Should religion be eliminated

[jillian]

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

you ask the stupidest questions.

the first amendment lets you believe what you want as long as you don't try to shove it down the throats of everyone else.

it's not religion people have a problem with, it's religious hacks like you.

you really need to get a life.

 

[ding]

It is an allegorical account of a truth about men. We know right from wrong and when we violate it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong we rationalize we didn’t violate it. We see it all the time. People who have an external locus of control do it daily.

The fact that we all have such strong feelings about righteousness is proof of a loving and good God.

Right and wrong are subjective. I personally think that Adam was right to eat the apple.

Hitler thought that what he was doing was righteous. So also subjective.

It is people’s inability to abandon that concept and their rationalization that matters.

So god's sitting around judging everyone on whether their reasons are bullshit or not?

I doubt that very much. He is sitting around as you put it waiting for us to take the first step towards him.

You said "their rationalization that matters", matters to whom?

To people who care about seeing reality. But I wasn’t referring to them. I was referring to what I wrote earlier about what that tells us.

 

[ding]

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

you ask the stupidest questions.

the first amendment lets you believe what you want as long as you don't try to shove it down the throats of everyone else.

it's not religion people have a problem with, it's religious hacks like you.

you really need to get a life.

Thank you for your thoughtful opinion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Your lack of reading comprehension does not indicate a problem with what you're having trouble comprehending.

Let me dumb it down for you.

You haven't accomplished anything. You're proud of how much "smarter" you are than other people, without actually being smarter than anyone at all and without ever doing anything to change that fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Excuse me, but what is the current tax code supposed to tell me about the CHANGES PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE IN THE TAX CODE? What the hell are you even denying here?

If you think you have some actual point here, then make it. Don't just breezily imply that I would just KNOW how right you are if I read this or that, which you didn't bother to quote, but you're SURE it proves you right. And if you EVER call me a liar again, you had better either have some proof aside from your assumptions, or you had better have the balls to say it to my face, so that I can kick them up around your Adam's apple.

 

[ding]

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.

Excuse me, but what is the current tax code supposed to tell me about the CHANGES PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE IN THE TAX CODE? What the hell are you even denying here?

If you think you have some actual point here, then make it. Don't just breezily imply that I would just KNOW how right you are if I read this or that, which you didn't bother to quote, but you're SURE it proves you right. And if you EVER call me a liar again, you had better either have some proof aside from your assumptions, or you had better have the balls to say it to my face, so that I can kick them up around your Adam's apple.

So you think they are proposing altering the gift threshold?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Ah, yes. Another iteration of "I can throw this out and claim it supports me without demonstrating where it actually does."

By all means, show me the parable of Christ that says He considers prayers to Odin to be prayers to Him. And then explain to me why the Ten Commandments says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" if He's just going to consider worship of those gods to be worship of Him, anyway.

 

[ding]

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.

Ah, yes. Another iteration of "I can throw this out and claim it supports me without demonstrating where it actually does."

By all means, show me the parable of Christ that says He considers prayers to Odin to be prayers to Him. And then explain to me why the Ten Commandments says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" if He's just going to consider worship of those gods to be worship of Him, anyway.

Lighten up. You worry to much.

 

[Taz]

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?

Your lack of reading comprehension does not indicate a problem with what you're having trouble comprehending.

Let me dumb it down for you.

You haven't accomplished anything. You're proud of how much "smarter" you are than other people, without actually being smarter than anyone at all and without ever doing anything to change that fact.

So can I have pride for being so dumb? Or does your book-god frown on that too?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What you try to separate out and dismiss as "mythology" were both major religions which were displaced by Christianity. So is your position now that all religions after a certain point in history are all "really just other names for God", but the ones before that weren't for some reason, even though they actually existed contemporaneously?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

How would it separate me from god? And why would god even give a shit?

He loves you, so He doesn't want you lying to yourself about how you have something to be prideful about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

How would it separate me from god? And why would god even give a shit?

Sin is anything which distances or separates us from God.

Why does it matter? You can argue God has no preference for an outcome because he has given us free will and let’s us choose but I believe that we get enough feedback from the law of compensation which is pruning us that he does care. But it is only when you seek a relationship with God that you discover that he does.

You seriously think that a god would care what each individual does? And what if I sin but don't think that it separates me from god? Who decides?

