advertising campaign but hey, if it makes them feel better, more power to them.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Nothing wrong with it. If you are offended by them just don't shop there. If you are secure enough in your own beliefs than you are able to get through life without taking that stuff the wrong way. People are people and sometimes devout Christians sell discounted designer clothing. I can certainly appreciate them as a nice business with the added bonus of having a hunch that they aren't going to be shady to deal with either. More power too them.

I think it's precisely when people get riled up about that kind of stuff that the problems arise.

Danny


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

You really have to look to find this stuff; it's buried in the catalog, which then consists only of one line of scripture and an inoffensive one at that. On the website, you have to not only go to the "about us" page, you then have to go to the founder's statement to get the "sermon", which is, as has been mentioned, merely his story of how he believes God has worked in his life. 

To be offended by this, to amplify it to "trading on Jesus' name for commerce", you'd have to be virulently knee-jerking anti-Christian as well as functionally illiterate, since that clearly isn't what he says or does. And I would suggest, unless you have a personal success story at least the equal of Keith Richardson's, you might want to suspend your disbelief for a moment and take a serious look at his life. You just might learn something of value.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Anyone Know what really gets me tied in emotional knots? I go to the deli and buy that delicious Kosher food I partly grew up on. And everytime on the label theres some rabbi's signature. Next thing you know chabbad will be body blocking the Mormons and Scientologists to get to my front door first.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

*I'm really proud of the Forum members!*

You gentlemen (and ladies) are great and people notice!! I forwarded this thread to STP and the company that handles their advertising for me and got these responses:

STP spokesperson:

*"That was quite the discussion! Probably the most civil forum argument I've ever seen. We are aware of the opposing views that customers take regarding the presence of scripture on our website but it is the way that Keith Richardson founded, built and continues to run his business."*

Account Person:

*Andy, Thanks for sending - your board certainly has a higher level of discourse than the typical web board. Much more civilized barely a flame to be seen in a discussion about religion! I have to say, I found this funny: "Even though this bothers you, it's not going to stop you from shopping at STP. God has a perfect plan to make you look good!"*

_Congratulations, members for being "civil", having a "higher level of discourse", "civilized"!!_


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Thanks for passing that along, Andy. It's always good to hear good. At the same time, it's a good reminder that posting on the fora is not like playing in an anonymous, consequence-free environment. People on the outside watch and make judgments based on what they see. I'm glad that, by and large, we give them a reason to make favorable ones.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

I do not have a religious test when it comes to where I do business. However, if a particular business becomes "extreme" and begins to push its interpretation of religion on me ... I might well avoid them.



fullgrain said:


> I wrote the President, after finding a particularly offensive quote from John whose message was essentially that everyone who is not an evangelical Christian is going to hell.





ksinc said:


> An Evangelical Christian is supporting the Republican Party?! I'm sure all members appreciate you bringing this shocking revelation to our attention!


Perhaps some of you are confusing the terms fundamentalist and evangelical. They are quite different.

A good example of a fundamentalist is Pat Robertson. A good example of an evangelical is Jimmy Carter. Although this is not to say that all evangelicals are democrats. However, I'd imagine the great majority, if not all, of fundamentalists (except, perhaps for a few union members) are Republican.

Fundamentalist Christians are not typically tolerant of other versions of Christianity ... assuming themselves only to be "True Believers" ... "God's Chosen" ... and the only ones who are right when it comes to religion. Evangelicals are typically -- but not always -- far more tolerant.

A good read is Jimmy Carter's _Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis._ Interestingly he applies "fundamentalist" to a portion of Christianity as well as others in politics & government.

Of course, what do I know ... I am just a "secular humanist" Episcopalian :icon_smile_wink: ... neither evangelical nor fundamentalist in my views.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> Perhaps some of you are confusing the terms fundamentalist and evangelical. They are quite different. If anyone is interested ... I would be glad to post my view of the differences.
> 
> A good example of a fundamentalist is Pat Robertson. A good example of an evangelical is Jimmy Carter. Although this is not to say that all evangelicals are democrats. However, I'd imagine the great majority, if not all, of fundamentalists (except, perhaps for a few union members) are Republican.
> 
> ...


Robertson is an evangelical christian and a pentecostal, but he's not a fundamentalist although he is a bit of a flake at times IMHO.
FWIW, I once called Pat Robertson's 800# prayer line asking for prayer.

I called and this lady answered and said, "Hello, do you need a prayer partner?"
I said, "Yes, I do. I was wondering if you would pray a prayer of forgiveness with me?"
She said, "Oh Yes! What do you need forgiveness for?"
I said, "Well, I'm feeling bitterness and anger. I lost my temper and I know that isn't right and I need to ask God for his forgiveness for my sin. I know it is wrong to be bitter and angry at a brother in Christ."
She said, "Well I'd be happy to pray for you, first confess your sin and tell me who you are mad and bitter at."
I said, "Pat Robertson. Everytime he makes one of these stupid statements that gets reported and broadcast everywhere I get angry at him and bitter. Will you pray with me and ask God to forgive me and help me forgive Pat Robertson instead of being angry at him?"

