MR is a raving troll...nothing more nothing less, and deserves everything he gets.
Religion: Good or bad?
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
There is quite a large difference in what I posted and the spew we get from MR -
First, and perhaps most importantly, I was asked a DIRECT QUESTION about my faith - I didn't go ramming it down peoples throats without evidence.
Second, I am not, and was not, attempting to convince anyone that the church I went to, nor the faith I have, was somehow "better" than anyone else's faith - again, I was asked a direct question about it, so I answered.
Third - in my post before that, I explained how "organized religion" has several components that simply don't make sense... such as what does an "all powerful" being have need of money for... I believe the fact that I can look objectively at even my own beliefs and go "huh... yeah, that doesn't make much sense" shows the "rational and logical thinking" that you are so desperate to try and discredit me of - unlike MR who, when questioned about his fantastical beliefs, simply pitches a fit and goes "NO, THEY'RE REAL! SEE PICTURES!"... yet when presented with that same kind of evidence on something he doesn't believe in, or when presented with contradicting evidence, feels justified putting his thumb in his ear and pretending that what's good enough for him isn't good enough for everyone else.
So, yeah... the only "sanctimonious bullshit" here seems to be coming from you, river
Have a nice day
EDIT -
Mmm, no - I criticized MR for his double standards, logical fallacies, and inability (though honestly, it is more like simple refusal) to acknowledge evidence against his desired outcomes. Oh, and for attempting to derail the thread
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
MR's point was a good one, Kittamaru.
Do you believe in those things? Literally? Metaphorically?
Why is it respectable to believe in the 'holy ghost' but laughable to believe in any other ghosts? It's all belief in disembodied spirits, isn't it? Belief in God, divine incarnation, ressurrection, heaven and eternal life are all examples of non-scientific belief in the supernatural. If these Christian beliefs are respectable, why are MR's ideas so intolerable? Because they aren't orthodox Christian?
If you don't believe in those things, then why are you a Methodist? Purely for social reasons? So how do you behave towards members of your congregation who express belief in things that you don't believe in?
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
What makes you think that God needs money?
It isn't God that needs the money, but rather the organizations that human beings have created in order to practice their religion. If people believe in what their religious group is doing and truly value it, then why wouldn't they want to contribute money to furthering it? Resistance to parting with money suggests to me that one is placing a greater value on the money than on the religious activities that it would be going to.
Unlike taxation, contributing to religious organizations is entirely voluntary. I like that.
Since churches aren't taxed, that means giving money to the church is not voluntary, we are losing billions in revenue to these organizations.
I used to be a big proponent of taxing churches. But there was something I didn't consider--once we do start that as a policy, it renders small churches and church-shaped religious organizations powerless. It enables the largest religious institutions to keep on churning, since they're able to afford the taxes, while smaller ones can't. Minority religions dissolve, and all that's left are the big megachurches and related organizations.
And that's just if you make all churches subject to it. Likely what would happen is the decision to tax would be handled on an group-by-group basis. Which would result in the same kind of thing. The majority religion would be blithely made exempt by those in power who adhere to it, while minority religions and even moderately-sized but dissenting groups would be taxed into oblivion. It does the opposite of what you're aiming for: the politicization of religion. It financially empowers the established and large Evangelical and conservative churches, while destroying the religions and sects that can challenge them from within.
And that's just if you make all churches subject to it. Likely what would happen is the decision to tax would be handled on an group-by-group basis. Which would result in the same kind of thing. The majority religion would be blithely made exempt by those in power who adhere to it, while minority religions and even moderately-sized but dissenting groups would be taxed into oblivion. It does the opposite of what you're aiming for: the politicization of religion. It financially empowers the established and large Evangelical and conservative churches, while destroying the religions and sects that can challenge them from within.
Tax free status for churches is reasonable since most of the money collected goes to charity and helping people. Many people in church also give of their time, which is not counted as money donation. If we add this, 90% of the value collected in money and time, goes to charity.
On the other hand, the Clinton charity foundation is also tax exempt. This church of power buying and selling only contributes 10% to charity and 90% for expenses and other things. Should they be required to contribute as much as churches, and if not, get taxed?
What about tax free political organizations like Media Matters, which is a left wing propaganda machine that does nothing for charity, but rather works for people in power who don't need charity?
A better way to look at tax exempted, is to place them all side by side; churches to media matters, to see which are the most honorable; highest percent given to those in need, and which are the sleaziest. The if we need taxes we begin taxing in the sewer.
I would be for taxing all revenues collected from campaign contributions. President Obama raised over a $1 billion for the last and previous cycle. That is a lot of extra tax money; tax the rich and powerful.
On the other hand, the Clinton charity foundation is also tax exempt. This church of power buying and selling only contributes 10% to charity and 90% for expenses and other things. Should they be required to contribute as much as churches, and if not, get taxed?
What about tax free political organizations like Media Matters, which is a left wing propaganda machine that does nothing for charity, but rather works for people in power who don't need charity?
A better way to look at tax exempted, is to place them all side by side; churches to media matters, to see which are the most honorable; highest percent given to those in need, and which are the sleaziest. The if we need taxes we begin taxing in the sewer.
I would be for taxing all revenues collected from campaign contributions. President Obama raised over a $1 billion for the last and previous cycle. That is a lot of extra tax money; tax the rich and powerful.
This thread is not dedicated to hating liberals, wellwisher.
Why couldn't smaller institutions afford taxes? Taxes are proportional to income. All I would tax is property and income, churches could deduct charitable contributions just like anyone else. And so what if there are fewer churches? I've been to some places in this country (Wisconsin) where there is a church on almost every block.
Tell that to the Vatican Bank.
Rather depends on the structure of the taxes. The most commonly proposed ones I've seen are actually property taxes, perhaps in combination with income tax. Which would be burdensome on small organizations that are trying to expand or stabilize.
And even if an income tax is proportional, the smaller ones will still suffer because every penny counts there. In a large organization raking in enormous amounts of cash, they could afford overhead even after taxes.
The largest ones would become "the only game in town" so to speak. Especially so of evangelical Megachurches.
Which, while governed by a board appointed by the Pope, is not part of the Holy See and its property is not held by the Vatican. It is a private banking institution with specialization in providing financial services to the RCC. Nonetheless, the Vatican Bank has been involved in some shady shit--as has just about every Italian financial institution in the 20th century. Its criticism is well warranted, though it should also be noted that the Papacy has been attempting to reform it and clean it up for years.