December 12th, 2008, 03:56 PM
Tax Churches.
Churches teach of God, School teach also. Schools are taxed, why not Churches and other entities who teach of God.
This question should not be thought of as an attack of any sort against any Church. I recognize their community standing and am happy to have them around.
I speak here of taxing only profits, like any other entity.
Should we tax Churches et.all.?
Regards
DL
Most schools are non-profit and therefor non-taxed, at least in the US.
In the UK, religions are registered as charities and as such do not pay tax on their income. This is because many churches perform charitable acts and do in fact spend a sizeable part of their income on charity. However, in my opinion, churches should pay tax on that part of their income that is not spent on charitable acts.Originally Posted by Greatest I am
We agree. Profits only.In the UK, religions are registered as charities and as such do not pay tax on their income. This is because many churches perform charitable acts and do in fact spend a sizeable part of their income on charity. However, in my opinion, churches should pay tax on that part of their income that is not spent on charitable acts.
Regards
DL
Unless of course you acknowledge that churches and schools aren't the same.
Taxes are just one example of exemption from rules that many churches get, since they are supposed to be seperate from state. Yet, simple observation reveals that isn't the case- so they get all the benefits of freedom from state without any of the detriment, as far as I know.
In the UK public schools aren't taxed. Why would you want to give the government another money grabbing idea?
Perhaps if Churches were taxed then all these perks for old money so called charitable entities fraud might be reduced.
Regards
DL
The more they pay, mate, the better for you and me.
Regards
DL
unless you have children in the school and you want them to get the best education that those already low budgets can offer
Edit: Illustrating the use of the edit button. Also, churches should be taxed but they aren't.
Damn you to hell! How dare you tax my wonderful God Almighty. I smite you!
Just smite a bit more to the left please. Ohh thats got the spot.
Regards
DL
stop
with terrible posts after the conversation is dead
please!
No non-profit charitable organization is taxed. But that does not mean they don't pay taxes indirectly. All paid employees of such organizations are liable for income taxes. Thus, money which goes to charity is not taxed, permitting more to be used for those purposes. Churches do get a break on property taxes in the U.S., but similar tax breaks are extended to other qualifying non-profit groups as well as all government owned property. Were churches taxed, it would reduce the amount that is available for charitable uses. I feel sorry for people who foolishly think the government is an efficient user of funds. My sense is that if charitable organizations were taxed, the net impact would be negative to the less fortunate. If only the churches in this group of organizations were taxed, that would be discrimination. But there are a lot of people like the people here who do not really look through to the overall and long term effects of such ideas.
As stated, I like profits taxed. If a charitable entity runs in the black it also should be taxed.
Many small Churches are used only once or twice a year just to maintain tax free status on old unused churches. This is just wrong.
Regards
DL
To be equitable all non-profit organisations should not be taxed. It doesn't matter if its a church or a local drama center.
The Vatican makes much profit on their investments. Should these be taxes? Yes.
Regards
DL
Isn't the Vatican an "independent" entity? Who would they pay taxes to? Themselves?
You may be right.
They are still a teaching establishment It would still be wrong to let the rest of the schools foot their fair share.
Regards
DL
What public schools are PAYING taxes? The last time I looked at my property tax statement I was paying taxes to the schools -- the local school grade and high school district and the local community college district and something called the Educational Service District. But I did not see anything going to my church. I did not see anything going to the several private church schools in the community nor does any of my tax money go to support the several private colleges and universities while my income taxes are used to subsidize the state university system.
Seems like not only do you enjoy that religious schools are taking some of the pressure of the tax receiving public schools but you also think they should pay for the privilege. So why don't we just tax people who don't go to church? Let them pay their own way instead of leaching off the religious community which does pay its own way while also subsidizing the inefficient government run waste pots.
I have no idea what you are talking about.You may be right.
They are still a teaching establishment It would still be wrong to let the rest of the schools foot their fair share.