... and She hung up.

It was over this story/comments Oct. 20th 2004.
https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robertson.bush.iraq/index.html

Jimmy Carter is a prominent liberal Democrat. Although, there is an on-going debate about whether Southern Baptists are indeed Evangelicals, my view is who am I to question his faith or denomination? I was just not thinking he was, but I see he claims that label so he shall have it. So, I will volunteer to eat the crow on that one.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> Jimmy Carter is a prominent liberal Democrat. Although, there is an on-going debate about whether Southern Baptists are indeed Evangelicals, my view is who am I to question his faith or denomination?


Ksinc ... Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention some time back.

And while Carter is a Democrat ... I've never thought of him as a liberal ... but more toward middle of the road ... and one of the last truly civil politicians.

As for your suggestion that Robertson is evangelical but not fundamentalist ... you may have your definition of those two terms. I certainly see him the other way around.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

RSS said:


> As for your suggestion that Robertson is evangelical but not fundamentalist ... can you define your definition of those two terms. I certainly see him the other way around.


Every fundamentalist I know thinks Robertson is a nut and would never think that he was similarly a fundamentalist. I can't, however, ellaborate on their definition.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

*Fundamentalist Christianity*, or *Christian fundamentalism*, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by *conservative* *evangelical Christians*, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. 

And ... typically fundamentalist Christians accept Premillennialism. As Fallwell likes to say ... He's Pre-Mill.

Of course by the above definition ... a Fundamentalist Christian is also Evangelical. However an Evangelical is not necessarily a Fundamentalist. A bit of the old a square is a rectangle ... but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

I typically differentiate between Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

Wow, take out the word 'imminent' and I'm a fundamentalist by that definition. On the other hand, it's been said in this thread that fundamentalists think they are the only "true believers" and have a superiority, and by that definition I'm not a fundy.

Pat spoke at my high school. He explained some theory connecting Russian nuclear (or is that nucular?) submarines and the apocolypse. Maybe 'imminent' is the distinction.

It's all so confusing! What does Andy's Encyclopedia have to say on the topic?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> Ksinc ... Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention some time back.
> 
> As for your suggestion that Robertson is evangelical but not fundamentalist ... can you define your definition of those two terms. I certainly see him the other way around.


RSS,

Pat Robertson is a pentecostal evangelist, therefore not a fundamentalist.

I appreciate your question, but I really do not want to create or debate my own definition of the terms. I have none that I am aware. These are commonly accepted definitions and divided camps. I don't think you will find anyone of either faith that confuses the two or claims to be both, but I could be wrong.

A quickie google found this and it seems pretty explanatory:

https://www.beliefnet.com/features/pentecostal_chart.html

Pat Robertson by his own words is "a spirit-filled Christian."

Hope that helps without me "wading in" to a doctrinal debate.

Cheers!

KS


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Fellows if you prefer ... lets put Falwell in Robertsons place as my example of a fundamentalist Christian. However, I still hold that Robertson is more extreme version thereof.



narticus said:


> What does Andy's Encyclopedia have to say on the topic?


 Perhaps they can be defined by dress? That might be fun and entertaining.



ksinc said:


> I appreciate your question, but I really do not want to create or debate my own definition of the terms.


I can appreciate that response.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

RSS said:


> *Fundamentalist Christianity*, or *Christian fundamentalism*, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.


This is a too broad of a definition. By this definition, Lutherans would be considered Fundamentalist, and this is not the case. Lutherans differ from Fundamentalist in these beliefs:

1. Sinners cannot do anything (i.e. "good works") to satisfy God's justice.
2. Lutherans believe that individuals receive this gift of salvation through faith alone.
3. Lutherans reject synergism (the doctrine that man has a free will concerning spiritual matters). 
4. Holy Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar are the two accepted Sacraments. 
5. Lutherans practice infant baptism. 
6. Lutherans believe that the true body and blood of Christ are "in, with and under" the bread and wine.
7. Lutherans do not believe in any sort of millennial kingdom of Christ either before, or after, his second coming on the last day.
8. Fundamentalists don't eat lutefisk or lefse, and they call their hotdishes, casseroles. :icon_smile_big:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Laxplayer ... I question that an inerrant bible is accepted by the Lutheran Church. I would also question premillennialism.

But I might also suggest that FC being a subset of EC ... the EC definition might further differentiate.

I note that you cite Wikipedia ... which I too used ... and is perhaps not the best of sources.

But ... I don't want to start another debate about religious doctrine. I did that a few weeks with a post about the new presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church ... and ended up writing 1000 times ... *I will never again discussion religion on AAAC. *

Here I've already broken my promise. 

I'm done with this one. And unless STP gets uncomfortably agressive about pushing religion at me ... or requires that I accept the owner's version of Christianity prior to my shopping there ... I'll continue to be a customer.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I ordered a few odds and ends yesterday. It wasn't until I was shaving this morning that I noticed my new halo.

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

RSS said:


> Laxplayer ... *I question that an inerrant bible is accepted by the Lutheran Church.* *I would also question premillennialism.*
> 
> But I might also suggest that FC being a subset of EC ... the EC definition might further differentiate.
> 
> ...


