computer games and church?

[GepperRankins]

Church building new youth center
McGregor Baptist constructing 'Studio G'


Southwest Florida's largest church is reaching out to a younger generation in the form of a new home.

Construction is set to begin in December on the 57,600-square-foot Youth Ministries building on the McGregor Baptist Church campus.

It will be called the Grace Building or "Studio G" to the younger people.

"Primarily because it's youth driven we are calling the building Studio G," senior pastor Richard Powell said.

Studio G will be built on land behind the church's Joy Building at 3750 Colonial Blvd. in Fort Myers.

The building is designed to reach out to a new generation of younger people.

"It's a funky design that I think the kids are going to love," said Robert High, the project manager of builder H.J. High Construction.

"It's going to be a great building. Very functional and multi-purpose," Powell said.

Powell says this is a joint project between the church's youth ministry and the Southwest Florida Christian Academy.

The Grace Building will house a worship space that seats about 500 students.

"The fellowship hall, if you decked it out in a worship service style, would be the third-largest worship arena in Lee County," Powell said.

A new gym will serve as the new home for academy athletics.

The gym will seat more than 850 people.

The church's youth offices and weight room will relocate to the new building.

Eight classrooms will provide more space for middle and high school students.

Each classroom will seat anywhere between 60 and 75 students.

After class, students will have a commissary that is a combination Internet cafe and concession stand.

Video game lovers will even have their own area with about 10 video game systems such as Playstation 2 or XBox.

The $8 million building is set to be completed in the fall or winter of 2006.

source: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051105/NEWS0117/511050420/1075



this is kinda weird. i would have loved one of these in my area. it could be a great place for kids to socialise, play game and learn.

the one gripe i have is that, as an athiest i would go to play computer games and meet gamers but would always deny god. i'd feel guilty about using a churches resources if they're spending them trying to convert me, while i deny god :dabs:

[Everose]

Gepper, I agree and understand, for the most part, your thoughts on this. What a wonderful opportunity for teenagers in this area.

I also believe I would have at least tried it.

I remember as a teenager, the Episcopal church I attended had this larger than life tall, dark full of life Irish Priest. And he cared very much that there were no meeting places for teenagers in our city. So he let us open a sort of coffee house on the weekends in the basement of our church. Kids from all religious denominations showed up. It was basically a place to congregate. It developed into so much of a crowd that the church yard would be full also on these evenings. Three basic rules, no physical fighting, no alcohol and no drugs on the premises. I never remember even discussing religion with anyone, or hearing a discussion of it.
The purpose was only to give us a fun, safe place to congregate.

I guess I would give it a shot, at least. If I felt pressure to convert, I would know then exactly what the purpose for spending their money was and go elsewhere. Hopefully their main purpose is to provide a safe place for teenagers to congregate, regardless of their beliefs.

[GepperRankins]

unfortunately i'm a bit old for it now and in the wrong country

[Everose]

Well, I realize that, Gepper. Was just relaying what I would do as a teenager offered a place such as this, or even one opened by a group of people that do not believe in God.

I guess it doesn't occur to me to stay totally away from one type of belief or another. I respect other's beliefs as that.....their beliefs.

I was wondering why you would feel guilty. I find that interesting. It is not like you would pretend to believe in God, so.....I guess I just don't understand it.

[GepperRankins]

i guess i'd think of a house of god as just that. it's not to say i'm not welcome, but am i deserving?

i don't avoid any religion or anything but don't christians deserve christian charity more than me? :dabs:

[Gripper]

Strange that as an atheist you feel uncomfatable in a house of god,that suggests you have some belief.
Even if you profess not to believe,christians anywhere would welcome you,its what they do.

[GepperRankins]

Strange that as an atheist you feel uncomfatable in a house of god,that suggests you have some belief.
Even if you profess not to believe,christians anywhere would welcome you,its what they do.
it's not god i'm worried about but the priests, wouldn't they be pissed at me?

[Gripper]

No the priests and vicars I've come across are just ordainary blokes(blokesses) doing a job,I don't hide what I am and have never been shunned but have had some excellent talks with them,I was a practising Christian for a number of years so can talk and make comparisons in my faith vs theirs.
The only ones I know that will actively try to convert you are the Mormons,Jehovas Witnesses and Born again christians.

