Slashdot Mirror
Will the Pope Declare Google Evil?
theodp writes "In the next few days, Pope Benedict XVI plans to issue his second encyclical, in which he is expected to denounce the use of tax havens as socially unjust and immoral in that they cheat the greater well-being of society. He is also expected to argue that the globalized economic world needs to be regulated. Prime technology companies playing the offshore 'profit laundering' game include Dell, Google, Microsoft, and Sun, who set up subsidiaries in Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is a low 12.5% and no taxes are charged on royalties (e.g. from patents)."
Sitting on a big pile of gold, and money in swiss banks.
Is the current pope rather stuck on ancient church history, at middle ages when church was actually a state ?
does god levy 'taxes' ? taxes are an earthly thing and have no place in religion. or is the pope trying to appease some circles that have done 'charity' for the church ?
Read radical news here
It always amazes me how the Pope can tell us so much about what is right and wrong in areas where he has no experience. Does he have to worry about taxes? Does he have to make decisions on how to handle his money so he can figure out if he can afford to keep making house payments? He's isolated, doesn't have to deal with most of the issues most people have to deal with, yet he tells Roman Catholics how to handle all those issues. And, to top it off, he bases his authority for much of this, whether directly or indirectly, on a document (the Bible) which has been proven to be riddled with errors.
In these days and age its sad to see there still is limited separation of church and state. I wonder when the time will be that most of these church fraudsters will be exposed - bank accounts and all - so we can see who is taking um... donations.
Infiltrated dot Net
However, he will proclaim that surfing with anti-spyware technology prevents the natural and Godly transmission of malware-life, so that it can grow on your computer.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
So will the church lead by example? Religion is the biggest tax haven in this country.
Just one more hypocrisy from the church, I am wagering.
Google is always getting singled out in these sorts of things, just because they are the popular media darling of the moment. This is really about corporate America, period.
Cornering the world's search engine market: $80bn
Getting called evil by ex-members of the Nazi youth: priceless
Although, I must admit, just because something is priceless doesnt
mean one wouldnt rather just have the money sometimes given
a suitable figure.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
For lack of understanding global economics, for basing judgments on literature with no backing/evidence? Don't get me started.
Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
As Jesus said, "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's, and unto God what is God's"
All Global Corporations is what I actually meant, since not all the huge corporations are based in the US.
So, let me get this straight - a company like Google sets up an office in Europe to handle its European affairs, gets taxed on this profit at that country's rate, and there's something wrong with that?
I hope he does just to see a whole bunch of Catholics take his advice.
;d
I think Google should tell the pope and all the popes before him to take a flying fuck. Why cares if the some man says something is evil? The popes (yes, lowercase) are fucking figure heads that don't deserve any power. The popes can go ahead and say the world is evil. Who gives a fuck what some self righteous moron says? And what is "evil," anyway? Evil and good are subjective adjectives given by opinionated pricks. It doesn't mean anything. Just because some book gives him power, who should believe some made up book? Gods are made up to explain things people don't understand. With science, people don't have to believe anything. A hypothesis can be tested. Popes are obsolete. They all are backward and should be stripped of their power. Religion in deities is ridiculous, too. Why do Churches still exist and why does the Pope has so much money (greedy bastard)? A lot of people are stupid. No wonder so many people struggle in science.
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Madonna is the best artist in the world! Madonna is like the C programming language.
While the Irish tax rates and investment incentives are somewhat better than the EU average, I don't think they count as a tax haven by any reasonable definition. If the pope is condemning tax havens, he's probably thinking more of micro-states like Bermuda or Monaco or the like. A proper definition of a tax haven should probably include that the local government refuses to cooperate with foreign tax authorities, while encouraging foreign bank accounts. This is quite different from encouraging foreign investments, which is attempted by all governments to various extents. Besides, isn't Ireland a good Catholic country, unlikely to be rebuked by the Pope on that basis alone?
A large part of Google operations are in Europe, so is a big part of their R&D. Why should they tax all their income in the US?
Why does the popes opinion have any more weight than the ramblings of any other silly old twat who believes in archaic superstition?
Like George W Bush you mean?
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" -- Matthew 22:21
The only reason this HAS any meaning is because so many "silly twats" as you say take what he has to say seriously. Some guy rambling on the street corners is one thing, someone that millions around the world take as an icon of their spiritual livs is another thing entirely. Even those of us who are non-christians know that when he speaks, people listen regardless of why.
Kinda like the GWB, as the AC who responded to you said heh.
Influence is influence, whether we're talking a pope or other dude who manages to get enough of a following.
Ice Cream has no bones.
That's the beauty of "divine right".
"does god levy 'taxes' ?"
Yes. He taxes your free will as a retirement fund.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Most of these companies do have legitimate offices in Ireland, and employ people there.
Can't I declare the catholic church to be evil???
how long until
im from ireland, and practically every corporation has an office here
the corporate tax is low (12.5%) and income tax is ok as well (20%) tho EU slaps 20% VAT on everything
a lot of countries look enviously lately it seems at ireland and the low-ish taxes here (the country is doing fairly for last decade)
still i wouldnt call this a tax heaven, compared to Dubai lets say
If taxes were low everywhere there would be no tax heavens. If Netherland can live with low taxes why cant Italy? Is the Italian Government any special compared to Hollands?
Anyway who cares what the Pope says, we are not in the Middle Ages anymore. Back then the Pope was more powerful than the Emperor, the Papal States were a secular power which waged war all over Italy and beyond, very often the Pope himself was also a general and led his armies in battle. True, now there are 1.1 billion catholics (compared to 800 million Protestants and 300 Million Eastern Christians) but most of them are secular people, dont care what the Pope says.
While Mr. Ratzinger may think that he has come exclusive Hi-Speed Connection to the Magic Man In The Sky, we know better.
I happen to agree with him on this particular matter (ie, tax havening is often immoral), but I fail to see why his opinion should carry any more weight than mine.
yes, and things that are god's are the area of the church, not caesar's.
Read radical news here
As Mark Shea once said, "Deduct 50 IQ points when the media discusses religion. Deduct 75 points when discussing Catholicism." It is surprising (or not) that people are making judgments on a document that even isn't released. Wait until the document is released and read what it actually says before commenting.
The Alternet article mixes up two issues with different rates of taxation.
On one hand we have the way in which company profits can be moved around by changing the rates charged between subsidiaries in different countries. If your research division is in a high tax country and your manufacturing in a low tax country then you can shift profits to the manufacturing division by treating the research as a cost centre. If its the other way around then you can treat the research as a profit centre and charge manufacturing for all the valuable IPR they are using. This is a known bug in international company tax, and needs dealing with.
