Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2020 21:33:51 GMT
Note that unlike MFA I am not practicing religious racism. He seems to think that christians deserve a special place among the countless variations of religions in the world, today's, yesterday's and before since the first one who managed to tick a bunch of hunters into giving the best piece of meat.
I mean it's pretty clear how things have started and how they evolved from there.
Eight million years ago lived a common ancestor of humankind and the great apes. There was no religion back then, the acquisition of food was a lot simpler than later, the needs of these animals were pretty basic. Sometimes between then and now, the lives of hominids have become more complicated, consequently their brains/minds had to develop for survival. This had a side effect, they started anticipating, building scenarios in their minds, and so death became a subject of preoccupation and I bet that it was uncomfortable. That's at this point that started what I would call the oldest scam in the world. Some people started to pretend that they had insight into things the others were afraid of, like death or everything in life that's too complex to be controlled, like the weather, the diseases, the accidents... Anyway, a competition started between scammers, the more convincing stayed and established their power over the others, the less convincing were eliminated one way or the other. A typical darwinian selection.
Today's religion is the result of many many years of that sort of selection. The reason why they are so resilient is ridiculously simple, it's because they're the ones who won the competition. Just as in any sport for example, when the competition is hard and the motivation high then you get contestants that are very gifted, like world champions in any sport, they can accomplish things that seem impossible to the common man.
Don't be surprised that they know all the tricks of sophistry, of moving the goalposts to a place that they have been formed/brainwashed to know very well. They are taught a bunch of questions and subject with the most confusing and controversial responses and if the questions are not in that list? Well, then their job is to steer it toward it. Like good robots they know their skill well.
When some asshole is trying to trick you out of your money, do you go? Hey, maybe they're is a deeper meaning into that scam, maybe he's getting rich with my money for some reason, maybe I am getting something for my buck even if I don't know it?
NO, unless you've lost your mind, you call him for what he is, a thief, and then you call the police on him.
Then why do let yourself get duped by these merchants of delusions?
Think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 29, 2020 20:17:01 GMT
Note that unlike MFA I am not practicing religious racism. He seems to think that christians deserve a special place among the countless variations of religions in the world, today's, yesterday's and before since the first one who managed to tick a bunch of hunters into giving the best piece of meat. What would lead you to believe that? Direct quotes would be nice...because I neither said nor implied any such thing. Of course, Christianity should be evaluated on its own merits, not lumped into "religions," as if they're all the same. That would be like dismissing relativity because it's science and Barlow's Law was a scientific theory. Wow. That's a whole lot of speculation that doesn't even line up with the general consensus of irreligious sociologists. You're quite the cynic, aren't you? I wonder how you would explain people like martyrs, or people who have given their lives to alleviate suffering, combat slavery, pursue medical and scientific knowledge, etc., due to their religious beliefs. Is that part of "a scam"? Mother Theresa William Wilberforce Mark Buntain Albert Schweitzer Saint Patrick David Brainerd David Livingstone J. Hudson Taylor Amy Carmichael Pandita Ramabai Helen Roseveare George Müller Eric Liddell Nelson Mandela Dietrich Bonhoeffer Jason Fader (contemporary--google him) And many, many more. How does "religion as scam" motivate the people in this list to do what they did? Your knowledge of history is woefully deficient as is your knowledge of human nature. You can fool some of the people most of the time and most of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. You do understand that the majority of Christian pastors in North America garner a salary that is significantly lower than the average in their community? If you think the "wealthy prosperity preacher" is anything but an outlier, again, you're woefully misinformed. Of course, you could research this, but I guess it wouldn't help your preconceived opinions, now would it? Think about it, indeed. Better yet, support your claims with data. Now...cue the misdirection, side-stepping, subject-changing, etc., likely peppered with insults and profanity... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 15:25:39 GMT