[vidcc]

In my town the 180/church on the move has an excellent "youth club". Activities include all the video games, basketball, bowling, cage ball (I don't don't know how it's played but my son does) pool tables, air hockey etc. etc.

they have a message for the youths to steer clear of drink, drugs and sex. They do take a hard-line moralistic approach and they do evangelise heavily but it is their facility and even though they welcome all they will preach moralistically to all. The thing I will say though is that teenagers tend to be rebellious and there is an impression that many just listen and think "yeah whatever"
They also organise lots of children's events like Halloween bashes. They hire the civic centre and put on a night for the children full of games and even a give away bikes. This year they gave nearly 100 bikes away (all donated by local business).
These are the things churches do well and even though I am an atheist I often help out or contribute to such things. For me the problem is when the church tries to get into politics. They do it badly.

[j2k4]

For me the problem is when the church tries to get into politics. They do it badly.

To put a slightly finer point on it, how about people who are into "church" and are also into politics?

Is your view that such people would "do" politics badly, and so should not be allowed, owing to the "problem" they create?

[JPaul]

I thought churches, of any religion, were not allowed to get into politics in the USA. Isn't that a fundamental rule.

[GepperRankins]

j2 doesn't strike me as a religious person, but he defends it savagely because bush is a christian :dabs:

[vidcc]

For me the problem is when the church tries to get into politics. They do it badly.

To put a slightly finer point on it, how about people who are into "church" and are also into politics?

Is your view that such people would "do" politics badly, and so should not be allowed, owing to the "problem" they create?
Of course there should be no bar to someone that has faith (try to get elected if you don't) but as so loudly shouted by conservatives we run the country by the constitution. Doesn't that mean that the bible comes second?

[vidcc]

I thought churches, of any religion, were not allowed to get into politics in the USA. Isn't that a fundamental rule.

A fundamentally ignored rule.

[j2k4]

j2 doesn't strike me as a religious person, but he defends it savagely because bush is a christian :dabs:

Sorry to have intruded on your thread.

Don't know what came over me.

[hobbes]

For me the problem is when the church tries to get into politics. They do it badly.

To put a slightly finer point on it, how about people who are into "church" and are also into politics?

Is your view that such people would "do" politics badly, and so should not be allowed, owing to the "problem" they create?

Interesting question and it ties in with the "flag or crucifix" thread.

The teacher (erroneously, IMO) felt that the displaying of the flag elevated it to the status level of the Cross, which was unacceptable to him. He felt that it interferred with his belief that man should follow God and not a State.

So essentially, It is God first, at all times.

Now imagine if this person were to go into politics in America, a society which ideally holds the liberties of the individual sacred and free from religious interference.

Now in any case in which the desires of the State go against an individuals religious belief (abortion, for example), he would be mandated by God to oppose this. He would abandon the States' credo of individual rights and insert his religious beliefs upon the people.

So, it seems apparent to me that the religious would theortically mess up the works.

What is odd to me is that Bush claims to be a Christian, yet he sends his country to war. God is quite clear that "thou shall not kill", so why is Bush ignoring the decree of God? He is placing the desires of the State above the will of God.

Does he think that he can just ignore God and make amends with a few prayers later. What about those soldiers who are religious and do the actual killing. Are they not clearly stating that the State can over-rule God? They can tell Saint Peter that they were doing for George Bush, so those killings don't count.

Jesus did not say to kill your enemies, but to forgive them and turn the other cheek. That is what God wants.

Well, he says that, but then again he did kill everyone on Earth in that flood thing. That's another story though.

I mean, lets step back a little from our narrow perspective. Let's talk about God and Heavan and ETERNITY.

If you really believe in all that, all Earthly conflicts fade to irrelevance. World Trade Center destroyed, turn the other cheek. What does that matter if you have paradise for all eternity in Heavan waiting for you? Just put in your time on this rock and then go to Heavan for BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years, and that is just a second compared to eternity.

