Do You Believe in God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
142

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I don’t understand what you mean by “avail themselves of various public services…”

You are familiar with public services, right? Roads, police, firefighters, aqueducts, etc. All those things your taxes pay for.

Churches and their staff all get to use those things - call the police to report vandalism, call the fire department if there’s a fire, get their trash picked up, have the road leading to their doorstep maintained, etc. exactly as anyone else can. The difference is that everyone else pays taxes to support those services. They don’t.

That your local church does a lot of charity work and community service is commendable; but why not simply agree share the same tax burden as the community itself has to? And in that way alleviate some of it for the entire community.

[/quote]

  1. Volunteer Fired Department - no tax dollars of any kind support it.

  2. All utilities are paid by the church. Water, sewer, gas, and all bond issues attached to the water bills - IE public improvements.

  3. County only LE. And there hasn’t been a call to them by the church in at least the 10 years I have been in this community.

  4. All employees of the church pay taxes on their income and their property. No one skates on income tax.

  5. The only tax abatement churches receive in the State of Texas are the miniscule amount of sales tax, and property taxes.

  6. Churches are not the only organizations in the country that are tax exempt. Google 501(c)(3).

If you are going to rant on them - then make it equitable and go after all of them. Churches are not unique. At least you don’t see very many churches dumping dead cats in the dumpster, ala PETA.

And - I figure the good the churches do for the community outweigh the amount of taxes they are not paying.

143

Eales,

I think you’re asking a more deeply philosophical question than you realize. If you want to interact with the best of Christian theists regarding the philosophy of religion and the belief in God, read Plantinga:
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcbreview.html

This really isn’t a question that can be answered conclusively on an internet board.

144

[quote]rainjack wrote:
And - I figure the good the churches do for the community outweigh the amount of taxes they are not paying.

[/quote]

Hmmmmm, small & local churches maybe, but I dunno how much “good” churches around the world do. The amount of scamming televangelists and the like really do deserve a beating. Most of the troubles around the world are religion fueled which is a shame, people taking advantage of the less-educated and gullible.

145

[quote]ecto214 wrote:
I definitely believe in God, and make no apologies for it. I also believe that Jesus’ rising from the dead is as historically probable as, say, Julius Caesar in fact being a ruler of Rome. I may be wrong, but at least I have an assessment on the validity of an historical event (or non-event, to atheists and many, many others).

Most everything in life is quantified on a spectrum of probabilities. As ridiculous as it may sound, do I KNOW that there was a Civil War in the US in the late-1800s? No; it seems very probable. Do I KNOW that there was a terrible bubonic plague that wiped out a lot of Constantinople in the 500s AD? No. Heck, do I even 100%-KNOW that my mom is my own mom - or that my friend John really lives in Denver? No. I don’t see why some folks need concrete evidence for everything that they believe - especially when they believe tons of things that are already simply a matter of probabilities. (and high probabilities, at that)

I am also one of these crackpots that believes in the supernatural. For those rational people who scoff at the idea of the supernatural, I tip my hat to you for being so consisent in also believing that that close friend of family member who died is simply fertilizing the flowers. For those rational people who scoff at the idea of the supernatural - yet believe that that close friend of family memeber is now in Heaven or some sort of other afterlife - your logic re: the supernatural being impossible makes no sense to me.

Finally, I defer to personal experience with what I believe to be the Holy Spirit’s mostly-off, but sometimes-on presence in my life to account for my belief in God. I very much assign some probability (3%, maybe) that it is really just some evolutionary trait that is a mind-game inside of my own head. Or some other explanation(hope being an opiate, I’m crazy / inbalanced, etc). I like to play the odds as I see them, though. [/quote]

You’re saying someone “rising” from the dead after 3 days is probable?

Have you ever heard of James Randi? Believe what you like, no one has yet been able to prove anything supernatural.

I had a friend who had a haunted house. I stayed there a few times, and experienced some of the freakiest shit ever - couldn’t logically explain it and I was convinced supernatural forces existed. That is, until the little cunt owned up to only me 2 years later that he staged it all. People STILL believe his house is haunted. It’s amazing what your brain can imagine, and how the mind can play tricks on you.

146

[quote]rsg wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And - I figure the good the churches do for the community outweigh the amount of taxes they are not paying.

