Should religion be eliminated

[Karl Rand]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

Keep it to yourself and it will all work out for the best.

Honey, political leftists and atheists in this country evangelize far more than Christians ever considered doing. It's pretty hypocritical for you to demand that other people "keep it to themselves".

Atheist can shut the he'll up also.

But what of your continuing ministry?
Are you all going to do us a favour and forget Mathew Ch:4.V:23? or do I have to continue putting the hose on your besuited brethren as they advance down my front path?
It may assist your meditations to ponder Proverbs Ch: 16. V: 19 ?

The bong works better and is a gift from some god.

Hmm, for some people maybe (me included) but for others a recipe for inducing very nasty mental states. OHM Shiva Shankara, Hari, Hari Gunja.
And we still need to face the nasty truth the young are being fed so much bullshit about this they sadly come to the conclusion they’re being bullshited about far, far more dangerous drugs and go on to use them. It’s a crime to lie to the young.
Now what was the original topic?

 

[Karl Rand]

Evolution will doom religion.

That's doubtful. Faith / religion offers functional advantages that atheism does not.

And it is functional advantage which drives evolution.

Like I said in my previous post, it's not always a straight line.

You are a linear thinker in a cyclical universe.

As humans evolve to be smarter, they are abandoning organized religion. It's a fact.

As humans become more hubristic and THINK they're smarter, they abandon anything that contradicts their egos. That's a REAL fact.

With a post like that, it's no wonder that you're religious.

Because I'm smart enough to recognize trends in human history and human nature? Because I've studied and learned from great philosophers and writers, instead of dismissing them because I assume I've "evolved" past them?

If you had studied the great philosophers you might want to admit the more you know, the less you can say,

 

[ding]

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

Yeah, uh, no. That whole "You're praying, so it must be to God, even though you're calling Him something else" thing? Not how it works. If you are praying to a supernatural being who is very clearly, by description and definition, NOT the Judeo-Christian God, then it's a lot more than just "calling Him by another name", and He's NOT going to treat it that way. He cares that we seek HIM. He is not going to accept seeking something else as seeking Him just because it's vaguely godlike.

Why do you suppose He gave us all those instructions about the right way to do things if just any old behavior would do just fine?

What do instructions exactly? OT? NT?

I have no idea what point you think you're making here.

I’m trying to understand your basis for believing that God only loves Christians.

 

[ding]

So you're saying that only poor people (or is it cheap people?) go to church?

No, she's saying that taxing churches, which by definition are non-profit, would end up wiping many churches out of existence.

I don't think it would. I don't think people understand that gifts are not taxable unless they are over a certain amount.

The reality is that people would no longer receive a deduction for their charitable contribution. I don't think that would make them stop giving.

But if it did, that would only cause the government to give more. So in the end, the government would be paying 100% of the "charity" instead of giving a tax break on say 20% of the charity.

I think it is an emotional thing. They hate religion so much they can't look at it analytically.

The reality is that "taxing churches" is not the same thing as "not making the giving tax-deductible". You need to start listening to what people say, instead of to what you want to think they're saying.

And don't even get me started on "And it'll be okay, because government will just give more, and that's the same." Government =/= charity.

They can’t tax donations below a certain threshold.

For the 1432nd time, there is far more to it than just $5 put in the offering plate.

The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies churches as 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organizations, which are exempt from federal income tax and are able to accept tax-deductible donations. [1] Unlike secular charities, however, churches are automatically considered to be 501(c)(3) organizations, and, while they may do so voluntarily, they are not required by law to submit an application for exemption or pay the application fee (up to $850 as of Oct. 24, 2011 [42]). [1]

In addition, using a benefit known as the "parsonage exemption" (or "parish exemption"), "licensed, commissioned, or ordained" ministers of religion may deduct most of the money they spend on housing from their federal income tax, and these properties are often exempt from state property taxes. [41] [43] [44] The exemption has existed since 1921, and no equivalent tax break is available to leaders of secular nonprofit charities.

Background of the Issue - Churches and Taxes - ProCon.org

I don't personally know of any church which records its offering donations individually. Every church I've ever gone to counts the contents of the offering plate (separate from money specifically designated for tithes, building funds, etc.) and then enters them in the books as a lump sum for that date. Depending on the size of the congregation and how generous they are, that's pretty much going to blow past your "clever" gift scheme.

