phrawgh: I must applaud them for putting their stone age beliefs aside and helping a fellow human being. Beautiful.

Blue laws sucked ass though. Still not over that.

Pretty sure Jesus came after the stone age.

Rule #1 of Fark. If you have any affiliation to Christianity and do anything what so ever for anyone then you are wrong in the eyes of many farkers.

MizzouGuy: The Shatner Incident That's one helluva love offering for a teensy church. Finally, some Christians Jesus just may be proud of in the news.

Christians, and the church, do plenty everyday to please Jesus. In my own church, we consistently support causes both financially and through volunteering (including a full time, weekly Habitat For Humanity crew). This includes local and worldwide. And it's not to "convert" or "see me, see what I'm doing" for that would not make God "proud". In fact, many times we are expressly prohibited from any mention of the Bible or Jesus, for example when sending gifts, toys and/or supplies to Muslim countries.

Consider no newspaper story has ever been written about the good works we have done in the past couple years, nor do we issue press releases or seek mention, and it's usually the negative you only hear about.

I've been to flood cleanups where I was the only non-Christian there.

Churches can get corrupted and twisted, just like any other group. However, I think that in general churches are a good thing for society.

JohnTuttle: ubermensch: Another $500-plus has been raised by atheists on the site http://gofundme.com/."

Hmm. Not to threadjack, but I wonder if I can use that to scare up a few bucks to help buy a car. The old one died two weeks ago; threw a rod, in a '91 Regal that already had bad brakes and jacked up front alignment. I cannot believe what used cars are selling for these days. $4000 (if I'm lucky) for a Toyota with 200k miles or a Cavalier with 130k.

Eh, I'd go with a corolla or something with 200k miles, over a cavalier with 130k. There's a reason for the toyota to be $4000 since they generally run for a long time and get good mileage even with half-assed maintenance, so they keep their resale value. I wouldn't pay $4000 for a cavalier with 130k on it. Those cars also tend to be abused. The mileage also isn't necessarily a huge deal as long as the car is in good shape and not abused, if it's a car that you can get engine for cheap, or it has an engine that is known to be reliable still up into the high mileage range. I have a 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee, with 215,000 miles and still going strong. There are plenty of 4.0 inline 6s still on the road with many more miles than that in fact. But if the engine does fail, they're cheap to replace with a used lower mileage engine. Though it does help as far as cost if you either have a reliable friend that knows how to help you do it and has the tools, or if you're handy yourself and either have, can borrow or rent the tools, including the lift.
The transmission is actually more of a concern than the engine, so you wanna see maintenance records for the car, and pay attention to who you're buying from. Most older people aren't going to be as hard on their engine and transmission as a teenage guy or something for instance. And some cars just tend to have transmission problems after a certain amount of mileage is put on them, so stay away from that unless it's been replaced or rebuilt.
Actually as far as cheap not abused cars go, maybe look into grand marquis/crown vics/town cars. Even though the resale has gone up they're still not too expensive, and parts are cheap and easy to find. They're ugly (of course if you already had a 91 regal doubt that's a factor :p), and the gas mileage isn't wonderful in town (my husband's got 26hwy though which isn't horrid at least), but you can find plenty that have been driven by old people and well maintained. If you keep looking you can often find deals by people that have inherited one from their older family member and just don't need it.

If you want a better deal though, try looking further outside your area. It may still be cheaper to have something shipped to you, or have a friend drive you down there and bring it back, than to pay more in your area. On the downside you can't check it out in person first, which is a risk. Though, if you buy from a reputable seller the risk shouldn't be too much greater than buying in person from a stranger anyway.
You can also look into vehicles with salvage titles. Often the cars are just totalled due to body work, but they may run just fine and have low mileage. Just make sure to look into what was damaged (AVOID flood damage cars at all costs). Something like a hail damaged car though can go very cheap because the body is farked up, but it may run great.

I hope that he gets the treatment he needs.

DoctorCal: Yes. I wonder as well. Do you suppose there's a way to find out?

Yep, I suppose there is. I whipped up a page there, but posting it here will break the finely crafted veneer of my Fark persona. I guess I'll just have to let it ride and see if anyone bites on its own.

sno man: But Christians doing somethin' well, Christian... Ya just don't hear about that all that often...

You don't hear about it ...on FARK... because doing so would put an inconvenient truth squarely in front of all the people that seem to hate Christians with a passion.

The truth is, Christians are a whole lot more farking charitable than they get given credit for being. And this coming from someone that doesn't subscribe to any faith at all. They have been running outreach programs for the homeless, feeding the hungry, helping rebuild homes for people that have lost everything, running drug recovery programs and lots lots more for decades without seeking a back pat or an attaboy.