Hmmmmm, small & local churches maybe, but I dunno how much “good” churches around the world do. The amount of scamming televangelists and the like really do deserve a beating. Most of the troubles around the world are religion fueled which is a shame, people taking advantage of the less-educated and gullible.[/quote]

I can only speak on the very small local church I have mentioned.

I categorically refuse to get into a discussion on the difference between religion, and God.

147

[quote]rsg wrote:
Have you ever heard of James Randi? Believe what you like, no one has yet been able to prove anything supernatural.

[/quote]

LOL! If something is proven, doesn’t that by definition, make it no longer supernatural?

148

[quote]rainjack wrote:

  1. Volunteer Fired Department - no tax dollars of any kind support it.[/quote]

Might work if you live in the boondocks. For cities, it’s not a viable solution.

Do they buy their own fire trucks, or do they just make do with a few pickups and water pails?

What about the rest of the services?

But if they call, LE will come, right? That’s the service.

I’ve never called the police to my home in my life. Yet, I’m still taxed to pay for them.

If ordinary citizens don’t get to opt-out of paying for services they don’t use, why should churches?

Does the church pay taxes on its property? It does have a building on some piece of land somewhere, right?

Well there you go. The share they don’t pay is picked up by the rest of you, whether you support or agree with what the church does.

Pretend it’s a mosque. Or your local scientology chapter.

[quote]6. Churches are not the only organizations in the country that are tax exempt. Google 501(c)(3).

If you are going to rant on them - then make it equitable and go after all of them. Churches are not unique. At least you don’t see very many churches dumping dead cats in the dumpster, ala PETA. [/quote]

No problem. If they can pay salaries and other business costs, they should be able to pay taxes too. We all do, why should someone be exempted just because their main purpose is not to generate profit?

One does not preclude the other. They could pay their taxes and still do what they do.

149

[quote]rsg wrote:
ecto214 wrote:
I definitely believe in God, and make no apologies for it. I also believe that Jesus’ rising from the dead is as historically probable as, say, Julius Caesar in fact being a ruler of Rome. I may be wrong, but at least I have an assessment on the validity of an historical event (or non-event, to atheists and many, many others).

Most everything in life is quantified on a spectrum of probabilities. As ridiculous as it may sound, do I KNOW that there was a Civil War in the US in the late-1800s? No; it seems very probable. Do I KNOW that there was a terrible bubonic plague that wiped out a lot of Constantinople in the 500s AD? No. Heck, do I even 100%-KNOW that my mom is my own mom - or that my friend John really lives in Denver? No. I don’t see why some folks need concrete evidence for everything that they believe - especially when they believe tons of things that are already simply a matter of probabilities. (and high probabilities, at that)

I am also one of these crackpots that believes in the supernatural. For those rational people who scoff at the idea of the supernatural, I tip my hat to you for being so consisent in also believing that that close friend of family member who died is simply fertilizing the flowers. For those rational people who scoff at the idea of the supernatural - yet believe that that close friend of family memeber is now in Heaven or some sort of other afterlife - your logic re: the supernatural being impossible makes no sense to me.

Finally, I defer to personal experience with what I believe to be the Holy Spirit’s mostly-off, but sometimes-on presence in my life to account for my belief in God. I very much assign some probability (3%, maybe) that it is really just some evolutionary trait that is a mind-game inside of my own head. Or some other explanation(hope being an opiate, I’m crazy / inbalanced, etc). I like to play the odds as I see them, though.

You’re saying someone “rising” from the dead after 3 days is probable?

Have you ever heard of James Randi? Believe what you like, no one has yet been able to prove anything supernatural.

I had a friend who had a haunted house. I stayed there a few times, and experienced some of the freakiest shit ever - couldn’t logically explain it and I was convinced supernatural forces existed. That is, until the little cunt owned up to only me 2 years later that he staged it all. People STILL believe his house is haunted. It’s amazing what your brain can imagine, and how the mind can play tricks on you.
[/quote]

No one has been able to prove anything supernatural because science involves looking for naturalistic explanations for things. The scientific method is involved in effects from observable causes that can be re-duplicated.

The existence or non-existence of miracles and the supernatural is outside the purview of the scientific method and of science itself - they are presuppositions people hold. Also, since there are many things that science doesn’t understand, there is no logical reason why anyone should trust it for the existence or non-existence of God and teh supernatural.

