- #36
Zero
Ready to play yet?Originally posted by kat
Sounds like a planI'll be back later today, when I have more time to contribute.
Are Middle Eastern Religions Harmful to Society?
In summary, the conversation discusses the negative impact of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on humanity, citing their common use of fear, control, and punishment as tactics. It also suggests that these religions may not lead to absolute truth and that politics may have corrupted them. The conversation also touches on the concept of hell in these religions and the idea that they may exploit human nature. There is also a mention of the
- #37
kat
- 42
- 0
I've been considering where or rather when would be a good place to start..I've also started reading this http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/note5.htm
I'm a little busy and haven't had a ton of time to really lay out an analysis.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #38
Zero
Well, I'm not going anywhere, and neither is PF...take your time, and if I don't respond when you get your research together, PM me, ok?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #39
radagast
- 484
- 1
In this thread there has been much debate concerning religion and what is and isn't.
Though a good question, one needs be careful in how you use a dictionary definition.
For instance, Worm: it can mean an invertibrate that all of us recognize as a worm, it can mean a type of gear, or a type of computer virus.
Obviously they refer to different entities.
The reference referred to anything entered into with great zeal (poor paraphrasing) obviously wasn't the same thing people were talking about as religion. Ideologies can be 'religions' in one sense, but not the one we are speaking of here. The one that was being discussed here was one that would be characterized as 'a spiritual, trancendental pursuit, often involving established ceremonys, usually having clery (spiritual leaders such as priests/pastors/Imams/Rabbis/etc), and regular spiritual practices'. A poor definition, but one that, in general, encompasses the 'religion' spoken of here.
As such, Kat, your argument falls into the category of "Straw man" and perhaps a few other argument flaws.
I think the argument's intent is good, but that specific tact of the argument is flawed. Perhaps this is a better what to put it: Any endeavor engaged in by humans is fraught with potential abuse and misuse, no matter how noble the desire of the founders/practitioners. Or that any endeavor engendering strong emotions a large group can result in potentially life threatening behaviour, by that group.
Though a good question, one needs be careful in how you use a dictionary definition.
For instance, Worm: it can mean an invertibrate that all of us recognize as a worm, it can mean a type of gear, or a type of computer virus.
Obviously they refer to different entities.
The reference referred to anything entered into with great zeal (poor paraphrasing) obviously wasn't the same thing people were talking about as religion. Ideologies can be 'religions' in one sense, but not the one we are speaking of here. The one that was being discussed here was one that would be characterized as 'a spiritual, trancendental pursuit, often involving established ceremonys, usually having clery (spiritual leaders such as priests/pastors/Imams/Rabbis/etc), and regular spiritual practices'. A poor definition, but one that, in general, encompasses the 'religion' spoken of here.
As such, Kat, your argument falls into the category of "Straw man" and perhaps a few other argument flaws.
I think the argument's intent is good, but that specific tact of the argument is flawed. Perhaps this is a better what to put it: Any endeavor engaged in by humans is fraught with potential abuse and misuse, no matter how noble the desire of the founders/practitioners. Or that any endeavor engendering strong emotions a large group can result in potentially life threatening behaviour, by that group.
- #40
Royce
- 1,539
- 0
Odd! I always thought it was frustration due to the other side's refusal to accept my brilliance and irrefutable logic. Any way, Zero, when one has brilliance, genius an there own form of logic on ones side one does not need legs to stand on as you well know. As both a participant and mentor if PF I'm sure that youve noticed the scarcity of legs here including, need I say your own, at times.
As to the topic, I think it is more human nature than religion. Religion is just an excuse or rational. No religion that I know of in the world is immune from this criticism. Need I remind you of Gingus Khan whose are is said to have killed one million people in one day. He was from the East and had nothing to do with religion.
The Romans were one a rampage long before they became Christian.
Then of course the noble northern european pagans - uh, did some one mention Vikings. No one mentioned Persians of Babalonians (sp?) or Zulus or Tartars or Huns or Japanese or Cheyannes or Soix or Turks or...
I think I am beginning to see a pattern here. Its people and not religion or dogma or ideology but human greed and lust for power and domination over others. Some may call it the need for survival gone mad in the most universally successfull advanced species developed so far.
- #41
BoulderHead
0.02
This tread was supposed to, in particular, be dealing with religions that came out of the Middle East.
This tread was supposed to, in particular, be dealing with religions that came out of the Middle East.