God. And reality. Believe it or not, fact is not determined by what you think it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

How would it separate me from god? And why would god even give a shit?

Sin is anything which distances or separates us from God.

Why does it matter? You can argue God has no preference for an outcome because he has given us free will and let’s us choose but I believe that we get enough feedback from the law of compensation which is pruning us that he does care. But it is only when you seek a relationship with God that you discover that he does.

You seriously think that a god would care what each individual does? And what if I sin but don't think that it separates me from god? Who decides?

100%

You know right from wrong.

Where's the proof?

Hitler thought he was right.

You actually have to ask how we can tell that Hitler was mistaken about being right? This is actually something you need explained to you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Adam did you eat the apple?

The woman you made gave it to me.

Yet he hid when he heard God coming.

So that's a real story that really happened, and not allegorical? Any proof this actually happened?

It is an allegorical account of a truth about men. We know right from wrong and when we violate it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong we rationalize we didn’t violate it. We see it all the time. People who have an external locus of control do it daily.

The fact that we all have such strong feelings about righteousness is proof of a loving and good God.

Right and wrong are subjective. I personally think that Adam was right to eat the apple.

Hitler thought that what he was doing was righteous. So also subjective.

It is people’s inability to abandon that concept and their rationalization that matters.

So god's sitting around judging everyone on whether their reasons are bullshit or not?

Why not? YOU do it all the time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Excuse me, but what is the current tax code supposed to tell me about the CHANGES PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE IN THE TAX CODE? What the hell are you even denying here?

If you think you have some actual point here, then make it. Don't just breezily imply that I would just KNOW how right you are if I read this or that, which you didn't bother to quote, but you're SURE it proves you right. And if you EVER call me a liar again, you had better either have some proof aside from your assumptions, or you had better have the balls to say it to my face, so that I can kick them up around your Adam's apple.

So you think they are proposing altering the gift threshold?

I think you're not listening.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Ah, yes. Another iteration of "I can throw this out and claim it supports me without demonstrating where it actually does."

By all means, show me the parable of Christ that says He considers prayers to Odin to be prayers to Him. And then explain to me why the Ten Commandments says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" if He's just going to consider worship of those gods to be worship of Him, anyway.

Lighten up. You worry to much.

I just heard, "I have no answer, but I'm too much of an asshole to admit it."

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Your lack of reading comprehension does not indicate a problem with what you're having trouble comprehending.

Let me dumb it down for you.

You haven't accomplished anything. You're proud of how much "smarter" you are than other people, without actually being smarter than anyone at all and without ever doing anything to change that fact.

So can I have pride for being so dumb? Or does your book-god frown on that too?

Once again, that would be reality. Why would you be proud of being an imbecile?

 

[ding]

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.

What you try to separate out and dismiss as "mythology" were both major religions which were displaced by Christianity. So is your position now that all religions after a certain point in history are all "really just other names for God", but the ones before that weren't for some reason, even though they actually existed contemporaneously?

I think my point is that God doesn’t check religious ID’s at the gate.

 

[ding]

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.

Ah, yes. Another iteration of "I can throw this out and claim it supports me without demonstrating where it actually does."

By all means, show me the parable of Christ that says He considers prayers to Odin to be prayers to Him. And then explain to me why the Ten Commandments says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" if He's just going to consider worship of those gods to be worship of Him, anyway.

Lighten up. You worry to much.

I just heard, "I have no answer, but I'm too much of an asshole to admit it."

Or I have an answer and realize it would be a waste of breath trying to explain it to you.

Instead I will point to the prodigal son, the lost sheep and the workers who got paid the same even though they showed up to work late.

 

[ding]

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.

Excuse me, but what is the current tax code supposed to tell me about the CHANGES PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE IN THE TAX CODE? What the hell are you even denying here?

If you think you have some actual point here, then make it. Don't just breezily imply that I would just KNOW how right you are if I read this or that, which you didn't bother to quote, but you're SURE it proves you right. And if you EVER call me a liar again, you had better either have some proof aside from your assumptions, or you had better have the balls to say it to my face, so that I can kick them up around your Adam's apple.

So you think they are proposing altering the gift threshold?

I think you're not listening.

I am listening. People who think churches will be taxed on charitable contributions don’t understand the tax code and how gifts below a specific threshold are not taxable. That’s not going to change.