The difference is, they do it with humility and kindness and without making a big farking show of it because they're just trying to do what's right. A lot of Christians LIVE the teachings of kindness and generosity that you just don't hear about much anymore because it's so much hipper and more edgy to dog out Christians and claim they're all kiddy diddlers and hypocrites.

There's a reason that the stereotype of "Christian Charity" exists... it's because it's been going on a long long time and has become a watchword for how you're supposed to give charitably.

Aetre: This isn't actually very Christian of them. The giving part is, sure. But the fact that it's being announced? I'm pretty sure that Jesus, in the book of Matthew, would've had a problem with good works for the sake of boasting.

The folks who are doing the donating aren't the ones reporting the story, nor did it seem (from this and other articles) that they were seeking attention.

Try again.

Does the 400 dollar donation balance out the 1st amendment infringement? If the person recovers will the lawsuit be brought to court?

MizzouGuy: The Shatner Incident That's one helluva love offering for a teensy church. Finally, some Christians Jesus just may be proud of in the news.

Christians, and the church, do plenty everyday to please Jesus. In my own church, we consistently support causes both financially and through volunteering (including a full time, weekly Habitat For Humanity crew). This includes local and worldwide. And it's not to "convert" or "see me, see what I'm doing" for that would not make God "proud". In fact, many times we are expressly prohibited from any mention of the Bible or Jesus, for example when sending gifts, toys and/or supplies to Muslim countries.

Consider no newspaper story has ever been written about the good works we have done in the past couple years, nor do we issue press releases or seek mention, and it's usually the negative you only hear about.

There are approximately tons of churches in my area that love to go on Bible retreats to nice vacation spots every other month, but somehow wouldn't have dick to do with having a food bank or give money to a shelter for abused women and children. These self-professed Christians around here would be the ones that would be the first to call for the crucifixion of Jesus if he came back to check on things. YMMV depending on area and church. I don't hate churches, but I see a lot of churches that sure don't do what they were commanded.

/my two red cents

phrawgh: I must applaud them for putting their stone age beliefs aside and helping a fellow human being. Beautiful.

I think it's more of a way of suggesting that only christians can be charitable, with a smug little "where are your atheist friends now?" thrown in.

Bell-fan: You don't hear about it ...on FARK... because doing so would put an inconvenient truth squarely in front of all the people that seem to hate Christians with a passion.

Gee. I wonder why?

Wasn't he fighting against a nativity scene in front of a courthouse? Why did there have to be a nativity scene in front of a courthouse? Seems a bit bold to want to endorse something religious on government property. What was the motivation behind that? Seems more like he was on the defensive not the offensive. Perhaps the donation was an apology.

I don't hate believers any more than you hate classical Greek Pagans. I hate assholes, and that category is pretty squarely fit into just about any group you put in front of me.

It is nice of the church to do this kind of thing; as an atheist I would say thank you and wait till an appropriate time to discuss with them the fact that they and the atheists ended up having the same idea, and seeing what logical conclusions might be drawn from that.

That anyone needs the grown-up santaclaus as an excuse to justify being human to one another is a sickening state of affairs.

great_tigers: Rule #1 of Fark. If you have any affiliation to Christianity and do anything what so ever for anyone then you are wrong in the eyes of many farkers.



Snark is hilarious.

/unless it's snark about MY group
//then you're all uncaring assholes

Lunaville: I don't know which side of the aisle you're coming from with this idea, but in real, off-line life; I only hear this proposal advocated in relationship to "activist", left-leaning churches. You know, the ones who want the hungry fed, the poor clothed, and the orphans looked after.

If you mean by wanting tax exempt status ripped from churches who get involved in politics I mean the churches that support crap like Prop 8,personhood bills,getting involved in women's health issues such as birth control and abortion,telling their congregation to vote one way or another. shiat like that. I'm all for churches who help feed the poor and do general humanitarian work that I think was the whole message Jesus meant. Megachurches make me sick,so do churches that show blatant hate for other religions. I stopped going to church at 11 after the new pastor decided to do a whole sermon about how Jehovah's Witnesses are bad. I don't care for the Witnesses but still church isn't the place to spout your intolerant views especially if you're the pastor. The pastor he replaced always did sermons about loving your fellow man,helping out in the community and rather positive sermons to inspire people.
/Former Baptist,current Agnostic.

The article should read "douchebag gets help from Christians". My guess is that he was a douche before he jumped on the atheism fad.

Crocodilly_Pontifex: I don't hate believers any more than you hate classical Greek Pagans. I hate assholes, and that category is pretty squarely fit into just about any group you put in front of me.