I'm not looking to start a debate. I was just stating what Lutherans believe, Missouri Synod Lutherans in particular. The ELCA may not believe in Biblical inerrancy, but the LCMS, WELS and CLC churches do. Inerrancy of the Bible, but not necessarily a literal translation. Also, I know of no Lutherans that believe in premillennialism. Lutherans do not believe in "the Rapture of the Church" which is a major component of premillennialism. 
I used Wiki for convenience, I could have checked the LCMS website or Luther's Small Catechism and received the same answers.

To get back to the point, I would not care if a company put writings from the Qu'ran or any other religious text in their catalog or on their webpage as long as they continue to offer good sales and customer service. I have my own beliefs and am not offended when others profess their beliefs, or disagree with mine. I probably would not even have noticed the verses on STP's site had it not been for this thread.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was TAD ( training and Departure) in the Coast Guard with this Brooklyn Jew Hospital Corpsman. After a brutal Greyhound bustrip in the rain we interupted our journey with a stop in this small town with two motels. We slung seabags and walked to the first. I was barely in the bathroom when I saw cockroaches scattering from the light. I yelled " Hey Bennie, this dump is full of cockroaches!" Bennie yelled back " This joint is so bad the Gideons didn't leave a Bible in the nightstand!" We slung bags, recouped our money with threats of violence and made for our alternate refuge. The night clerk looked up as Bennie in his most aggressive accent asked if there were bibles in the nightstands.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> Robertson is an evangelical christian and a pentecostal, but he's not a fundamentalist...


Actually Robertson is an ordained Southern Baptist ... who holds to a Pentecostal theology. And I might note that fundamentalist typically do think of themselves as evangelical ... after all, they are a subset thereof.

The term *fundamentalism* is defined by *Webster's* as follows: an extreme Protestant position characterized by the belief that the Bible is a verbally accurate recording of the word of God. Robertson is, without question, a fundamentalist.

I might also note that his use of the word regent as it applies to his "university" is not without biblical meaning. A regent is a person who rules a kingdom in place of the king ... until the king returns. Of course, this is a man who believes in "The Rapture" and who thinks LaHaye -- of the _Left Behind_ series -- to be a "great" intellectual.

I note that the term *evangelical* is defined by *Random House* as follows: (a) belonging to or designating Christian churches that emphasize the teaching an authority of the scripture, especially of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ; or (b) designating Christians of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible. 

And even though use of the term "evangelical" has come about as a way for some Christians to eschew the term fundamentalist ... theologically speaking ... the birth of the two movements is actually the reverse. Fundamentalist Christianity is essentially an extreme subset of Evangelicalism ... having sprung forth from Evangelical Christianity in the late 19th and early 20th century ... in a backlash against all things modern -- especially science -- and holding to a doctrine that discourages questioning of their theology ... and believing the Bible to be the literal (at least as interpreted by their leaders) word of God.

As Edward John Carnell says ... "Fundamentalism is orthodoxy gone cultic."

And even though I have promised not to talk religion ... it's hard to resist. After all, I live within walking distance of six seminaries ... and my dinner table often includes teachers and students from the Episcopal, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Jesuit and Franciscan seminaries.

Perhaps I'll start a new thread ... removed from this subject of STP.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

RSS said:


> The term *fundamentalism* is defined by *Webster's* as follows: an extreme Protestant position characterized by the belief that the Bible is a verbally accurate recording of the word of God.


Robertson aside (I'm no fan of his), I don't see how believing the Bible to be an accurate recording of the word of God is an 'extreme' position for a Christian. If one does not believe it to be the word of God, then why would one be a Christian? If one does not believe it to be accurate what sort of God is it who is capable of creating the universe and offering salvation but cannot protect His own word?

'Fundamentalism' seems to me usually to be a pejorative used by those who think religion is okay unless one gets too serious about it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

AlanC said:


> Robertson aside (I'm no fan of his), I don't see how believing the Bible to be an accurate recording of the word of God is an 'extreme' position for a Christian. If one does not believe it to be the word of God, then why would one be a Christian? If one does not believe it to be accurate what sort of God is it who is capable of creating the universe and offering salvation but cannot protect His own word?
> 
> 'Fundamentalism' seems to me usually to be a pejorative used by those who think religion is okay unless one gets too serious about it.


I think the context here is that fundamentalists believe in an absolute literal interpretation. Take for example Genesis. Fundamentalists believe in a literal interpretation where as Catholics, thanks to the works of St. Augustine, view it literally as well as figuratively and metaphorically. See St. Augustine's interpretation of the Six Days of Creation for an example of what I mean.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> Actually Robertson is an ordained Southern Baptist ... who holds to a Pentecostal theology. And I might note that fundamentalist typically do think of themselves as evangelical ... after all, they are a subset thereof.
> 
> The term *fundamentalism* is defined by *Webster's* as follows: an extreme Protestant position characterized by the belief that the Bible is a verbally accurate recording of the word of God. Robertson is, without question, a fundamentalist.
> 
> ...


RSS,

For crying out loud, you admitted you have no idea what are you are talking about and yet you keep arguing with everybody that presents a fact. What's your friggin' point?