- #42
BiologyForums
My question for the main poster is:
Why are you limiting this to Middle Eastern religions?
I ask this because your claim is very much null and a harsh generalization.
It's not the religions that are cancer - because people who are operating under those particular religions in other areas of the world do not stand out.
And people who DO NOT operate under those particular religions and DO LIVE in the middle east do not stand out.
It's people who DO operate under those religions and DO LIVE in the middle east - that are this "cancer".
At least that's your claim, said better. I'm not saying I agree or disagree...but that you made a bit of a generalization...
Why are you limiting this to Middle Eastern religions?
I ask this because your claim is very much null and a harsh generalization.
It's not the religions that are cancer - because people who are operating under those particular religions in other areas of the world do not stand out.
And people who DO NOT operate under those particular religions and DO LIVE in the middle east do not stand out.
It's people who DO operate under those religions and DO LIVE in the middle east - that are this "cancer".
At least that's your claim, said better. I'm not saying I agree or disagree...but that you made a bit of a generalization...
- #43
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
Probably because most of the religions come from there, no! not all, of then, but most.
- #44
Zero
I think historically, he has a point, even though right now it is Arab fanatics, if you look at the last few thousand years, it has been Christians in Europe, and Jews in teh Middle East as well.
- #45
eNtRopY
Because those are the religions that suck the most.
eNtRopY
- #46
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
Don't know that that is true, but I do know that it IS Churches (their soup kitchens, et al) that are keeping me (and quite a few others) Fed! and alive!
- #47
megashawn
Science Advisor
- 451
- 0
He was said to have killed 1 million people in one day huh? Hmm. Seems a statement like that would require some kind of proof, like, maybe 1 million dead bodies in a close area.
That, and I don't think a single person could do that. Even an army would have a hard time pulling that off with limited technology of the time.
Maybe a week.
Its nice that churches will provide for those less fortunate. Its a shame they can't do more stuff like this. Perhaps if the preachers weren't driving $50,000 cars, living in 200K dollar houses, then maybe they could reach more.
Of course there going to do some charity work, its propaganda, to get ppl to go "Oh that so nice that there doing this stuff for free, maybe we should go to church".
Reminds me of the old thread, i think PF2, "Christianity is Wrong and Evil" in response to good ole Futurists thread "Atheism is wrong and evil". Let me pick out a few evil traits of christiainity:
1) Support for slavery
2) Bigotry, racism, etc
3) Claims of absolute knowledge
4) Stifling of true education (as a result of #3)
5) Countless wars, crusades, conversions, etc
6) Telling overpopulated countrys that using birth control is wrong (that may have been catholic, but same difference)
7) Putting ourselves (humanity) at the top of the food chain, bested only by God himself
8) Brainwashed populace('s)
9) Murder
10) Greed
Of course these are vague, but they clearly show the cancer at work on humanity.
I can find biblical support for most of this, if needed.
- #48
Sunfist
I think that you guys are seeing results instead of motivations.
Please bear me out and I'll try to keep this short.
Religion doesn't cause wrongs. Science doesn't cause wrongs. Humans cause wrongs. Humans cause evils. Religion isn't a force. In itself, it doesn't exist. It's only what humans make of it.
If all the religions that you have mentioned were followed to the letter, there would be no harm caused by them. "Thou shall not kill" There is no ifs, ands, or buts about that statement. "Treat thy neighbor as yourself". It's clear. That last statement can be found in all major religions of the world.
In the same vein, science is not evil either. Nuclear technology and knowhow isn't evil. Building a nuclear bomb to kill people is evil, but look at the act: It's simply killing people. Take it to the root, the base, and that's what you have: Humans killing humans. If it's a religious crusade or a "necessary" nuclear bomb attack, it's still humans killing humans.
Christianity did not "create" the Nazi party. The Nazi party used Christianity because they knew that it would work. They knew the people would listen to their religious leaders. Recently, America has done the same thing. In churches all across America, preachers were telling their "flocks" that America was doing the right thing in Iraq. (It doesn't matter if you believe what America did was good or bad, it's the principle of the religious leaders backing political movement.)
On the subject of religions from the Middle East, whoever mentioned that those aren't the only ones that have caused pain is correct. If you recall your history, the Japanese were essentially "tricked" by their religious leaders in World War II. They were told what they were doing was Holy.