Regards
DL
Samcdkey wrote:
Neither does he.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
These funds are not being spent on charitable purposes, and are being taxed. This is in accord with what I said at the beginning; funds not spent on charitable causes should be taxed. All I am asking for is that this principle should apply to all of their income, not just that part of it they spend on salary, because applying this principle only to their salary is discrimination.
I don't know about the U.S. but in the UK the Charity Commission are the folks who decide if your organisation counts as a charity or not. Religions do count but cults do not. This has nothing to do with whether you donate to the poor or recycle old clothing for homeless people, it has to do with the beliefs of the people in your organisation.
Specifically, it is giving a tax break to people based purely on their belief that they will be saved when the world ends. It is discrimination against people who do not believe they can talk to the creator of the universe.
Wrong. I specifically said all funds not spent on charitable causes should be taxed. This means that money spent on their property, on maintenance, their investment portfolio and on the Popes' private jet should be taxed. There is no moral justification for not taxing this money.
Whereas I feel sorry for those folks who fail to realise that if you helped make your government more economical and efficient that would save you money.
Even if this were true, which is highly speculative at best, then so what? There is no moral argument here; I have already said that only the non-charitable income should be taxed, so if the needy are disadvantaged that is the fault of the charity for doling out less to charity while spending proportionately more on itself.
There are many things in this world that are discrimination, but that does not make them wrong. I buy a lot of books, but I choose them carefully; this is discrimination against writers of junk fiction. I am not allowed to call the blackboard in my classroom a blackboard anymore, I have to call it a chalkboard. This is discrimination against those folks intelligent enough to understand that not every use of the word black is offensive. If I run a golf club I must admit both men and women as members so as not to discriminate, but there is a perfectly legal Ladies Gym in this town where only ladies can become members. So simply calling something "discrimination" is neither a good nor a bad thing, you have to look at the thing itself and determine whether it is good or bad.
So, going back to your original quote: If only the churches in this group of organizations were taxed, that would be discrimination
Yes, it would. It would be discriminating between funds donated for charitable purposes and funds donated to further a religious belief. There is no moral argument you can make that would convince me that your donation to your religious organisation to further their religious activities should be tax free.
There are also some people here who think that their belief in a supernatural deity entitles their pet prayer club to tax breaks, without the need to justify that at all. You see dayton, the trouble is that every dollar in tax that a church does not have to pay, does have to be paid by someone else, and there is no justification for an exemption based purely on their superstitious belief in a supernatural deity.
So let's examine those "overall and long term effects" you speak about. Let me see, more money going into the Tax coffers to benefit everyone in society, less money going into the private coffers of prayer clubs to pay for vestments and votive silverware. Please do explain how that is actually a bad idea?
User samcdkey makes the point that non-profit organisations should not be taxed, and I read him as including schools in this and I agree with him on this point. But, churches are not non-profit organisations. In the UK the largest private landowner is the Church of England and has been for hundreds of years. Where do you think church salaries come from? They are paid out of the profits the church makes, ergo, they are not non-profit organisations and should not enjoy tax breaks not afforded to other profit making organisations.
We are not talking a trivial amount of money either. The Church of England collected £300 million from parishioners in 1992 and donated one tenth of that to charity.
The other £150 million the church needed that year came from profits on their investments. See that naughty word profits in there? They are not a non-profit organisation and should not enjoy tax breaks as though they were.
Isn't the Vatican a city state? Why does everyone keep trying to tax it?I specifically said all funds not spent on charitable causes should be taxed. This means that money spent on their property, on maintenance, their investment portfolio and on the Popes' private jet should be taxed. There is no moral justification for not taxing this money.
It has nothing to do with the Vatican City being a city state. If I make a donation to the Catholic Church, because they are currently recognised as a charity they are able to claim back any tax I paid on the monies I donated to them. I maintain that they should only be allowed to do this on monies they ultimately spend on charity work.
What do they do with their profits?It has nothing to do with the Vatican City being a city state. If I make a donation to the Catholic Church, because they are currently recognised as a charity they are able to claim back any tax I paid on the monies I donated to them. I maintain that they should only be allowed to do this on monies they ultimately spend on charity work.
I don't know, you'd have to ask them. Invest them I suppose.