Also, why should churches - out of every charity and non-profit in this country - be limited in the donations they're allowed to receive, or have their donors limited in how much they want to contribute well beyond the limits already imposed by what can be deducted from one's taxes, so long as they're actually using the money to fulfill their stated purposes, rather than amassing personal wealth for the leaders?

So you are assuming all donations would be taxed?

 

[Taz]

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

Yeah, uh, no. That whole "You're praying, so it must be to God, even though you're calling Him something else" thing? Not how it works. If you are praying to a supernatural being who is very clearly, by description and definition, NOT the Judeo-Christian God, then it's a lot more than just "calling Him by another name", and He's NOT going to treat it that way. He cares that we seek HIM. He is not going to accept seeking something else as seeking Him just because it's vaguely godlike.

Why do you suppose He gave us all those instructions about the right way to do things if just any old behavior would do just fine?

What do instructions exactly? OT? NT?

I have no idea what point you think you're making here.

I’m trying to understand your basis for believing that God only loves Christians.

Because god only made sexy white women?

 

[Taz]

Evolution will doom religion.

That's doubtful. Faith / religion offers functional advantages that atheism does not.

And it is functional advantage which drives evolution.

Like I said in my previous post, it's not always a straight line.

You are a linear thinker in a cyclical universe.

As humans evolve to be smarter, they are abandoning organized religion. It's a fact.

As humans become more hubristic and THINK they're smarter, they abandon anything that contradicts their egos. That's a REAL fact.

With a post like that, it's no wonder that you're religious.

Because I'm smart enough to recognize trends in human history and human nature? Because I've studied and learned from great philosophers and writers, instead of dismissing them because I assume I've "evolved" past them?

You learn from them and move on to something else. I don't see the point of reading the same book over and over again. A couple of times ok, but not clinging to it for dear life for the rest of yours and reading it over and over like a drooling maniac.

 

[Taz]

You're weak too, apparently, so you invent in invisible being that you thing give a shit what you do. Totally deluded. And without foundation.

Jesus did not come for the strong, he came for the weak. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

The exalted will be humbled and the humble will be exalted. Word.

"Word"?, what are you, black for a day?

Jesus is your crutch, thanks for clearing that up.

Conceit is your crutch; and unlike Jesus, it makes you neither a better person nor a happier one.

Conceit, isn't that a bible word?

No, it's just an English word. The Bible actually calls it "Pride", and it's considered the deadliest of the Seven Deadly Sins.

So having pride in an accomplishment, for example, is a sin?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's doubtful. Faith / religion offers functional advantages that atheism does not.

And it is functional advantage which drives evolution.

Like I said in my previous post, it's not always a straight line.

You are a linear thinker in a cyclical universe.

As humans evolve to be smarter, they are abandoning organized religion. It's a fact.

As humans become more hubristic and THINK they're smarter, they abandon anything that contradicts their egos. That's a REAL fact.

With a post like that, it's no wonder that you're religious.

Because I'm smart enough to recognize trends in human history and human nature? Because I've studied and learned from great philosophers and writers, instead of dismissing them because I assume I've "evolved" past them?

If you had studied the great philosophers you might want to admit the more you know, the less you can say,

I said I learned from the great philosophers and writers. I don't believe I said, or even implied, that I had started to view YOU as a source of wisdom. If I inadvertently did so, please excuse me and return to the status quo of me having no respect for or interest in anything you might have to say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

Yeah, uh, no. That whole "You're praying, so it must be to God, even though you're calling Him something else" thing? Not how it works. If you are praying to a supernatural being who is very clearly, by description and definition, NOT the Judeo-Christian God, then it's a lot more than just "calling Him by another name", and He's NOT going to treat it that way. He cares that we seek HIM. He is not going to accept seeking something else as seeking Him just because it's vaguely godlike.

Why do you suppose He gave us all those instructions about the right way to do things if just any old behavior would do just fine?

What do instructions exactly? OT? NT?

I have no idea what point you think you're making here.

I’m trying to understand your basis for believing that God only loves Christians.

That would be your problem. You're spending a lot of time trying to understand why I believe something that I don't believe, which you apparently just made up in your head.

I can see where that would be confusing.

God loves everyone. That does not mean that everyone loves Him back, or that He does not have specific requirements and expectations of people, or that He is just going to accept all worship as automatically being of Him.

Let me put it this way: If I start praying to altars of Zeus, am I "really" praying to God, because "He has many names, and He only cares that we seek Him"? AM I actually seeking God if I'm praying to someone who is manifestly NOT Him?