It is nice of the church to do this kind of thing; as an atheist I would say thank you and wait till an appropriate time to discuss with them the fact that they and the atheists ended up having the same idea, and seeing what logical conclusions might be drawn from that.


apparently they actually tried to pay for his whole surgery (which contrary to your opinion, no atheists apparently had the idea to do) and he said that it's no sure thing and he didn't want them to potentially waste their money.

this atheist then bought them a gold star to put on the nativity scene he was previously suing about.

you could have looked at it as a real feel good story about charity and community accommodation, but it would probably kill a douchebag like you to quit fantasizing about being oppressed for one f*cking second so you could recognize that, and so instead you start going on about your imaginary conversation with the stoopid christians instead.

http://www.cbs19.tv/story/17199221/christians-raise-funds-for-ill-ath e ist-protester

LeroyBourne: Those mega churches in Texas have thousands of members. Here's a few quarters, go away.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: If this is the church in question, it most assuredly is not a megachurch, and from the looks of the place, $400 was possibly not a paltry amount to give. That looks like a little country church to me.

Athens, TX is not a big place to start with, and on a holiday Sunday, you won't find more than about 200 people in the pews. I've been in that church and they are nice, polite folks for whom a $400 donation to a man that protested the nativity scene on the courthouse lawn is a fair chunk of change.

dahmers love zombie
And of course the article says nothing remotely close to what the headline says. Gee, thanks trollmitter.

Take off the bigot blinders and maybe you'll be able to read the article the rest of us saw.

Think of all the money the church could have saved if they had just prayed instead of doing something that gets real results, like donating money.

The steam is really going out of the atheism movement now that Dawkins has admitted that he is an agnostic/pantheist and people have become generally aware that Einstein, Sagan and Asimov were also pantheists. Only first year philosophy majors and /b/tards are atheists these days.

Bell-fan: sno man: But Christians doing somethin' well, Christian... Ya just don't hear about that all that often...

You don't hear about it ...on FARK... because doing so would put an inconvenient truth squarely in front of all the people that seem to hate Christians with a passion.

The truth is, Christians are a whole lot more farking charitable than they get given credit for being. And this coming from someone that doesn't subscribe to any faith at all. They have been running outreach programs for the homeless, feeding the hungry, helping rebuild homes for people that have lost everything, running drug recovery programs and lots lots more for decades without seeking a back pat or an attaboy.

The difference is, they do it with humility and kindness and without making a big farking show of it because they're just trying to do what's right. A lot of Christians LIVE the teachings of kindness and generosity that you just don't hear about much anymore because it's so much hipper and more edgy to dog out Christians and claim they're all kiddy diddlers and hypocrites.

There's a reason that the stereotype of "Christian Charity" exists... it's because it's been going on a long long time and has become a watchword for how you're supposed to give charitably.

Not sure if troll. (bold) Supposed to?

Also:
"The truth is, some Christians are a whole lot more farking charitable than they get given credit for being."
FTFY

I find it slightly ironic, that christians give so freely, but are also the mainstay of the republican party, which kind of dislikes that sort of thing(ie taxes for the rich).

And that kind of leads me to note, a lot of Christians do directly take pride in being "better" because they give. In many circles it's lorded about(both to those that didn't give, and to those that end up receiving, kind of defeating the purpose.

Not all "charitable" acts are all that legitimately charitable. I've seen more competitive and degrading givers than I've seen that do it out of the kindness of their hearts (just a CSB, not claiming they're a majority). Contrary to popular belief, a great many give for selfish reasons.
[Disclaimer: I'm not talking about the kind of competitive giver that does so to goad others into giving more, I'm talking about the kinds that end up giving the most, and hold it as a status symbol]

Now, i'm not commenting on any given church or party. Some are great and kind people, possibly the ones in the article. But lets not pretend all christian giving is all pure in motive.

You may ask, "Who cares? Result > Intent" No, not if ends up like they're verbally berating everyone around them, as they're more or less paying for the right to do so with pocket change. No, they can keep their money and not be assholes.

Donate millions? Then maybe a bit of ass-holiness would be ok, there's a ratio that makes one ok, and the other petty.

Sure, there's a reason being charitable is known as the Christian thing to do, but there's also a reason for the phrase, "Holier than thou."

I can see why the atheist was upset at the nativity being in front of the courthouse. It does give the appearance of a state endorsed religion.

I think that the Christians who helped raise money for him did exactly what they should have. Turn the other cheek and help those in need.

Who knows, maybe this will start a dialog between the two and the nativity can be moved to some other place that's not in front of the courthouse without a lawsuit. There have to be public parks or places it would look nice, that's not in front of a government building.

apply "some" as needed in my above post.
*yawn*
I'm done for now.

retrograde: The steam is really going out of the atheism movement now that Dawkins has admitted that he is an agnostic/pantheist and people have become generally aware that Einstein, Sagan and Asimov were also pantheists. Only first year philosophy majors and /b/tards are atheists these days.

