Taxes. Why are we subsidizing religions that just lie to us?

Greatest I am

adjensen
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Take 5 different churches who all claim an exclusive God. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know for sure that at least 4 of those 5 churches are lying. Right?

No, lying would be knowing that one did not have the right picture of God, but saying that they did, and that's not the case -- all five think that they're 100% right, so it's not a matter of lying if they say that they have the right perspective and everyone else is wrong.

So much for Christian morality.

How is that immoral? What's wrong with you, DL, were you dropped on your head as an infant or something?

You and I are driving down the M5. I ask you what the speed limit is, and you say 100km/h, because that's what you think it is. A minute later, we come across a sign that says "Speed Limit 90km/h".

Did you lie to me?

Here's a dictionary reference to help you out:

lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

adjensen

Greatest I am

adjensen
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Take 5 different churches who all claim an exclusive God. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know for sure that at least 4 of those 5 churches are lying. Right?

No, lying would be knowing that one did not have the right picture of God, but saying that they did, and that's not the case -- all five think that they're 100% right, so it's not a matter of lying if they say that they have the right perspective and everyone else is wrong.

So much for Christian morality.

How is that immoral? What's wrong with you, DL, were you dropped on your head as an infant or something?

You and I are driving down the M5. I ask you what the speed limit is, and you say 100km/h, because that's what you think it is. A minute later, we come across a sign that says "Speed Limit 90km/h".

Did you lie to me?

Here's a dictionary reference to help you out:

lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

What churches think is one think. Truth is another.

When they say what they think and call it truth, it is an obvious lie.

They are deliberately trying to deceive when they say that God is unfathomable then proceed to tell you what they fathom of him. They give what they know is fiction as fact. That is lying.

Regards
DL

adjensen
You and I are driving down the M5. I ask you what the speed limit is, and you say 100km/h, because that's what you think it is. A minute later, we come across a sign that says "Speed Limit 90km/h".

If i said said "I know" the speed limit is 100km/h... without actually knowing conclusively... then yes... i am technically lying, even if my guess happened to be correct.

If i said "I think" the speed limit is 100km/h, because I wasn't 100% certain, then I would be telling the truth.

I have been in many sermons, and I've never heard preached "I think I have the ultimate truth". On a public engagement level, it's always absolutes with religion, even if many individuals think differently.

Often the mob thinks differently than the individual.

Greatest I am
What churches think is one think. Truth is another.

Except that you have no way of knowing that, you have no corner on the truth.

God is what he is, no matter what anyone claims to know about him -- our knowledge is independent of "the truth", right? So, as a result, we might be right, whether we know it or not.

Look at that definition again, it says "deliberate intent to deceive", which means that, to fit into what you're saying, the church would have to know that they're wrong, but teach the wrong thing anyway, and claim that it is the truth, and I would challenge you to find any example of that, much less paint the entire field of religion with that brush.

adjensen

Greatest I am
What churches think is one think. Truth is another.

Except that you have no way of knowing that, you have no corner on the truth.

God is what he is, no matter what anyone claims to know about him -- our knowledge is independent of "the truth", right? So, as a result, we might be right, whether we know it or not.

Look at that definition again, it says "deliberate intent to deceive", which means that, to fit into what you're saying, the church would have to know that they're wrong, but teach the wrong thing anyway, and claim that it is the truth, and I would challenge you to find any example of that, much less paint the entire field of religion with that brush.

The churches know damned well they are wrong and lying and don't care and neither do you.

You may live in a delusional world with your church lying to you but intelligent people will not.

Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are for fools.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

The churches know damned well they are wrong

How do they know that, DL? How do they "know for a fact" that they are wrong?

You seem to be granting them the power of omniscience, lol.

adjensen
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

The churches know damned well they are wrong

How do they know that, DL? How do they "know for a fact" that they are wrong?

You seem to be granting them the power of omniscience, lol.

Have you ever asked a church leader if he really believes that snakes can talk?

I have and he started lying from then on.

Regards
DL

www.patheos.com...

Let us all enjoy subsidizing the churches to the tune of 71 billion per year.

Just to be lied to.

Probably enough to end poverty world wide.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

adjensen
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

The churches know damned well they are wrong

How do they know that, DL? How do they "know for a fact" that they are wrong?

You seem to be granting them the power of omniscience, lol.

