• The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions in the United States: $71,000,000,000
    350 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lankist;36365288]Isn't love more than the interaction of body parts, though? The only distinction between homosexual and heterosexual love is the earthly body. Is not love a deeper affair than what part goes where? I mean, I'm a hardened atheist, so I don't buy into spirits or eternal souls or anything like that. But for one who is faithful: isn't love a spiritual feeling? Is there really all that much difference between the souls of men and women?[/QUOTE] Love as defined in the Bible isn't just that. Sex is a result of love and legal under a marriage... again... the marriage thing... I don't really know what love is. For me, that's like saying I would know what God is exactly. For atheists, love is just a feeling we attributed the name to when our bodies release certain chemicals. But for Christians, it does transcend the physical.
[QUOTE=F T;36365314]I didn't remove it, you edited your post after I quoted it. It doesn't change the fact that you and I have a different understanding of love. Still, you used a verse in the bible, now it's my turn: 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, [B]nor homosexuals[/B], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;36365288]Isn't love more than the interaction of body parts, though? The only distinction between homosexual and heterosexual love is the earthly body. Is not love a deeper affair than what part goes where? I mean, I'm a hardened atheist, so I don't buy into spirits or eternal souls or anything like that. But for one who is faithful: isn't love a spiritual feeling? Is there really all that much difference between the souls of men and women?[/QUOTE] [editline]17th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36365319]Love as defined in the Bible isn't just that. Sex is a result of love and legal under a marriage... again... the marriage thing... I don't really know what love is. For me, that's like saying I would know what God is exactly. For atheists, love is just a feeling we attributed the name to when our bodies release certain chemicals. But for Christians, it does transcend the physical.[/QUOTE] The atheist perspective is a bit different than that. At least, for scientifically philosophical atheists. "We are the universe experiencing itself" is a good, unattributed quotation. Pretty much anything Neil deGrasse Tyson goes well with that. It's not as bleak as saying "we're just chemicals." We don't think of that as being a disappointment. We (I) think of that as a beautiful process. An intricate pattern of biochemical and electrical signals, which can be communicated and shared between ourselves. Everything we are is a complex pattern in our brains, and we can share those patterns with others. Our unique pattern of biochemical and electrical signals will outlive our own bodies in the minds of all those we interacted with, and all those [I]they[/I] interacted with. Sharing what is fundamentally [I]you[/I] with another human being, and having them share themselves likewise; that is love.
So, then what is love according to them? You do accept that we feel love when those chemicals are released and certain things in our brain go off. Now, I'm not saying I disagree with that. I know that happens because science has proved it. But what else is there to love for you other than brain chemicals? Well yes, but it's just the human physical brain. I agree that how we are structured is beautiful but I believe where our agreements end is when love is more than of the physical world.
[QUOTE=F T;36365314]I didn't remove it, you edited your post after I quoted it. It doesn't change the fact that you and I have a different understanding of love. Still, you used a verse in the bible, now it's my turn: 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, [B]nor homosexuals[/B], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."[/QUOTE] Have you stopped to wonder why that's in there? Can you think for yourself?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36365288]Isn't love more than the interaction of body parts, though? The only distinction between homosexual and heterosexual love is the earthly body. Is not love a deeper affair than what part goes where? I mean, I'm a hardened atheist, so I don't buy into spirits or eternal souls or anything like that. But for one who is faithful: isn't love a spiritual feeling? Is there really all that much difference between the souls of men and women?[/QUOTE] Love is not a spiritual feeling. There are 3 types of love. 1. Agape love (unconditional) 2. Philos love (friendship) 3. Eros love (passionate) None of which are spiritual. The difference between homosexual love and heterosexual love is more than just mere genital difference.
[QUOTE=F T;36365386]Love is not a spiritual feeling. There are 3 types of love. 1. Agape love (unconditional) 2. Philos love (friendship) 3. Eros love (passionate) None of which are spiritual. The difference between homosexual love and heterosexual love is more than just mere genital difference.[/QUOTE] Which parts of the bible are those from, again? [editline]17th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36365378]So, then what is love according to them? You do accept that we feel love when those chemicals are released and certain things in our brain go off. Now, I'm not saying I disagree with that. I know that happens because science has proved it. But what else is there to love for you other than brain chemicals?[/QUOTE] edited the post. [QUOTE=Lankist;36365323]It's not as bleak as saying "we're just chemicals." We don't think of that as being a disappointment. We (I) think of that as a beautiful process. An intricate pattern of biochemical and electrical signals, which can be communicated and shared between ourselves. Everything we are is a complex pattern in our brains, and we can share those patterns with others. Our unique pattern of biochemical and electrical signals will outlive our own bodies in the minds of all those we interacted with, and all those [I]they[/I] interacted with. Sharing what is fundamentally [I]you[/I] with another human being, and having them share themselves likewise; that is love.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36365392]Which parts of the bible are those from, again? [/QUOTE] Pretty much everywhere it says love. Those were Greek words that got lost in translation because we've only got one word for love.