On the other hand there is generally low taxation on individual earnings and product sales within a country. The Alternet article gets into the politics of envy here by citing highly paid executives who also pay a relatively low rate of tax. But hey, they live and work in that country, so its an entirely local issue. Its up the the voters in a democracy to decide what taxes to charge and what they ought to get for that money. For instance the UK tax rates look much higher than in the US (35% GDP as opposed to around 26% of GDP) until you factor in the extra money paid by US companies for employee health plans. At that point the UK, with its tax-funded NHS, suddenly looks like a much cheaper place to do business.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
"does god levy 'taxes' ? taxes are an earthly thing and have no place in religion. or is the pope trying to appease some circles that have done 'charity' for the church ?"
I suspect you're not interested in knowing, but in fact the God of the Bible has a long history of taxation.
Citizens were required to pay a flat tax of 10% of all earnings.
Citizens were also assessed additional fixed taxes as civic needs arose, and were required to turn over some numbers of livestock on a regular schedule.
These taxes went to the religious state, whose responsibility it was to provide judicial, executive, and legislative services, as well as to provide for the common needs of society, including various primitive safety nets for those who had fallen on hard times.
Further on, according to the Bible, in Christian communities this developed into an entirely socialist system, where resources were jointly held and distributed by a central authority. Failure to comply was punishable by death.
'God' used to levy taxes. They were called tithes. Part of it was religious reasoning, but if I remember my schooling correctly then there was also a degree of taking away some of your worldly possessions so that the church could protect you from their evil influences (since the church members are, of course, stronger in this kind of thing than your normal person).
:D
Hang on, that last bit sounds like something Scientologists and strange cults do - "Here, join us and give up your worldly possessions. No, it's okay, we'll be kind and look after them for you so that you no longer have to burden yourself with them"
Actually, 'god' does levy taxes - tithing is one of the things laid out in Exodus 20 - 23 (along with little things such as proper payment for slaves, and selling ones own daughter etc).
I don't know how many of you have noticed, but the current pope looks and acts like palpatine!!palpatine!!.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
You missed the point completely.
Christ himself said to pay taxes that the government demands. Tax shelters would go against this statement, making them "immoral" from a Christian standpoint.
Where was the church when childern were being abused the the clergy? Hey pope, people in glass houses.... Where is Sinead with another picture?
When the source is open, the possibilities are endless.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
and i suspect you do not read posts before replying. i have asked that whether this pope is clung up on the historic, now nonexistent role of church state in middle ages.
Read radical news here
I'm not sure what a Catholic is supposed to do under this system, other than advocate for change, and pursue other endeavors (such as working for privately owned corporations) until U.S. corporate law is changed (including shareholder tort reform).
The crucial detail here being that it was citizens of the ancient theocratic state of Israel. It is pretty clear from the New Testament that God's people are citizens of heaven, rather than of an earthly state and that they should follow the laws of the states they reside in, so long as those laws do not force them to go against the law of God.
Nothing about a central authority distributing possessions in the New Testament. Believers voluntarily shared possessions with those in need and people like Paul would go round from time to time making voluntary collections so that those who were well off could those in need.
You're either misinformed, or have completely misunderstood Ananias and Saphira. They were killed by God for lying about the money they were giving. In fact, the amount they were giving wasn't an issue at all. If they had been honest and said "We got x talents for our field and our giving y talents to the church" rather than "We got y and are giving y," with the subtext that they were great, then everything would have been fine. There were quite a few early Christians who were well off, but were never required to surrender ownership of their possessions to the community. Called to be good stewards and loving neighbours, yes, but never forced to give things up.
so Bill Gates converts to become a Roman Catholic - they do everything nowadays to get followers since their sex rules are so unattractive - well, except in the US, that is...
I think the pope isn't really wrong here. While it is perfectly understandable and legal to use a tax haven like Ireland, it is still a real problem and not really a fair behaviour. It only works out for Ireland because big companies from all over the world choose to tax their EU earnings in Ireland. If all EU states would lower their tax to 12.5%, it wouldn't work for anyone.
Any state should be free to set their tax rates to any level they like, but please only for money really earned in that state and not for money earned elsewhere.
At the moment it works this way: Most of the money is earned in France, UK and Germany but all tax is paid in Ireland. Often there is nothing but a office in Ireland or the product is packaged.
Jan
It is not that I disagree with the sentiments. In fact I believe the biggest problem we have in this country is people earning great deal of monies in the country, and then refusing to return a share to insure that such opportunities continue. It is like a person driving a big car with a support the troops sticker on it, then complaining that gas it too expensive(even though it is often cheaper than coke or coffee), and demanding that we deserve tax rebates, even though our troops desperately need the money. No, it is merely that people seem to love to do the opposite of what their church says, so often the safest thing for a church to do is just remain silent, expecially when the church does the opposite of what it is proposing.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The pope has a cool hat. Bet I could stuff a lot of tinfoil in that thing.
Remember, The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the biggest business organization in the world, it has 1.1 billion contribuables, they all pay money to the church. This is more than three times than the number of US taxpayers. Unlike the Eastern Christian or Protestant Churches, Roman Catholic Church has a very rigid and strong chain of command with the Pope at the top. Everything what is going on in the Church and affects those 1.1 billion members is fully controlled by the Pope which is an absolute ruler. There is no democracy in the Holly Roman Catholic Church, all decisions are made by the Pope!
He's obviously forgotten that a large chunk of the taxes those corporations pay in Ireland (along with the rest of us taxpayers here) has gone to providing compensation for victims of abuse at the hands of the church.
Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
jesus of nazareth said it because otherwise romans would slaughter christians, not because it was ethical and divine.
Read radical news here
And of course, this is exactly equivalent to making a pronouncement that Google specifically is evil. Of course.
Are you adequate?
There were no such beings in Jesus' day, sir.
They were all Jews. He was asked by the Jews if it was legal (according to God's law) for Jews to pay taxes to the Romans.
(a) should the Internet move to IPv6 or stick with IPv4? Which one is the lesser evil?
(b) Blue-Ray vs HD-DVD: what would Jesus watch?
Then I am in full support of revoking the all churches' 501(c)(3) status within the USA. Christ said to pay taxes? Then people shouldn't be allowed to use the church as a tax break, and the church itself can pay taxes on its income too.
The Scientologists will be screwed especially hard over that one. Couldn't happen to a more deserving lot, honestly.
=Smidge=
As we all know I have by far the largest penis on this forum. Due to the status this gives me amongst your lowly selves, I don't often lower myself to replying to normal threads and instead spend my time smoking fine cigars, being respected by my fellow man and my enormous wang revered by countless beautiful models. However, on this issue, I feel compelled to comment.
As we all know, provided you aren't already enraptured by the gentle swaying of my enormous beef truncheon, the Pope is Catholic. As we all also know, if you can avert your eyes from my thumping bloodhead for just a few seconds longer, is that Catholicism is a religion founded on the basis that you never show your penis to anyone, except small boys who are unlikely at such a tender age to understand the difference between a tiny flaccid pecker such as your own and an enormous swollen man-wang such as mine. Also, the Pope is the leader of Catholicism, the religion we have just deduced is based around the shrivelled, wizened, narrow pillar of a conspiracy to hide the average man's tiny, insignificant penis from the big, wide, cavernous world. From this, we can establish that the Pope probably has the smallest penis in the world.