Fist of all, you didn't answer my post in any acceptable way. I mean you "responded" to it sure, the way someone responds to a mosquito by swatting it away... You didn't address any of my points. I mean what part of my expose did you agree with or disagree with? WE DON'T KNOW!! Why, because you didn't talk about any of it. For instance, do you agree that 8 million years ago we were little more than apes? WE DON'T KNOW! Because you didn't address it. If I take any of the sentences I wrote, do I know if you agree or disagree with it? NOPE!! You've just quoted the whole block, why, that's a mystery because it's already right there for people to read it. And then you've just gratified the whole with a "you're wrong" Oh Wait! You din't say that exactly. You said :" that what I said didn't line up with a "general consensus of irreligious sociologist" What the hell does that crap even mean? "irreligious" sounds negative, like you're committing a crime or at least a misdemeanor or something... So basically what you're saying is that people you totally disagree with... disagree with me!!! And that would make me what? TWICE as wrong I guess.  I mean seriously, did you even bother to proofread it? Plus, how can there be a consensus of people who unlike you don't blindly follow some idiotic book written by who knows who millenia ago? It's like you're celebrating you robot status. Be all of one mind and don't ever ever think for yourself! Is your whole life built around this dogma? WOW!!! I mean WoW!!! talk about bullshit right there! Then what do you do? You list a bunch of people and you ask me to "explain" them, like I am some kind of behavioral specialist or something. And on top of that list "mother" teresa (there's no "h" btw, that's rich I have to teach you how to spell the names of your heroes.  ) (these smileys are lousy!!) "mother" teresa: A highly controversial sadistic bitch who's hospitals were filthy as hell and spread more infections than they cured illnesses the interesting part is that the vatican people were made aware of that beforehand, yet they went ahead and canonized her anyway. Like" she's so popular, who cares if she's a criminal!" Anyway, I mean you can't ignore that controversy unless you are completely incompetent or a hypocrite, who was hoping I didn't know about it. So which was one is it? You're a deceptive liar or ignorant of your own material? Plus she's the FIRST on your list!!! So I won't ever bother to check the others, what's the use? After that you made a bunch of ad-homs, which are only marginally better than just calling me a bunch of names and still didn't address anything of what I said. And then you made a final, cherry on top, statement where you talked about: misdirection, side-stepping, insults and whatnot? About that last one, I have one thing to say to you: "Physician heal thyself!" It's from your beloved bible, btw. Talk about irony hitting you right in the face! |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 30, 2020 20:50:39 GMT
Fist of all, you didn't answer my post in any acceptable way. I mean you "responded" to it sure, the way someone responds to a mosquito by swatting it away... You didn't address any of my points. I mean what part of my expose did you agree with or disagree with? WE DON'T KNOW!! Why, because you didn't talk about any of it. For instance, do you agree that 8 million years ago we were little more than apes? WE DON'T KNOW! Because you didn't address it. If I take any of the sentences I wrote, do I know if you agree or disagree with it? NOPE!! You've just quoted the whole block, why, that's a mystery because it's already right there for people to read it. And then you've just gratified the whole with a "you're wrong" Oh Wait! You din't say that exactly. You said :" that what I said didn't line up with a "general consensus of irreligious sociologist" What the hell does that crap even mean? "irreligious" sounds negative, like you're committing a crime or at least a misdemeanor or something... So basically what you're saying is that people you totally disagree with... disagree with me!!! And that would make me what? TWICE as wrong I guess. I mean seriously, did you even bother to proofread it? Plus, how can there be a consensus of people who unlike you don't blindly follow some idiotic book written by who knows who millenia ago? It's like you're celebrating you robot status. Be all of one mind and don't ever ever think for yourself! Is your whole life built around this dogma? WOW!!! I mean WoW!!! talk about bullshit right there! Then what do you do? You list a bunch of people and you ask me to "explain" them, like I am some kind of behavioral specialist or something. And on top of that list "mother" teresa (there's no "h" btw, that's rich I have to teach you how to spell the names of your heroes.  ) (these smileys are lousy!!) "mother" teresa: A highly controversial sadistic bitch who's hospitals were filthy as hell and spread more infections than they cured illnesses the interesting part is that the vatican people were made aware of that beforehand, yet they went ahead and canonized her anyway. Like" she's so popular, who cares if she's a criminal!" Anyway, I mean you can't ignore that controversy unless you are completely incompetent or a hypocrite, who was hoping I didn't know about it. So which was one is it? You're a deceptive liar or ignorant of your own material? Plus she's the FIRST on your list!!! So I won't ever bother to check the others, what's the use? After that you made a bunch of ad-homs, which are only marginally better than just calling me a bunch of names and still didn't address anything of what I said. And then you made a final, cherry on top, statement where you talked about: misdirection, side-stepping, insults and whatnot? About that last one, I have one thing to say to you: "Physician heal thyself!" It's from your beloved bible, btw. Talk about irony hitting you right in the face! You're missing the point. Your explanation for religion cannot account for people living selflessly. That's my response. It's actually not convoluted as a response. Your distillation of religion and its origins is insufficient to explain religious people who live selflessly because of their religious belief. Let me be more specific. Your distillation of religion and its origins is insufficient to explain Christians who live selflessly because of their Christianity. The obvious conclusion is that your explanation is significantly flawed. That's all. Deal with that, and maybe we can talk further. As for "Physician heal thyself," you understand that it was an implied insult to Jesus, right? So...should I take it as a compliment? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 22:24:37 GMT
Ok, let's see if I can make you understand this: First of all there's no such thing as selflessness. Second, the fact that some people happen do do nicer things than average has nothing to do with religion one way or another. Surely (assuming that you're an honest and reasonably astute person, which I am still willing to do) you've noticed that people who deep down are nasty will find a way to do nasty things, even in most humanistic of environments, while some deep down kind people will find a way t do kind things even in the most horrible of environments (which although I didn't see that movie was I think kind of the point of Schindler's list). Third, saying that everything that a christian does that meets your approval is to be credited to religion is a double edged sword because then you'd have in all honesty to posit that everything that a christian does that doesn't meet your approval, like I hope child-abuse, is similarly to be blamed on religion. I mean you can't have one without the other. And I am almost sure that you're not willing to say that christianity causes children to be raped. It's a fact that some people have a developed superego (regardless of religion or anything else for that matter) while others don't have much of one if any. If you don't know that already a superego is like an inner cop that prevents you from doing things that you find morally repulsive. I know that some really thick and stupid christians seem to think that such superego only exits in religious people and is completely absent in atheists, but that's only because they are morons. I am betting that you're not one of those. While nothing could be further from the truth. I mean you have christian serial rapists (don't deny it) while you have atheists who are extremely kind people. I hope you don't disagree with that or we don't have anything more to talk about. Fourth none of this has anything to do with the fact that fundamentally religion is a scam. People who invent religion as they go along are not the majority, far from it, most of them are perfectly fine with repeating what they've read or heard without consciously altering it. IOW, to concoct religion you don't need a billion concocters!! The problem I have with you is that you seem to understand things only in their most simplistic form, to a point that it's ridiculous. Is that a way of protecting yourself from unpleasant realizations, I don't know. You told me that being priest is a low paying job. So what? Why is it a paid job, at all? I mean if you're doing it "for god" you should be perfectly happy doing it for free. While earning your living doing some real work. Is it that you think your god is so stupid that he wouldn't understand the necessities of the life he allegedly created? That's a really strange mindset. Religion is an obvious scam, for one thing is gives a monetary value to something that shouldn't have any. Why is it that the vatican is the smallest as well as one of the richest state in the world? I mean it's definitely the richest per inhabitant. Where does all that money come from? I'll answer that. They've stolen it from people throughout the centuries from a victimized working class. And then from the interest of that money. Where else would come from? The multiplication of bread and fish??? What (moral) right do have modern christians to hold onto that stolen money? Anyway, I think I made my point, if you need to ask something else then go ahead I am listening. (reading in fact) |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 31, 2020 2:32:24 GMT