Well yes, I edited mine accordingly too once I saw that. Ultimately, I think we can just agree to disagree. I'm out, sleepy time.
[QUOTE=F T;36365410]Pretty much everywhere it says love. Those were Greek words that got lost in translation because we've only got one word for love.[/QUOTE] Do quote the verses which make the distinction between three distinct forms of love, none of which are spiritual in nature.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36365426]Do quote the verses which make the distinction between three distinct forms of love, none of which are spiritual in nature.[/QUOTE] 1. Corinthians 13:4-8 "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." 2. Matthew 22:39 "The second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.'" 3. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
[QUOTE=F T;36365467]1. Corinthians 13:4-8 "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." 2. Matthew 22:39 "The second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.'" 3. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."[/QUOTE] I simply do not see how those contradict one another, nor do I see how it implies they are not a spiritual affair. The first is philosophical and areligious, the second is the Golden Rule, and the third is just "don't fuck before marriage." I don't see how any of those are mutually exclusive, nor how they can't apply to homosexuals. In fact, wouldn't the third imply gay people should get married if they are passionate about one another, rather than deny it?
You said to show you, and I have, if you cannot see the differences, I cannot help you.
[QUOTE=T F;36365582]You said to show you, and I have, if you cannot see the differences, I cannot help you.[/QUOTE] You need to do more than quote things out-of-context. also hello alt
Not really an alt, just me on a phone cause it's logged in with this account for some reason. I guess you could call me F T-Mobile :v:
love for us atheists aren't just chemicals moving to us, fuck, to be honest, religion cheapens life for me, it's literally a second chance, preferring to believe there is no afterlife gives life more sanctity here's what i mean [img]http://i.imgur.com/CQXi3.jpg[/img] sure, its not love love in the picture's context, but the point stands, and its even worth more when you're in a relationship
How do you make money from Religion? By Selling God?
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36358021]I'm not calling it complex, I'm calling you incompetent.[/QUOTE] with a well thought out argument like this, how can i argue. Derp, at least learn to debate if your going to bother typing So lets assume they do start taxing churches Do they still let charities be tax exempt? ie/ are donations to (non-profit) charities considered tax exempt? If so you just made accountants very happy, and churches still pay zero taxes...
The church should have a 80% tax rate. The taxes should be reinvested in health care, housing, science, technology and space programs.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36367596]The church should have a 80% tax rate. The taxes should be reinvested in health care, housing, science, technology and space programs.[/QUOTE] since thats double or triple of the current (highest) tax rate, i can see how this wouldnt be construed as punitive in any way
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36367648]since thats double or triple of the current (highest) tax rate, i can see how this wouldnt be construed as punitive in any way[/QUOTE] Nothing is wrong with it being considered punitive. Resources from useless, or even harmful things (the church) should be redirected to useful things (health care, space programs, science, technology, housing).
[QUOTE=GenPol;36367716]Nothing is wrong with it being considered punitive. Resources from useless, or even harmful things (the church) should be redirected to useful things (health care, space programs, science, technology, housing).[/QUOTE] nothing? nothing at all? not even that making it punitive would be blatantly illegal? ie/ the gov gets to pick which "beliefs" it supports and taxes the others into the ground... Also pointing out that no one is stopping you from funding things you find "useful"
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36367892]nothing? nothing at all? not even that making it punitive would be blatantly illegal? ie/ the gov gets to pick which "beliefs" it supports and taxes the others into the ground... Also pointing out that no one is stopping you from funding things you find "useful"[/QUOTE] No, the definition of the church is pretty clear. It would also be decided by the supreme court, and voted on with a referendum in a developed society. That's like saying "The government can pick 'people' and put them in prison because it's able to put people in prison for crimes". "Also pointing out that no one is stopping you from funding things you find "useful"" - My funds are nothing compared to what could be taken from the church and reinvested in housing, health care, science, technology, space programs, etc.