I don't think you have to find God through only one specific church; I DO think you have to be looking for God specifically, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, she's saying that taxing churches, which by definition are non-profit, would end up wiping many churches out of existence.

I don't think it would. I don't think people understand that gifts are not taxable unless they are over a certain amount.

The reality is that people would no longer receive a deduction for their charitable contribution. I don't think that would make them stop giving.

But if it did, that would only cause the government to give more. So in the end, the government would be paying 100% of the "charity" instead of giving a tax break on say 20% of the charity.

I think it is an emotional thing. They hate religion so much they can't look at it analytically.

The reality is that "taxing churches" is not the same thing as "not making the giving tax-deductible". You need to start listening to what people say, instead of to what you want to think they're saying.

And don't even get me started on "And it'll be okay, because government will just give more, and that's the same." Government =/= charity.

They can’t tax donations below a certain threshold.

For the 1432nd time, there is far more to it than just $5 put in the offering plate.

The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies churches as 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organizations, which are exempt from federal income tax and are able to accept tax-deductible donations. [1] Unlike secular charities, however, churches are automatically considered to be 501(c)(3) organizations, and, while they may do so voluntarily, they are not required by law to submit an application for exemption or pay the application fee (up to $850 as of Oct. 24, 2011 [42]). [1]

In addition, using a benefit known as the "parsonage exemption" (or "parish exemption"), "licensed, commissioned, or ordained" ministers of religion may deduct most of the money they spend on housing from their federal income tax, and these properties are often exempt from state property taxes. [41] [43] [44] The exemption has existed since 1921, and no equivalent tax break is available to leaders of secular nonprofit charities.

Background of the Issue - Churches and Taxes - ProCon.org

I don't personally know of any church which records its offering donations individually. Every church I've ever gone to counts the contents of the offering plate (separate from money specifically designated for tithes, building funds, etc.) and then enters them in the books as a lump sum for that date. Depending on the size of the congregation and how generous they are, that's pretty much going to blow past your "clever" gift scheme.

Also, why should churches - out of every charity and non-profit in this country - be limited in the donations they're allowed to receive, or have their donors limited in how much they want to contribute well beyond the limits already imposed by what can be deducted from one's taxes, so long as they're actually using the money to fulfill their stated purposes, rather than amassing personal wealth for the leaders?

So you are assuming all donations would be taxed?

I am assuming - because that's what the proponents themselves say - that the church's reported income would be taxed, AND they would become subject to the same property taxes that a for-profit business is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's doubtful. Faith / religion offers functional advantages that atheism does not.

And it is functional advantage which drives evolution.

Like I said in my previous post, it's not always a straight line.

You are a linear thinker in a cyclical universe.

As humans evolve to be smarter, they are abandoning organized religion. It's a fact.

As humans become more hubristic and THINK they're smarter, they abandon anything that contradicts their egos. That's a REAL fact.

With a post like that, it's no wonder that you're religious.

Because I'm smart enough to recognize trends in human history and human nature? Because I've studied and learned from great philosophers and writers, instead of dismissing them because I assume I've "evolved" past them?

You learn from them and move on to something else. I don't see the point of reading the same book over and over again. A couple of times ok, but not clinging to it for dear life for the rest of yours and reading it over and over like a drooling maniac.

Thank you so much for giving me your considered opinion on how educated and wise people behave. I hope you will forgive me if I consider it of very little value, given the source.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus did not come for the strong, he came for the weak. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

The exalted will be humbled and the humble will be exalted. Word.

"Word"?, what are you, black for a day?

Jesus is your crutch, thanks for clearing that up.

Conceit is your crutch; and unlike Jesus, it makes you neither a better person nor a happier one.

Conceit, isn't that a bible word?

No, it's just an English word. The Bible actually calls it "Pride", and it's considered the deadliest of the Seven Deadly Sins.

So having pride in an accomplishment, for example, is a sin?

You're not having pride in an actual accomplishment, dear. You're having pride in something you imagine to be the case, based on no evidence and no actual effort on your part at all.

That would be a big part of the problem.

 

[Taz]

"Word"?, what are you, black for a day?

Jesus is your crutch, thanks for clearing that up.

Conceit is your crutch; and unlike Jesus, it makes you neither a better person nor a happier one.

Conceit, isn't that a bible word?

No, it's just an English word. The Bible actually calls it "Pride", and it's considered the deadliest of the Seven Deadly Sins.

So having pride in an accomplishment, for example, is a sin?