Have you ever asked a church leader if he really believes that snakes can talk?

I have and he started lying from then on.

Lying, based on what? His answer to your question? You asked if he believed that, at some point, a snake spoke, and one would conclude that he told you what he believed, whether it's valid or not.

Or is it a matter of you don't believe that a snake could speak, and since he told you that he believed that one once did, you conclude that he is lying? If that's the case, then we're back full circle, with me wondering why your opinion (since neither of you was present in the Garden of Eden, if such a place ever existed, any conclusion on your part or his is opinion, not couched in fact) is to be taken as fact.

adjensen

Greatest I am

adjensen
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

The churches know damned well they are wrong

How do they know that, DL? How do they "know for a fact" that they are wrong?

You seem to be granting them the power of omniscience, lol.

Have you ever asked a church leader if he really believes that snakes can talk?

I have and he started lying from then on.

Lying, based on what? His answer to your question? You asked if he believed that, at some point, a snake spoke, and one would conclude that he told you what he believed, whether it's valid or not.

Or is it a matter of you don't believe that a snake could speak, and since he told you that he believed that one once did, you conclude that he is lying? If that's the case, then we're back full circle, with me wondering why your opinion (since neither of you was present in the Garden of Eden, if such a place ever existed, any conclusion on your part or his is opinion, not couched in fact) is to be taken as fact.

.
What do you think is more likely?

That snakes can talk or that snakes cannot talk?

How about donkeys?

How about a seven headed monster?

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

What do you think is more likely?

That snakes can talk or that snakes cannot talk?

What difference does it make which is "more likely"?

If one examines the laws of physics and the state of the universe at the time of the Big Bang, it is almost infinitely more likely that the current state of reality would be one of complete nothingness, not "something", and surely not what we see the state of reality to be -- that's a mathematical fact, and yet here we are. If you were back at that time, you would be viewed as the most idiotic person ever if you said that, out of that chaos, you would eventually see puppies, snakes (talking or otherwise) and people who thought themselves clever to argue with strangers over a computer network.

Likelihood does not equate reality, DL, not in a rational reality, that is.

adjensen
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

What do you think is more likely?

That snakes can talk or that snakes cannot talk?

What difference does it make which is "more likely"?

If one examines the laws of physics and the state of the universe at the time of the Big Bang, it is almost infinitely more likely that the current state of reality would be one of complete nothingness, not "something", and surely not what we see the state of reality to be -- that's a mathematical fact, and yet here we are. If you were back at that time, you would be viewed as the most idiotic person ever if you said that, out of that chaos, you would eventually see puppies, snakes (talking or otherwise) and people who thought themselves clever to argue with strangers over a computer network.

Likelihood does not equate reality, DL, not in a rational reality, that is.

If your reality give as much credence to talking snakes as not then you are too close to insane for me to bother with.

Nice deflection though.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


So, just to summarize, as we're obviously making no headway here:

a) DL promotes taxation of non-profit organizations
b) Said taxation is limited to non-profits that DL says lie
c) For purpose of "b", the word "lie" is being re-defined from "an intentional effort to deceive" to "anything that runs contrary to DL's opinion of truth"
d) Anyone who disagrees with DL is dismissed as being mentally ill

Thus, in DL's perfect world, we have arbitrary taxation, and a re-purposing of the fields of psychology and psychiatry to fit his agenda.

Who's for DL's "Brave New World"?

No, didn't think so.

You lie just as well as a church.

You must be just as religious.

Regards
DL

buster2010
Religious organizations do a lot of good with the money that would otherwise go to taxes. Soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and places for battered women for safety. The churches do better with the money than the government would do. And as long as the religious organizations stay out of politics then they keep their tax free status. Looks like a fair exchange.

Someone check the weather channel and see if hell froze over.
Buster posted something that I agree with.
I'm quoting it again in full because I agree with it so much.

FlyersFan

buster2010
Religious organizations do a lot of good with the money that would otherwise go to taxes. Soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and places for battered women for safety. The churches do better with the money than the government would do. And as long as the religious organizations stay out of politics then they keep their tax free status. Looks like a fair exchange.

Someone check the weather channel and see if hell froze over.
Buster posted something that I agree with.
I'm quoting it again in full because I agree with it so much.

Only misguided U S citizens think that there is a separation between church and state.

www.cnn.com... eed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29

Regards
DL