Dawkins has always been an agnostic by the standards that people like you set. Most self described atheists are agnostic. Some people don't just rely on what everyone else thinks to form beliefs. It is fine if you just want to believe something out of convenience, but the fact remains that if you are genuine in your search for understanding you will likely find no merit to theistic claims.

sno man: But Christians doing somethin' well, Christian... Ya just don't hear about that all that often...

retrograde: The article should read "douchebag gets help from Christians". My guess is that he was a douche before he jumped on the atheism fad.

I don't suppose it means anything to you that every time a court rules in favor of separation of church and state, it is reaffirming the right to worship as you please. Just not on government property.

insano: Where is your absence of god now?

Over there by the golden arches. Mmmmm. Idol pie.

retrograde: The article should read "douchebag gets help from Christians". My guess is that he was a douche before he jumped on the atheism fad.

How dare that sumb*tch stand up for the First Amendment?!

Angel of Death: The church is performing an act of kindness to which it is not at all obliged. That merits praise, regardless of the magnitude of the act, and I tip my hat to them.

There's still no God, though.

sort of this. i can't help but feel like this is just a slightly more subtle/manipulative way to get people in the pews

face it, christians, whatever you do, you're creepy

/just kidding
//any religion can have those hyper-religious creeps
///whatever happened to talking about religion being considered impolite?
///i'm of the opinion that people would get along a lot better if they would just kept their deities to themselves

Elemental79: Dawkins has always been an agnostic by the standards that people like you set.

He's agnostic by standards that HE set despite being trotted out as the atheist poster boy. Atheism is a fad which has run its course. It was always just a "shock mommy and daddy" phase for most of you, Atheism is a dead end. It requires more faith than theism with none of the positive benefits. Dawkins was so dismayed by the nasty mean spirited comments by his own disciples that he closed the comment section down on his forum. Atheists are identified with the kind of people who would protest a creche, demand crosses be taken down on war memorials and even demand that national cemeteries replace crosses over the graves of christian soldiers with secular markers. In short ... assholes.

Richard Dawkins finally gets Honest and Denies that he is an Atheist

doyner: Wow. $400 out of how many parishioners? This is obviously not a token gesture.

Why did everyone else read this as a sarcastic post? Everyone.

$400 from a small parish to help someone that has expressed dislike for them is a nice gesture, not token at all, just like the man said.

_{Still not as much as the heartless, godless atheists, but it does show that the xtians mean well, and not trying to publicize the irony at all}

retrograde: Elemental79: Dawkins has always been an agnostic by the standards that people like you set.

Atheism is a fad which has run its course. It was always just a "shock mommy and daddy" phase for most of you, Atheism is a dead end. t

As long as there have been believers, there have been non-believers. You seem unbelievably ignorant, or you're just a semi-passable troll

Some of us just don't see miracles every day

Around here both of the major regional medical centers (and their branches) are operated by the Catholic church.

I think they are legally forced to to take EMERGENCY indigent patients to maintain their tax-free status.

But if you have ANY ability to pay they'll get it out of you. They don't really care what you put into the collection plate at church or if you go to church at all.

If you are an emergency patient, they are obligated to stabilize you, but after that, if you are indigent, you are on your own to fester and die.

They are non-taxable "Christian" organizations but the are run very much like any for-profit business.

NeuralSpike: phrawgh: I must applaud them for putting their stone age beliefs aside and helping a fellow human being. Beautiful.

Blue laws sucked ass though. Still not over that.

Pretty sure Jesus came after the stone age.

Would dinosaurs have come before or after the stone age, in the big book of FACTS?

tblax: As long as there have been believers, there have been non-believers. You seem unbelievably ignorant, or you're just a semi-passable troll

The trolls would be the one insisting that the crosses in cemeteries come down not those of us mocking the absurdity of atheism.

tblax: Some of us just don't see miracles every day

Oh you see them alright. You're just not bright enough to recognize them.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: but maybe this should be a time to recognize that they did something that is actually Christ-like for a change rather than criticizing them for not donating enough.

Christ-like? Wouldn't Christ have healed the guy?

My question is how did the reporters get a hold of this? Did the atheist mention something, or was it one of the Christians? If the atheist mentioned it, fair enough, but if one of the Christians did, well, then it smacks of a publicity stunt, and if it's a larger parish, AND it's a publicity stunt, well, then it's pretty sleazy.

retrograde: tblax: As long as there have been believers, there have been non-believers. You seem unbelievably ignorant, or you're just a semi-passable troll

The trolls would be the one insisting that the crosses in cemeteries come down not those of us mocking the absurdity of atheism.

OBVIOUSLY the people asking for something that ridiculous are trolling. And for the record, I've never even heard that before. The Atheists must be much more sensational on the west coast.
Most Atheists I know just want the First Ammendment to be respected. You know, like keeping religion seperate from public education (except in the instance of a theology course, or something like that, where all popular religions are taught). If you can't understand that you might be a fanatic and you probably make others uncomfortable.