If what you actually meant was: What do they spend their money on?
Well, Judy Valente reports on the finances of the Archdiocese of Chicago, and she is reported as having said, "In the 1990s, Chicago paid out several million dollars for settlements in sex abuse cases."
She naturally failed to mention that they were tax free dollars donated to the church by people who think religion is a good cause. And that "several million dollars" is just one city in just one country in one ten-year period. And, these are the same people who choose to lecture me on my ethics because I do not believe in an invisible deity. Does the word "hypocrite" sound at all familiar here?
numbers wrote:
I pull only this little bit from your post to show the shortsightedness of your view.Wrong. I specifically said all funds not spent on charitable causes should be taxed.
Abuses, notwithstanding, in theory every penny (pence) of income collected by a charitable organization plays some role in it's charitable efforts. People who work for such organizations are are worthy to be paid. The rent they pay or the property they may own is necessary for doing their business. Nevertheless, I agree that funds which cannot be justifiably associated with their charitable activities, perhaps could be taxed.
The question becomes who decides what constitutes associated charitable purposes, who administers and polices those decisions and are you sure your personal ideas would actually produce more charity?
My feeling is that some such organizations may have very high administrative costs which even I might consider an abuse of their tax-exempt status. We have also seen people such as televangelists who have lined their own pockets with funds given to their church. However, generally speaking, charitable organizations are required to use a certain percentage of their income for charitable purposes. And I think that would hold true in the UK as well as in the US.
Numbers, you seem to have a thing about the Roman Catholic Church and I must confess ignorance as to how much wealth it may control. However, I do not see the Pope personally being given bonuses in the millions of dollars as are some corporate officers in the US, even when the company they run has been bailed out by the US government because of their mismanagement. On the news tonight, they said one of the companies which received 10 Billion dollars (that is correct, with a B) in bail out money, handed out 10.2 Billion in bonuses. Why should the basically efficient charitable organizations be compelled to subsidize that stupidity by being taxed on what you may unilaterally consider non-charitable uses? While the Pope may not live in abject poverty, neither does he spirit away Catholic wealth to heaven with him. It remains here on earth for dispersal as the church wishes.
If I do not like what my church does, I can refrain from giving money to it or move to a different church. I have no power to keep my government from rewarding incompetence. Even if I were to ex-pat, I would still be obligated to pay some taxes in the US.
You want to get some bang for your bucks, find a worthy charitable organization to give something to and not only do you directly help someone in need of whatever that charity provides, you also get a tax deduction and deprive the government of wasting what you would otherwise have sent it.
It's bad enough here in the US, but you poor saps in the UK (the ones who have jobs) are subjected to even worse taxation with equally inefficient government waste. (You even pay Royals who do nothing but run around being, well, nothing more than very Royal.) But since you can't do anything about that, you want to tax the people who actually use their money wisely and for good purposes. Well, I guess the Royals do support some charities. (Actually, I kinda like Chuck. He is interesting.)
I did read someplace recently that public schools in my state spend somewhere in the area of $9,000 per year per student in K-12. In contrast, church schools spend a little more thant half that and turn out better educated students -- mostly because they do not have to teach every student down to the lowest common denominator. But, as an educator, you may well be more aware of that than I. To Sir with Love, etc.
A charitable organisation such as Oxfam will have expenditure that falls in roughly two different areas. First, direct to good causes (DGC). This is the money they spend directly on the homeless etc. Second, ancilliary costs (AC). This is salary of a few paid administrators, advertising, printing, rent, etc. This means that any money I donate to Oxfam is used either in DGC or in support of that as AC. However, people give money to churches for reasons other than their charity work. My mum donates to her parish church because it is her parish church rather than because it does charitable deeds. So the church's income is inspired by charity and some is inspired by spiritual motives. Irrespective of this, the church spends some percentage of their income on charitable work, and this is their DGC. It is surely not beyond the ability of an accountant to attribute the same percentage of their salary, printing, advertising, rent etc. costs as AC and consider the rest of their income to be taxable. This is not rocket science.
