I mean, if you want to peruse threads where Christians are asking for church reommendations just to mindlessly tell them that their whole worldview is wrong, be my guest. Just don't be surprised if it makes you look bad

Homie, OP is literally asking for church recommendations and gets the response "You're whole religion is fake, you'll find out eventually!"

Y'all see nothing wrong with this picture? Read the room

I know I should expect nothing less from Reddit, but this thread probably isn't really the place to advertise atheism

OP is trying to leave one of the most broadway-spectacle, disingenuous churches around to find a more genuine crowd. There are OBJECTIVELY better places to go in that respect.

He's talking about the people being fake, not the religion or the theology. If you want to talk about Christianity being "fake" then that's a different discussion OP's not asking for right now

The really sucky thing is: you can't. There is no surefire way to convince anyone of anything. People are complex and often their emotions are more in control of their perspective their logical thought is.

In fairness, I've heard of a lot of good things happening at JR during the past year, but largely I'd be inclined to agree. James River has made it a bit too easy to criticize them over the past decade that I've been around.

Based on their response to you, here's my advice: They aren't hearing you say "let's try another church," they're hearing "I don't want to go to church." Thus they think your salvation is in jeopardy and they think they're saving you by making you go to James River.

SO INSTEAD - ask them if you can go to other events or services at other churches. Then perhaps when they see how much more you get out of those, they will let you go there instead.

I for one have found Praise Assembly to be the most refreshing change of pace I've experienced anywhere in years. And I say that as a pastor's kid. It's a place that's genuine and doesn't make a spectacle out of everything. They're some of the kindest people I've ever known. Frankly - this is the first time I've ever found myself actually excited to go to church. Up until now it's always been a bit of a chore

They have youth Sunday Nights and you can always tell them a local friend invited you

Just to clarify... Are you siding with Ann Kelley on this?

If you think he's wrong for referencing Martha Washington because "marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation," then I gotta say- you have a very unpopular opinion. Like - I GUESS it technically doesn't have to reflect your orientation, but the VAST majority of people would prefer to be married to someone that they are sexually attracted to.

There is a reason why people all throughout history would frequently try to hide their homosexuality by getting heterosexual marriages - BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE TO MARRY THE PEOPLE THEY WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH.

If it had nothing to do with sexual orientation, then it wouldn't be a very effective way of pretending your not gay, would it?

"To me that isn't sexual orientation..."

To be fair, she just admitted that she has no idea what that word means. She just thought that it referred to non-straight, non-cis orientations. So she literally doesn't understand why my guy is bringing up Martha Washington.

That's why when he asks if they could theoretically talk about Martha Washington, she says "I don't know." She is STUMPED as to what Martha Washington has to do with this

Her bill is POSITIVELY nonsensical but most of this conversation is too. Just explain to her what it word means, lol

>FYI: I wasn't talking about Mohammadkhani. I thought people were criticizing Rover

> FYI: I wasn't talking about Mohammadkhani. I thought people were criticizing Rover

FYI: I wasn't talking about Mohammadkhani. I thought people were criticizing Rover

Deleted my initial response because I only just realized that the criticism here is against Mohammadkhani, not Rover.

Was it not obvious that I was talking about Rover? Considering how I was specifically talking about the subtext surrounding their exercise? Like - yeah I should gotten more context before commenting but come on y'all

Very weird but feels lowkey harmless

unless there's some implied subtext about 'surrendering to the police' or 'praying', in which case I can definitely see that being concerning

Edit: OHH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MOHAMMADKHANI? I thought we were criticizing Rover for directing kids to reflect like that. If you can't tell, I didn't read the article

Wait so someone 100% DID ignite piles of other people's belongings on fire, and then rather than pursuing legal action against that person - the sherriff is protecting their identity? Why - because the victims were trespassing?

Either he's lying about the fact that the deputies didn't burn it, or he's protecting a literal arsonist

Thanks for sharing this!

It sounds like there's still a LOT of missing information. He talks about "twelve different camp and debris" sites they visited on February 10th and their efforts to help the owners clean up, but he doesn't even mention any interactions with the homeless people who were there that day.

If deputies did not ignite the piles, then where is this story coming from? There's a whole video showing a smoldering pile of stuff that hasn't been explained.

