Politics goes to church at Hillsong (1 Viewer)

walrusbear · Jul 30, 2005

so we all agree that hillsong is the worst christian denom.?

azzie · Jul 30, 2005

im a christian and i go to church though i dont really have a denomination.
i think hillsong is just a little scary, having been there before. i dont think i would go back because the message they spread (no offence vondavis) seems to be a very black and white, forceful and i dont think is an accurate reflection of the word of God or the message of jesus. but thats just my idea, it may work for some people and if it works and you think it's getting the right message to you, then by all means, its probably the right church for you.
still, doesnt mean its right for everyone.
i have heard people being turned away from christianity because of it, and thats not what a church is meant to be. church is essentially a meeting ground (if you go back to the Bible) for christians to discuss issues and pray to God, learn, teach and listen. church is not about being forced to think in a certain way
after all...

not some unreachable, holier than thou figure. he was perfect, but if you hear his message its about being friends with people, and accepting others. not saying "this group is evil" or "doing this will send you to hell!" after all, he was mates with everyone and rejected those who thought they were "better than everyone else"

/rant

jennylim · Jul 31, 2005

Damage Inc. said:
Hell yeah! The Christian right are the scariest fucker's in the world right now. I'd be more worried about them being in Australia than "terrorists".

Why? Apart from the whole fuckers being spelt with no apostrophe, there's something pretty wrong with that. Do the Christian Right ppl in Australia threaten your way of life personally? Do they wish to kill you? They might live in a way that you disagree with and have varying ideas on social legislation but nothing terrifically awful. Although people talk about Family First and all that, their impact hasn't been felt to a huge extent. I fail to see why such a huge fuss must be raised?

Before you ask, yes I'm a Christian but not of the Hillsong variety. I do think there's something wrong with their prosperity gospel and intense politicisation. But yeah, I'm pretty sure you're generalising but it does get annoying when people do things like that for effect.

Not-That-Bright · Jul 31, 2005

Well the problem would occur if they started being able to impose their beliefs on others... but I don't really see that happening any time soon. Damage Inc. is just your average misguided teen, trying to make a conspiracy out of the banal commonplace.

jennylim · Jul 31, 2005

Not-That-Bright said:
Well the problem would occur if they started being able to impose their beliefs on others... but I don't really see that happening any time soon. Damage Inc. is just your average misguided teen, trying to make a conspiracy out of the banal commonplace.

lol. pity they got rid of rep. thanks ntb

azzie · Jul 31, 2005

Asquithian said:
They do when they get into parliament and start making the laws that govern us all.

it should be

religion ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------the state

rather than religion/the state

Not-That-Bright · Jul 31, 2005

azzie said:
it should be

religion ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------the state

rather than religion/the state

The whole separation of church/state logic is a bit confusing to me...
For example, in America you have specific laws separating the church/state which lead to alot of troubles, yet there seems to be more religious power in America. In England, you have an officially recognised church as a part of the state, yet religion is dwindling.... It's like christians grow in numbers when they're forced to "take up arms", to defend their religion.

I also think it's a little hard when the truth is that it's hard to stop someone's political beliefs from interfering with religion or someone's religious beleifs from interfering in politics...

jennylim · Jul 31, 2005

If Family First/etc are voted in by various people, the logical conclusion is that a majority of that particular electorate wanted them there. Therefore their behaviour/policies shouldn't be seen as "threatening" to everyone's way of life. Especially because they're not even the majority in parliament and haven't got much practical power besides...well...a lot of attention seeking. You might say that the Libs are pretty Christian, and yes, some of them are, but not many laws have been made that are specifically Christian and profoundly affect people's lives.

I don't think any government has a chance of abolishing abortion, and while I don't agree with the concept, I don't think it should be outlawed at all. Not only because of that whole right to choose thing, more because it's always going to happen and it should be in a sterilised and safe environment with good doctors. Etc. So that's the only major thing that they'd do that could harm people, and I don't think anyone will do it.

I would argue that secularism is far more prevalent in Australia than Christianity and that their influence regarding downplaying Christmas/Easter and pushing a politically correct agenda ala Clover Moore far outweighs ours. Really, we're here, we say our point of view, but not many people listen. So it's still beyond me as to why Christians are seen as dangerous.

beccaxx · Jul 31, 2005

i was there when bob carr spoke and noone liked it that i ws aware of. brian had to get up and correct him at the end. costello then did the next service, i dont no how that one went. but it was bob carr who turned it into a political stunt that made me cringe, and even made brian cringe u could tell

Generator · Jul 31, 2005

jennylim said:
If Family First/etc are voted in by various people, the logical conclusion is that a majority of that particular electorate wanted them there. Therefore their behaviour/policies shouldn't be seen as "threatening" to everyone's way of life.

