Tweet
Did I say that "It takes religion to be kind to others?" No, I did not. As I said, TRY AGAIN.
Why don't you try reading what you put in quotes the next time?
Why don't you try reading what you put in quotes the next time?
-
-
ok.Originally posted by KvHagedorn
It doesn't take religion to know greed is bad.Juu nin to iro
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.Comment
-
Greed may be successful, but that's rather different than it being good for a civilized society of rational beings (I'm being very generous about using those terms for people, I know.Originally posted by Wombat
)
Comment
-
Let's see.. I will address your actual words (won't that be refreshing?)Originally posted by Wombat
(Re: 1.) I find nothing wrong with this statement. Yep, that's true. However, it has nothing to do with my statement, so how can it be any sort of proof that mine is wrong?
(Re: 2.) If you are lacking in understanding of why greed is bad, this is not my fault. Why don't you think about it? Does it seem perfectly alright with you that some corporate jerks make $100,000,000.00+ a year and spend it on yachts and professional sports teams while many who work hard must face bankruptcy if they or a family member falls ill? If it does, then you are beyond my power to help.Comment
-
A statement within the realm of possibility on its own terms, yes, but you have not proposed any other credible force that champions this cause, so you have not addressed my argument.Originally posted by SasqComment
-
Being successful does not equal being greedy. Someone will always be better off than someone else. Should wealthy, successful people be penalized or automatically assumed greedy because they choose to spend their earnings freely?
Being poor does not negate greediness either. So your example is far from sound.Last edited by Jessterw; 18 March 2005, 00:01.“And, remember: there's no 'I' in 'irony'†~ Merlin MannComment
-
You have not shown any credible proof that the church is not 'greedy' or its teachings are again wealth. having wealth != being greedy.Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Chapter, verse and then feel free to show examples of churches that are poor.Juu nin to iro
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.Comment
-
People of that level of wealth ARE greedy, because they retain more than their fair share of the pie for their own spiritually empty use. They delude themselves into believing that they are actually worth this much, or that somehow they really have earned it. They have more money because they happened into the right position to, in a way, steal more than their fair share. Nobody needs a 400ft yacht to buy happiness, especially when there are others of equal empirical worth who cannot afford the necessities of life. Do you think our capitalist society flawlessly apportions wealth to those with the greatest intrinsic worth? Monetarily, our society values an illiterate, cocaine-snorting gangsta rapper who glorifies violence and murder at A THOUSAND TIMES the worth of a nurse or priest who may work only for the comfort and enlightenment of others. Does that honestly seem just to you?Originally posted by Jesterzwild
I believe that the large number of people who shun value judgements, as you and Wombat have done (out of conditioning by this PC society, whether you acknowledge this or not) display a sad form of cowardice which exacerbates the very real problems we have in our society. Evil people flourish when no one dares bring them to account. You are, in a way, elevating Darwinian laissez-faire capitalism to the level of an all-powerful god, by indirectly claiming that its judgement in apportioning wealth is somehow flawless, that those who are ridiculously over-rich somehow deserve to be, and in a corollary way, that those who work hard in a profession which our sick society undervalues deserve to have an utterly substandard life.
It is true that being poor does not mean one cannot be greedy, but theirs is a crime in thought alone. Their greed has not materialized to wrest more than their fair share from their fellow beings, just as one who contemplates murder has not actually done the deed, and deprived another of his life. People who dwell on thoughts of avarice or murder are certainly not doing themselves any credit though, and Christ rightly considered these dark thoughts to be sinful, though the only sin is against the being of the thinker.Comment
-
I never claimed that any "church" (whether you are referring to the Roman or Anglican church or some sleazy big-hair con-artist preacher) was not greedy. Some are and some aren't. Churches are made up of people in a group, which is often a recipe for disaster, especially if they forget why they are there.Originally posted by Sasq
Christ's words on the very subject of whether the very state of being rich is laudable:
(KJV)
The Rich Young Ruler
(also see Matthew 19:16-30; Luke 18:18-30)
(Mark 10:17) And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
..but you knew that one surely?
Also, on the subject of church-going sinners:
Jesus Denounces the Scribes
(also see Matthew 23:1-36; Luke 11:37)
(Mark 12:38) And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, 39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: 40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
Charity without real sacrifice, and with..