The fact remains: Robertson is simply NOT a fundamentalist. PERIOD.

Did you even read the link I gave you? It clearly points out the differences and distinctions between the two categories of denominations and faiths.

Call Robertson and ask him if he's a fundie. He can't be; as you noted Robertson is a pentecostal. He's spirit-filled, he's a prophet and he speaks in tongues. Fundies don't believe in ANY of that. Fundies are not ashamed of admitting they are. They are in fact PROUD that they are Fundies.

I know several people with ties very high up in Pat's organization. One is family member and another is a life long friend's Father that I have known since I was six years old.

Just because they may have many beliefs in common does NOT mean they don't also have serious differences.

Just because you think he is intolerant does not make him a Fundamentalist either.

The Pope is intolerant. Is he also a fundamentalist christian? 

Ask Jerry Falwell what he thinks of the Pope and the Catholic church.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

AlanC, it seems to me that pt4u67 did a good job of answering your question. But I have a comment about your statement.



AlanC said:


> 'Fundamentalism' seems to me usually to be a pejorative used by those who think religion is okay unless one gets too serious about it.


It is misleading to suggest that fundamentalist are more serious about their religion. There are practitioners of fundamentalist, evangelical, and mainstream Christianity who take their version of Christianity equally seriously.

Moreover, it is incorrect to suggest that fundamentalist Christianity is a more serious version of Christianity. It is a different version.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> Actually Robertson is an ordained Southern Baptist ... who holds to a Pentecostal theology. And I might note that fundamentalist typically do think of themselves as evangelical ... after all, they are a subset thereof.


Pat Robertson is NOT an ordained Southern Baptist. Sorry. Perhaps you meant "He was"? He renounced his SB ordination and was re-ordained as a charasmatic christian minister. The group he's ordained with is Jack Hayford and some Assemblies of God people.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

RSS said:


> It is misleading to suggest that fundamentalist are more serious about their religion. There are practitioners of fundamentalist, evangelical, and mainstream Christianity who take their version of Christianity equally seriously.
> 
> Moreover, it is incorrect to suggest that fundamentalist Christianity is a more serious version of Christianity. It is a different version.


I think one might also find this misleading:



RSS said:


> Fundamentalist Christianity is essentially an extreme subset of Evangelicalism ... having sprung forth from Evangelical Christianity in the late 19th and early 20th century ... in a backlash against all things modern -- especially science -- and holding to a doctrine that discourages questioning of their theology ... and believing the Bible to be the literal (at least as interpreted by their leaders) word of God.
> 
> As Edward John Carnell says ... "Fundamentalism is orthodoxy gone cultic."


You have your characterizations, I have mine. I find so-called 'mainstream' (I use this in the generally accepted sense to refer to the old mainline denominations currently in decline in the US) Christianity to be a malleable belief system designed to make people feel good about being religious while allowing that religion to be innocuous enough that it does not conflict with what they want to do in life otherwise. It also saves them from intellectual embarrassment lest they seem to be out of step with current cultural and scientific norms, whatever those might be at the time.

AlanC says ... "'Mainstream' religion is religion gone squishy."


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> For crying out loud, you admitted you have no idea what are you are talking about and yet you keep arguing with everybody that presents a fact. What's your friggin' point?


Ah ... such wonderful "Christian" rhetoric. BTW ... I never admitted that I have no idea ... I was being humorous. However, I can make a point without resorting to such such inflammatory passion as "what's your frigin' point" ... can you?

As for arguing with everybody ... it seems to me that only you are arguing. As for presenting a fact ... no ... you have presented your opinion and pointed me to a website (which did not impress). I can point you to countless websites in agreement with me.

A question for you though ... is Jimmy Carter an Evangelical Christian? Yes? No? Maybe? Too Liberal?

As for Robertson and how he defines himself ... that's beside the point. By the current widely accepted definition of the word fundamentalism ... Pat Robertson is a practioner ... plain and simple. Disagree if you wish ... you are entitled to your opinion.



AlanC said:


> I find so-called 'mainstream' Christianity to be a malleable belief system designed to make people feel good about being religious while allowing that religion to be innocuous enough that it does not conflict with what they want to do in life otherwise. It also saves them from intellectual embarrassment lest they seem to be out of step with current cultural and scientific norms, whatever those might be at the time.


Is this is not pejorative? But yes, we each have our views.

To quote *Molly Ivins*: _*Everybody knows that God in nonpartisan, but I swear that Jesus was a liberal -- the best, the biggest, the original bleeding heart -- the one who embraced the outcasts, the model for us all. *_

And fellows ... my version of mainstream Christianity, the Episcopal Church, is definitely in touch with that.



AlanC said:


> I think one might also find this misleading:


 So you agree ... you were misleading ... and indeed agree that there are fundamentalist, evangelical, and mainstream Christianians who take their version of Christianity equally seriously ... and that it is incorrect to suggest that fundamentalist Christianity is a more serious version of Christianity ... rather than simply a different version? Or ... do you really believe your version of Christianity superior to all others? One final question ... are you superior to all who don't share your beliefs?