He was elected as a Senator for Victoria with a ridiculously low primary vote, not as the two-party preferred candidate for a house of reps electorate. There is no 'logical conclusion' to be made.

Not-That-Bright · Jul 31, 2005

Generator said:
He was elected as a Senator for Victoria with a ridiculously low primary vote, not as the two-party preferred candidate for a house of reps electorate. There is no 'logical conclusion' to be made.

Why does it matter how much primary vote he got?

Generator · Jul 31, 2005

Not-That-Bright said:
Why does it matter how much primary vote he got?

Well, I'd hate to think that one could make a logical conclusion that the greater part of the population wanted a particular candidate merely because they reached the required quota after the distribution of preferences without considering their primary vote count, particularly given that it's the Senate. A number of people may like the idea of a family first/christian/assemblies of god Senator representing Victoria, but it's a bit of a stretch to suggest it's logical to assume that the majority wanted such a candidate to be successful.

Not-That-Bright · Jul 31, 2005

Generator said:
Well, I'd hate to think that one could make a logical conclusion that the greater part of the population wanted a particular candidate merely because they reached the required quota after the distribution of preferences without considering their primary vote count, particularly given that it's the Senate. A number of people may like the idea of a family first/christian/assemblies of god Senator representing Victoria, but it's a bit of a stretch to suggest it's logical to assume that the majority wanted such a candidate to be successful.

Perhaps not a majority, but I believe under the preference system that (if they paid attention to what they were doing) most at least got their second pick.

jennylim · Jul 31, 2005

Generator said:
Well, I'd hate to think that one could make a logical conclusion that the greater part of the population wanted a particular candidate merely because they reached the required quota after the distribution of preferences without considering their primary vote count, particularly given that it's the Senate. A number of people may like the idea of a family first/christian/assemblies of god Senator representing Victoria, but it's a bit of a stretch to suggest it's logical to assume that the majority wanted such a candidate to be successful.

i didn't say majority of the population. i meant majority of the electorate in which that guy was running. and as ntb said, perhaps the majority got their 2nd preference. so although it's not quite as direct as it could otherwise be, it's still democratic enough. not quite evil-christian-domination-ruling-with-no one's-consent type thing.

Generator · Jul 31, 2005

jennylim said:
i didn't say majority of the population. i meant majority of the electorate in which that guy was running. and as ntb said, perhaps the majority got their 2nd preference. so although it's not quite as direct as it could otherwise be, it's still democratic enough. not quite evil-christian-domination-ruling-with-no one's-consent type thing.

...

He was running on a Senate ticket for Victoria, and no matter what you meant, the fact of the matter is that we are discussing the Victorian (electoral) population in its entirety. Given the nature of the preference system for the Senate, it is near impossible (well, bloody hard) for anyone but an electoral analyst (the proper term, beginning with p, escapes me) to determine what actually happened, but given that most people vote above the line, I am on fairly solid ground in saying that a number of people may not have got what they voted for in terms of preference distribution.

MoonlightSonata · Jul 31, 2005

jennylim said:
Really, we're here, we say our point of view, but not many people listen. So it's still beyond me as to why Christians are seen as dangerous.

Do you know who Fred Nile is?

malkin86 · Jul 31, 2005

Australian Story is doing a special on Hillsong tomorrow evening.

chookyn · Aug 1, 2005

Yup, 8pm tonight, flick to ABC! From the snippets i saw in the preview, it will be very interesting.

jennylim · Aug 1, 2005

MoonlightSonata said:
Do you know who Fred Nile is?

*hides* lol yes. studied him briefly in studies of religion. errr yeah, personally i don't agree with a lot of what he says - but (please correct me if i'm wrong) i'm under the impression he doesn't have a lot of political power. i think there are only 2 CDP members in the legislative council, right?

yy · Dec 23, 2005

Hillsong & other evangelical/pentecostal movements

the well-loved and contraoversial hillsong is at it again:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hillsong-denies-bribe-allegation/2005/12/22/1135032135696.html
what's your thoughts on it. and why is there so many people joining it? is it true that the houstons gets heaps of money out of it?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...un-13m-business/2005/08/11/1123353449480.html
btw, has anyone read the book "you need more money" by brian houston? what does it contain and what's your thoughts on it?

Politics goes to church at Hillsong (1 Viewer)

Active Member

so delicious...

Member

Andrew Quah

Member

so delicious...

Andrew Quah

Member

surprised things change

Active Member

Andrew Quah

Active Member

Andrew Quah

Member

Active Member

Retired

Active Member

poulet de montagne

Member

Member

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)