Ok, let's see if I can make you understand this: First of all there's no such thing as selflessness. Second, the fact that some people happen do do nicer things than average has nothing to do with religion one way or another. Surely (assuming that you're an honest and reasonably astute person, which I am still willing to do) you've noticed that people who deep down are nasty will find a way to do nasty things, even in most humanistic of environments, while some deep down kind people will find a way t do kind things even in the most horrible of environments (which although I didn't see that movie was I think kind of the point of Schindler's list). Third, saying that everything that a christian does that meets your approval is to be credited to religion is a double edged sword because then you'd have in all honesty to posit that everything that a christian does that doesn't meet your approval, like I hope child-abuse, is similarly to be blamed on religion. I mean you can't have one without the other. And I am almost sure that you're not willing to say that christianity causes children to be raped. But you can't tie the abuse of children to the teaching and model of Jesus. You can, however, see the abuse of children explained by "the fallen nature of mankind," as described by Christianity. So it doesn't make sense to "blame it on Christianity." You simply can't do that. That's like blaming the teachings of Deepak Chopra on quantum mechanics. There's nothing contradictory with the message of Christianity about that. Christianity does not deem an atheist automatically evil, and neither does it deem a Christian automatically good. Again, you can fool many some of the time and few much of the time. But people aren't as stupid as you think. For FREE!? And what, starve to death? Many do. Uhhh...wut? That's why people get paid for it. None. And I think you might find that Christians are far less reticent to self-reflection and self-criticism than other religions. Sometimes I think you inadvertently make my points better than I can. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 19:26:34 GMT
I don't know how to work with this idiotic program, so I'll just erase everything and just keep your name so (I hope) you'll be notified that I've written a response to your post. You seem to completely ignore your history. I mean name one single civilization of respectable size (since history began) where there wasn't a clergy (or equivalent) who was usually almost as powerful as the "secular" power, if not more!! Egyptian pharaohs have been assassinated for wanting to make a few reforms that would have diminished the power of the clergy!!! Anyway, you seem to think that e few examples will change the facts of countless civilizations throughout the earth and the ages, doing exactly the same thing, IE a clergy very wealthy and with the power of life or death upon the subjects, serfs, slaves or whatchamacallit!!! Let's face it, the things you talk about are microscopic needles in an astronomical hay stack, even if we discount your obvious bias in the matter. Plus you missed the point of what I said on the matter of priests being paid. If priests wish to be paid for what they do then let god magically put money on their account, otherwise any money they get for their "services" is the result of a scam and don't tell me how little they get. People get scammed by petty swindlers for five bucks every day, sometimes even less. If these priests of yours work for the true god then surely he wouldn't mind paying his employees himself, unless he's cheap bastard which is not to be ruled out, come to think of it. But why would anyone work for a cheap bastard? Maybe you can answer that... Can you? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 1, 2021 15:49:29 GMT
I don't know how to work with this idiotic program, so I'll just erase everything and just keep your name so (I hope) you'll be notified that I've written a response to your post. If, when responding, you click the "BBCode" tab at the bottom of the response (beside "Preview"), you can access the quote features like would have in the platform of the previous iterations of LNF. I've found that works really well. You can click back and forth on the fly, which is helpful too, because you can see any quote mistakes before you upload your post. In the other platforms, such mistakes would only be revealed after your response was already posted. You make a good point. However...not Christianity, which started as "underdogs" from the beginning, most notably being the founder who ended up on a cross. Except in its origins, the vast majority of people that recognized Jesus as Messiah were slaves and poor people. And then persecuted and martyred people. So...where is the whole "make a buck off this movement" thing there? Further, throughout the history of Christianity, there have been many "corrective movements," from new monastic orders (which always started poor, though not all of them stayed poor) and revival movements that were almost invariably persecuted: Albigenses, Anabaptists, Heugenots, etc. What is the motivation to persist in these if it's only "about making a buck"? Finally, beyond the history, you have the founding documents, specifically the New Testament documents, which regularly and consistently warn against the pursuit of wealth and its deceit. Can I argue against the abuses you mention? Of course not. But that's why we call them abuses, because they are obviously in direct contradiction to the personality, actions, and teaching of the movement's founder as well as the founding documents that defined the movement. Three responses: 1) You claim that religion is about "making a profit at the expense of others," but your solution would be for a magic system to be in place by which people could get "free money"...don't you see a problem with that? 2) You understandably misunderstand the distinction between "clergy