The Widow's Offering
(Also see Luke 21:1-4)
(Mark 12:41) And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
And then there is:
The Rich Man and Lazarus
(Luke 16:19) There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
This is not any church dictum, nor the allegorical stories of Genesis, which is the favorite whipping-boy of atheists who are shallow enough to laugh at it, assuming it is literal. These are Jesus' own bits of wisdom.
If you are confused as to the difference between Christ's teachings and the fallibility of human beings who are trying to be religious (and you don't want to read a lot) I recommend the recent film Luther Starring Joseph Fiennes. You will see a character like yourself, who became disaffected with the sinful practices of the organized church, yet who did not lose his religion because of it. Luther did not make the mistake of tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
And if you don't know of any poor churches, God help you. How poor does a church have to be? The churches I grew up in worshipped in old buildings and my father was the minister. We were not even up to the national average in income, and he never owned his home until he retired and bought a 50yo 1300sq ft little frame house for under $50,000. Tell me how poor we had to be to suit you? (This is your unlamentedly abandoned Anglican church, too.)Comment
-
KvH is sitting in judgement against mankind, as if he were God Almighty himself. Unfortunately, as usual, he is doing so with his normal series of half-truths, expanded with non-sequiturs, as if they were truths. His arguments therefore lose all credibility. If Jesus were alive today (and I speak of him as a man, not as THE son of God, as if we are not ALL sons/daughters of God, if we believe in God as a creator), I'm sure he would be with the "illiterate, cocaine-snorting gangsta rapper", whom you seem to despise, rather than the money-grabbing priests, whom you seem to consider as worthy persons, and other parasites.
Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (figurative for the small door beside the main gate in city walls) than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. But, in the same breath, he exhorted the wealthy to husband their riches for the benefit of mankind and many do. But wealth is not necessarily monetary. One can be very wealthy, spiritually, and poor, physically. But one can also be the complete opposite or any other combination of the two types of wealth. The important point is that spiritual wealth does not exclude physical wealth or vice versa.
OK, put your heart where your mouth is. Go into the street and find the nearest "illiterate, cocaine-snorting gangsta rapper" and help him in his predicament of lack of spiritual and physical wealth, as Jesus would have done. Go to the nearest money-grabbing parasite, be he lawyer, doctor, vet or priest, and help him in his predicament of what you judge to be too physically wealthy and not sufficiently spiritual. Better still, find the reasons why both of these categories are lacking and remove these reasons.
After you have done this, you may be imbued with a wee bittie more humility which will make you less judgemental.Brian (the devil incarnate)
Comment
-
Are you calling my father a money grubbing parasite? I know the difference between decent ministers and crooks.. it is YOU who seem to think they are all the same. The way I grew up, if my Dad was a crook, he was damned unsuccessful at it. He has two graduate degrees and was a darn good pastor. You may not value the profession at all, but that is simply because YOU may be due for some introspection of your own.Comment
-
The issue was with the mans love of worldly possesion or greed, not his actual wealth, but you knew that didn't you.Originally posted by KvHagedorn
No relevence, going off topic.Jesus Denounces the Scribes
(also see Matthew 23:1-36; Luke 11:37)
(Mark 12:38) And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, 39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: 40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
Good, I expect your nexts months wages to be cast onto the donation plate, post me the receipt so you don't claim it on your tax, that way I know its a real sacrifice.Charity without real sacrifice, and with..
The Widow's Offering
(Also see Luke 21:1-4)
(Mark 12:41) And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
And then there is:
Nice Moral, but again, were talking about greed and not caring for your fellow human, the fact the man is rich is just an extra point.The Rich Man and Lazarus
(Luke 16:19)
Also I would recomend YOU read up a little more on hell, particulary both the greek and hebrew words its translated from and their original meanings.
Oh, I am not confused between the difference between Christ's teachings and the fallibility of human beings, actually I find the people who sprout religion all the time to be the least religous amoungst us, for example, you yourself once told me interracial marriages are an abomination. I would like chapter and verse on that as well.