Which I interpret as meaning that in principle you agree with me; money not for charity "could perhaps" be taxed.
Even an accountant can figure out that ten blankets for a homeless shelter is charity whilst the salary for the Archbishop's gardener is not. As explained above, proportionment of indeterminant items is easily achieved by a process all accountants are familiar with. This process is administered by whoever currently does their accounts. This process is policed by their auditors just as all tax liability is audited in a regular for-profit organisation.
I never claimed it would produce more charity. I claimed it would be morally equitable and produce more tax revenue.
Not at all. User samcdkey kept making the point that the Vatican City is a city state. He was hoping we would arrive at the conclusion that for them to pay tax on their income they would essentially be taxing themselves, so the tax money would be going straight back into their coffers anyway. I eventually disavowed him of this childish notion by explaining how tax deduction actually works. I then answered a follow-up question on what the Catholic church do with their profits. It is not obvious to me how answering two questions from another user can be interpreted as "having a thing", but there you go.
The Pope receives no salary whatsoever. However, the Vatican City made an operating profit of $8.5 million in 2000 on total expenses of $194.3 million, including $38.8 million on Vatican television and radio broadcast in 60 languages, hardly a charitable cost, and therefore morally taxable.
You are right to be annoyed at such financial stupidity and you are right that as a taxpayer you should not have to tolerate it. But you are wrong to suppose that the existence of such stupidity justifies not taxing religions. Your "argument" (if we can call it that) seems to be: There is so much financial mismanagement going on that allowing church's to escape their tax liability is only small beer anyway.
I do hope you can see the paucity of that sort of thinking?
Please, not the old: I am only one voter, I have no power over what my government does, argument. Dayton, you are a voter and therein lies your power. You live in a democracy which ensures you have a say in what your government do and abnegating your responsibility as though you lived in some dictatorial Republic does you no credit whatsoever.
Have black people always had the vote in your country? Or women, when did they get the vote? Ever heard of Montgomery, Alabama, or Kent State, Ohio? Voters in your country have among other things the right to peaceful protest and to free speech and have historically used those rights to great effect. Pretending you do not have these rights insults the millions of people who live in countries where these rights are just dreams.
If you lived in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Korea or Zimbabwe I could sympathise with you, but not in the US. Either paint a banner and protest or sit on the sofa and suffer in silence, but do not complain to me that you are powerless to influence your government.
Rather a Royal than a Republic, thank you. Our last PM thought he was the President of the United States of Blair, and he was a complete waste of space. You could pretty much guarantee that everything he said was a lie, or a severe distortion of the truth. At least our incumbent is honest and does talk to Parliament as though they are there to help him rather than simply to rubber-stamp his decisions. (Admittedly, he has the personality of a pencil sharpener and the intellect of a Gecko but you can't have everything).
Not really. I teach Adult Education classes in night school as an after hours extra-income project, so I know no more about real school than the guy next door.
numbers wrote:
This, of course, is a rather subjective area of determination. While you might think the gardner is a discretionary expendature, if it were stopped the parish might come under fire for unsightly upkeep of its property. My feeling is that rather than looking at the individual activity, one should look at the percentage directly used for charitable purposes and those used for ancillary activities. Thus, naming an arbitrary number of say, 50 per cent, if an agency spent $100 directly on some charitable activty, another $100 would be untaxable while collected money beyond that would be subject to taxation. You would get into all sorts of problems here as unscrupulous organizations would attempt to hide both income and unqualified outgo. I am not sure that policing such a program would not be more costly than the taxes gained.the salary for the Archbishop's gardener is not. As explained above, proportionment of indeterminant items is easily achieved by a process all accountants are familiar with.
numbers said:
Well, I equate that to less charity. Anytime you pay taxes to the government, you get the least return on your money that you can get. You seem to endorse redistribution of wealth by government. All this does is add a layer of government workers who take their share out of the system to line their own pockets. As far as I'm concerned the most wasteful use of money is to give it to the government to spend. The only people who like that idea are the net receivers of government dole and government workers.I never claimed it would produce more charity. I claimed it would be morally equitable and produce more tax revenue.