and laity." Understandable because it has been accentuated and done wrong for so long (especially by large churches and organizations that are worthy of your criticisms, maintaining this distinction to buttress positions of power and wealth). According the New Testament, God identifies and calls out his Church...not clergy. The people that lead, teach, make decisions, plan, etc., are not "higher than" or "better than" or "more special" than others. The only difference is in role. And so the Church should be self-sustaining, with those tasked with leadership supported by others in the Church (not "outside the Church," and they shouldn't require state support either). If they're working full-time (and many do, and more probably should), then the Church should "take care of its own." Regardless of the inappropriately wealthy outliers (the big-hair televangelists, etc.), the majority of pastors actually make less money than most of the people in their own church. In fact, the financial well-being of a local church is usually subject to the Pareto Principle - 80% of the finances are generated by 20% of the people. I would estimate that (at least in North America), probably half of anyone that attends a local church gives exactly nothing towards it financially in a given year. So...your argument is that pastors are inappropriately making money off the people in the church, when in reality, most of the people take advantage of the services the church offers (including services to their kids and youth, and benevolent services within the community) without supporting it one bit. 3) There are many people leading churches who are bi-vocational and earn little to nothing from the local church. It's pretty difficult, because the work is usually more than full-time, so they end up burning the candle at both ends. And there are very few that have developed large ministries without any solicitation and support, getting funds and needed supplies only through prayer, with unasked-for donations coming as needed. In the list above, George Müller is one who is famous for that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2021 20:27:52 GMT
when responding, you click the "BBCode" tab at the bottom of the response (beside "Preview"), you can access the quote features like would have in the platform of the previous iterations of LNF. I've found that works really well. You can click back and forth on the fly, which is helpful too, because you can see any quote mistakes before you upload your post. In the other platforms, such mistakes would only be revealed after your response was already posted. Thank you.  I'll try... First of all, the beginning of religions is not well documented and if at all, it is generally documented by the religion itself which you have to admit implies an almost automatic bias and distortions. So you don't really know how the other religions have started. For all we know they've all started as underdogs (in fact it's more than likely when you stop to think about it). If you are small you think small, you try to get the little people on your side and then when you become big you forget about the little people and start to kiss ass to the big people... And when you think about it, isn't that exactly what happened with Christianity? I mean when they were small they were all cuddly and kind to the little people and as soon as they became big and able to control large countries, that's when the nastiness and repression began? Seriously, I don't see anything in your facts that contradicts my (let's call it a) theory. To me it's inevitable that the bigger it gets the more corrupt and controlling a religion becomes. The religious people who affect to be humble usually belong to little groups with very little if any influence. Now is it surprising that a religion that appealed to the poor was more likely to succeed in the long run than one that was essentially elitist? Of course not! Just as Ford understood that he'd make more money by creating a relatively cheap car that could be used by many people instead of an expensive one that only a few can afford, some religious leader may have similarly realized that putting the poor and the desperate on their side could be rewarding in the long run. And I am not even talking about the nutballs, the lunatics, who sincerely believe that they are gods, or mandated by one... So here you have a very plausible explanation for how Christianity began that doesn't resort to any magic or sorcery... Or anything surnatural for that matter No I am afraid, you still misunderstood me maybe because I was a little cryptic. What I mean is, if you truly believe that your god is real and that he is exactly how you expect him to be then you should also believe that he will reward you justly for your trouble. Be it by giving you a long and healthy life or making you win the lottery or guarantee an extraordinary afterlife... whatever. The point is you shouldn't ask for more money or more of anything. Doing so is actually a lack of faith on your part. It's that you doubt your god's ability to reward you fairly and why you should I or anybody else for that matter finance your lack of faith? You know what I think? If people are so reluctant to pay for their "religious services", it's because most of them don't really believe in god and that's why they're paying lip service to your service. They just say to themselves "what if?" or "Just in case"... But deep down, they seriously doubt it's true. And believe me I have tons of arguments to support this. There's also peer pressure, every one says to himself that he will be rejected by his/her community if they come out of their atheist/non believer closet. Their children could become pariahs... You see what I mean. I believe it's called the condorcet effect or some other guy's name, anyway it's a well-known sociological effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 5, 2021 3:11:16 GMT