Should you choose to respond, please address the question.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Alan, I'm a Missouri Synod Lutheran. Admittedly, we are on the conservative end of the mainline religion spectrum, but we certainly aren't encouraged to do whatever we want.

Extramarital sex and many other things are clearly sins in our religion.

I'll admit that some of the other mainstream religions are moving in directions I don't always understand on some issues. 

I don't think it's fair to paint all of us with one brush.

To be fair, some people do that to "fundamentalists", too.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I don't think it's fair to paint all of us with one brush. To be fair, some people do that to "fundamentalists", too.


 Excellent point.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> However, I can make a point without resorting to such such inflammatory passion as "what's your frigin' point" ... can you?


Inflammatory passion? You sound like a child or a woman. If you could make a point, I would not have to ask "What is your point?" So, clearly you cannot or will not. Same thing.



RSS said:


> By the currently accepted definition of the word fundamentalism ... Pat Robertson is a practioner ... plain and simple.


No. Even by that, he is clearly not. Even if he was. So what? What is your point?

You are just repeatedly harping he is a Fundie because you don't understand the difference between pentecostals and fundies.

You are arguing over plain facts that are against you. Robertson is not a Fundie. It's not a disagreement. It's not an opinon. It's not a charactertization. It's a fact. One cannot be both a Pentecostal AND a Fundie.

Fundie is not another word for extremist. If you want to say he is an extremist fine. He is. Again, so what?

Is he bothering you somehow? Why is it so important to you that you convince everyone he is a Fundie?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

AlanC said:


> Robertson aside (I'm no fan of his), I don't see how believing the Bible to be an accurate recording of the word of God is an 'extreme' position for a Christian. If one does not believe it to be the word of God, then why would one be a Christian? If one does not believe it to be accurate what sort of God is it who is capable of creating the universe and offering salvation but cannot protect His own word?
> 
> 'Fundamentalism' seems to me usually to be a pejorative used by those who think religion is okay unless one gets too serious about it.


One can believe that Jesus is the son of God, crucified and resurrected, who took the bullet for us sinners, so to speak, without buying into the notion that the entire bible is the inerrant word of God. One can come to this through nothing more than a personal religious and life changing (that's the most important part of it) encounter (I use the phrase "nothing more" not in a "less than" but in a "nothing else is required" sense).

BTW, to make the statement that "God... cannot protect His own word" is to posit a belief that it (the bible) is His own word. If it isn't, there's no reason for Him to have any interest in protecting it. That said, there is another position (mine, among others) that the bible is a story, told by many tellers with many points of view, about God's love for, frustration with and corrections of, His people, culminating in the awesome gift of the life of His own son for the salvation of those very people who proved themselves incapable of saving themselves. There are many theories and many explanations for a belief in God; mine is very simple and not just a bit platonic: Without ever experiencing it, I can conceive of perfection, therefore perfection must exist. I choose to call this perfection God.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rip said:


> One can believe that Jesus is the son of God, crucified and resurrected, who took the bullet for us sinners, so to speak, without buying into the notion that the entire bible is the inerrant word of God. One can come to this through nothing more than a personal religious and life changing (that's the most important part of it) encounter (I use the phrase "nothing more" not in a "less than" but in a "nothing else is required" sense).
> 
> BTW, to make the statement that "God... cannot protect His own word" is to posit a belief that it (the bible) is His own word. If it isn't, there's no reason for Him to have any interest in protecting it. That said, there is another position (mine, among others) that the bible is a story, told by many tellers with many points of view, about God's love for, frustration with and corrections of, His people, culminating in the awesome gift of the life of His own son for the salvation of those very people who proved themselves incapable of saving themselves. There are many theories and many explanations for a belief in God; mine is very simple and not just a bit platonic: Without ever experiencing it, I can conceive of perfection, therefore perfection must exist. I choose to call this perfection God.


Good Post, RIP.

I think it's sort of humorous that we have a thread discussing the inerrant Word of God, the Bible, and what different denominations and evangelists viewpoints are, and one argument is based on Webster's and Random House. Is someone really going to claim the dictionary has been subject to stricter study and review than the Bible?

While there might indeed be some errors in various translations of the Bible (I know of several). Surely, the Bible was/is in it's original form the Word of God.

Certainly, it speaks with more authority than a dictionary.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I want all you guys to sign up for your SEG and SAG cards ASAP. Your beautifull people! The next remake of Frankenstien ( thats------STEIN!) can employ you all as angry villagers with torches.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

rip said:


> One can believe that Jesus is the son of God, crucified and resurrected, who took the bullet for us sinners, so to speak, without buying into the notion that the entire bible is the inerrant word of God.


But it is the Bible that tells us about Jesus. Why would God send Jesus to die for sinners but not leave a reliable record of the event?

It basically devolves to 'not all the Bible is inspired and I'm inspired to know which is which.'



> One can come to this through nothing more than a personal religious and life changing (that's the most important part of it) encounter (I use the phrase "nothing more" not in a "less than" but in a "nothing else is required" sense).


One can do whatever one wishes, but one cannot say that one can believe anything and everything and honestly still call it Christianity.