But, it seems to me we are just animals attempting to survive. WE ignore Gods words as we see fit. We are motivated by our animal survival instincts during this little speck of time we have in the universe. We grab up all the money and power we can.

We talk a good game about God and how we are Christian soldiers, but it is a lie. We're just well manicured animals, clawing for survival. That is where our motivations come from, that is how we act.

Sure we are nice and polite when we have our needs filled. Plenty of food, water and electricity here. You want to borrow some sugar, sure buddy, no problem, I've got plenty. We are comfortable in knowing that everything is there, so we are nice and polite.

Then comes Katrina. We steal, we shoot, we fight for a bottle of water, a clean shirt, some food. No politeness, no "you first, let me hold the door", just vicious animal behavior.

Well how about that for a rant.

[Gripper]

No arguing there Hobbes,scrape away civilization and the animal comes to the fore,survival of the fittest and all that,survival first and foremost,we will resort to cannibalism at need,take the rugby team stranded in the mountains due to a plane crash,eat your friends or die we eat we survive.

[Biggles]

i guess i'd think of a house of god as just that. it's not to say i'm not welcome, but am i deserving?

i don't avoid any religion or anything but don't christians deserve christian charity more than me? :dabs:


Usually such things are used as an outreach to atheists just like you. They would be worried if such people did not turn up.

The downside to outreaches is that you will normally be "witnessed" to on a regular basis. However, if this does not bother you then it is all good. Games are played and outreaching Christians get to practice their witnessing. A classic win win solution. :)

[clocker]

Games are played and outreaching Christians get to practice their witnessing. A classic win win solution. :)
What do Christians do when they're done "practising"?

BTW, I don't believe this can be considered a "classic" win-win scenario.
After all, Bill Gates isn't getting a cut.

[Biggles]

Games are played and outreaching Christians get to practice their witnessing. A classic win win solution. :)
What do Christians do when they're done "practising"?

BTW, I don't believe this can be considered a "classic" win-win scenario.
After all, Bill Gates isn't getting a cut.

An oversight on my part. :lol: I am sure the rights to witnessing will pass into the Empire's hands soon.

[GepperRankins]

j2 doesn't strike me as a religious person, but he defends it savagely because bush is a christian :dabs:

Sorry to have intruded on your thread.

Don't know what came over me.
stop feeling sorry for yourself, you twat

[j2k4]

Sorry to have intruded on your thread.

Don't know what came over me.
stop feeling sorry for yourself, you twat

Not to worry, my short-peckered friend.

I had made up my mind to totally ignore you, and absent this instance, have been observing this imperative rather well.

It is against my personal policy to employ the "ignore" function provided by the board, as I reckon it would deprive me of the opportunities you present for genuine belly-laughs as you continue to contemplate your navel in open forum.

Carry on, idiot-boy.

[GepperRankins]

stop feeling sorry for yourself, you twat

Not to worry, my short-peckered friend.

I had made up my mind to totally ignore you, and absent this instance, have been observing this imperative rather well.

It is against my personal policy to employ the "ignore" function provided by the board, as I reckon it would deprive me of the opportunities you present for genuine belly-laughs as you continue to contemplate your navel in open forum.

Carry on, idiot-boy.
short peckered? that hurts.



ignore me? like i said, you're an "english" person :)

[JPaul]

I thought churches, of any religion, were not allowed to get into politics in the USA. Isn't that a fundamental rule.

A fundamentally ignored rule.
In what way.

[vidcc]

A fundamentally ignored rule.
In what way.

In the way that they believe it's their duty to absolutely have to ignore it and some believe that the rule doesn't even exist.

Thomas Jefferson called it a "wall of separation between church and State". Somehow that wall is viewed as a magical wall that only blocks one direction of travel.

[JPaul]

In what way.

In the way that they believe it's their duty to absolutely have to ignore it and some believe that the rule doesn't even exist.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you are saying there. What do Churches have to ignore.

[vidcc]

In the way that they believe it's their duty to absolutely have to ignore it and some believe that the rule doesn't even exist.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you are saying there. What do Churches have to ignore.

Originally Posted by JPaul
I thought churches, of any religion, were not allowed to get into politics in the USA. Isn't that a fundamental rule.