150

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:

  1. Volunteer Fired Department - no tax dollars of any kind support it.

Might work if you live in the boondocks. For cities, it’s not a viable solution.

Do they buy their own fire trucks, or do they just make do with a few pickups and water pails?

  1. All utilities are paid by the church. Water, sewer, gas, and all bond issues attached to the water bills - IE public improvements.

What about the rest of the services?

  1. County only LE. And there hasn’t been a call to them by the church in at least the 10 years I have been in this community.

But if they call, LE will come, right? That’s the service.

I’ve never called the police to my home in my life. Yet, I’m still taxed to pay for them.

If ordinary citizens don’t get to opt-out of paying for services they don’t use, why should churches?

  1. All employees of the church pay taxes on their income and their property. No one skates on income tax.

Does the church pay taxes on its property? It does have a building on some piece of land somewhere, right?

  1. The only tax abatement churches receive in the State of Texas are the miniscule amount of sales tax, and property taxes.

Well there you go. The share they don’t pay is picked up by the rest of you, whether you support or agree with what the church does.

Pretend it’s a mosque. Or your local scientology chapter.

  1. Churches are not the only organizations in the country that are tax exempt. Google 501(c)(3).

If you are going to rant on them - then make it equitable and go after all of them. Churches are not unique. At least you don’t see very many churches dumping dead cats in the dumpster, ala PETA.

No problem. If they can pay salaries and other business costs, they should be able to pay taxes too. We all do, why should someone be exempted just because their main purpose is not to generate profit?

And - I figure the good the churches do for the community outweigh the amount of taxes they are not paying.

One does not preclude the other. They could pay their taxes and still do what they do.

[/quote]

Churches don’t have to pay taxes. No 501(c)(3) organization pays federal taxes. Don’t hate the players - hate the game. Why don’t down here and have all charitable organizations pay taxes? It doesn’t seem to bother me - one of the guys footing the bill - nearly as much as it bothers you.

As for our volunteer fired Dept - we have a full compliment of trucks. The city - oh my fucking god - donates the water needed to put out any fires in the county.

It’s a wonder the citizenry doesn’t fucking revolt over such preferential treatment, huh?

In short - this community, and most all communities I have been a part of welcome churches, and other non-profits into the community. If it doesn’t bother us, why does it bother you?

151

[quote]AdamC wrote:
will to power wrote:
AdamC wrote:
Does anyone think love is proof of God? I mean, why do we love? What is the purpose? Is it just for survival?

Survival, helps form social structures conductive to passing on copies of your genes [bearing in mind relatives also have copies of your genes so them surviving/being healthy/reproducing is also a plus for your genes].

What about when you love a friend as oppose to a lover or family member?[/quote]

Once again, these sort of bonds are mutually beneficial to survival in general terms. It’s sort of an emotional social contract. There are examples where this might not really be the case but it’s based on a framework of things set up for survival. It’s also much more complicated in humans since we’re sentient.

152

[quote]pat wrote:
rsg wrote:
Have you ever heard of James Randi? Believe what you like, no one has yet been able to prove anything supernatural.

LOL! If something is proven, doesn’t that by definition, make it no longer supernatural?[/quote]

Let me re-phrase:

No one has ever been able to demonstrate supernatural occurances, without them being proven to be false tricks - Uri Gellar, homeopathy, televangelists, etc. If all these “miracles” keep happening, how come no one has proper footage of it that shows that something physically impossible has happened, with no other explanation? And I don’t mean “I have a friend of a friends cousins’ sisters’ mom who said that her priest cured her cancer”. I’ve heard hundreds of these stories and don’t believe a word.

Again, not attacking anyone, just pure fascination at how naive people can be.

153

Of course, Pookie, one could argue that government refrains from taxing organized religion for the same reason that sharks don’t eat lawyers: professional courtesy.

154

[quote]nephorm wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I understand that if ‘God made man in his own image’ then he made us to look similar to him, therefore he must have hands and a face etc… I am just going by what it says in the bible on that one

The term “image” is equivocal. Image does not denote the shape or configuration of a thing, but rather it is applied to to the notion in virtue of which a thing is constituted as a substance and becomes what it is, or the true reality of a thing as far as it is a particular being. So for man, that notion is human apprehension, or the soul; man is made with a soul as God is purely soul.[/quote]

Eloquent post as always sir, but I do not believe that your exceptional 21st century intelect can be used to understand was described 2000 years ago, I do not believe the word equivocal or any subsiquent meaning was in exsistance when the bible was written, therefore if it was written that ‘god made man in his own image’ 2000 years ago I think they were refering to his actual physical image and hats why god has been depicted in thousands if not millions if images since as a humanesque type being.