> BTW, to make the statement that "God... cannot protect His own word" is to posit a belief that it (the bible) is His own word. If it isn't, there's no reason for Him to have any interest in protecting it.


Yes, as I said above, why would one be a Christian if you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God? That is the record we have of Jesus, the purpose for His incarnation. Without it we might apprehend the existence of God, but we would not know of His purpose and plan.



> That said, there is another position (mine, among others) that the bible is a story, told by many tellers with many points of view, about God's love for, frustration with and corrections of, His people, culminating in the awesome gift of the life of His own son for the salvation of those very people who proved themselves incapable of saving themselves.


Yes, the Bible is an account of God's love for and ultimate salvation of His people. It was told by many different writers over many centuries. But they made claims of revelation, that they were writing God's word. If that is not so then they were lying. If they lied about that why should I believe anything else they said?


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

rip said:


> There are many theories and many explanations for a belief in God; mine is very simple and not just a bit platonic: Without ever experiencing it, I can conceive of perfection, therefore perfection must exist. I choose to call this perfection God.


Sounds like you've been reading your Descarte, rip, old boy! Now if I were the truly nasty brand of godless secular humanist, I'd haul out Feuerbach and send him back at you.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> You sound like a child or a woman." ?


 Ah ... the personal attack ... when you can't attack the idea ... attack the person. The ad hominem attack serves no purpose than to distract from the real issue ... moreover, it has no place in civilized debate.

I will not accuse you of being a Christian ... but it sounds to me as if you think you are. If that is so, give thought to how your presentation ... with all its vitriol and venom ... witnesses to your faith. It doesn't do it much good.

THAT is my point.



ksinc said:


> Call Robertson and ask him if he's a fundie.


 Given that he never had time read his own "autobiography" (it's call ghostwriter) ... I don't expect him to answer his phone.

But my POINT as you keep asking ... is that I am entitled to my opinion ... especially when there is widespread support of that opinion.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Sounds like you've been reading your Descarte, rip, old boy! Now if I were the truly nasty brand of godless secular humanist, I'd haul out Feuerbach and send him back at you.


And Kierkegaard back at you, etc..., ad infinitum (another thing we can conceive of without having experienced) and, ultimately, ad nauseum (which I'm sure we've all experienced). Theological debate is a gift of God to keep us occupied until something really important comes along, like the Apocalypse


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> Ah ... the personal attack ... when you can't attack the idea ... attack the person. The ad hominem attack serves no purpose than to distract from the real issue ... moreover, it has no place in civilized debate.
> 
> I will not accuse you of being a Christian ... but it sounds to me as if you think you are. If that is so, give thought to how your presentation ... with all its vitriol and venom ... witnesses to your faith. It doesn't do it much good.
> 
> THAT is my point.


Yeah right. I've torn your idea to shreds. Repeatedly. Scroll up and back and do some reading. You must only read the parts of my posts that you quote. 

You said Robertson was an ordained SB. I showed you he denounced his SB ordination and was re-ordained a Charismatic Christain by Jack Hayford and the AoG.

You say, he was Fundie. I showed you he's a Pentecostal and they are polar opposities IN MY FIRST RELEVANT POST.

Still you harp on and on in spite of the fact with your opinon and claim the facts are a characterization of Robertson's own self-image.

IMHO, you really DO sound like a child or a woman. It's not a personal attack. It's the truth. You pick and choose to not address relevant critiques and questions of your position, yet you keep harping that he is a Fundie when he isn't. If you wouldn't call that the act of a child or a woman fine, What should I call that behavior?

If you think it violates my faith to tell you that. Trust me, it doesn't. I didn't call you names, I simply described your behavior and called you out. I feel sorry for you, if you think or someone told you, people of faith are supposed to be pushovers and wimps; while atheists, agnostics, and everyone else can make false claims and accusations with impunity.

You went 4 pages to try to convince everyone Pat Robertson is a Fundie in spite of obvious facts to the contrary and you have no point to make even if he was.

And; again if even Pat were a Fundie, so what? What is your point? Just to be derogatory as you were asked a page ago? Isn't THAT a personal attack? Of course, you aren't bound by the same standards you want to apply to everyone else. Instead of looking for how you can prove everyone else out to be a hypocrit, show some integrity in your own position.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

ksinc said:


> Yeah right. You DO sound like a child or a woman. It's not a personal attack. It's the truth. If you think it violates my faith to tell you that. Trust me, it doesn't. I didn't call you names, I simply described your behavior and called you out. Again, this is not a violation of my faith. I'm sorry if you think people of faith are supposed to be pushovers and wimps. And atheists, agnostics, and everyone else can make false claims and accusations with impunity.
> 
> You went 4 pages to try to convince everyone Pat Robertson is a Fundie in spite of obvious facts to the contrary and you have no point to make even if he was.


Sir, you are proof that reasoned debate has no place on the Internet. It's not a personal attack. It's the truth.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RJman said:


> Sir, you are proof that reasoned debate has no place on the Internet. It's not a personal attack. It's the truth.