First of all, the beginning of religions is not well documented and if at all, it is generally documented by the religion itself which you have to admit implies an almost automatic bias and distortions. So you don't really know how the other religions have started. For all we know they've all started as underdogs (in fact it's more than likely when you stop to think about it). If you are small you think small, you try to get the little people on your side and then when you become big you forget about the little people and start to kiss ass to the big people... And when you think about it, isn't that exactly what happened with Christianity? I mean when they were small they were all cuddly and kind to the little people and as soon as they became big and able to control large countries, that's when the nastiness and repression began? Seriously, I don't see anything in your facts that contradicts my (let's call it a) theory. Christianity was a group of "underdogs" for over 100 years. How could it persist? Of course, we're hampered by post-Enlightenment ideas about what "religion" is, that are mostly anachronistic when talking about the ancient world. The early Christians, in their recognition of Jesus as God's Messiah and the ensuing expectations fit better in the categories philosophy ("how to live") and politics ("who's in charge" or "who deserves our allegiance") rather than "religion" (how to appease or appeal to the gods"). Agreed. Of course, it's a demonstrable departure from not only its origins, but also its defining documents, which is more than ironic. But the founding documents were written before the "powers that be" were in charge. There are reasons that the scriptures were not made available to commoners for centuries. It would...if all those biblical documents were written after, say, 320CE... So...people should "marry him for his money"? We're on the same page here. Absolutely. Of course, in an increasingly post-Christian culture (certainly that's where I live), there's not much stigma to "coming out" as an atheist. But there are a lot of "practical atheists" in the Church. I'm not sure how far over to draw that line, because nobody has "perfect faith." How much "faith" is enough? That's not for me to decide. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2021 21:29:50 GMT
Christianity was a group of "underdogs" for over 100 years. How could it persist? Of course, we're hampered by post-Enlightenment ideas about what "religion" is, that are mostly anachronistic when talking about the ancient world. The early Christians, in their recognition of Jesus as God's Messiah and the ensuing expectations fit better in the categories philosophy ("how to live") and politics ("who's in charge" or "who deserves our allegiance") rather than "religion" (how to appease or appeal to the gods"). You know you're like a mother talking about her kid... He could be the dumbest most disgraceful kid that ever lived she'll still find a way to talk about him as someone with unexpressed genius and a heart of gold under a gruff exterior... You know it's funny one would never guess that you're talking about a very approximate text filled with lies and exaggerations... "defining documents"? Really! I am afraid you'll have to expand on that. I don't see how the date these documents were written as relevant. Well, I'd say, that's your problem. Either you believe that your god is just or you don't, either way other people shouldn't have to pay for it. Personally, I think it's inevitable. Given enough time, religion will be seen as an archaism, assuming humanity evolves in the right direction, which they will after a long period of prosperity. I think it's something similar to Stockholm syndrome. People who've been "taken hostage" by life long enough, sometimes think that "whomever" put them there, cares about them, and sometimes they "marry" "him" too. To use your terminology. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 8, 2021 0:33:48 GMT