Now, let's look at the other party in this debate. Google. Google is run by millionaires. Billionaires in fact. Now successful people - if you know any through association, which I doubt - all have huge wangs. You can tell by the way we have to adjust our gait to cast you a disparaging glance as you walk past in your $2 sneakers, blissfully uninhibited by girlfriends, self-respect or five pounds of swinging cock-beef hidden in your trouser leg. The conclusion is almost as obvious as my package in a speedo: The Pope hates Google, because he has a tiny, insignificant little pecker and the owners of Google, like myself, have huge woman-pleasing spunk-spigots. But it's alright, he can't help it. He just wasn't born with my um... massive 'advantage'.
It's not your fault I'm better than you.
What the hell? Churches are tax exempt.
Typical religious hypocritism.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I thought that pope guy died a couple of years ago. did he get a miracle cure? or is this maybe his son?
So we have the Pope thinking in German, writing in Latin, and we're denouncing an English translation of a document that hasn't been published yet? Yes, sounds about right. Of course the document will be logical and well-reasoned, with a focus on protecting the poor who are paying more than they otherwise would have to without the rich evading taxes... but naturally - few will bother to read the always poorly translated English document, and no one will read the Latin. But everyone will be sure in their hearts that it's a scheme and a plot or an overstepping of boundaries. Lovely.
This is the pope: ex-Hitler-youth, head of the inquisition, responsible for millions of deaths every year, friend to the rich and powerful throughout history, and head of an organization that is among the most intolerant in the world and has perpetrated more genocide than any organization in human history.
The fact that he wants corporate profits to stay in the countries of the rich and powerful is not exactly surprising.
Christ also said "Render unto God what is God's"
You can consider the Church to be doing that, I suppose.
(note: not defending the Church, just sayin... Christ said to pay the government what you owe them)
I'll have to watch the popes speech so I can laugh at the hypocrisy.
If you are poor and have no money the only accessible form of entreteinment is sex. This is one of the main reasons why poor people have so many children. It is not Pope's responsibility, it is theirs. The Pope does not tell them to have lots of unprotected sex.
Prime technology companies playing the offshore 'profit laundering' game include Dell, Google, Microsoft, and Sun, who set up subsidiaries in Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is a low 12.5% and no taxes are charged on royalties (e.g. from patents)
:-)
Shouldn't him declare Ireland evil instead of the companies?
VirtualWorldsHub.com - News, forums, resources
Why do we need to pope to tell us what we already know? Or should know? The entire physical universe by its very nature is "evil". It's the evil of might makes right. So what?
What?
As if it is the responsibility of businesses to make sure governments get a cut of their profits so the church folk and live better off. The Pope should stick with dealing with religion and his particular followers instead of expecting handouts from others.
It's governments responsibility to regulate how businesses operate withing their boundaries. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Sounds like he wants one world government to regulate/tax everyone on the planet regardless it they are a sovereign nation or not.
And i suppose if there is a clash of morality between countries, he gets to choose?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Not Forgetting it wasn't until the early 1990's that the Catholic Church (Pope) exonerated Galileo....
/ mod02/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml
There are bigger fish to fry than businesses mentioned..
As in:
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a
On second thought, somebody just send the pope this post and let him slap himself awake with it.
I happen to work for The Pope, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe
It depends upon who is doing the interpretation. However, what you just wrote goes against the standard interpretation that I've heard from a number of circles--which is that the realm of money and taxation is not an area where the Church would be involved. That is, even though individuals have an obligation to live their lives in the light of Christ and find salvation through Him, they are also obligated as best they can to obey the laws (including tax laws) of the land in which they live.
In other words, Christianity is not an anti-normative religion.
Now if Google and Dell and other companies were breaking the law in order to avoid taxes, then clearly their actions would be a problem: it would be theft. However, Google and Dell and other companies are legally avoiding paying more taxes than they have to--which has more to do with the overly-complicated tax code than it does with cheating Caesar out of what is his.
Any Catholic encyclical that goes against the practice of off-shoring may make mention of Matthews 22:21--but the rational the Holy See will use to oppose off-shoring will undoubtedly not make use of this particular passage--and I would bet would go to great lengths to explain why the Church should comment on tax policy regardless of Christ's original sayings in Matthews.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
In related news, stay tuned for the North Pole summit where Santa Claus announces who's been Naughty and who's been Nice.
no sire, at that time, and prior to that, getting various severe punishment due to dodging tax was a reality too. thats probably why the 'jews' who were following this new messiah asked him that question.
Read radical news here
...is he a Catholic?
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Or the Pope will force his uber cock into your childs arsehole.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's. But what belongs to God? Everything! There ain't much room left for rendering unto Caesar.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Fixed that for you.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It is evil to give your tax money to a country whose government is able to manage the country with less tax revenue.
A sig is redundant.
If my opinion were that stupid I would post it anonymously too. Fucking individual responsibility fetishists. You people take a good concept and ruin it.
Seriously, I think someone needs to remind old Ratzinger what century he is living in. Being the head of the inquisition obviously confused him a bit. He can't bend kings to his will by threatening excommunication anymore.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Seems to me Ireland is competitive. What is wrong with low taxes? In 20 years Ireland went from being one of the poorest countries in Europe to one of the richest following these outrageous policies. Seems to me we should congratulate them and seek to imitate their success. Besides how can these companies launder profits when the Euro exchange rate is so unfavorable?
an ill wind that blows no good
Easy. Since Catholics aren't supposed to use condoms (or any form of birth control) the Pope will go with IPv6 as it's the only guaranteed way to ensure enough IP addresses for the increasing population.
Jesus would get a player that could handle both formats.
apparently nearly a billion people on Earth. that's 1/6 of the people that represent humanity... The real question is, are those billion active, devoted, practicing Catholics or just identify with the religion for various other random reasons? I have several "Catholic" friends, and none actively practice, attend mass, etc., but identify as Catholic because of how they were raised. Don't point out the stupidity in this - I know, and they know - but it's the way things are. Their approach to most papal announcements is, "hrm, that's interesting..." and they go on with their life, not altering it one bit due to what a silly git in a gold helmet has to say.
I suspect these people are counted into that billion, but if the pope demanded his followers rise up against protestants/jews/muslims/circus clowns, most would just ignore him as a dumbass.
No, really. This is funny: Evil and good are subjective adjectives given by opinionated pricks..
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
As subject says :)
Oddly enough, Denmark has grown from being a fairly poor agriculture-based economy in the post-war years, to having a GDP per capita in the top ten world-wide, with taxes that start at 48%, and work their way up to over 70% marginal (on income). And all this without having any natural resources to speak of. So yeah, why can't we lower our taxes?
- Frans.
Q: Can a bunch of slashdotters resist taking anti-religious potshots at the Pope?