People are evil, not ideals. Rituals to worship God are not evil. People using religious ferver to garner support for a Holy War is evil. Keep in mind, though, that most of the time, even people like priests aren't the ones causing the pain, it comes from higher up. They just preach what they are told. That's what happened in Nazi Germany, and that's what happened with the Crusades.
Relgion, science, etc. is just the methodology, not the motivation.
Please bear me out and I'll try to keep this short.
Religion doesn't cause wrongs. Science doesn't cause wrongs. Humans cause wrongs. Humans cause evils. Religion isn't a force. In itself, it doesn't exist. It's only what humans make of it.
If all the religions that you have mentioned were followed to the letter, there would be no harm caused by them. "Thou shall not kill" There is no ifs, ands, or buts about that statement. "Treat thy neighbor as yourself". It's clear. That last statement can be found in all major religions of the world.
In the same vein, science is not evil either. Nuclear technology and knowhow isn't evil. Building a nuclear bomb to kill people is evil, but look at the act: It's simply killing people. Take it to the root, the base, and that's what you have: Humans killing humans. If it's a religious crusade or a "necessary" nuclear bomb attack, it's still humans killing humans.
Christianity did not "create" the Nazi party. The Nazi party used Christianity because they knew that it would work. They knew the people would listen to their religious leaders. Recently, America has done the same thing. In churches all across America, preachers were telling their "flocks" that America was doing the right thing in Iraq. (It doesn't matter if you believe what America did was good or bad, it's the principle of the religious leaders backing political movement.)
On the subject of religions from the Middle East, whoever mentioned that those aren't the only ones that have caused pain is correct. If you recall your history, the Japanese were essentially "tricked" by their religious leaders in World War II. They were told what they were doing was Holy.
People are evil, not ideals. Rituals to worship God are not evil. People using religious ferver to garner support for a Holy War is evil. Keep in mind, though, that most of the time, even people like priests aren't the ones causing the pain, it comes from higher up. They just preach what they are told. That's what happened in Nazi Germany, and that's what happened with the Crusades.
Relgion, science, etc. is just the methodology, not the motivation.
- #49
megashawn
Science Advisor
- 451
- 0
Agreed to a point, but it can also be the motivating factor. You must believe that there are people who are litterally brainwashed from birth to believe in one method or another.
So you have a nation of brainwashed people who believe not only anything there preacher tells them, but nothing they learn elsewhere, then it would be quite easy for that preacher to say "Go to war with xxxx, and you will be saved a special seat in heaven". I have no doubt in my mind that religion has been used as a tool to control the masses since there has been enough people to call a group a mass.
My main point, is while on the large scale it is a method, on the individual scale, it can be a reason for motivation.
edit: For instance, a promise of 50 virgins for crashing a plain into a building.
So you have a nation of brainwashed people who believe not only anything there preacher tells them, but nothing they learn elsewhere, then it would be quite easy for that preacher to say "Go to war with xxxx, and you will be saved a special seat in heaven". I have no doubt in my mind that religion has been used as a tool to control the masses since there has been enough people to call a group a mass.
My main point, is while on the large scale it is a method, on the individual scale, it can be a reason for motivation.
edit: For instance, a promise of 50 virgins for crashing a plain into a building.
- #50
Sunfist
And I agree with you. I'm saying that you have to realize the "why" of it. Religion didn't make those people want to kill. Their priest told them they would get 50 virgins. Someone taught him. It's just higher up than the personal level where the evil seeps in.
Look, if you were walking along and you went into a bookstore and said, "What is this Bible thing, I think I'll buy it and read it". Then, you took it home and read it cover to cover, I can promise you that you wouldn't go out gunning down people the next day or slaughtering "non-Christians" in Christ's name. Another human has to convince you to do that.
Look, if you were walking along and you went into a bookstore and said, "What is this Bible thing, I think I'll buy it and read it". Then, you took it home and read it cover to cover, I can promise you that you wouldn't go out gunning down people the next day or slaughtering "non-Christians" in Christ's name. Another human has to convince you to do that.
- #51
Zero
Lest we forget, folks...Hinduism is the logical conclusion of as much violence as any of the Judeo-Christian sects. It is also striking to realize that all the controls and frustration inherent in most religions leads to the rage and single-mindedness that makes for perfect soldiers.
- #52
Sunfist
Well, it makes sense. Some guy tells you to kill other humans because your country leader wants you to: Yeah, some guys are definitely going to do it out of "honor" and "duty". But, tell them that the higher power that will give them eternal salvation wants them to kill someone: That's how you move empires.