You know it's funny one would never guess that you're talking about a very approximate text filled with lies and exaggerations... "defining documents"? Really! 1 Timothy 6:9 - "But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction." Matthew 6:19 - "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." James 5:3 - "Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!" Matthew 6:24 - "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Luke 16:11 - "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you?" Matthew 19:23-24 - "And Jesus said to His disciples, 'Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" 1 Timothy 6:17 - "Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy." Acts 8:20 - "But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!" Luke 12:15 - "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions." That doesn't seem ambiguous or..."approximate." Does it? The New Testament documents are certainly the "defining documents" of Christianity. If not those, then what? You made the point that religions are about scamming people for money and that Christianity demonstrates that. The point is that the defining documents suggest no such thing, in fact they expect the opposite from followers of Jesus. Did Christianity gain social and political power? It did...by about 320CE. The biblical documents that define what Christianity is supposed to be were all written long before that. Thus, it can be clearly demonstrated that the grasping for money and power is in direct contradiction to the intention of Christianity, regardless of what distortions emerged later. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2021 13:30:24 GMT
1 Timothy 6:9 - "But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction." Matthew 6:19 - "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." James 5:3 - "Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!" Matthew 6:24 - "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Luke 16:11 - "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you?" Matthew 19:23-24 - "And Jesus said to His disciples, 'Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" 1 Timothy 6:17 - "Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy." Acts 8:20 - "But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!" Luke 12:15 - "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions." That doesn't seem ambiguous or..."approximate." Does it? The New Testament documents are certainly the "defining documents" of Christianity. If not those, then what? I think I've covered this point before. It's a religion that's meant to pander to the poor. You have to tell them that there is a reason why their lives are so shitty. Something like: "You'll be rewarded for all your suffering... later." You know the drill, you use the poor to gain power and when you got that power you quickly betray everything you made them believe in. And please, don't tell me that that's not how it works. How do you explain billionaires telling us that they are good christians with a straight face. I mean according to these quotes of yours they shouldn't have that much money!!! This raises another point: How is it that a religion mandated by god, is so easily and quickly perverte? One would think, among the thousands, if not tens of thousands of different religions, the ONE god really wanted would be more resistant to corruption... Well, that's covered above, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 8, 2021 13:53:49 GMT
I think I've covered this point before. It's a religion that's meant to pander to the poor. You have to tell them that there is a reason why their lives are so shitty. Something like: "You'll be rewarded for all your suffering... later." You know the drill, you use the poor to gain power and when you got that power you quickly betray everything you made them believe in. And please, don't tell me that that's not how it works. How do you explain billionaires telling us that they are good christians with a straight face. I mean according to these quotes of yours they shouldn't have that much money!!! So...the poor people writing the documents are just thinking long-term, like...a few generations ahead? Hey, we'll write this stuff so that our great-great-great grandchildren can leverage these documents to grab power and pander to people like us. Something like that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2021 17:43:54 GMT
So...the poor people writing the documents are just thinking long-term, like...a few generations ahead? Hey, we'll write this stuff so that our great-great-great grandchildren can leverage these documents to grab power and pander to people like us. Something like that? First of all, you don't get it, you don't get it at all. Your bible is not a historical document. It was never intended to be. It's an add pamphlet, a way to bait the gullible. You're talking about the mythology of your movement as if it was history. They say whatever they want to please their "audience". The Christian church is everything that "founding document" of yours says it's shouldn't be. It's greedy, it's egocentric, it's violent (when in power) and it's hypocritical, it's intolerant... There isn't a single virtue extolled by your bible that isn't betrayed everywhere where your church is implanted. What do you say when you meet a filthy rich man who says he's a Christian? I bet you don't call him a liar, do you? Besides, you still haven't addressed my question... I wonder why... How do you explain that the so-called true religion willed by your god, the only one that really matters if you people are to be believed, is corrupted to the core everywhere all the time... They are so corrupt that they canonized "mother" Teresa, who's a criminal who should have been tried for her crimes. You even put her on the top of your list? So what are you? An incompetent or a liar? Your church is a pernicious devastating force that has kept the poor in their place by lying to them about so-called rewards after death... And you think so little of your god that you want to be paid for what you do. Why not rely on his rewards and do your "job" for free? Yeah, you believe in paradise all right... The way a commercial actor believes in his products!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2021 18:00:25 GMT