A: Does a bear shit in the woods?
You can't take the sky from me...
Why should a Synagogue/Temple/Mosque have to pay taxes because Jesus said to? Separation of Church and State means that Jesus' word doesn't decide the issue.
The context of that quote is someone complaining to Jesus about Roman taxes.
And Jesus says basically, "Look at that coin. Whose face is on it?" "Caesar's." "Then it's his. Give it to him."
In its original context, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," means nothing more or less than "Pay your taxes."
The point being made is that rich individuals and corporations are setting up a minimal presence in a foreign tax country (tax haven) in order to avoid paying taxes in the countries where they actually live or work. This is "bad" because by not paying local taxes, they're not supporting their local government and social programs. If you live in the [insert your country here] and use the Netherlands as a tax haven, then you're not paying your fair share for your country's universal health care, or 911 services, or military that keeps your democracy free, or whatever.
If you're going to benefit from your local country's laws and services, is it really too much to ask that you pay your fair share? If local taxes are too burdensome or wasteful, then work to improve them instead of hiding from the problem(s). We all complain that money influences politics. If people are allowed to hide money overseas, then they have no motivation to reform existing local laws. If they were forced to resolve the issues locally, they would be subject to local laws and publicity, thus making it difficult to corrupt the reformed laws. By hiding money overseas, there is little legal or public oversight to prevent abuse (such as laundering drug money.)
Thus tax havens create at least two problems: local services, laws, and legal protections are not being paid for, and local laws, morals, mores, and publicity are being evaded. The latter is probably the greater of the two sins.
A third problem that the Pope appears to be concerned about is that local taxes pay for social programs. You know, homeless shelters, health care for the poor, etc.. By turning to a tax haven, you are implicitly turning your back on your fellow man. Do you really think that anyone using a foreign tax shelter is actually using the money they saved back to build up their local community? Granted, the Catholic Church shouldn't be throwing stones, but a Christian who hides tax money isn't much of a Christian. Belittle the Pope all you want, but he is probably the only individual who has the ability to bring worldwide attention to global morality. You don't have to like the guy shining the light on the cockroaches, but do be glad that someone is doing it. (But we do keep a mirror handy to throw some of that light back.)
i hereby declare ALL religions to be evil, anything that professes to know the truth without proper factual evidence to back it up is from henceforth known as evil...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Dude, that's not in the bible, but the Laws of the catholic church. Two VERY DIFFERENT things.
Catholics are not Christians and do not teach the bible. Catholics are catholics and they teach a very twisted and demented version of their own religion.
Like "Pergatory, a place where we can extort more money out of greving families so they believe their loved one will go on ti heaven."
Or papal blessings, that is the biggest fricking scam ever. you can BUY your way into heaven, a fricking get out of jail card!
Catholic church is the biggest source of all that in unholy and typically is what has given Christianiaty it's bad name.
They are the Talaban of Christ, the twisted wackjobs that follow a belief that is nothing like the teachings of christ.
Some of the details in the grandparent post need correction.
Tax havens are a predictable market response to a broken tax system. Businesses have a duty to reduce the amount of tax they pay by whatever legal means they find, and individuals are entitled to do so, since it's their money, not the government's.
That being said, if we want to get about ten trillion dollars currently held in offshore accounts repatriated to the USA, all we have to do is enact the fair tax, which will make offshore tax havens a moot point.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Humm, come to think of this, I think the Pope's own book has some advice for situations like this. I think it goes something like "He that is without sin...first cast a stone".
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
> Citizens were required to pay a flat tax of 10% of all earnings.
/ chapter3.html
Actually, it is more like twenty three percent. There were three tithes. http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/tithe-in-bible
10% pa for the levites, 10% pa for festivals, and 10% every three years for the poor.
> These taxes went to the religious state...
No. 10% pa was for the levites, but not all levites could be priests, only the descendants of Aaron. The real reason the levites got 10%pa was because they got no allocation of land when the twelve tribes settled in the promised land.
>...whose responsibility it was to provide judicial, executive, and legislative services
Are you sure you're not reading the American constitution into the OT?
> Further on, according to the Bible, in Christian communities this developed into an entirely socialist system, where resources were jointly held and distributed by a central authority. Failure to comply was punishable by death.
No. Failure to comply was not punishable by death. A husband and wife were punished by death when they voluntarily sold property, voluntarily handed a proportion of the proceeds over to the Apostles, but lied to them by saying they had given the whole proceeds. AFAIK there were no socialist systems in the NT. Socialism implies compulsion. There was no compulsion. Perhaps you mean they were like communes?
Google de-indexes the Pope.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Corporate taxes are simply a way of hiding taxes from the paying public. Do you think the corporations cares that it's paying taxes? Corporations don't have feelings any they can't vote. They just raise their prices, lower their wages and pay fewer dividends to shareholders. Worse still, since corporate taxes tax profits rather than revenues, they punish companies for being successful. The more profitable your company is, the more it will have to pay.
We need to abolish corporate profit taxes immediately, they are unjust and unfair.
I'm pretty sure that the CoS lost their tax-exempt status during the late 80's, actually.
Given that Ratzinger, formerly of the SS & Nazi Party, while head of the inquisition (office for the purity of the faith, look it up) was instrumental in declaring about 3/4 of the worlds population without hope of "salvation", and more than 1/3 of his own church's congregants as due excommunication for various "horrifying sins" such as birth control, advocating the rights of women & such not to mention his role in justifying the persecution of church members who came forward to reveal paedophile clergy & the church's role in shuffling said clergy about to avoid prosecution, it must be said that he speaks with the moral authority of a nightmare chimera of Josef Göbbels, "Rev." Ted Haggard, & Kenneth Lay of Enron fame. There is great serendipity in the fact that his encyclicals are known as "papal BULL". Anyone on the receiving end of criticism from this ur-hypocrite should direct him to the nearest short (deep water) pier, for a l-o-n-g walk.
And very influential.
Deleted
I assume you're talking about the account of Ananias and Saphira. If so, you are misrepresenting it. When you read the whole story in Acts 5, it's clear that Ananias and Saphira died not because they didn't give all the profits from selling their land, but because they gave part of the profits and said it was all the profits.
In fact, Peter explicitly says about the land "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" This obviously means they were not required to sell their land, and even after they did, they were not required to give 100% of the proceeds. It was not their failure to comply with the socialist system but rather their lie that got them killed.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
It's funny business when the Bishop of Rome calls the richest Catholic country a bunch of cheats.
Now I wonder if he's wanting the Irish government to change it's tax laws or those companies that use this tax loophole to become responsible citizen.
I assume him being the de facto leader of the Roman Catholic church can only hope the Irish government will act.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I agree. Separation of church and state should mean that taxes should be done regardless of whether an organization is religious or not. If they want to deduct the charity they give, that's fine, but if they want to collect money for entertainment (which is what services really are), they should be taxed just like the civic center down the street.