- #53
quartodeciman
- 372
- 0
It seems to me that the problem is that of fomenting continuous frustrated latent horniness.
- #54
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
The problem is exactly what religion addresses, the Truth V lies.
That breaks down into the control factors, over others, based upon the lies told in the name of religion, rather then the admonishment(s) to practise the truth(s) of religions, hence peacefullness.
That breaks down into the control factors, over others, based upon the lies told in the name of religion, rather then the admonishment(s) to practise the truth(s) of religions, hence peacefullness.
- #55
Zero
Especially with teh dietary and sexual restrictions, the fasting and whatnot...all serves to build a fury which is then unleashed upon the infidel.
- #56
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
Hummm, the emboldened is exactly what is ascribed as "The Right by/of Authority" to act, on all sides, as the US, too, acts under "The Authority of God" meaning the 'Rights of Law(s)'.
("One nation, under God...")
- #57
radagast
- 484
- 1
Funny, but I think you're leaving out one of the main reasons, a reason that doesn't make sense to us, but is their primary motivator all the same.
Muslims of the middle east feel like their way of life is under attack. There are strong technical changes and strong cultural changes that are affecting their traditional culture and values. These changes have only been strongly affecting them since the seventies. Thirty years isn't very long for a people to become comfortably enculturated to the new ideas and ways. They feel most intimidated by the exposure to western culture. It is as if they are under a cultural attack. One that is undermining the values and traditions that they hold dear. Most insidiously, they are afraid that their people cannot resist the temptations of the western culture, so they have feelings of fear, resentment, and the desire to lash out at those who they feel are 'attacking' them. Few of them realize this overtly, but it drives most of the hatred of the west. Their hatred and lashing out would exist without their religion, it is just used to help rationalize and justify their own reactions.
It is not logical, but how often does logic alter peoples' behavior.
- #58
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
WOW, such cynicism!
How many 'preachers' do you know who drive $50K cars and live in $200k houses?
Never mind the simplicity that even if they live in $200K houses they personally do NOT own them, nor do they own any $50K cars, all church properties.
- #59
megashawn
Science Advisor
- 451
- 0
Another problem with religion, especially the M.E. ones, is that they all preach about the doom of humanity.
And each elder generation believes that Jesus will return before they die, and therefore do not really care about how they may effect the world.
I know of one person in particular, who believes it is not possible for humans to destroy this planet, either by turning it into wasteland, or blowing it up with a nuke.
Of course his reasoning for the nuke lies in what he considers the fact that hell is in the center of the Earth and is an alternate dimension, which could never be reached by human means.
Anyhow, on to my point, if I can remember it.
Ah yes. Almost any religion, especially monotheistic, predicts an end time and a judgement, in which all of humanity will be destroyed. Christianity for instance uses revelations to tell us something like "And he'll come in a cloud with power, and great glory" (not 100%). This book implies that a being not of this Earth will come to destroy life as we know it.
In the movie Independance Day, humanity joined together to fight against the threat of total annilation. In real life, people pray for that day to come. It scares me to think that some aliens could study us, our religions, and use them against us.
Also, on this note, what kind of motivation is it for a person to take care of the enviroment, dedicate a life to education and hard work, etc, when at some point in time all your troubles will be pointless, since God is coming back and going to destroy humanity.
Why isn't there any religions that preach about improvement, of oneself, friends family and land? To learn as much about reality as is possible and to do your best to make sure life continues, with and without you.
And then, it gets worse. We have the majority of the population believing that at some point in time, God will come back to destroy us, judge us, whatever. We have a president, in charge of one of the greatest nations on earth, that subcribes to this same rediculous belief. Personally, as Commander and Cheif I'd like a person who will fight against any threat to life. Instead, we've got a person who thinks he plays a part in the final book of the bible.
Bunch of bla bla, but I truly think that this destructive belief will probably lead to either complete exticntion, or at the least plunge us back into the dark ages.
"Escape from LA" is a good example.
Why does a Church need a 200K dollar home? Or a $50,000 car? Why can't a preacher, whom I'd assume should be very lightly attached to the material world need such possessions, even if its a loaner per church there preaching at. And just what is the average salary of a preacher? I know of one here in greensboro making $250,000 a year for it.
Now how about if that church, being a place of god, obviously trustworthy, cut the pastors pay, and finance your project?
And what is the purpose in making a technological advancement such as you claim to possesses if god is coming to set things right?