numbers said:
With all due respect, I hardly think you are any more privy to the finances of the Catholic Church than I am. Nor is either of us privy to the way they spend their money. I am reasonably satisfied that the Roman Catholic Church is a very wealthy entity on a world wide scale. But I am also reasonably satisfied that it does not use that wealth or its power to negatively impact society. I might disagree with some of the Catholic theology, but whatever those differences might be, I do not think it especially counter productive. I vastly abhor their attempts to cover up problems with a small portion of their clergy and feel they are rightly being compelled to compensate victims. But even there, I think some "victims" may be taking advantage while they are possibly not really victims.I then answered a follow-up question on what the Catholic church do with their profits.
numbers also makes a number of statements about the political process in the US. It is not a matter of "I am only one vote" but the truth is "I am only one vote" and the conservative people I vote for do not often win. I live in a rather liberal state which mostly elects liberal legislators and seldom does a conservative get elected to anything. The result has been a lot of backlash legislation by initiative petition which is worse than what probably would have been promulgated by a somewhat conservative legislature. As a rule, however, my observation over the years is that government makes poor use of the money it does get. But, sadly, it seems like if you deprive it of money, it becomes less efficient. Government seems incapable of running things like a household where we take care of necessities first and then deal with the wants and extras. Government seems to spend on the frivolities first and then complain that it does not have enough to deal with the necessities.
I cannot help but think of what your famous Winston Churchill once supposedly said: "A young person who is not liberal has no heart; an old person who is not conservative has no brain."
Overall, I am of the opinion that the good done by the religious community as a whole surpasses the what would take place by extracting money from them and giving it to government to spend.
December 21st, 2008, 10:39 AM
I avoided this issue for a while but will now post my opinion about this issue.
I consider the OT to be the most 'evil' of all religions and since most all religions are derived from this bible,
I say
yes' tax them all because these religions teach nothing but the 'one god concept' and are the causes of all the wars that we have been involved in.
Our current war is a war between a religion and the derivitive of the OT that is capitalism that currently enjoyed the status of being the 'new world order'.
Besides, I think most of these preachers are preaching for dollars, rather than real moral reform.
If you want to see a 'sane' world , look to Nature as GOD.
Cosmo
And, what if I don't like what your church does?
Yet, I am convinced of the exact opposite, that the religious community as a whole is corrupt and does little good for anyone but themselves.Overall, I am of the opinion that the good done by the religious community as a whole surpasses the what would take place by extracting money from them and giving it to government to spend.
Prophet=profit.
December 21st, 2008, 12:11 PM
I see nothing wrong with the one God concept. It is a logical extension in the search for God. The thing is, He has to be thought of as a God for all of mankind and not just the chosen few. A master of all in the beginning must also end the same way. Few Religionists think this way though. They are in religions of exclusion instead of inclusion. Doomed to failure. This is good.I avoided this issue for a while but will now post my opinion about this issue.
I consider the OT to be the most 'evil' of all religions and since most all religions are derived from this bible,
I say
yes' tax them all because these religions teach nothing but the 'one god concept' and are the causes of all the wars that we have been involved in.
Our current war is a war between a religion and the derivitive of the OT that is capitalism that currently enjoyed the status of being the 'new world order'.
Besides, I think most of these preachers are preaching for dollars, rather than real moral reform.
If you want to see a 'sane' world , look to Nature as GOD.
Cosmo
I believe in the one God, but not the miracle working genocidal maniac that some find in the Bible.
God is a natural evolution of man and yes He works with nature and does not create unnatural talking snakes and 10 headed monsters.
Regards
DL
I recognize the good that the Church can do in terms of community and would not change that good.And, what if I don't like what your church does?
Yet, I am convinced of the exact opposite, that the religious community as a whole is corrupt and does little good for anyone but themselves.Overall, I am of the opinion that the good done by the religious community as a whole surpasses the what would take place by extracting money from them and giving it to government to spend.
Prophet=profit.
It is their love of a genocidal maniac that irks me.