Who lives in his own special country that his church set up as a tax dodge.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I nearly went blind trying to read that. Fortunately, when I asked myself, "WWJD?" I decided that Jesus would not force himself to go blind trying to read a Slashdot post.
Jesus saved my sight!
Sorry for the redundant post; I was using Internet Explorer (at work) with Discussion2 turned on, which is a very confusing experience.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
And this said from the head of an organization that has supported the nazis in Germany, many military dictatorships in Latin America, the inquisition, etc, etc. Yeah, a highly moral and ethical authority, indeed.
To whom or what are corporate taxes unfair or unjust? And how can one punish corporations, or how can corporations (as opposed to its employees) be successful?
What properties can one ascribe to a corporation, as opposed to its employees/officers?
I guess Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are the king of trolls.
If rich, western, capitalist nations demand and try to enforce through coalitions applying diplomatic and economic pressure that nations with large state sectors deregulate and privatise, it is called 'imperialism' and the 'neocon/turbocapitalist new world order'.
When coalitions of socialist or 'socialist-democratic' nations try to create coalitions to pressure nations with low tax into INCREASING THEIR TAX RATE, this is "good" and "responsible".
Ireland is a sovereign nation that has enjoyed supreme economic growth. Not least because of its low company tax, but also a promise that the tax rate would remain stable over at least the next ten years and hence not be subject to crazy leftist government new rules and adjustments every year ahead, which is a rather large incentive when you are a company trying your very best to plan for future investments. If you are jealous, I suggest you blaspheme or punch babies or something to vent your frustration.
Also note, any government in the world is free to tax SALES AND EMPLOYEES LOCATED WITHIN THEIR OWN TERRITORY. What this rather deals with, is WANTING A COMPANY TO BE LOCATED IN A HIGH-TAX TERRITORY IN ORDER TO TAX THEIR INCOME GAINED FROM OTHER NATIONS. I'm sorry, but if you want to force a company to stay in Scandinavia so you can charge 60% on their sales to Hong Kong, then the only weapon you have is really the army and nationalisation.
...is the whole concept of income taxes in general when all these various nations use fiat currency systems run by central banks, who get to profit enormously for little to no actual productive work. Income taxes exist today (as opposed to in the past when currency was backed by something other than hot air and a gun) as a means of hard handed and totalitarian social control by the elite using the carrot and the stick approach, but they aren't necessary to run governments or economies. An "open accounting" productivity and formula based currency based on the various nation's quantifiable produced wealth in tangibles (I like the top 100 adjusted yearly approach) could be substituted, with only a very few (percentage wise)of already rich folks being out of their "jobs".
If the Pope really wants to open a can of whup ass on large scale economic criminality, let him hit on the scum bag monopolist money changers first..he has historical precedent there.
Time to remove the fake pope and replace him with the true pope.
Snowball needs to be placed in his rightful place.
If you let government tax religion, then you run the risk of taxes being used to suppress religion, or to favor one religion over another.
Not worth the risk, IMO.
Not even close.
They lost the status in the late 60's and they sued the IRS six ways from Sunday. They settled in 1993, paid the IRS some $12M in back taxes (a fraction of what it should have been) and got their tax exempt status back.
To this day they claim tax exemption proves the US accepts it as a religion.
=Smidge=
"If you live in the [insert your country here] and use the Netherlands as a tax haven, then you're not paying your fair share for your country's universal health care, or 911 services, or military that keeps your democracy free, or whatever."
Define 'fair share', incorporating that the government of [insert your country here] is completely free to tax any economic activity that takes place within their own borders. The [insert country here] is already completely free to levy a tax on employees located within their terriotory, for example 15% of base salary of any employees permanently stationed there regardless of the origin of their employer, and [insert country here] is also already completely free to levy a tax on any sales within their own territory or to their own citizens. This is a case of [insert country here] wanting to tax employees and sales made in other countries.
If you wish to dispute that, you are essentially claiming that governments in today's world are unable to enact laws that affect people located in their own territories - which seems to me so bizarre a claim that I'd like comprehensive evidence. If you rather agree that they want to affect people and sales made in other countries, I think we are on the same wavelength but disagreeing.
As for 'setting up in a different country so they can escape moral norms' - if this is your kind of people's norms, are you surprised people want to escape them? You can't get much more totalitarian-perfectionistic than DEMAND that people suffer your company. I would never - a good part of having a good life comes from the possibility (though some including myself would call it a right) to avoid the company of insufferable people. This is a matter of certain groups of people DEMAND that they be able to impose their morals on anyone in the world - there shall be no escape. Which is crazy and something all GOOD people should resist with all their effort. Tell me wrong.
And why exactly anyone is supposed to care of what pope says?
root of all...
"they cheat the greater well-being of society" ... right, as if the catholic church hasn't cheated the greater well-being of society for the last 2 thousand years with:
...and on and on and on ...
-hundreds of child molesting priests;
-destruction of hundreds of native cultures around the world;
-scams to buy forgiveness for your sins and buy your way into heaven;
-thousands of years of intentional friction or worse with all other religions;
-constant re-interpretation of the bible to suit whatever power trip they are currently on;
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
Sounds like Socialism to me. Call me crazy. Also, given Acts 4:32-35, which is literally the pretext of the story of the deaths of Ananias and Saphira, it is clear from the text that the church community had laid claim to an expectation that all the proceeds from any sale of property would go to the community, as Peter himself reminds Ananias right before he drops dead.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
... to criticize the business strategy of one of the few remaining countries that toe the line on abortion, eh?
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
I'm going to ask a stupid question: who does follow these teachings, exactly?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
In my translation someone flat-out asks Jesus whether he should be paying taxes.
but, also in my translation, the reason this person asks the question is because they want to trick Jesus into getting himself arrested. Presumably because not paying the tax is what jesus would answer if he didn't think about it, that's what jesus's knee-jerk reaction would be! "no way! don't pay!!"
but he doesn't answer directly (so he won't get arrested -- fat good that does him! he gets crucified a bit later instead -- I hope I didn't ruin the book for anyone), rather he says, Well, give the emperor what's his, and God's what's God's. So he doesn't get himself arrested. Here's the translation:
-- shit, there's a whole wikipedia article! "Render unto Caesar..." article Anyway, here's the translation:
Taxes for Caesar
15 Then the Pharisees met together to plot how to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. 16 They sent some of their disciples, along with the supporters of Herod, to meet with him. Teacher, they said, we know how honest you are. You teach the way of God truthfully. You are impartial and dont play favorites. 17 Now tell us what you think about this: Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?
18 But Jesus knew their evil motives. You hypocrites! he said. Why are you trying to trap me? 19 Here, show me the coin used for the tax. When they handed him a Roman coin,[a] 20 he asked, Whose picture and title are stamped on it?
21 Caesars, they replied.
Well, then, he said, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.