You're not having pride in an actual accomplishment, dear. You're having pride in something you imagine to be the case, based on no evidence and no actual effort on your part at all.

That would be a big part of the problem.

Wtf are you even talking about?

Is gibberish your way of conceding the point?

 

[ding]

I don't think it would. I don't think people understand that gifts are not taxable unless they are over a certain amount.

The reality is that people would no longer receive a deduction for their charitable contribution. I don't think that would make them stop giving.

But if it did, that would only cause the government to give more. So in the end, the government would be paying 100% of the "charity" instead of giving a tax break on say 20% of the charity.

I think it is an emotional thing. They hate religion so much they can't look at it analytically.

The reality is that "taxing churches" is not the same thing as "not making the giving tax-deductible". You need to start listening to what people say, instead of to what you want to think they're saying.

And don't even get me started on "And it'll be okay, because government will just give more, and that's the same." Government =/= charity.

They can’t tax donations below a certain threshold.

For the 1432nd time, there is far more to it than just $5 put in the offering plate.

The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies churches as 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organizations, which are exempt from federal income tax and are able to accept tax-deductible donations. [1] Unlike secular charities, however, churches are automatically considered to be 501(c)(3) organizations, and, while they may do so voluntarily, they are not required by law to submit an application for exemption or pay the application fee (up to $850 as of Oct. 24, 2011 [42]). [1]

In addition, using a benefit known as the "parsonage exemption" (or "parish exemption"), "licensed, commissioned, or ordained" ministers of religion may deduct most of the money they spend on housing from their federal income tax, and these properties are often exempt from state property taxes. [41] [43] [44] The exemption has existed since 1921, and no equivalent tax break is available to leaders of secular nonprofit charities.

Background of the Issue - Churches and Taxes - ProCon.org

I don't personally know of any church which records its offering donations individually. Every church I've ever gone to counts the contents of the offering plate (separate from money specifically designated for tithes, building funds, etc.) and then enters them in the books as a lump sum for that date. Depending on the size of the congregation and how generous they are, that's pretty much going to blow past your "clever" gift scheme.

Also, why should churches - out of every charity and non-profit in this country - be limited in the donations they're allowed to receive, or have their donors limited in how much they want to contribute well beyond the limits already imposed by what can be deducted from one's taxes, so long as they're actually using the money to fulfill their stated purposes, rather than amassing personal wealth for the leaders?

So you are assuming all donations would be taxed?

I am assuming - because that's what the proponents themselves say - that the church's reported income would be taxed, AND they would become subject to the same property taxes that a for-profit business is.

And that is a lie. Read the tax code.

 

[ding]

That's doubtful. Faith / religion offers functional advantages that atheism does not.

And it is functional advantage which drives evolution.

Like I said in my previous post, it's not always a straight line.

You are a linear thinker in a cyclical universe.

As humans evolve to be smarter, they are abandoning organized religion. It's a fact.

As humans become more hubristic and THINK they're smarter, they abandon anything that contradicts their egos. That's a REAL fact.

With a post like that, it's no wonder that you're religious.

Because I'm smart enough to recognize trends in human history and human nature? Because I've studied and learned from great philosophers and writers, instead of dismissing them because I assume I've "evolved" past them?

If you had studied the great philosophers you might want to admit the more you know, the less you can say,

Given that you haven’t said anything yet that was correct maybe you should have read less.

 

[ding]

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

Yeah, uh, no. That whole "You're praying, so it must be to God, even though you're calling Him something else" thing? Not how it works. If you are praying to a supernatural being who is very clearly, by description and definition, NOT the Judeo-Christian God, then it's a lot more than just "calling Him by another name", and He's NOT going to treat it that way. He cares that we seek HIM. He is not going to accept seeking something else as seeking Him just because it's vaguely godlike.

Why do you suppose He gave us all those instructions about the right way to do things if just any old behavior would do just fine?

What do instructions exactly? OT? NT?

I have no idea what point you think you're making here.

I’m trying to understand your basis for believing that God only loves Christians.

That would be your problem. You're spending a lot of time trying to understand why I believe something that I don't believe, which you apparently just made up in your head.

I can see where that would be confusing.

God loves everyone. That does not mean that everyone loves Him back, or that He does not have specific requirements and expectations of people, or that He is just going to accept all worship as automatically being of Him.

Let me put it this way: If I start praying to altars of Zeus, am I "really" praying to God, because "He has many names, and He only cares that we seek Him"? AM I actually seeking God if I'm praying to someone who is manifestly NOT Him?

