Jump to content


Photo

Pyramid Schemes

Organized Religion Pyramid Schemes

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 March 2017 - 10:16 AM

In a pyramid scheme, an organization compels individuals who wish to join to make a payment. In exchange, the organization promises its new members a share of the money taken from every additional member that they recruit. The directors of the organization (those at the top of the pyramid) also receive a share of these payments. For the directors, the scheme is potentially lucrative—whether or not they do any work, the organization's membership has a strong incentive to continue recruiting and funneling money to the top of the pyramid.

Such organizations seldom involve sales of products or services with value. Without creating any goods or services, the only revenue streams for the scheme are recruiting more members, or soliciting more money from current members. The behavior of pyramid schemes follows the mathematics concerning exponential growth quite closely. Each level of the pyramid is much larger than the one before it. For a pyramid scheme to make money for everyone who enrolls in it, it would have to expand indefinitely. This is not possible because the population of Earth is finite. When the scheme inevitably runs out of new recruits, lacking other sources of revenue, it collapses. Because in a geometric series, the biggest terms are at the end, most people will be in the lower levels of the pyramid (and indeed the bottom level is always the biggest single layer).

In a pyramid scheme, people in the upper layers typically profit while people in the lower layers typically lose money. Since at any given time, most of the members in the scheme are at the bottom, most participants in a pyramid scheme will not make any money. In particular, when the scheme collapses, most members will be in the bottom layers and thus will not have any opportunity to profit from the scheme, yet they will have paid to join the scheme. Therefore, a pyramid scheme is characterized by a few people (including the creators of the scheme) making large amounts of money, while most who join the scheme lose money. For this reason, they are considered scams.

[source]

In organized religion, an organization compels individuals who wish to join to make a payment, do works and spend their time. In exchange, the organization promises its members a potential reward in the afterlife, depending on the money supplied, or the amount of additional members that they recruit by proselityzing. The directors/priests of the organization (those at the top of the religion, pope etc) also receive a share of these "payments". For the priests, the scheme is potentially lucrative—whether or not they do any work, the organization's membership has a strong incentive to continue recruiting and funneling money to the top of the religion.

Such organizations seldom involve real world products or services with value. Without creating any goods or services, the only revenue streams for the scheme are recruiting more members, or soliciting more money from current members. The behavior of organized religion follows the mathematics concerning exponential growth quite closely. Each level of the religion is much larger than the one before it. For a religion to provide for everyone who enrolls in it, it would have to expand indefinitely. This is not possible because the population of Earth is finite. 

In an organized religion, people in the upper layers typically profit while people in the lower layers typically lose out. Since at any given time, most of the members in the scheme are at the bottom, most participants in a religion lose out. Therefore, an organized religion is characterized by a few people making large amounts of money (ever visited Rome?), while most who join the scheme lose out. Despite this, they are considered good.

 

Wake up people. 



#2 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 23 March 2017 - 12:59 PM

There certainly are some people in religion that are in it for the money. http://www.cnn.com/2...ollar-jet-feat/

However, this is the generalization fallacy. Generalizations could be made about the evils of atheism. Your opinion regarding religion is wrong when applied to specific cases.

#3 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:39 PM

Yes, Fjuri, you have aptly described the pitfalls of survival of the fittest. It's a piraamid scheme! There is no equality--no place for everybody. God is not a respector of persomns which means he doesen't have to play the game that some of us are better than others. He loves us all! We can do the same if we choose to do so.


  • eddified likes this

#4 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 27 March 2017 - 05:49 AM

There certainly are some people in religion that are in it for the money. http://www.cnn.com/2...ollar-jet-feat/

However, this is the generalization fallacy. Generalizations could be made about the evils of atheism. Your opinion regarding religion is wrong when applied to specific cases.

I have not stated any opinion.

 

I've stated facts, have I not? Huge amounts of money go to a central organ for any major organized religion. Certainly, not all church leaders keep the money for themselves in an overt way.

 

But lets indeed not generalize. Do you care to look at your specific case? Do you know where the money you spend is going?