22 His reply amazed them, and they went away.
And for the record, the Bible is not the word of God. It was written -- shock! -- by people. Slashdot's very short "+5 Insightful" (especially anonymous coward) posts with no highly moderated dissenting replies are much closer to Holy Truth -- otherwise, why would it be at +5 without someone saying "I can't believe this got moderated to +5" and explaining why.
If Caesar says he doesn't want to tax the money donated to churches, why should God argue with that?
The Pope does not tell them to have lots of unprotected sex.
In fact that is exactly what the Pope tells them to do. They are not allowed to have safe sex, birth control is prohibited. Recently there was a secession for married couples to use condoms if one of the partners had an STD. So clearly the church expects married people to be having regular sex, yet they forbid the use of contraception. The rhythm method doesn't really work so well. I'm pretty sure oral sex is rather frowned upon by the Pope as well.
We are all just people.
As a general rule I try avoid taking advice on my sex life from octogenarian virgins.
Getting back to the point at issue many companies do take their profits in Ireland and other countries with low corporate tax rates, thus avoiding paying tax and supporting the social infrastructure in countries where the profit is made. In fact that other bastion of dubious morality GWB raised the possibility of punishing companies that took profits in Ireland last year.
PS. I'm Irish and find the fawning attitude of our government to the requests of trans-national corporations reprehensible in the extreme, we have ignored indigenous companies while throwing money at trans-nationals that have no local ties and leave at the drop of a hat.
PPS. I live in Meath and am not at all bitter about the departure of NEC ;)
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
It's getting worse all the time. Google is just one company of many companies that are doing more and more outsourcing. The pope would certainly not mention Google specifically. This is a horrible article full of innuendo and breaks a very important quality rule: Never use a question mark in the title of a news item. Question marks are a dead giveaway of hysterics without content.
Has slashdot been bought by Rupert Murdoch?
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Want to talk about evil? Taking people's money in the name of God.
If you don't like the way your nation is run, you may avail yourself to the free market of nations to find one you like better, or you may build your own.
You're not crazy; you're just confusing descriptive with prescriptive and socio-economic policy with the voluntary actions of a community.
Actually, the text says the complete opposite. Verse 3:
But Peter said "Ananias why has Satan filled you heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land'
You presumably would focus on the keeping things back part of that quote, but taken in its entirety and in the context of verse 4...
"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
... that the problem is lying about the about sold. After selling the land, it (or rather, the money gained) was still the property of Ananias an Sapphira. They could have kept all the money, but by pretending they had given it all to the church, they had foolishly attempted to deceive God. There was no expectation that all the money would go to the church.
It is very inappropriate to speculate about the Pope's second encyclical until after we've had a chance to read it. Also, since when does Slashdot delve into Catholicism's policies?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
(c) Could Jesus pop so much popcorn that He Himself could not eat it all while watching Disney's Cars in HD?
...does he shit in the woods?
Finally, the church will now be paying taxes, yes?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Exactly the opposite actually. By exempting churches from taxes the government gets to chose what is and isn't a religion. That sounds much more dangerous and risky to me.
I'm not surprised one bit. The death of John Paul II was a horrible tragedy, although one we knew was coming. This new pope, he sickens me to the core. The more I read about him, the less I like him.
First he uses the homily at John Paul's funeral to decry "radical individualism" and now this? God wants us to give willingly to the poor and down trodden. Taxes are anything but a willing gift to such people (most of the money doesn't even go to them).
For a supposedly intelligent man, he's got a lot to learn about the Bible, government, and economics.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Actually, parent poster finally managed to hit what has irked me forever on the head: the fact that we can donate to churches *and* later get tax breaks on the donations. It always smelled slightly to me. I realize the total taxable income goes down because you donated something, but, honestly, it never seemed right. My choice in what to do is exactly that: a choice. I don't feel I should be rewarded because I put the money into a non-profit institution. The reward was the act of giving in and of itself.
Let's try a google fight:
google evil about 65,900,000
pope evil about 2,080,000
Looks like google has the lead here, folks.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
If you call what the early Christians had "socialism," then you must also think open source software is socialism*.
Repeat after me: "Socialism isn't voluntary. If it's voluntary, it's not socialism."
* (Which, by the way, instantly makes you unpopular around here, which I'm sure is the opposite of what you intended when you publically misinterpreted the Bible here.)
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
And Christ's response is the actual reason that the Jewish population refused conversion to Christianity.
In some churches, maybe it is just entertainment, but that goes against the official orthodox role of a service.
I'm not quite sure how you made that connection... do you suppose that any "religion" the government deems annoying enough to suppress would be taxed into oblivion? If not, I can't see how taxing the churches would create a situation that can't already be created.
If anything I'd be afraid of the exact opposite. 501(c)(3) status requires that the organization stay politically neutral (no campaigning). Of course the church as a whole is politically bias to the right to put it nicely. If we take away 501(c)(3) status then they are technically free to campaign all they want, and this country just might collapse into a genuine theocracy within a single election cycle. With the tactics politicians use to rake in votes, one could argue we're already on the verge of a theocracy.
No thanks.
=Smidge=
At least it would help revent the spread of ignorance and superstition ...
While it is true that some viruses can pass through latex condoms (and a LOT can pass through "natural skin" condoms), a condom does help prevent the spread of AIDS, etc.
http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html
I realize that political scientists are a rare species on /., but since I am a member of that species, I must take exception to your blanket (and unbelievably incorrect) statement that all socialism is coerced. There are three main historically-significant branches of socialism: Utopian or Proto-Socialism, Scientific (Marxist) Socialism, and Christian Socialism. The first was not generally conceived as coercive in its many forms, and the last is not in any sense coercive, since it is an 'opt-in' system, i.e. you choose to be a Christian and belong to a Christian community.
And I do not believe I misrepresented the thrust of the Bible passage quoted above at all. Acts 4:32 literally dismisses the notion of private possession and in the context of the section clearly advocates for communal redistribution of property. The fact that it is voluntary is, as I pointed out above, quite irrelevant to the question as to whether it is socialist.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Excuse me, but, tax havens are nothing more than playing by the rules as written. If you don't like that, then change those rules, but don't pretend as if to be handing us rulings from God on this. God has a bigger Universe to worry about.
And it's pretty -- how about completely -- hypocritical of the person at the head of the Biggest Tax Haven on Earth to be telling the rest of us what to do. What's the matter? Too much tax free money going into havens, rather than the Church coffers?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This is picking and choosing at its worst. Ananias' sins seem to be, as the passage indicates, both withholding part of the proceeds from the community and bearing false witness as to the money received from the sale. To focus on the second part of Peter's quote and ignoring the first, you are distorting the context in the very manner you accused me of doing. If it was the case that the only problem was the lie, the first part would not have been an issue and thus would not have been mentioned by Peter as a pertinent element of the offense.