Did the homeless people there all just spontaneously decide to burn their own belongings and collectively lie to the pastor about it? In which case - why does the Sherriff mention anything the police did on Febuary 10th at all since it's apparently entirely unrelated to what happened?

And if they DID burn their own belongings, why doesn't the Sheriff include the fact that one of those piles of garbage they cleaned was a smoldering heap of burnt stuff? Or is he just talking about totally unrelated locations and trash?

Then in the last paragraph, the Sherriff argues a strawman against people who think land owners should let the homeless live wherever they want - but that's not the issue here. People aren't angry that the homeless were made to leave, they're angry that their belongings were seized and burned without apparent warning

This kind of just leaves more confused

If you read hostility in my reply, then it's because I take issue with shrugging one's shoulders at the oppression of the marginalized, especially when it's justified with flimsy and unfounded skepticism.

I'm not going to play the ad-homenim game, so I'll just ignore all the jabs at my character. It's a waste of our time and energy.

>Active investigations almost always are responded to with no comment until they have enough information to comment.

But that's not what happened here. Not only do they have plenty of information to comment - but they also specified that they will not comment because they don't have any trust in the media reporters. It isn't that they lack information or that they are investigating - it's that they refuse to share any information at all.

>Don't just pretend that anybody who doesn't immediately want the death penalty for all cops without an investigation into what actually happened must hate all homeless people

Just going to point out: The idea that I'm pro-death-penalty, anti-cop, and that I don't think there should be an investigation... all incorrect.

Not making a comment isn't an admission of guilt. But it's foolish to pretend that their hostility towards the very question of it is anything but suspicious. The least they could say is "we have no comment at this time." But their response conveys "We have no comment to give at ANY time."

Picture?? That link is a full video evaluating all the damage. This is posted by a well-known local pastor who advocates for the homeless.

It is wildly speculative to believe she's just making it up rather than to consider that this might have actually happened - ESPECIALLY when the police department is repeatedly refusing to even deny it. There is EXCLUSIVELY evidence to believe it DID happen, and none to support the idea that it didn't. To pretend like there are "literally no stories anywhere" is just straight-up wrong.

It doesn't matter who "should" be involved because the reality is that no one is doing anything about it right now. Probably because there's too many 'skeptics' who'd rather ignore the plight of the homeless people who annoy them than consider that the police might actually be acting with reckless disregard for the marginalized

Not accurate >edit: In case anyone's curious, someone shared a link to the original video of the aftermath, and someone else shared an article posted today where the police again declined to comment. I'm as convinced as I'll ever be. If this didn't happen, the police have no reason not to deny it

Gotta be honest - That really strikes me as needlessly polarizing and unhelpful

I didn't accept that this happened at first because I literally only heard about it one time on a political Instagram profile.

Now that I've read more about it and saw a video of the aftermath, I completely believe it. Am I still a fool? Or are we maybe handing out insults a little too liberally

Hope I'm not being included in that irritation towards those asking for evidence. Half the reason Is shared this was to get it some publicity if it WAS real - which I now wholeheartedly believe it is

If what's how they spin things? That treating homeless people that way is wrong? If nobody disagrees, then what's the problem? Especially if they didn't actually do it?

All they need to say is "That's inaccurate." Or "This isn't the full story." Instead they're just blowing off journalists with blanket generaliztions about fake news. This is the only sensible response to being caught red handed, and a nonsensical response to be falsely accused

>edit: In case anyone's curious, someone shared a link to the original video of the aftermath, and someone else shared an article posted today where the police again declined to comment. I'm as convinced as I'll ever be. If this didn't happen, the police have no reason not to deny it

Well that feels a bit damning

I'm not looking for evidence out of hard skepticism, was just curious if this instagram post from a political profile was the only source claiming it even happened

Turns out, it's not. u/EcoAffinity linked an older post about it with a video of the aftermath. Convincing enough for me

Yeah, if this actually happened then that's outrageous but there's so little to go off of.

They say that they're being stonewalled when asking questions about it, which does seem a little suspicious. It'd help if the police department would at least make a statement

edit: In case anyone's curious, someone shared a link to the original video of the aftermath, and someone else shared an article posted today where the police again declined to comment. I'm as convinced as I'll ever be. If this didn't happen, the police have no reason not to deny it

"I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one."