Also not only money is involved. The text I took may have made it look like money was the sole focus, but it includes "possibility of salvation" or whatever your religion promises.



#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 March 2017 - 03:12 AM

Fjuri, I guess it depends on if the person is a member of organised religion. There is risk in spending money for sure, but then that seems to be true of many things.

 

From a Christian perspective, the only person on this board that may be a part of organised religion is probably Piasan, because he is catholic, and sees the pope as his chief, or some such thing.

 

Benny Hinn's house for example, it seems to me you could fit a pyramid inside of it. :rotfl3: 

 

There are many wolves in sheeps clothing, that spread something Christians usually refer to as the, "prosperity gospel". It seems to me the prosperity gospel could be a pyramid scheme because usually it involved the chief preacher coming on the tv and telling the believer to, "plant a seed". He basically preaches to give as much money to his ministry and the believer, "believes God is requiring them to give", but the ministry doesn't have to give any money back to the believer in this situation because the preacher is preaching that God will bless them, not the ministry. Usually the tv preacher may give some varnish like saying, "this month look at where your money is going, we are going to give to X charity" but obviously this leaves a massive surplus for the ministry. 

 

Clearly some of these types of preaching ministries, of this type of message, are overtly fake Christians. They will wear a very nice, expensive suit and have hair that is so lacquered it will look like shiny plastic. They might also have a moustache that looks like it has been combed within one millimetre, or may be plastic. As amusing as this sounds, these are usually some signs to look for in a fake preacher, because a lot of them tend to look like that. 

 

The true problem is gullibility. These preachers are literally raking in millions and spending it on themselves. 



#6 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 March 2017 - 04:36 AM

There are many wolves in sheeps clothing, that spread something Christians usually refer to as the, "prosperity gospel".

 

This is an excerpt from Bill Maher's Religulous movie in which he interviews a prosperity gospel preacher. The best parts as it relates to the thread are 1:50 to 3:50

 



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 March 2017 - 06:02 AM

Dr no PHD: "money happens.."

 

"well...money happens for you..."

 

That was pretty funny, and it is funny as a lot of it is true, and generally we are talking about religion. Do you realise I would laugh along with most of this too, even though I'm not an atheist?

 

But remember Goku, there are religious people that live each day and don't really have anything to do with organised religion. You can call me religious if you want, I can accept that, but that part where the truck exploded, that doesn't happen if you have zeal to obey God as a true Christian.

 

With shows like that, they depend on generalisations. If a Christians becomes passionate for God, that may make them go to the third world to become a doctor, which is extreme considering a lot of the places they go they could get murdered, but it isn't going to lead to jihad is it? Surely you can see the difference? I assume you would agree that what the Koran teaches and what the gospel teaches, rather differ?

 

Even the atheist presenter in this show uses what Jesus taught to juxtapose it against the prosperity message, meaning the Christian message and the prosperity message contradict each other.

 

Think about it - he can only use Christ as an example to condemn Dr big-bucks, if there is a true Christ-ian message he is contradicting. Even the presenter has an idea of Jesus which is closer to the truth than the idea the prosperity preacher has.



#8 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 March 2017 - 01:51 AM

With shows like that, they depend on generalisations. If a Christians becomes passionate for God, that may make them go to the third world to become a doctor, which is extreme considering a lot of the places they go they could get murdered, but it isn't going to lead to jihad is it? Surely you can see the difference? I assume you would agree that what the Koran teaches and what the gospel teaches, rather differ?

You don't need to a Christian to become a doctor and go abroad.

Isn't doctors without borders a non-theistic organization? 

 

I'm talking about the Catholics, with the giant Chruches, decorated in gold. The Jehova's witnesses who go door to door increasing their "chances of paradise" by converting others to join. The golden Hindu temple in the center of a very poor village. And so on.

 

Each of these have the same message. 

Spend your money. Spend your time. Spread the word and get others to join.

In return, you'll gain a spot in paradise. The more you spend and get others to join. The more you're sure to get to paradise.



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 March 2017 - 02:43 AM

 

Fjuri: You don't need to a Christian to become a doctor and go abroad.