Also, and this is the clincher, the last sentence: "You have not lied to men but to God." really throws a hydrospanner in the works as to the argument that Ananias' crime is publicly misrepresenting the amount from the sale so as to keep some for himself. That, in point of fact, would be a "lie to men". The lie to God is his greed, unfaithfulness to the community, while professing to be a faithful and fully contributory member of the community.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
You tax people too much and they migrate to somewhere else where there are less taxes. Closing up shop and moving elsewhere is pry the best and most effective tool to protest evil or unwise government actions before they ever even take place.
:) After all God helps those who help themselves :)
:)
Is the pope really against free enterprise?
Granted my argument is just as bad as the popes because the acts of either allowing or disallowing such migrations can be used to the determent of society as a whole depending on specific conditions.
Whatever you may think of the pope he is no Alan Greenspan and acting like one in the name of god or common good is itself something that we might very well have good cause to be concerned and or (cought BS) about
In any case, it's not the government's business. It's not like it negatively affects people's ability to live their lives.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Church teaching does NOT allow couples to use condoms, even if one of them has an STD. No such "secession" (I'm guessing you mean dispensation) exists.
Modern methods of "Natural Family Planning" are pretty damned effective by the way. You might need to read a book or go to a seminar to learn how to do it properly, but it's just as effective as using condoms.
Christ himself said to pay taxes that the government demands.
And Ireland demands taxes...
We just demand a smaller percentage, what's wrong with that?
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
He's not picking and choosing; you're misinterpreting in several places.
- You say that Acts 4:32 precludes private ownership. But that verse begins with a figurative sentence, so it's reasonable to interpret the rest of the verse as mild hyperbole. It in fact is reasonable to interpret it as mild hyperbole even without the figurative sentence, since it's an ethereal statement about the general state of things meant to convey an atmosphere, not intended to be taken completely literally.
- You say the end of Acts 4 indicates an "expectation" that all proceeds will be offered to the community, but the verses say nothing about such an expectation. They merely say that it happened a lot. Acts 4:34 especially indicates that it was not a requirement, since it says that "From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them...". If it were a requirement, all the land- and house-selling would happen at once, instead of occasionally.
- You say that we're picking and choosing in focusing on verse 4 rather than verse 3, when in fact we are interpreting verse 3 based on the following context of verse 4. If all you read was verse 3, you would think that the sin was in fact the withholding of funds. But verse 4,
where Peter says "And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?", absolutely precludes this interpretation. If the money was at Ananias's disposal, then it was not required for him to offer all the money, much less sinful for him not to.
- You say " 'You have not lied to men but to God.' really throws a hydrospanner in the works," but this is because of your lack of understanding of figurative speech. There is a very strong, obvious, implied "You think you have lied to men," before that statement. Peter was saying that their lie, which they thought was directed toward men, was in fact directed toward God because of the nature of the thing they were lying about.
The definition of "picking and choosing" is interpreting a single verse or two without considering the other verses that address the same question, whether they're in the immediate context or halfway across the Bible. In narrowly focusing on 5:3, without letting your interpretation of 5:3 be guided by what 5:4 overtly says, you're the one who's picking and choosing.The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Okay, you got me on the political science*, but I think I'm doing better than you in the semantics department. See above.
* (Although I daresay that when most laymen talk about "socialism" they are talking about something coercive and not something voluntary, and it was that laymen's definition I (thought I) was addressing.)
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
According to the prophecy... after this pope there will only be one more pope ... then the church will be fucked.
Prophecy of St Malachy
When I read The Year of Three Popes by Peter Hebblethwaite (about the events of 1978 which saw the death of Paul VI, the election and death of John Paul I, and then the election of John Paul II) he mentions the spate of editorials in the Osservatore Romano and the spate of letters to the editor in the Times of London at the time of the conclaves about what the mottos attributed to the dead pope or the next pope by St Malachy in his prophecies. Enthralled, I went to the library and looked through the microfilm of the Times to read the letters myself. And then I tried to track down a copy of the prophecies. I have them reproduced below, as well as an explanation of them from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The prevailing view today is that they are elaborate forgeries, probably perpretrated by a school of Jesuits in the 1600s. This is based on the clear relation of the mottos to the various popes until that period, and the need to find oblique references (such as the motto of the Pope's home diocese) to make the particular motto fit the particular pope. The inclusion of anti-popes would also appear to militate against the authenticity of the prophecies. Nevetheless, as each new conclave comes and goes, people start to become a bit jittery about them. I think they are a bit of fun, and the semantic exercise of trying to fit the motto to the Pope that goes on in letters to the editor around the world is great reading!
According to the prophecy, the next Pope will be the second last Pope Gloria Olivae ("Glory of the Olives"). Will we see the return of an Italian to Vatican Hill? Or will it be a Frenchman or a Spaniard? Someone from Latin America, perhaps, the Glory of the Spanish New World?
(From the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 edition)
The most famous and best known prophecies about the popes are those attributed to St. Malachy. In 1139 he went to Rome to give an account of the affairs of his diocese to the pope, Innocent II, who promised him two palliums for the metropolitan Sees of Armagh and Cashel. While at Rome, he received (according to the Abbé Cucherat) the strange vision of the future wherein was unfolded before his mind the long list of illustrious pontiffs who were to rule the Church until the end of time. The same author tells us that St. Malachy gave his manuscript to Innocent II to console him in the midst of his tribulations, and that the document remained unknown in the Roman Archives until its discovery in 1590 (Cucherat, "Proph. de la succession des papes", ch. xv). They were first published by Arnold de Wyon, and ever since there has been much discussion as to whether they are genuine predictions of St. Malachy or forgeries. The silence of 400 years on the part of so many learned authors who had written about the popes, and the silence of St. Bernard especially, who wrote the "Life of St. Malachy", is a strong argument against their authenticity, but it is not conclusive if we adopt Cucherat's theory that they were hidden in the Archives during those 400 years.
These short prophetical announcements, in number 112, indicate some noticeable trait of all future popes from Celestine II, who was elected in the year 1130, until the end of the world. They are enunciated under mystical titles. Those who have undertaken to interpret and explain these symbolical prophecies have succeeded in discovering some trait, allusion, point, or similitude in their application to the individual popes, either as to their country, their name, their coat of arms or insignia, their birth-place, their talent or learning, the title of their cardinalate, the dignities which they held etc. For example, the prophecy concerning Urban VIII is Lilium et Rosa (the lily and the rose); he was a native of Florence and on the arms of Florence figured a fleur-de-lis; he had three bees emblazoned on his escutcheon, and the bees gather honey from the lilies a
By exempting churches from taxes the government gets to chose what is and isn't a religion.
Change 'government' to 'majority' and you'll see the problem. A Protestant dominated congress would probably have created some nasty tax rates on Catholic, Jewish, Mormons, etc. faiths. And how do you decide how much to tax each faith? By size? Size entails that each faith keep accurate rolls of their members. Instant blacklist. To avoid a large faith breaking itself up into a zillion little flocks/groups to avoid reporting requirements, you would need to set a minimum yearly fee. A _large_ minimum fee that a majority religion could afford to pay , but that the little faiths couldn't afford. And I would speculate that the majority faith's fee money would just find its way back into their coffers. Which brings up the question of how are those tax dollars spent? The majority religion is a majority in Congress which means the non-majority faiths' money would be misspent.