I let you get away with a previous statement that I find outrageous, mostly because you made so many of them that it's hard to keep track of them all. You said that you "didn't marry god for his money" but you want to be paid for what you think of as an act of love!! So what does that make you? A whore! Exactly so. I suppose being a religious whore is honorable in your world. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jan 9, 2021 6:44:57 GMT
Fist of all, you didn't answer my post in any acceptable way. I mean you "responded" to it sure, the way someone responds to a mosquito by swatting it away... You didn't address any of my points. I mean what part of my expose did you agree with or disagree with? WE DON'T KNOW!! Why, because you didn't talk about any of it. For instance, do you agree that 8 million years ago we were little more than apes? WE DON'T KNOW! Because you didn't address it. If I take any of the sentences I wrote, do I know if you agree or disagree with it? NOPE!! You've just quoted the whole block, why, that's a mystery because it's already right there for people to read it. And then you've just gratified the whole with a "you're wrong" Oh Wait! You din't say that exactly. You said :" that what I said didn't line up with a "general consensus of irreligious sociologist" What the hell does that crap even mean? "irreligious" sounds negative, like you're committing a crime or at least a misdemeanor or something... So basically what you're saying is that people you totally disagree with... disagree with me!!! And that would make me what? TWICE as wrong I guess. I mean seriously, did you even bother to proofread it? Plus, how can there be a consensus of people who unlike you don't blindly follow some idiotic book written by who knows who millenia ago? It's like you're celebrating you robot status. Be all of one mind and don't ever ever think for yourself! Is your whole life built around this dogma? WOW!!! I mean WoW!!! talk about bullshit right there! Then what do you do? You list a bunch of people and you ask me to "explain" them, like I am some kind of behavioral specialist or something. And on top of that list "mother" teresa (there's no "h" btw, that's rich I have to teach you how to spell the names of your heroes. ) (these smileys are lousy!!) "mother" teresa: A highly controversial sadistic bitch who's hospitals were filthy as hell and spread more infections than they cured illnesses the interesting part is that the vatican people were made aware of that beforehand, yet they went ahead and canonized her anyway. Like" she's so popular, who cares if she's a criminal!" Anyway, I mean you can't ignore that controversy unless you are completely incompetent or a hypocrite, who was hoping I didn't know about it. So which was one is it? You're a deceptive liar or ignorant of your own material? Plus she's the FIRST on your list!!! So I won't ever bother to check the others, what's the use? After that you made a bunch of ad-homs, which are only marginally better than just calling me a bunch of names and still didn't address anything of what I said. And then you made a final, cherry on top, statement where you talked about: misdirection, side-stepping, insults and whatnot? About that last one, I have one thing to say to you: "Physician heal thyself!" It's from your beloved bible, btw. Talk about irony hitting you right in the face! You're missing the point. Your explanation for religion cannot account for people living selflessly. That's my response. It's actually not convoluted as a response. Your distillation of religion and its origins is insufficient to explain religious people who live selflessly because of their religious belief. Let me be more specific. Your distillation of religion and its origins is insufficient to explain Christians who live selflessly because of their Christianity. The obvious conclusion is that your explanation is significantly flawed. That's all. Deal with that, and maybe we can talk further. As for "Physician heal thyself," you understand that it was an implied insult to Jesus, right? So...should I take it as a compliment? Of course you should. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2021 12:41:02 GMT
....Of course you should. Stop polluting my thread with your inept one-liners, you imbecilic piece of shit!! If you don't have anything reflective to say then fuck the hell off!!! |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jan 9, 2021 16:20:10 GMT
....Of course you should. Stop polluting my thread with your inept one-liners, you imbecilic piece of shit!! If you don't have anything reflective to say then fuck the hell off!!! Peace be upon you as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2021 17:49:28 GMT
Note that unlike MFA I am not practicing religious racism. ... Stop polluting my thread with your inept one-liners, you imbecilic piece of shit!! If you don't have anything reflective to say then fuck the hell off!!! I think you may have exposed yourself. |
|
) (these smileys are lousy!!)