Isn't doctors without borders a non-theistic organization? 

 

I was referring to Goku's video. In the video the presenter asks the prosperity preacher something and the preacher says he wished people were passionate for God, then the video suggested if you become passionate for God, this will make you a suicide bomber, by showing a truck crash into a car and explode.

 

The assumption with the atheist video, is that belief in Christianity, the Lord, is the same as belief in Allah, and they imply that if you become zealous for God as a Christian, it will lead to something bad, which is wrong. Christians that are zealous for God usually go and do extreme acts of compassion, but obviously the assumption is that, "all religion is the same", but in fact, "religion" is a very, very broad term. I have absolutely nothing in common with someone like a jihadist, and they are the antithesis of my entire life purpose.

 

Beware the Undistributed middle term fallacy;

 

Apples are fruit

Oranges are fruit

Therefore oranges are the same as apples.

 

Christians come under religion

Islam extremists come under religion

Therefore Christians are the same as Islam extremists.

 

(Goku's atheist video implies this, by showing the explosion, as though Christianity and Islam, because both are religion, are the same, and that the cause of violence is religion. In fact they are not the same and violence happens where there is no religion).

 

My purpose as a zealous Christian, given to me by God, is to bring joy to children. Last Christmas because the post office was closing, I gave a customer a free toy which I made for his child, and that isn't a big deal, but after Christmas he messaged me back and said that his daughter, "cried happy tears" on Christmas day because I made her toy with her name on it.

 

It was like God Himself was saying to me; "See - you done that one little good thing, now look how glad you are, look how much that small act meant to that little girl."

 

I was so happy that day, it makes me even more zealous to do what God wants me to do. The thought of blowing up a child or people, is so foreign to what following the Lord is truly about.

 

I was also shocked when I saw that explosion in Goku's video, if you are not prepared to see that it can shock you, it was a bad thing to see, it reminds me of the terrible effects of the sinful nature, when someone is zealously wicked, and follows sin and evil, to the point of killing innocent people. How can they have the love of God? God said that those who hate, don't know God, and this is how we know people and who they are, that those who love, know God, and those who hate, don't.

 

 

 

Fjuri: I'm talking about the Catholics, with the giant Chruches, decorated in gold. The Jehova's witnesses who go door to door increasing their "chances of paradise" by converting others to join. The golden Hindu temple in the center of a very poor village. And so on

 

I know, and I agree with you. For "the love of money is a root of all evil", a root that grows and spreads and lives off of the backs of the poor. It creates a root of all evil because of all of the bad things it does, like let people starve and live in squalor while a few wicked men gain wealth and power. 

 

I would be careful though, because many of those members of those churches may be innocent, or deceived.



#10 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 March 2017 - 08:32 AM

The assumption with the atheist video, is that belief in Christianity, the Lord, is the same as belief in Allah, and they imply that if you become zealous for God as a Christian, it will lead to something bad, which is wrong. Christians that are zealous for God usually go and do extreme acts of compassion, but obviously the assumption is that, "all religion is the same", but in fact, "religion" is a very, very broad term. I have absolutely nothing in common with someone like a jihadist, and they are the antithesis of my entire life purpose.

Sure, the Crusades, Inquisition or the Ulster Volunteer Force (lets start with these) have nothing to do with "Christians being zealous for God". Would you care to be compared to those?

 

Of course you wouldn't. Your interpretation from what god is inspiring people to do is just as different from those as from a jihadist. Guess what. The differentiator between different interpretations of "god's will" is not the book, nor is it the god. Its the cultural and personal interpretation that individuals have.



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 March 2017 - 08:53 AM

 

Fjuri: Sure, the Crusades, Inquisition or the Ulster Volunteer Force (lets start with these) have nothing to do with "Christians being zealous for God". Would you care to be compared to those?

 

Of course you wouldn't. Your interpretation from what god is inspiring people to do is just as different from those as from a jihadist. Guess what. The differentiator between different interpretations of "god's will" is not the book, nor is it the god. Its the cultural and personal interpretation that individuals have.

 

 

Incorrect.