The Jews do not follow Hitler and this is good. Christians following a Jesus /God who is a traitor to mankind is strange and evil.
Regards
DL
Cosmo said:
Greatest I Am said:I consider the OT to be the most 'evil' of all religions and since most all religions
I would suggest that you two have a very narrow view of the history of Western Civilization. You both would benefit from an undergraduate survey class on this subject. I think if your historical perspective were something other than "The world according to Gorp," you might be able to see things a little better.It is their love of a genocidal maniac that irks me.
You seem to hold it against the Jews for doing that which was necessary to preserve their civilization while ignoring the genocide perpetrated by those civilizations which did not survive.
You believe in a world evolution which emphasizes of survival of the fittest while condemning those who survived because they were the fittest and because they claim to have had the help of a deity which you do not believe exists but you demean because of what you claim he did.
You absolutely do not understand the illogic of this reasoning which is why you have such a screwed up position.
If you sit back and see a God helping some of His perfect creations against others of His perfect creations then your perspective is what is screwed up.
I can only repeat that any man that sides with a God against people is a traitor to humanity.
Dogs have to be trained to kill other dogs and here you cheer as a God trains men to kill other men. Sick.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am wrote:
Even assuming you are correct that God helped the Jews in their battles, who trained the much larger tribes and groups of people to kill other men. What you are saying is that was just fine for the pagans who lived around the Jews to kill and enslave them, but it was wrong for them to fight back or engage in warfare to protect themselves. History tells us that the Jews were usually outnumbered and had lesser weapons than most of the people they battled.Dogs have to be trained to kill other dogs and here you cheer as a God trains men to kill other men.
I'm glad I am not dependent upon people of your ilk for my own security. People who just lay down and accept defeat are the sick ones. With people like this, we would currently be praying toward Mecca 5 times a day by now or all of Europe would be speaking German.
But if, as you insist, God does not even exist, how could He have trained them? You still don't see the sublime ridiculousness of your argument -- God doesn't exist but He is to be despised because He helped his chosen people survive.
The genocidal fool of a God does not exist but nowhere have i sad there is no God.
I believe that there is a God but not the miracle working imaginary one that most believe in.
The God I follow is a natural extension of man. A cosmic consciousness. Our next evolution.
He does not kill men or help or encourage it.
Regards
DL
So you're saying, your definition of God is "better" because it conforms to your values? Take a number. 8)
I am saying that a genocidal maniac should not be followed.
There is only one God and he does not need genocide for people to see that His systems are perfect.
Regards
DL
As someone who routinely works with bacterial cultures [and kills them with bleach with nary a pang of conscience], I think genocide is a subjective term, based on a notion that human beings are so awesome that God could not possibly consider them as mere elements of an ecosystem, that exist in a kind of balance that the rest of nature requires. Or do you cry everytime a field is harvested as well?I am saying that a genocidal maniac should not be followed.
There is only one God and he does not need genocide for people to see that His systems are perfect.
Regards
DL
What good does the Church do that can't be done without it?
Greatest I Am said:
Well, in keeping with that theme, perhaps you could provide us your (imagined) revisionary history of the middle east in which a large group (approximately 2,000,000 people) immigrants can move migrate to an area such as what we now known as Palestine and peaceably integrate into the indigenous population.I believe that there is a God but not the miracle working imaginary one that most believe in
Nor did you even attempt to answer the question as to who taught the Medo-Persians, Babylonians and Assyrians to kill. If your idea of God is so almighty peaceful, what wasn't he able to control that?
One of the problems with your position is that it is incapable of explaining history as we are relatively certain it unfolded.
What's more, I think your God is a wuss and my God would kick his ass. Already has.
Israel was just recently reestablished in the 1940's. The jews were scattered all over the planet from the AD 20's to its recent reastablishment.
I support Israel as a secular nation with its Hebrew language but NOT its religion that is the cause of all the attrocities in our western hemisphere.
Like GIA said: The jewish deity in the bible is a JEWICIDAL crazy .deity and these mass Jewicides are the source of all the other mass killings .