And each elder generation believes that Jesus will return before they die, and therefore do not really care about how they may effect the world.
I know of one person in particular, who believes it is not possible for humans to destroy this planet, either by turning it into wasteland, or blowing it up with a nuke.
Of course his reasoning for the nuke lies in what he considers the fact that hell is in the center of the Earth and is an alternate dimension, which could never be reached by human means.
Anyhow, on to my point, if I can remember it.
Ah yes. Almost any religion, especially monotheistic, predicts an end time and a judgement, in which all of humanity will be destroyed. Christianity for instance uses revelations to tell us something like "And he'll come in a cloud with power, and great glory" (not 100%). This book implies that a being not of this Earth will come to destroy life as we know it.
In the movie Independance Day, humanity joined together to fight against the threat of total annilation. In real life, people pray for that day to come. It scares me to think that some aliens could study us, our religions, and use them against us.
Also, on this note, what kind of motivation is it for a person to take care of the enviroment, dedicate a life to education and hard work, etc, when at some point in time all your troubles will be pointless, since God is coming back and going to destroy humanity.
Why isn't there any religions that preach about improvement, of oneself, friends family and land? To learn as much about reality as is possible and to do your best to make sure life continues, with and without you.
And then, it gets worse. We have the majority of the population believing that at some point in time, God will come back to destroy us, judge us, whatever. We have a president, in charge of one of the greatest nations on earth, that subcribes to this same rediculous belief. Personally, as Commander and Cheif I'd like a person who will fight against any threat to life. Instead, we've got a person who thinks he plays a part in the final book of the bible.
Bunch of bla bla, but I truly think that this destructive belief will probably lead to either complete exticntion, or at the least plunge us back into the dark ages.
"Escape from LA" is a good example.
Why does a Church need a 200K dollar home? Or a $50,000 car? Why can't a preacher, whom I'd assume should be very lightly attached to the material world need such possessions, even if its a loaner per church there preaching at. And just what is the average salary of a preacher? I know of one here in greensboro making $250,000 a year for it.
Now how about if that church, being a place of god, obviously trustworthy, cut the pastors pay, and finance your project?
And what is the purpose in making a technological advancement such as you claim to possesses if god is coming to set things right?
- #60
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,262
- 2
What we have here are people looking for ways to condemn religion without benefit of logic. Kat and Sunfist have been the objective champions in this thread . . . . but why yield to reason when having so much fun religion bashing (and I am no fan of religion).
Stalin, a communist, murdered 5+ million citizens . . . so we should conclude communists are mass murderers.
New Guinea tribes were headhunters . . . so we should conclude Pacific Island tribes tend toward headhunting.
Danny white murdered Harvey Milk . . . so we should conclude SF straight supervisors tend to murder gay supervisors.
Come on. If religion is the evil, then how do we explain all those pre-religion atrocities? Pre-monoreligion tribal and civilized life was incredibly brutal, particularly to other tribes/civilizations. It was not religion that caused it, it was just the influences of raw biological dominance and material gain at work.
Slowly consciousness is taking charge, but until it fully does, our biology continues to translate into some pretty animalistic behaviors. Religion . . . well, that has just one of many ways people bent on dominance and material gain have tried (and still continue) to justify their actions.
Stalin, a communist, murdered 5+ million citizens . . . so we should conclude communists are mass murderers.
New Guinea tribes were headhunters . . . so we should conclude Pacific Island tribes tend toward headhunting.
Danny white murdered Harvey Milk . . . so we should conclude SF straight supervisors tend to murder gay supervisors.
Come on. If religion is the evil, then how do we explain all those pre-religion atrocities? Pre-monoreligion tribal and civilized life was incredibly brutal, particularly to other tribes/civilizations. It was not religion that caused it, it was just the influences of raw biological dominance and material gain at work.
Slowly consciousness is taking charge, but until it fully does, our biology continues to translate into some pretty animalistic behaviors. Religion . . . well, that has just one of many ways people bent on dominance and material gain have tried (and still continue) to justify their actions.
- #61
BoulderHead
There is a Pentecostal woman I asked this of, she told me;
“Pentecostals don’t mind this; in fact, they believe that the Lord will reward his servants…”
So in her eyes the minister’s Rolls-Royce and ½-million dollar castle (built to resemble a castle, large estate, man’s initials fixed to oversized electronically operated front gate) was all merely proof that God was rewarding him for his good deeds.