 

The no true Scotsman fallacy is only committed if the predicated action contradicts the definition.

 

By definition, it means something to be a Christian. There are certain unequivocal teachings in the New Testament, which very clearly show that there is no part a Christian has in conquering for Christ, as there are scriptures that go against this. Because of your ignorance of the bible, you are not aware that there is no interpretive element to the teachings of Christ. Some things are contradictory to the Christian scriptures, whether you like it or not. That is why the atheist presenter in Goku's video, used the examples of Christ so as to show a contradiction between Christ's example, and the gospel of prosperity.

 

How utterly foolish that you would want to associate me with crusaders, and events that happened before my birth, when I told you my works. "If you dont' believe me then believe my works" - Jesus Christ. 

 

Your motive is very clear - to malign Christians because of an atheist agenda. But you lose the debate on this one, from the start, unless you can show there are scriptures in the New Testament that clearly teach that we should conquer for Christ.

 

In fact Christ said, "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", He also said that we should love our enemies. Christ is our example, and not only that but the NT lays down all of the things a Christian should do, and how our conduct should be. Galatians 5 for example, says we should seek the fruit of the spirit. Love, joy, peace, gentleness, self-control, patience, kindness, etc....it is a clear logical contradiction to seek conquest for Christianity.

 

Someone who seeks conquest pretending it is for Christ, contradicts the "gentleness", which is one of the fruits of the spirit. Christ was also our example, and could have raised a sword when they came to arrest them, but did not.

 

Nor can you only mention, for example, the atrocities committed by religious people, without mentioning the atrocities committed by Godless ideologies. In this type of debate atheists with small brains, tend to try and argue that violence all comes from religion.

 

 

Indeed, as we have documented, the deaths from atheistic or evolutionary regimes include:

77 million in Communist China62 million in the Soviet Gulag State21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields.

http://creation.com/...nary-atrocities

 

So it's up to you Fjuri. You can try and argue I am guilty-by-association, which is a generalisation fallacy you initially said you were not arguing, in response to Eddified's comment, and I can also list some atrocities that have happened because Godless people do Godless things. But will that mean I was a crusader, and will that mean you were part of communist China?

 

The door swings both ways - people have done lots of things in the name of Christianity, but their actions contradict the teachings of Christianity.

 

So I would only commit the "no true scotsman fallacy" if I were to argue that Bob is not a true Scotsman because he puts sugar on his porridge

 

Likewise, if a Christian says that he doesn't accept creation but accepts evolution, I would commit the no true scotsman fallacy if I were to say, "no true Christian accepts evolution theory". Sure, I can have some doubts about their commitment to Christianity, but I can't argue they aren't Christian because the predicate, "accepting evolution theory" does not contradict the definition of Christianity. But murdering for conquest, does contradict Christianity. Not because of one or even two scriptures, but because of many indisputably unequivocal scriptures which tell us how a Christian is to behave in no uncertain terms. The early church, what it was doing, what Paul was doing, was what Christianity was about. (the commission), meaning that if Paul and Peter all of a sudden took up swords and started killing to spread the gospel, that would contradict the whole of the book of Acts, and all of the actions of the early apostles. Paul preached and was nearly stoned to death but didn't lift up the sword, all of the apostles and what they did to establish the churches, did not mention anything military at all. The conspicuous absence of any military actions at all in all of the NT letters, is a loud proclamation that the early spread of Christianity had absolutely nothing to do with conquest and would totally contradict those "Acts". 

 

Do you even know any of this? I doubt it. The book of "Acts" records the churches, "Acts" or, "actions" on earth, as established by God through the descending of the Holy Spirit by fire, on the day of Pentecost. Christians were given gifts for those acts, gifts of the spirit, and those gifts were nothing to do with military action. They were gifts such as prophecy, words of knowledge, healing, etc...all clearly peaceful gifts, given for peaceful works.

 

I'm sorry Fjuri, but your ignorance of what the Christian bible teaches, is very apparent. There can be no justification for violence, and anyone studious in the Christian bible just LAUGHS when atheists come up with actions of so called, "Christians" which post-date the NT acts of the apostles by centuries, and were actions of catholics and organised religion, which came a long, long time after the Christian message, and are acts outside of the Christian message, therefore cannot pertain to it.