In the way that they believe it's their duty to absolutely have to ignore it and some believe that the rule doesn't even exist.

Thomas Jefferson called it a "wall of separation between church and State". Somehow that wall is viewed as a magical wall that only blocks one direction of travel.

[JPaul]

So you feel Churches should not express an opinion in relation to matters of morals, ethics, religion etc.

Do you feel the same way for other groups, animal rights activists or gun owners for example. Should no-one express their view.

Or do you only deny freedom of expression to Churches.

Edit : I think the "wall" was there to stop Churches having actual power, like in the UK. That's how it was explained to me in another thread.

[vidcc]

So you feel Churches should not express an opinion in relation to matters of morals, ethics, religion etc.

Do you feel the same way for other groups, animal rights activists or gun owners for example. Should no-one express their view.

Or do you only deny freedom of expression to Churches.

Edit : I think the "wall" was there to stop Churches having actual power, like in the UK. That's how it was explained to me in another thread.



Originally Posted by JPaul
I thought churches, of any religion, were not allowed to get into politics in the USA. Isn't that a fundamental rule.




Of course there should be no bar to someone that has faith (try to get elected if you don't) but as so loudly shouted by conservatives we run the country by the constitution. Doesn't that mean that the bible comes second?..

[JPaul]

Nope, don't see any point there.

[vidcc]

Nope, don't see any point there.

Oh well. never mind then

[Gripper]

When a church gets in to politics and rules the country becomes a theocracy I think.
The Catholic Church has always been very influentaul in politics in a lot of countries.

[hobbes]

So you feel Churches should not express an opinion in relation to matters of morals, ethics, religion etc.

Do you feel the same way for other groups, animal rights activists or gun owners for example. Should no-one express their view.

Or do you only deny freedom of expression to Churches.

Edit : I think the "wall" was there to stop Churches having actual power, like in the UK. That's how it was explained to me in another thread.


Churches have the right to express themselves, as long as what they are proposing to inact does not infringe upon the rights of the individual.

Growing up in St. Louis, businesses were not allowed to open on Sundays as it was a day for church and family. It was then modified so that you could only buy essential things, like food, but you could not buy non-essential things. I specifically remember the clerk not being allowed to sell us vacuum cleaner bags.

Currently, here in Texas, one cannot buy hard liquor on Sundays.

Why is that? It is the Church infringing upon my personal liberties. I want to open my store on Sunday, I want to sell whatever I have. I want to buy vast amounts of vodka.

This is just a one example of an inappropriate influence of religion upon the State. This is what I object to.

[Busyman]

So you feel Churches should not express an opinion in relation to matters of morals, ethics, religion etc.

Do you feel the same way for other groups, animal rights activists or gun owners for example. Should no-one express their view.

Or do you only deny freedom of expression to Churches.

Edit : I think the "wall" was there to stop Churches having actual power, like in the UK. That's how it was explained to me in another thread.


Churches have the right to express themselves, as long as what they are proposing to inact does not infringe upon the rights of the individual.

Growing up in St. Louis, businesses were not allowed to open on Sundays as it was a day for church and family. It was then modified so that you could only buy essential things, like food, but you could not buy non-essential things. I specifically remember the clerk not being allowed to sell us vacuum cleaner bags.

Currently, here in Texas, one cannot buy hard liquor on Sundays.

Why is that? It is the Church infringing upon my personal liberties. I want to open my store on Sunday, I want to sell whatever I have. I want to buy vast amounts of vodka.

This is just a one example of an inappropriate influence of religion upon the State. This is what I object to.
I wholeheartedly agree.

[Busyman]

When a church gets in to politics and rules the country becomes a theocracy I think.
The Catholic Church has always been very influentaul in politics in a lot of countries.
...and yet they change policy like the wind. They are as bad as any other government. One thing is it's followers are expected to follow a man (The Pope) blindly.

I thought that was only reserved for Republicans in America.:ermm:

[vidcc]

CONTEMPT -- How the Right Is Wronging American Justice (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine-crier/contempt-how-the-right_b_7199.html)

[JPaul]

So you feel Churches should not express an opinion in relation to matters of morals, ethics, religion etc.