Reasoned debate? To continue to call Pat a Fundie when shown proof that he isn't is the supposed "reasoned debate"? Oh come on. Get over yourself. That was a clever attempt, but you just showed your cards. It is a personal attack. It's also not the truth. It's interesting that you can't tell difference(s).

I don't even like Pat Robertson's actions (as I showed pages ago), but if you are going to label and attack a guy at least do us all the privilege of getting your facts together first. That's a reasonable expectation, I think.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> Reasoned debate? To continue to call Pat a Fundie when shown proof that he isn't is the supposed "reasoned debate"? Oh come on. Get over yourself. That was a clever attempt, but you just showed your cards. It is a personal attack. It's also not the truth. It's interesting that you can't tell difference(s).
> 
> If you think it violates my faith to tell you that. Trust me, it doesn't. I didn't call you names, I simply described your behavior and called you out. I feel sorry for you, if you think or someone told you, people of faith are supposed to be pushovers and wimps; while atheists, agnostics, and everyone else can make false claims and accusations with impunity.


Geez ... I might as well be Screwtape.

My Dear Wormwood: A personal attack is an attack in the first person ... person to person ... such as your kind remark wherein you call the other a woman and a child. Speaking of Pat Robertson, on the other hand, is third person (Thanks be to God) to this discussion ... as Pat Robertson is not personally present in this discussion. Moreover to refer to Pat Robertson as a fundamentalist (and that is certainly debatable by a great many definitions of term fundamentalist) is not, in and of itself, a personal attack. Of course, Wormwood, I don't expect you to understand ... only to continue on as you have done. I can only trust that you will continue to attack away ... throwing insults at will ... presenting your faith for what it is. And remember, my dear Wormwood ... "Sticks and stone ...

As for the debate ... you may have considered it a debate ... but I never really did. I wasn't trying to win anything. However, if in thinking you won, it helps satisfy your intellect ... take delight my dear fellow.

--Screwtape

Now with fun aside ... in all sincerity, I hope only the best for you and your continued growth in your faith. May it gain for you what you seek.

But one thing to consider ... perhaps you simply cannot see it ... I too am a person of faith. It's just that my faith differs from yours. Don't be so shortsighted that you can see only yourself as valid.

Remember, to think that your faith is right while all others are wrong ... assumes that you fully know and understand God and God's will. Ksinc that is idolatry ... as you have made yourself the equal of God.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

RSS said:


> "Sticks and stone ...


An apt paraphrase that I learned in graduate school, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can kill my heart"


> Remember, to think that your faith is right while all others are wrong ... assumes that you fully know and understand God and God's will. Ksinc that is idolatry ... as you have made yourself the equal of God.


Well well said!


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

rip said:


> And Kierkegaard back at you, etc..., ad infinitum (another thing we can conceive of without having experienced) and, ultimately, ad nauseum (which I'm sure we've all experienced). Theological debate is a gift of God to keep us occupied until something really important comes along, like the Apocalypse


Oof! Kiekegard! I must retire from battle in the face of this latest salvo. Old K is so dull the he will surely resolve the question of the existence of God for the reader who will surely die of tedium!Well, if theological debate is what we have to pass the time until The End, at least we're proof that it can be done in a suitably light-hearted and gentlemanly manner. Let's take a page from Umberto Eco and make it relevant to Ask Andy. Do you suppose Christ owned his clothes?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> Geez ... I might as well be Screwtape.
> 
> My Dear Wormwood: A personal attack is an attack in the first person ... person to person ... such as you kind remark wherein you call the other a woman and a child. Speaking of Pat Robertson, on the other hand, is third person (Thanks be to God) to this discussion ... as Pat Robertson is not personally present in this discussion. Moreover to refer to Pat Robertson as a fundamentalist (and that is certainly debatable by a great many definitions of term fundamentalist) is not, in and of itself, a personal attack. Of course, Wormwood, I don't expect you to understand ... only to continue on as you have done. I can only trust that you will continue to attack away ... throwing insults at will ... presenting your faith for what it is. And remember, my dear Wormwood ... "Sticks and stone ...
> 
> ...


Yes, and I did not call you a woman in the first person, I said "you sound like" by the way you keep harping that he is a Fundie when you have been shown that he isn't.

My response to RJman was not to you. Such self-evident things apparently have to be re-stated.

I also am not debating my faith or saying others are wrong. I did not say it was a debate. RJMan did. In fact, I have left my faith and your faith totally out of the discussion. I simply corrected, over and over, your falsehood that Pat Robertson is a Fundie.

There is no debate: Pat Robertson is a pentecostal not a Fundie. Words mean things. As someone who has Webster's you should know that.

I simply defended the truth. I don't like or particularly care for what Pat does a lot of the times (I certainly wouldn't vote for him), but that does not change the fact that Pat Robertson is not a Fundie. You never made a point beyond that even if he was. It may make me a chauvenist, but not an idolatrist to compare such continuous harping with women and children. I said if you have another description for that type of behaviour that would not be offensive to women and children I'll use it. If you are insulted by the description of your behaviour, well? Change your behavior! The description is accurate.