 

 

 

Fjuri: Sure, the Crusades, Inquisition or the Ulster Volunteer Force (lets start with these) have nothing to do with "Christians being zealous for God". Would you care to be compared to those?

 

It can't be the actions and teachings of Christ and the apostles, that inspired them to do this, because you can't find anything in the Christian bible that would lead you to such actions. Everything that happened from the day of pentecost forward, were actions God told the church to do, and God equipped the first Christians with gifts of the spirit; healing, prophecy, words of knowledge. God clearly wanted Christians to grow the church and help people, preaching the good news and healing people. So the actions of a "ulster force" have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity as such actions contradict all of those events in the Christian scriptures, and contradict all of the things God equipped Christians to do, and taught us to pursue. (love, peace, gentleness, kindness, etc...)

 

The only way you could say that these actions were somehow for Christ, is by twisting what the bible says, beyond description, for basically the whole of the New Testament contradicts the actions of these people. 

 

Do you seriously think that the history of mankind in the last 2000 years has anything to do with genuine belief in Christ?

 

God's kingdom isn't fought for because it transcends all other kingdoms. Preaching the gospel of the kindgom is what the actions of the NT are all about, they are a record of the Christians acts after Christ's resurrection.

 

People who were inspired by their desires for sin, and the desire for power and wickedness, people who never had anything to do with genuine Christianity but used it's name, are guilty of the things you mention, and I'm sorry to say this, but they were athiest because they did not know God, because Christ said you will "know them by their fruit". This is how we know what people really are - by their actions, Christ said many would come to Him in the name of Christianity on judgment day saying they were Christian and He said that on that day He will say, "depart from me, for I never knew you, you workers of iniquity"

 

Those who clearly live for sin, violence, conquest, power, glory and riches, are not of God.

 

Think about is this way - if in a court of law I merely called myself, "innocent" would that mean because I named myself "innocent", that the judge should let me go? I imagine you would think that rather odd. Therefore why if someone comes in the name of "Christianity" would you automatically conclude that they are, if their actions don't match Christianity?

 

If the person that calls himself, "innocent" is clearly guilty of murder, are you saying that because he calls himself, "innocent", we should let him go free?


  • Mike Summers likes this

#12 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:21 AM

It amazes me that Fjuri sees the folly of the pyraamiid scheme as it is something Jesus expressly taught against. However, Fjuri does not seem to want to admit that evolution is a pyramid scheme also. In fact the pyramid scheme repeats throughout all the levels of society.

Notice what Jesus said in Matthew 20:25-26: "Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant."
Jesus identified the offending concept and then spoke of its replacement.

In our world today money is often equated with power. Wealthy people often pay others to control and do their "dirty work". In the United States 40% of the money is concentrated in 1% of the population--the top of the pyramid. One statistic claim that it takes 100,000 people to support 1 milliomaire.

Income distribution in the United States has 80% of the population splitting 7% of the money. And that includes doctors lawyers nurses--and the so called middle class. The rest of the money is concentrated near the top of the pyramid.

Most people have embraced some form form of pyramid organization. For example, when money is not avaiable, physical violence tops the pyramid sd the method of control. Agressors quickly resort to violence to control those "below" them. This is what is going on among the poor in many of our inner cities. The physical aggressor has no qualms about use of violence to convince others to do his bidding. He or she rationalizes poverty to justify the need to take from others by physical force. Terrorist sit atop their pyramid despensimg death to those who dare to disobey them. Once again "suvival; of the fittest rears its uglu head (the pyramid scheme by another name).

Whether it's money or physical violemce the philosophical concept is the same--the need to control others and exercise dominion over others. The pyramid scheme is the same at all levels of society.

 



#13 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 30 March 2017 - 02:02 PM

Dr no PHD: "money happens.."

 

"well...money happens for you..."