Do you feel the same way for other groups, animal rights activists or gun owners for example. Should no-one express their view.

Or do you only deny freedom of expression to Churches.

Edit : I think the "wall" was there to stop Churches having actual power, like in the UK. That's how it was explained to me in another thread.


Churches have the right to express themselves, as long as what they are proposing to inact does not infringe upon the rights of the individual.

Growing up in St. Louis, businesses were not allowed to open on Sundays as it was a day for church and family. It was then modified so that you could only buy essential things, like food, but you could not buy non-essential things. I specifically remember the clerk not being allowed to sell us vacuum cleaner bags.

Currently, here in Texas, one cannot buy hard liquor on Sundays.

Why is that? It is the Church infringing upon my personal liberties. I want to open my store on Sunday, I want to sell whatever I have. I want to buy vast amounts of vodka.

This is just a one example of an inappropriate influence of religion upon the State. This is what I object to.


Then the same goes for any group. Anti-gun lobbies must not be allowed, as that infringes upon the rights of chaps who wish to have a gun.

My only point here is that Churches should be treated equally, no better or worse than any other organisation. If every group is allowed to lobby, almost certainly infringing on the opinions / rights of others, then why should Churches be precluded from doing the same.

Churches should not be treated as a special case, either positively or negatively. They should be treated the same as any other group.

[GepperRankins]

impartiality rawks. we've all been pro or anti church without being pro or anti church.


JP, comparing the church to gun lobbyists is rediculous. guns kill people, or people with guns kill people, depending on if you wanna be a dick about it. so comparing the distribution of lethal weapons with laws that in the eyes of non- and less devout or literalist christians is irrational is pretty stupid.

[hobbes]

Then the same goes for any group. Anti-gun lobbies must not be allowed, as that infringes upon the rights of chaps who wish to have a gun.

My only point here is that Churches should be treated equally, no better or worse than any other organisation. If every group is allowed to lobby, almost certainly infringing on the opinions / rights of others, then why should Churches be precluded from doing the same.

Churches should not be treated as a special case, either positively or negatively. They should be treated the same as any other group.

Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion (lobby). Our Constitution allows this right, but it specifically prevents infringement of the rights of others because of a specific Religions' opinion.

To me, being forced to "rest" on Sunday is an arbitrary law. It is just pulled from a book of mythology, IMO.

And that is the entire point about separation of church and state. No man should be prevented from acting as he see fit because a specific religion does not approve.

Gun lobbies are based in something entirely logical. It has become a situation in which our society has a problem and we must decide the best course of action. It is really a risk/benefit ratio, not an imperative from some book. A book some believe is the word of God and to others nothing but mythology.

Gun laws are like speed limits, drug laws and innummerable other compromises of the right of expression of the individual.

Why stop at guns, why can't I have dynamite, nitroglycerin or even my own nuclear weapon. Is that not a right.

We all understand the need to compromise and evaluate the overall societal risk/benefit ratio. We don't need some immutable and rather arbitrary decree from a book.

[JPaul]

Can anyone here see that I was using one example to illustrate a point.

It was not intended as being analogous.

[JPaul]

Then the same goes for any group. Anti-gun lobbies must not be allowed, as that infringes upon the rights of chaps who wish to have a gun.

My only point here is that Churches should be treated equally, no better or worse than any other organisation. If every group is allowed to lobby, almost certainly infringing on the opinions / rights of others, then why should Churches be precluded from doing the same.

Churches should not be treated as a special case, either positively or negatively. They should be treated the same as any other group.

Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion (lobby). Our Constitution allows this right, but it specifically prevents infringement of the rights of others because of a specific Religions' opinion.

To me, being forced to "rest" on Sunday is an arbitrary law. It is just pulled from a book of mythology, IMO.

And that is the entire point about separation of church and state. No man should be prevented from acting as he see fit because a specific religion does not approve.

Gun lobbies are based in something entirely logical. It has become a situation in which our society has a problem and we must decide the best course of action. It is really a risk/benefit ratio, not an imperative from some book. A book some believe is the word of God and to others nothing but mythology.