Thats my take on that part of the bible anyway

155

[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Eloquent post as always sir, but I do not believe that your exceptional 21st century intelect can be used to understand was described 2000 years ago, I do not believe the word equivocal or any subsiquent meaning was in exsistance when the bible was written, therefore if it was written that ‘god made man in his own image’ 2000 years ago I think they were refering to his actual physical image and hats why god has been depicted in thousands if not millions if images since as a humanesque type being.

[/quote]

For what it’s worth, our words “ambiguous” and “equivocal” derive from the Latin ambigere and aequi-vocus, which were likely in use when the New Testament was written.

And I’d guess even the ancient Aramaic language had words for “doubtful and unclear”.

156

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Of course, Pookie, one could argue that government refrains from taxing organized religion for the same reason that sharks don’t eat lawyers: professional courtesy.[/quote]

Chuches = lawyers?

157

[quote]rainjack wrote:
It doesn’t seem to bother me - one of the guys footing the bill - nearly as much as it bothers you. [/quote]

I foot the bill for churches in Canada, where the arrangements are similar.

Why should we be forced to foot the bill of organizations we don’t wish to support?

If members of a congregation wish to pay the taxes of their churches, I have no problems with it.

Just don’t force everyone to do it.

You lost track of the ball again.

I argued to Varq that churches were picking his pockets because he has to support them, by paying their share of taxes, whether he likes it or not.

You chimed in by asking how churches were picking our pockets, because you were apparently too dense to figure it out even though you appear to pass for an accountant in your neck of the woods.

A couple of back-and-forths later, you’ve fallen back on the argument that you don’t mind paying the share of your church, thereby proving my point: Churches do pick our pockets because we have to pay their share of taxes, whether we like it (as you do) or not.

Now go shoot some varmint or sumthin’.

158

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Of course, Pookie, one could argue that government refrains from taxing organized religion for the same reason that sharks don’t eat lawyers: professional courtesy.[/quote]

That still means that whether you agree or not with a church and its various positions; you’re still indirectly supporting it by paying their share of the tax burden.

159

[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Of course, Pookie, one could argue that government refrains from taxing organized religion for the same reason that sharks don’t eat lawyers: professional courtesy.

That still means that whether you agree or not with a church and its various positions; you’re still indirectly supporting it by paying their share of the tax burden.
[/quote]

Oh, trust me, I’d happily use my taxes, which go towards things like welfare or soc. sec., to help my church cover it’s obligations. I’m all for it. No more welfare state (foreign or domestic), and I’d agree to this in a heartbeat. No special favors, and we all will decide where our money is to go.

160

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Eloquent post as always sir, but I do not believe that your exceptional 21st century intelect can be used to understand was described 2000 years ago, I do not believe the word equivocal or any subsiquent meaning was in exsistance when the bible was written, therefore if it was written that ‘god made man in his own image’ 2000 years ago I think they were refering to his actual physical image …

For what it’s worth, our words “ambiguous” and “equivocal” derive from the Latin ambigere and aequi-vocus, which were likely in use when the New Testament was written.

And I’d guess even the ancient Aramaic language had words for “doubtful and unclear”.[/quote]

The text of Genesis may be ambiguous but it is not equivocal. It was understood then, and certainly by Maimonides in the 11 th century, that God was incorporeal; God created Humans “in His image…male and female He created them.” I am quite sure that the Redactors did not know from hermaphrodites and intersexes; they understood that God did not have form like people.
What is the understanding, then, of “image” (Hebrew, Varq, altho the western Aramaic root word is the same)? Maimonides: “Among all living creatures, Man alone is endowed–like his Creator–with morality, reason and free will.”

Just my two shekels.

161

[quote]Standndeliver wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Of course, Pookie, one could argue that government refrains from taxing organized religion for the same reason that sharks don’t eat lawyers: professional courtesy.

Chuches = lawyers?

[/quote]

You’d better believe it. They are Christ’s advocates.

Whereas I play Devil’s advocate.

Does that mean I’m the Antichrist?