 

That was pretty funny, and it is funny as a lot of it is true, and generally we are talking about religion. Do you realise I would laugh along with most of this too, even though I'm not an atheist?

 

Of course! What makes it funny is the absurdity of the "preacher" preaching a message that is so contradictory to what Jesus actually said, and fumbling iconic passages that even many atheists know.

 

But remember Goku, there are religious people that live each day and don't really have anything to do with organised religion. You can call me religious if you want, I can accept that, but that part where the truck exploded, that doesn't happen if you have zeal to obey God as a true Christian.

 

With shows like that, they depend on generalisations. If a Christians becomes passionate for God, that may make them go to the third world to become a doctor, which is extreme considering a lot of the places they go they could get murdered, but it isn't going to lead to jihad is it? Surely you can see the difference? I assume you would agree that what the Koran teaches and what the gospel teaches, rather differ?

 

Even the atheist presenter in this show uses what Jesus taught to juxtapose it against the prosperity message, meaning the Christian message and the prosperity message contradict each other.

 

Think about it - he can only use Christ as an example to condemn Dr big-bucks, if there is a true Christ-ian message he is contradicting. Even the presenter has an idea of Jesus which is closer to the truth than the idea the prosperity preacher has.

 

The truck bomb is an obvious stab at what the prosperity "doctor" said; he was talking about how some guy was ready to "kill himself" for some girl (an obvious figure of speech) and the preacher said that he needed to turn that passion towards God. It was a cheap joke, a play on words, not some deep comparison between Christianity and Islam. I don't know if you know who Bill Maher is, but he is basically a comedian. He once asked Trump to produce his birth certificate (back when Trump kept asking Obama for his) to demonstrate that Trump was not the offspring of his mother and an orangutan.

 

I don't know too much about the Qur'an, but what little I've come across the main message - apart from Allah and Muhammad are great, is summed up as 'kill the infidels'.



#14 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:07 AM

I think it extremly naive to promote religion as an us vs them headset. It's as if one side can be blamed for our collective isssues. I think I hear, "I am not religious like you are!" That just means we refuse to acknowledge each of our parts in our dilimma. Blaming religion is far to general. What specific rules are the culprits.

The hole may very well be on my side of the boat but in truth that matters little because if you refuse to help me bail we will all sink because we are all in the same boat!



#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 April 2017 - 05:33 AM

 

 

Goku: The truck bomb is an obvious stab at what the prosperity "doctor" said; he was talking about how some guy was ready to "kill himself" for some girl (an obvious figure of speech) and the preacher said that he needed to turn that passion towards God. It was a cheap joke, a play on words, not some deep comparison between Christianity and Islam.

 

I don't know, it came across more as, "this is what happens if you have passion for God."

 

 

 

Goku: I don't know too much about the Qur'an, but what little I've come across the main message - apart from Allah and Muhammad are great, is summed up as 'kill the infidels'.

 

Don't say this to the atheists at EvC forum, they would fight you on it. They take the position that your comment is basically Islamophobia.

 

Now I know you aren't as caustic as an anti-theist, but basically the anti-theists position against Christianity can sometimes be pretty absurd. It seems Christians get lumped into the group which causes terrorism and violence (religion) but if you argue that Islam is responsible for Islamic terrorism, you are called Islamophobic.

 

So according to some anti-theists, Christians are responsible for Muslim terror and Muslims aren't.

 

Of course I exaggerate, but in a roundabout way, this is the strange position many atheists take - an attack on Christianity using generalisation, but then they tell you not to generalise if you suggest Islam is a religion of violence and they will point out how many peaceful Muslims exist.



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 April 2017 - 05:38 AM

Mike, you are right, it's the blame-game.

 

Atheists and Christians (for arguments sake) believe that 495 religions are false, and atheists believe 496 are false.

 

We can agree that false religion is a bad thing, but it's the people that sin that cause the trouble. Usually they invent a religion to use so as to justify certain acts, or they falsely use religion because the religion isn't false but they are, like cult-leaders that will say, "God says we must do this".

 

What they're really saying is, "I am god, and will use God's name to my advantage".