Notice the spelling . I use this because these mass killing should point to the source of their origin that is the bible.
Joe Stalin, who identifies with the jewish religion along with Karl Marx was the
greatest mass killer in history. He portrayed himself as a 'one0 god individual' with all those photos of himself and the statues erected in his honor.
But the OT also insults the women and the blacks with its sexism and racism.
My religion is NATURE and what it teaches. It is the greatest artist, greatest inventor and therefore, our greatest teacher.You believe in a world evolution which emphasizes of survival of the fittest while condemning those who survived because they were the fittest and because they claim to have had the help of a deity which you do not believe exists but you demean because of what you claim he did.
You absolutely do not understand the illogic of this reasoning which is why you have such a screwed up position.
The animals do NOT need the bible or the popes, for that matter, to know what to do.
The historic record of the jewish religion is in fragments of clay that the archeologists are searching for. So this religion is basically in the heads of the jews with no solid references for its existance except the writings of ancient Greeks and others.
Cosmo
If a whole field is harvested and only 8 plants are good then someone, perhaps the farmer, should be crying. That or like an incompetent God, look for a new job.As someone who routinely works with bacterial cultures [and kills them with bleach with nary a pang of conscience], I think genocide is a subjective term, based on a notion that human beings are so awesome that God could not possibly consider them as mere elements of an ecosystem, that exist in a kind of balance that the rest of nature requires. Or do you cry everytime a field is harvested as well?I am saying that a genocidal maniac should not be followed.
There is only one God and he does not need genocide for people to see that His systems are perfect.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
If there were another entity doing the community work I would not have made my statement.What good does the Church do that can't be done without it?
They provide council, companionship, traditional sacraments, community based support, charitable works and soup kitchens etc.
Regards
DL
My God does not have an ass to kick but if yours has legs then he must have one. Close to his mouth if he resembles you. In fact it is hard to tell which of your holes you are speaking out of.
Regards
DL
Only if you're aiming for perfection, which seems to be a constant refrain of atheism. I think the ecosystem aims for adaptability and diversity. What looks like imperfection is merely change that is not yet seen. Its the system that is important not individual elements. Thats just ego. Its ego that attempts to make a monochromatic world, which leads to the obvious imbalance. Bringing it back into balance is what you call imperfection. Every action has a consequence and as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
I do not aim for perfection here. Just competence. To harvest .0001 of a crop is a quite a reach from perfection.Only if you're aiming for perfection, which seems to be a constant refrain of atheism. I think the ecosystem aims for adaptability and diversity. What looks like imperfection is merely change that is not yet seen. Its the system that is important not individual elements. Thats just ego.
I am not an atheist. I have a God.
If individual elements are not healthy enough to contribute to the whole then the whole suffers. A bird cannot fly with one wing.
Regards
DL
Which "crop" do you see harvested with this imperfection?
What would you consider "healthy"?If individual elements are not healthy enough to contribute to the whole then the whole suffers.
Growth is usually a good indicator.My remark was in reference to the genocide of scripture where only 8 humans out of millions were harvested by God.Which "crop" do you see harvested with this imperfection?
What would you consider "healthy"?If individual elements are not healthy enough to contribute to the whole then the whole suffers.
Regards
DL
Growth of what?
Thats generous. I usually pick only one bacterial colony out of the innumerable ones that grow.My remark was in reference to the genocide of scripture where only 8 humans out of millions were harvested by God.
Are all the others defective? Can you create with the perfection of a God?Growth of what?
Thats generous. I usually pick only one bacterial colony out of the innumerable ones that grow.My remark was in reference to the genocide of scripture where only 8 humans out of millions were harvested by God.
Regards
DL
Don't care, I need just the one.
Better, since overpopulation and competition for resources is not a problem for me.Can you create with the perfection of a God?
Regards
Do you think I should feel "guilty" about the "genocide" I perpetrate on a daily basis?
Not at all. They do not recognize, as far as i know, that genocide is being done. We do.Don't care, I need just the one.
Better, since overpopulation and competition for resources is not a problem for me.Can you create with the perfection of a God?