If you are confused as to the difference between Christ's teachings and the fallibility of human beings who are trying to be religious (and you don't want to read a lot) I recommend the recent film Luther Starring Joseph Fiennes. You will see a character like yourself, who became disaffected with the sinful practices of the organized church, yet who did not lose his religion because of it. Luther did not make the mistake of tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
Oh I know plenty of individual parishes that are not wealthy, whoever I was refering to the body corporate, but you knew that didn't you.And if you don't know of any poor churches, God help you. How poor does a church have to be? The churches I grew up in worshipped in old buildings and my father was the minister. We were not even up to the national average in income, and he never owned his home until he retired and bought a 50yo 1300sq ft little frame house for under $50,000. Tell me how poor we had to be to suit you? (This is your unlamentedly abandoned Anglican church, too.)Juu nin to iro
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.Comment
-
I don't claim to be holier than thou.. you were the one who asked for chapter and verse. If you are all done twisting my words now, why don't you provide some positive ideas of your own so we can twist those? Wait.. I'm the only one who will say anything while you have the whole secular humanist clique on your side there. Why don't we just agree that neither of us will even consider the other's point of view and leave it at that? I would love to hear someone else discuss this stuff for once.Comment
-
Unless someone else was as narrow-minded as you are and held identical views, you would not consider it as a discussion but as "secular humanist clique"-ish propaganda. In fact, I find it insulting to be included in your generalisation and you are denyingOriginally posted by KvHagedorn
Just to make sure I had the right end of the stick, I looked up "humanist" to find the definition as
"1. A classical scholar, a Latinist (arch.); spec. (Hist.) a student of Roman and Greek literature and antiquities, esp. during the Renaissance. L16.
2. A person concerned with or interested in human affairs; a humanitarian. E17.
3. Philosophy. An adherent of humanism. E20.
B. attrib. or as adjective. Philosophy. Of or pertaining to humanism. E20."
I coulldn't find anything in there to bolster your arguments as being derogatory in your light, so I turned to "Humanism":
"â€* 1. Belief in the humanity but not the divinity of Christ. Only in E19.
2. The quality of being human; devotion to human interests or welfare. M19.
3. Devotion to studies promoting human culture; literary culture, esp. that of the Renaissance humanists. M19.
4. a. Philosophy & Theology. An outlook or system of thought concerned with human rather than divine or supernatural matters. M19.
b. Philosophy. A belief or outlook emphasizing common human needs and seeking solely rational ways of solving human problems, and concerned with humankind as responsible and progressive intellectual beings. E20."
Perhaps here, we are getting nearer. You see that little â€*? That means it is archaic, no longer used in that sense. Perhaps you are using the word in the meaning of 2 centuries ago (it does say E19, meaning early 19th c)? My innate feeling of the word is the 20th c meaning in 4b. In that case I am humanist, but that does not exclude my belief in God. In fact, a so-called belief in God without humanist principles is shallow and is really one of the 95 theses that Luther posted on the door of Wittenburg church. IOW, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s., if I, too, may be permitted to quote a secular translation of what Jesus was purported to have said, or is that your sole prerogative as the only purveyor of the truth on this forum?
It is easy to call those with whom you disagree as belonging to a "secular humanist clique". Your biggest mistake. I don't belong to any clique, secular or otherwise. In the wisdom of my 73 years, I have developed my own philosophy which includes a belief in a Supreme Being, whether you call Him/Her/It God, Allah, touches of animism or anything else. My beliefs, in fact have been formed round a hotchpotch of the world's religions, extracting what I saw as good out of each and rejecting the bad. You see, KvH, religion, as we know it, is, itself, secular - it is made by man and by man alone, as attempts to explain God's creation since the big bang. There is one thing in common with all religions, they promote humanism. This is perhaps why I like some of the Buddhist ideas that we should follow a Way of Life, to seek to perfect the way we live. Buddhists have no notion of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim wrath of God, a God who is supposed to be all-loving but who can slaughter thousands (in the OT). This dual personality of the JCM God is so contradictory that it is unacceptable to anyone unless immerged in the opium of the masses.
Of course, the notion of heaven and hell (that dichotomous wrath of God, again) is just stupid supernatural nonsense. The only life after death is in the genes you have gifted your offspring with (and I hope that I gave my better ones!!!). In any case, if there were a hell, you wouldn't be able to see the fire for all the priests from all religions who have disseminated superstitious claptrap, rather than the truth of a Way of Life. Now, I am well aware that the majority of the people may not be able to comprehend that God may have allowed man to evolve in the way He has without that supreme fiction, the soul, having had their cultures poisoned with the supernatural notion. This is where humanism reigns supreme and the best of all humanists that I have read about was the Aramaic-speaking son of a carpenter who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago. He understood the corruption and greed of organised religion and the patrician families and he paid the price for it with his life.
Brian (the devil incarnate)
Comment
-
Another great day
Happy Friday
Comment
Comment