[QUOTE=BCell;36367401]How do you make money from Religion? By Selling God?[/QUOTE] Take donations under the false pretense that you're going to donate it all.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36367964]No, the definition of the church is pretty clear. It would also be decided by the supreme court, and voted on with a referendum in a developed society. That's like saying "The government can pick 'people' and put them in prison because it's able to put people in prison for crimes". "Also pointing out that no one is stopping you from funding things you find "useful"" - My funds are nothing compared to what could be taken from the church and reinvested in housing, health care, science, technology, space programs, etc.[/QUOTE] What? that makes no sense. The definition of religion is pretty clear? OK, so how again does that make it ok to stamp them out of existence through taxation? (assuming oc, were going for punitive taxation here, and not rates similar to what individuals businesses are/ and assuming ALL religions (and therefore all charities) are subjected to that tax As for you not having the funds that religion does= irrelevant. Get a better job? Collect donations yourself? Do something other then envy those who have resources...
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36368133]ALL religions (and therefore all charities)[/QUOTE]Religion =/= Charity. [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36368133]OK, so how again does that make it ok to stamp them out of existence through taxation?[/QUOTE] Second, the taxes are figured after expenses are taken in to account. So they'd still be able to exist just fine, they just wouldn't be able to make gross profits without giving anything back. It wouldn't be "stamping them out of existence". They'd get to continue existing just fine. [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36368133]As for you not having the funds that religion does= irrelevant. Get a better job? Collect donations yourself? Do something other then envy those who have resources...[/QUOTE]And now we've gone from "Religions should be tax exempt" to "Lousy poor people trying to steal everything real, hard working Americans have earned." You've successfully used many of the baseless arguments that are also used to defend high earners taking home multimillion dollar bonuses and massive businesses that get away with paying less taxes than the lowest income levels that can be taxed. It has nothing to do with envy, and everything to do with the fact that they make a profit and they abuse the money they collect under false pretenses and being in massive amounts of income just like a real business, but they get away without paying anything back. Its funny that you apparently joined because you "felt it was time to start telling ppl why theyre wrong" and yet the first argument you get in to, you seem to be taking every effort possible to be wrong.
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36368133]What? that makes no sense. The definition of religion is pretty clear? OK, so how again does that make it ok to stamp them out of existence through taxation? (assuming oc, were going for punitive taxation here, and not rates similar to what individuals businesses are/ and assuming ALL religions (and therefore all charities) are subjected to that tax As for you not having the funds that religion does= irrelevant. Get a better job? Collect donations yourself? Do something other then envy those who have resources...[/QUOTE] "OK, so how again does that make it ok to stamp them out of existence through taxation?" - it could still exist. However, there's nothing wrong with it being taxed to death anyway. What makes it OK is that far more benefit to the society could be provided by diverting resources to free health care, cheap hosing, science, technology and economic growth.
Religion may not equal charity- but if you tax religion, without taxing (non profit charities) it doesnt take a genius to figure out that all religious institutions will now operate as non profit charities. So then the question becomes are you willing to end tax exempt status entirely? If you think the federal gov can use the money more efficiently- you havent been paying attention. As for the "lousy poor ppl yadda yada"- i didnt even begin to say anything of the sort. What i said is if you feel there are organizations in need of funding- go ahead, im not stopping you.
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36368507]Religion may not equal charity- but if you tax religion, without taxing (non profit charities) it doesnt take a genius to figure out that all religious institutions will now operate as non profit charities. So then the question becomes are you willing to end tax exempt status entirely? If you think the federal gov can use the money more efficiently- you havent been paying attention. As for the "lousy poor ppl yadda yada"- i didnt even begin to say anything of the sort. What i said is if you feel there are organizations in need of funding- go ahead, im not stopping you.[/QUOTE] "What i said is if you feel there are organizations in need of funding" - My money is nothing compared with roughly a hundred billion of dollars per year.
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36367445]with a well thought out argument like this, how can i argue. Derp, at least learn to debate if your going to bother typing So lets assume they do start taxing churches Do they still let charities be tax exempt? ie/ are donations to (non-profit) charities considered tax exempt? If so you just made accountants very happy, and churches still pay zero taxes...[/QUOTE] Hey look, somebody who didn't read the OP! And you wonder why I dismiss you out of hand. Go back and read.
Here's my thought. If you're a church, then you should have a tax. No exceptions. None of this "oh we're a CHARITY!" bullshit. BUT. Only investigate whether or not said church is paying those taxes when they start to step out of line. Pretty much meaning Westboro gets taxed, whatever the hell church that nutcase pastor runs gets taxed, but Our Lady Of Not Getting Into Politics is fine, as is Poor People Probably Want Food Baptist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.