That, is real power, imo.
Thing is, I can see it from her perspective, but thinking that way would sure make it difficult for a believer to know if they’re being hoodwinked or not. I’ve also seen smaller churches struggle to afford for the minister a house and salary.
- #62
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,262
- 2
So, having money is evil? But really, since wealth is a relative thing, the question should be: Is having more money than someone else evil? Whomever is ready to criticize others, religious or not, for having more money than the poorest person on Earth better be ready to share all he has to avoid the label of hypocrite.
You guys are off the mark on this one. Religion may be delusional, but so far everything you are citing as particular to religion is also part of ordinary human behavior.
- #63
BoulderHead
I don’t think you even have to ask if it is evil, whatever that means. I’m more curious to know if it is wise. Think about it; 8,000+ members with a median income of $30K make their pastor fabulously wealthy, and he flaunts it all over town !
That is the reason I asked the woman what she thought about it. The heart can grow envious with little difficulty. I wanted to determine if she was in the least way resentful as she lives on $8K disability yet gives faithfully and generously each month.
That minister has real power, whether he is a crook or a saint. Believing as the woman did she would only be able to see him as a saint, with his wealth being a sign from heaven that he is righteous in the eyes of God, yet for all she really knows he might be another Jimmy Swaggart.
I view it as a fact that merely living your life means making concessions disagreeable with strict ascetic principles. The Church, or that minister, if they ever championed the cause of the poor open themselves to be asked the question; “just how many gold vases should be hoarded?”
- #64
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,262
- 2
But see BH, you can't judge by the externals. Someone buys a product you make and sell for $10. A billion people buy your product, and you get rich. Of the people who buy your product, 5% of them live below the poverty line, while you luxuriate in some Earthly paradise. If your product is something that genuinely benefits that 5%, should you feel guilty that you are filthy rich and they are filthy poor?
I say the issue isn't unequal incomes . . . that has and always will be the case. The issue is whether someone is sincere or not. You cannot judge someone by how much wealth they have, nor can you judge by any other superficial standard. If you do, then you have to judge everyone that way, not just the religious.
- #65
BoulderHead
I don’t question the man’s right to the money at all, nor his right to spend it as he sees fit. If people give him their money then he ought to take it. It is something else that interests me here. Things like; what do members actually think about such a living style, what he thinks about it, what connection it has with their religious views, etc.
How to feel about being in his position is something each individual would have to ponder according to their own conscious. I can only pretend to be his position, in which case I know that I’d wonder what others, most especially the contributing members, might think about my living so ostentatiously. But whatever I might conclude could still be different than if I actually were in his place. I’d like to know what thoughts, if any, pass through his mind while driving his Silver Seraph past the hordes of homeless people gathered on the sidewalk 8-miles from the castle. Perhaps he sees those unfortunates and is given inspiration for yet another sermon on the need to give…
Maybe I am the real villain, not he, because I wouldn’t want to risk offending my membership and suffer any reduction in contributions.
At any rate, what I was interested in how the members viewed all of this. I only got to ask one of them and I posted her response. I would have asked all the individual members what they thought of his extravagant lifestyle if I’d been able to ‘cause that’s just the kinda guy I am.
Really, it wouldn’t matter to me even if he were not sincere. In a lot of instances, this being one them, I feel that people deserve to be taken if they are so foolish, that is how you learn…hopefully. Nevertheless, the woman judged him by his wealth to be in the good graces of the Lord.
- #66
Zero
Any time you see a bunch ofcars worth more than $30,000 in a Christian church parking lot, you know that church is full of hypocrits...there's an interesting assignment for you folks on Sunday. Let me know the results at your church, ok?
- #67
Zero
You can judge someone alright...by the principles they claim for themselves. Any 'Christian' who is also a billionaire isn't a Christian, by the laws spelled out by their own Bible.
- #68
radagast
- 484
- 1
Argumentum ad lazarum
In other words, if you were using the above as part of an argument, you would be committing the above argument flaw. The logic is the same, argument or not. It assumes that for a person to be rightious and virtuous, they cannot be wealthy. This is no more correct than assuming a person is more virtuous, because they are poor.
- #69
radagast
- 484
- 1
Considering that the bible has more than one interpretation, then by many you are incorrect. Solomen was rich, yet considered a favored of god.
- #70
Zero
Uh huh...but you hear how the word of Jesus is absolute...ah, bugger it, it is religion, and never made sense to me anyways.