To now claim "in sincerity" that I was debating my faith or other's faith while attempting to condescend to me is the * height of insincerity.* Apparently, you must have had an agenda you would not disclose that you hid behind your labeling of Pat Roberston.

Frankly, I don't give a flip what your faith is. I'm a total libertarian. Nor do I care what you think of mine. I am not victim of or for my faith; nor would I make anyone else one. Neither my nor your faith has any bearing on the label you attached to Robertson which is false.

If you are accusing me by what you said "thinking my faith is right and others are wrong ... idolatry ... as you have made yourself equal to God" is to cross a line you probably shouldn't cross.

"Don't be so shortsighted that you can see only yourself as valid. " this is just pure 100% BS. Again; the fact is Pat is not a Fundie. It has nothing to with my validity, yours, or his. It's just the facts.

It is a total lie to say I presented my faith and/or attacked you and/or your faith. I attacked the labeling of Pat as a Fundie; and your behaviour of continuing to pound that drum in spite of obvious facts to the contrary. If you want to hold me to account for that, fine. But you have to be accountable to hold others accountable and it's clear that you will not.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"Remember, to think that your faith is right while all others are wrong ... assumes that you fully know and understand God and God's will. Ksinc that is idolatry ... as you have made yourself the equal of God. "



rip said:


> Well well said!


It has to be true, to be well said. It isn't. I never once compared my faith to anyone else's or said anything about anyone else's faith except to clarify what a pentecostal is and what they believe that is different from Fundies.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> "Remember, to think that your faith is right while all others are wrong ... assumes that you fully know and understand God and God's will. Ksinc that is idolatry ... as you have made yourself the equal of God."


When you use my language word for word ...as you have above ... please extend the courtesy of quoting me.

Ksinc ... it's not about Pat Robertson ... it's not about evangelicalism ... it's not about fundamentalism ... it's not about who is and isn't pentecostal ... it's not about Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism, or Islam ... it's not about who is right and who isn't ... it's about respecting each other. THAT is what it's about. Without it ... the world hasn't much hope.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Let's take a page from Umberto Eco and make it relevant to Ask Andy. Do you suppose Christ owned his clothes?


Probably, and I'm certain it was bespoke... Fabric from the HHH book (handmade homemade homespun).


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You guys are missing some great deals at STP while debating. I think it's Mathew who said 'Come before the Lord in comely attire.' I think perhaps STP should quote this verse online. It ties in with our website's credo nicely.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Kav, I have more than enough clothing to last two lifetimes ... and as it's all rather traditional ... I don't need to worry much about changes in fashion.

Now I do need a new cassock ... double breasted Anglican style ... but I doubt that STP offers even a RTW or OTR version. It guess it's off to Wippells in London for bespoke!

Now if you find a cassock at STP ... just let me know.

And at least for a while ... I'm back to ...

*I will not write about religion on AAAC. *
*I will not write about religion on AAAC. *
*I will not write about religion on AAAC. 
I will not write about religion on AAAC. 
I will not write about religion on AAAC. 
*


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

AlanC said:


> There is no record that Jesus was opposed to luxury goods.


Creflo Dollar & the whole make money for Jesus movement will be glad to hear that!:icon_smile_big: In all seriousness though, unless you're one of those sola scriptura chaps, I can't think of any branch of faith that's at all old (since the Reformation at least) that doesn't have commentary on the evils of luxury).:icon_smile_wink:

In all seriousness, it doesn't bother me that "religion" (I love the way the word is used so vaguely) is interjected into the STP website.


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

RSS said:


> A personal attack is an attack in the first person ...


Unless you're one of those clever university lads, and then you can dispose of the first person and work your way around to attack via 2nd or 3rd:teacha: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Benjamin.65 said:


> Unless you're one of those clever university lads, and then you can dispose of the first person and work your way around to attack via 2nd or 3rd:teacha: :icon_smile_big:


Is this a second person attack in disguise? :icon_smile_wink: you're ... you ... you're



Benjamin.65 said:


> In all seriousness, it doesn't bother me that "religion" (I love the way the word is used so vaguely) is interjected into the STP website.


It doesn't bother me either ... not the way it's done.

As for religion being used vaguely ... True, I suppose matters sartorial can be a "religion" ... and in that case ...

*I will forever and ever write about this particular religion on AAAC.*
*I will forever and ever write about this particular religion on AAAC.*
_*I will forever and ever write about this particular religion on AAAC.*_
*... and into the ether we go ... *

*Gosh ... all this blue makes me feel like I'm at Schiphol. *


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Roger said:


> Actually, I have to admire Mr. Richardson for being a standup guy about his religious views, and it seems to me that one could point to a logical connection between these views and his business, in that one could conclude from his statements that he (the customer) could expect to be treated fairly and honestly in any transactions with STP.


That's the way I usually take that sort of thing as well. The realtor (buyer's agent) assigned to us through a relocation program a few years ago was very "hey, I'm a Christian!" and "what a blessing!" re: good stuff. We were a bit bemused, but she is a very good agent and kind to boot. She brings us candy and popcorn balls wrapped in scripture bags every Christmas.

Hey, tasty witnessing, and whatnot.


----------