Gun laws are like speed limits, drug laws and innummerable other compromises of the right of expression of the individual.

Why stop at guns, why can't I have dynamite, nitroglycerin or even my own nuclear weapon. Is that not a right.

We all understand the need to compromise and evaluate the overall societal risk/benefit ratio. We don't need some immutable and rather arbitrary decree from a book.


Which book are you speaking about here.

[Busyman]

Can anyone here see that I was using one example to illustrate a point.

It was not intended as being analogous.
Agreed. A church is compromised of a group of people just like any other group. That church may have an opinion just like anyone else.

hobbes doohicky about not being able to sell vacuum cleaner bags on Sunday is valid also. A majority of any group in politics can make law that may infringe on the rights of those outside the group. Sometimes this is good, sometimes bad.

There is a lot many can learn from atheists as far as being fair minded.

[JPaul]

I can understand your constitution precluding any Church having real power, unlike in the UK where the Church of England has automatic seats in the House of Lords. The Monarch is also the head of state as well as the head of the church of England

However it is surely unfair to preclude any group from expressing it's opinion. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about, whether you agree with the opinion or not.

[hobbes]

Which book are you speaking about here.

Can anyone here see that I was using one book as an example to prove a point?

The book could be any book, which any group of people decide is divine.

The point is that ALL divine books and ALL their arbitrary rules should be completely irrelevant in determining societal law in America, as per the Constituition.

[hobbes]

I can understand your constitution precluding any Church having real power, unlike in the UK where the Church of England has automatic seats in the House of Lords. The Monarch is also the head of state as well as the head of the church of England

However it is surely unfair to preclude any group from expressing it's opinion. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about, whether you agree with the opinion or not.


Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion (lobby). Our Constitution allows this right, but it specifically prevents infringement of the rights of others because of a specific Religions' opinion.

As already stated

[JPaul]

Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion (lobby). Our Constitution allows this right, but it specifically prevents infringement of the rights of others because of a specific Religions' opinion.

As already stated
That's not the way it was explained to me (here). Your constitution specifically precludes any religion from having any actual power, being an integral part of the governmental process. Unlike my own country, as I explained earlier.

However it also protects everyone's right to express their opinion, which is my sole objection to your good self and vidcc telling Churches to STFU.

Oh and "specific Religions' opinion" doesn't really work. The "specific" implies one, whilst the "Religions'" implies a greater number. It's an apostrophe thing.

[vidcc]

who explained it to you?

[Busyman]

As already stated
That's not the way it was explained to me (here). Your constitution specifically precludes any religion from having any actual power, being an integral part of the governmental process. Unlike my own country, as I explained earlier.

However it also protects everyone's right to express their opinion, which is my sole objection to your good self and vidcc telling Churches to STFU.

Oh and "specific Religions' opinion" doesn't really work. The "specific" implies one, whilst the "Religions'" implies a greater number. It's an apostrophe thing.
Churches can have power but it's in the form of influence on parishoners and thus politics.

[hobbes]

As already stated
That's not the way it was explained to me (here). Your constitution specifically precludes any religion from having any actual power, being an integral part of the governmental process. Unlike my own country, as I explained earlier.

However it also protects everyone's right to express their opinion, which is my sole objection to your good self and vidcc telling Churches to STFU.

Oh and "specific Religions' opinion" doesn't really work. The "specific" implies one, whilst the "Religions'" implies a greater number. It's an apostrophe thing.

My good self has never told Churches to STFU, that is simply untrue. Also known as a lie.

I have specifically stated that their opinions should not be translated into law because any mythical Book states it so.

The point is that there are many opinions about what God wants us to do. None of these opinions should be acknowledged when determining our laws.

Please provide a concrete example in which I told churches to STFU. That would be unlikely given :


Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion (lobby). Our Constitution allows this right, but it specifically prevents infringement of the rights of others because of a specific Religions' opinion.

[JPaul]

So we are agreed, Churches should not have any prescribed legislative power. However they should be allowed to express their opinion, in the same way that every other group is.

That seems fair enough to me, we are in accord.

[GepperRankins]

RE: church and state

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/5945/IRS_Targets_Church_for_Antiwar_Preacher