I don't think you have to find God through only one specific church; I DO think you have to be looking for God specifically, though.

Then clearly you misunderstood many of the parables of Christ.

 

[ding]

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

Yeah, uh, no. That whole "You're praying, so it must be to God, even though you're calling Him something else" thing? Not how it works. If you are praying to a supernatural being who is very clearly, by description and definition, NOT the Judeo-Christian God, then it's a lot more than just "calling Him by another name", and He's NOT going to treat it that way. He cares that we seek HIM. He is not going to accept seeking something else as seeking Him just because it's vaguely godlike.

Why do you suppose He gave us all those instructions about the right way to do things if just any old behavior would do just fine?

What do instructions exactly? OT? NT?

I have no idea what point you think you're making here.

I’m trying to understand your basis for believing that God only loves Christians.

That would be your problem. You're spending a lot of time trying to understand why I believe something that I don't believe, which you apparently just made up in your head.

I can see where that would be confusing.

God loves everyone. That does not mean that everyone loves Him back, or that He does not have specific requirements and expectations of people, or that He is just going to accept all worship as automatically being of Him.

Let me put it this way: If I start praying to altars of Zeus, am I "really" praying to God, because "He has many names, and He only cares that we seek Him"? AM I actually seeking God if I'm praying to someone who is manifestly NOT Him?

I don't think you have to find God through only one specific church; I DO think you have to be looking for God specifically, though.

I am not talking about mythology. I am talking about the major religions.

 

[ding]

Jesus did not come for the strong, he came for the weak. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

The exalted will be humbled and the humble will be exalted. Word.

"Word"?, what are you, black for a day?

Jesus is your crutch, thanks for clearing that up.

Conceit is your crutch; and unlike Jesus, it makes you neither a better person nor a happier one.

Conceit, isn't that a bible word?

No, it's just an English word. The Bible actually calls it "Pride", and it's considered the deadliest of the Seven Deadly Sins.

So having pride in an accomplishment, for example, is a sin?

Only if it separates you from God. It’s like you are looking to only follow the letter of the law. No wonder you are so clueless.

 

[ding]

As humans evolve to be smarter, they are abandoning organized religion. It's a fact.

As humans become more hubristic and THINK they're smarter, they abandon anything that contradicts their egos. That's a REAL fact.

With a post like that, it's no wonder that you're religious.

Because I'm smart enough to recognize trends in human history and human nature? Because I've studied and learned from great philosophers and writers, instead of dismissing them because I assume I've "evolved" past them?

If you had studied the great philosophers you might want to admit the more you know, the less you can say,

I said I learned from the great philosophers and writers. I don't believe I said, or even implied, that I had started to view YOU as a source of wisdom. If I inadvertently did so, please excuse me and return to the status quo of me having no respect for or interest in anything you might have to say.

I’m not that well read at all.

 

[BreezeWood]

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

Yeah, uh, no. That whole "You're praying, so it must be to God, even though you're calling Him something else" thing? Not how it works. If you are praying to a supernatural being who is very clearly, by description and definition, NOT the Judeo-Christian God, then it's a lot more than just "calling Him by another name", and He's NOT going to treat it that way. He cares that we seek HIM. He is not going to accept seeking something else as seeking Him just because it's vaguely godlike.

Why do you suppose He gave us all those instructions about the right way to do things if just any old behavior would do just fine?

What do instructions exactly? OT? NT?

I have no idea what point you think you're making here.

I’m trying to understand your basis for believing that God only loves Christians.

That would be your problem. You're spending a lot of time trying to understand why I believe something that I don't believe, which you apparently just made up in your head.

I can see where that would be confusing.

God loves everyone. That does not mean that everyone loves Him back, or that He does not have specific requirements and expectations of people, or that He is just going to accept all worship as automatically being of Him.

Let me put it this way: If I start praying to altars of Zeus, am I "really" praying to God, because "He has many names, and He only cares that we seek Him"? AM I actually seeking God if I'm praying to someone who is manifestly NOT Him?

I don't think you have to find God through only one specific church; I DO think you have to be looking for God specifically, though.

.

God loves everyone.

God loves everyone ...

the region of antiquity says otherwise, wasn't that the idea for their great flood. and surly everyone of them were sitting in their pews when it happened.

sorry sissy, that may not be the curall you believe it to be, they simply never saw it coming - is more like it.