Regards
Do you think I should feel "guilty" about the "genocide" I perpetrate on a daily basis?
I drove on a wet highway one day at night. The road looked shinier than usual. I notices that some of the shine was hopping. Frogs by the millions. The killing did not bother me but after a time I nearly threw up from the popping sounds.
Regards
DL
So genocide is only a problem if the victim "recognises" it? Or when the perpetrator feels that the victim recognises it? Otherwise, it has no meaning?They do not recognize, as far as i know, that genocide is being done. We do.
Sam, don't you understand? It is genocide when it is Jews fighting for survival, but it is not genocide if you slaughter 6,000,000 Jews in gas chambers and the like or mny more in gulags. Apparently, it also is not genocide if you are slaughtering people in the name of Allah, but it is genocide if you claim Yahweh is your God. It is murder if you are a Christian in favor of the death penalty, but it is not murder if you terminate a baby because you rationalize by thinking life begins at birth rather than at conception.
Have you seen Hotel Rwanda? Everyone took "their" people to safety and allowed the culmination of an old colonial "divide and rule policy [which created two distinct identities in a people] to reach its logical conclusion. Just some Africans dying somewhere. After that, I consider genocide a much talked about subject that no one really cares about.
There are plenty of other "entities" doing community work, ones that don't require belief in myth and superstition
All of those (other than traditional sacraments, whatever that is) are services offered by secular organizations that don't require you buy into their cults.They provide council, companionship, traditional sacraments, community based support, charitable works and soup kitchens etc.
Not quite what I said.
Let me rephrase.
Man is the only one that recognizes what genocide is and is the only one who can decide if something can be called a genocide.
Killing off a few colonies of a living creature is not genocide.
What you do in your lab is not genocide. it is just a culling.
Now if you were to go after all of the entities throughout the world of your Bacteria's then that would be genocide.
BTW Have a good holiday.
Regards
DL
People care about genocide but in a global village that is as fragmented as ours, we are mostly powerless to do anything about it.
Regards
DL
The "few" colonies under my control would be quite representative of the "few" humans left at the end of a godly purge. After all, we are acting on the assumption that there is always more where they came from.
In your opinion then, is the plague a genocide of humans by microorganisms?
A Merry Christmas to you too
This is true but it seems that there are not enough to put the religious ones out of business. Perhaps religious ones are here because they cater to the spiritual side of our natures as well as the physical or political side of our natures.There are plenty of other "entities" doing community work, ones that don't require belief in myth and superstition
All of those (other than traditional sacraments, whatever that is) are services offered by secular organizations that don't require you buy into their cults.They provide council, companionship, traditional sacraments, community based support, charitable works and soup kitchens etc.
BTW, have a good holiday.
Regards
DL
Thanks.The "few" colonies under my control would be quite representative of the "few" humans left at the end of a godly purge. After all, we are acting on the assumption that there is always more where they came from.
In your opinion then, is the plague a genocide of humans by microorganisms?
A Merry Christmas to you too
No. A plague microorganism is just searching for life and growing it's numbers. This is nature at work. Genocide is a planned thing.
Regards
DL
Yes, there are. The religious ones have alternative agendas, that of indoctrination and recruitment. That's why they persist. It has nothing to do with community and everything to do with beefing up membership.
That would be relevant if we actually had a spiritual side, whatever that is.Perhaps religious ones are here because they cater to the spiritual side of our natures as well as the physical or political side of our natures.
You too.BTW, have a good holiday.
Ah so you think a "planned" genocide is unnatural? So if we were to discard our intellect, we would become loving creatures with no malignant intent?
I don't think we can discard our intellect.Ah so you think a "planned" genocide is unnatural? So if we were to discard our intellect, we would become loving creatures with no malignant intent?
If we could then yes we would lose malignant intent but would not become loving creatures. Without intellect we cannot love either.
Regards
DL
Greatest I Am wrote:
But, obviously, you have!I don't think we can discard our intellect.
| « JUST A RANT, THE TIME OF YEAR ? | With prop 8 comes hate » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