 

All of the ideologies which motivate mankind are clearly caused by the various wicked desires they have to kill and be in power. That's all the Islamic terrorists are about, they just want life to be lived their way, where they are in charge because they enjoy being brutal, wicked, people by nature. (sin nature). There is no mercy or tenderness in them. 



#17 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 April 2017 - 05:59 AM

In a pyramid scheme, an organization compels individuals who wish to join to make a payment.
 
Wake up people.

name the religion that compels you to make a payment.

are you talking about tithes?
fat chance of getting rich from that.

maybe you need to go back to watching TV.

#18 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 April 2017 - 06:11 AM

I've stated facts, have I not?

facts?
you want facts?
creationists and atheists are the exact same type of people because they both profess that which they cannot possibly know.

remember that the next time you feel the urge to tell a creationist they have no idea what they are talking about.

#19 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 April 2017 - 07:20 AM

That's all the Islamic terrorists are about, they just want life to be lived their way, where they are in charge because they enjoy being brutal, wicked, people by nature. (sin nature). There is no mercy or tenderness in them. 

it could also be some kind of propaganda scheme perpetrated by the soviet union.
america and the soviet union has been squabbling about mideastern oil for decades.
in this regard, i cannot blame the muslim people because they are merely pawns.
but i do believe islam/ muslims have been directly responsible for some of americas most violent riots.

keep in mind i harbor no ill will towards islam/muslims, there are a number of them here locally and they are friendly and intelligent.

#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 April 2017 - 08:01 AM

 

 

What If: keep in mind i harbor no ill will towards islam/muslims, there are a number of them here locally and they are friendly and intelligent. 

 

Neither do I, I just think that you can count on the fact that if your neighbours were genuinely Christian you wouldn't have to fear any chance of terrorism, but for me personally, I think the possibility is always there if there is a Muslim, because if you are Muslim, you are not addressing the sin-nature and are open to strange philosophies about the false god, Allah. I can say this with confidence because no god that comes 700 years after the bible can be the God that made the Archer fish, because the tactical genius displayed in nature means that if God was Allah, He would have to be supremely DUMB to turn up that late in the game and say, "all that bible stuff, yeah that was me - kind of, but now be Muslim".

 

I mean it's just so obvious that the Koran usurps from the bible, because the only way the Koran could have a semblance of legitimacy was if it somehow acknowledged the bible.

 

Think about it - for it to say the bible is false and everything in it - well, people would just automatically say, "says a book that comes centuries after the bible. Lunacy." So instead the writers of the Koran basically USED the bible by saying the bible is true, but only true in the parts the Koran says it is true in.

 

How utterly absurd - what a God of utter confusion. If God was Allah, he never would have permitted the confusion of the bible's existence to begin with, he would have got there first. So then the God, the great God that created all of the incredible organisms - is he going to create such a confusing scenario? He has done the worst possible job by making the bible more influential, more legitimate, first on the scene, and having a much better message in the story of the cross, so why let the bible exist to begin with?

 

Is the God who made the sea slug which is able to EAT sea-anemone darts and not die, going to have the tactical acuity of a retarded rodent in bringing the Koran into play 700 years after the ball game is over? Yet when we read of the tactical acuity of how the Lord won the battle for Gideon, with a handful of soldiers, this matches with what we see in nature, for how can a sea slug solve the problem of the anemone dart? By cleverly transporting it to it's back via it's stomach to use as it's own weapons.

 

Who else but God, could think up the walls of Jericho, where it looked utterly futile? First he got the walls but the spirit of the citizens after watching that bizarre display for a week, was utterly broken, they were in disarray and confusion having to wait for a battle for one week to the point where when it came for it, they basically were psychologically defeated already. Just like George Foreman was when Muhammad Ali played rope-a-dope and spoke to him in his ear the whole fight, "is that all you've got George" and poor George hit air for many rounds, until when Ali went-a-punchin', poor George was ready to be knocked down by a feather. He was so demoralised by that stage, that I could have knocked him out. Then what happened - George Foreman grills! "If you can't beat the meat then cook it!"

:rotfl3:  ;)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users