Given how irrational and intense people can be concerning their religion and the non-believers, worst case, it would be like crossing the KKK with the IRS with McCarthyism.
I'm not quite sure how you made that connection... do you suppose that any "religion" the government deems annoying enough to suppress would be taxed into oblivion?
Yes. Look at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/02/121620 9 Increased royalty fees threaten to drive web based radio out of business. If you look at US history, there have been periods where I could easily see Congress as being more than happy to tax unpopular religions into oblivion. More importantly, a faith isn't going to give up just because they can't pay the fees. If they can't pay the fees, then they're breaking the law. Presto! They are now criminals because of their faith.
Now that the Pope says it, it must be true.
Sorry, it just isn't so. The organization of the Roman Catholic does not hold the decision over which human gets "Sainthood" for example- if a person is saved, he's saved. He knows, it, too, he doesn't need a guy in a pointy hat to tell him so; God decides.
Any organization bent so far on worshiping a tradition more than a God, is gonna get into trouble. From Christ's own lips in Matthew, when asked "[If you're going to be gone] how do we pray to you?" He started the sentence with "Don't recite to me..." I know perhaps a million Roman Catholic Priests/Monks/etc has read this, even when trascribing it before the printing press....SO WHY DON'T THEY FOLLOW IT? It's nuts.
And that "Malochai Prophecy"; now THAT is a hoot. Centuries ago a guy claimed to know the sequence of popes. It was right 2-3 times while he was alive, and nowdays the Popes change names to that prophecy so they'll all match. How's that a prophecy?!?!?
Some of the things they do are so egg-headed; I wish they'd actually *read* the Bible sometime, and not just follow tradition.
If the Pope called Google evil, would it actually change your minds, or is this just a chance for the organization to seem more 'hip'? If you'll recall a previous Pope called contraception evil, too.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
I'm not too much of a believer in the free market, but it's blindingly obvious that corporations don't actually pay any taxes. They just pass those costs on to consumers of their product. What would make more sense than taxing corporate profits is taxing dividends.
Sooner or later most corporations will pay dividends to their shareholders. This money is easily tracked and therefore easily taxed. This elimination of corporate income tax also has the side effect of treating corporations as non-person entities rather than the fictional persons they are under US law.
Is that why Jesus said that?
Can you tell me what I am thinking as well?
The problem is that the church promotes and panders to intolerance. For example, they claim that people "choose" their sexuality, and then condemn those "choices". We know that people don't choose to be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transexual, but their continued, and very vocal, public condemnation of people panders to the basest elements of human nature; they have to take their blame as an enabler of ignorance and hatred.
Its the same with a LOT of other issues, not just today, but over the centuries. And its not just relegated to the Pope or one church ... as its written in Ecclesiastes, there's nothing new under the sun.
The "good works as a reason to avoid taxes" argument doesn't wash, because then everyone else is paying to subsidize one group's use of "good works" to prosyletize for their particular breed of superstition. This sort of behaviour is actually condemned in the Bible - "let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth" and the whole if you do something expecting something in return, you've already gotten all the reward you deserve thing.
It doesn't really matter in the long run, because as education and income levels rise, society in general drops religion. Most catholics use birth control. Most fundies have sex before marriage.
The problem arises when they then go around and hypocritically try to tell others what to do, while pretending their sh*t doesn't stink. If you read the article, you'd have seen that its speculated that the real reason the pope is saying this is to help shore up Italy's tax base, not from any "christian" motive. Politics and business as usual ...
The pope will earn my respect when he stands up to the stupidity of the past and says:
- The pope is not perfect, never has been, and never can be;
- What consenting adults do is their own business;
- "Sin" is solely in the eye of the beholder.
By the way, even Jesus supported #s 1 and 3. Why doesn't the pope?Tell ya what. I won't make up any exquisitely unfalsifiable stories about my imaginary friends, and the Pope can shut the fuck up about politics and economics. Deal?
--
phunctor
Quit taxing hypothetical legal entities (ie, corporations) and just raise taxes on the actual human beings that own them.
Duh.
The point being made is that rich individuals and corporations are setting up a minimal presence in a foreign tax country (tax haven) in order to avoid paying taxes in the countries where they actually live or work. This is "bad" because by not paying local taxes, they're not supporting their local government and social programs.
Really? The tax authorities in my country (Canada) say that I am fully entitled to pay the absolute minimum tax required by law. They also say that I am fully entitled to structure my affairs to pay less tax, provided I stay within the law.
I don't write the tax laws, but if the tax laws say that I can avoid ten grand in tax by structuring an investment a specific way, I would be an idiot not to save the money.
Why would I want to live in a world without evil? A world without evil would be boring as hell - no unrest, nothing to change, nothing to comment on, no need to work or think or even feel. It would be death.
Which, I think, is the ultimate truth - "heaven" is nothingness. It's a "world" free of evil - no thought, no feeling, no objective. Nothingness.
No thanks.
And I dunno why you think your country is a democracy, but I can assure this one isn't - it wasn't meant to be. The US ideally has laws that restrict behavior in a way that ensures minorities can live a life free of the tyranny of the majority. Of course, that was all much easier before the communications revolution made it so damn easy for washington and the corporations to flood the books with micromanagement legislation.
worldwide attention to global morality
Horrifying. Pretty soon people will start to believe that there really is a cosmically-defined "Good" and "Evil," and that their actions somehow matter as part of a grand, universal scheme, instead of just mattering to them.
Last time I checked, the 7th commandment of God says "thou shall not steal", and the 9th "do not covet thy neighbors goods". I didn't see an exemption in there - "thou shall not steal unless you do it in the form of mass coveting in the form of a democratic mob"
... where religion is persecuted with religious fervour.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Who the heck cares what the old man with the pointy hat thinks? All these characters do is make this and that rule and denounce so-and-so or that country for not abiding by some arbitrary rules they think up. Screw them.
I wonder why the EU hasn't interfered intervened with this yet? Ireland joined in 1973. I bet the new European Constitution (that every member state has rejected) will put a stop to it.
I can't remember where I saw it, but I believe the vast majority of Catholics in the US are registered Democrats as well.
Jesus cures the blindness of an absolute nobody.
Who is this pope, and who again is it that he claims to serve?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
...this Pope is the Antichrist.
Thank heavens I'm an athiest.
In related news, Walter Williams wrote a great editorial on El Hefe's condemnation of people trying their damnedest to keep what they fucking earn.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
A more interesting question is when will Google reveal the Pope's Evil.
All evil stems initially from and is, at its core, fueled essentially by denial.
All the other factors and causes of evil acts: isolation, anger, retribution, and many others can be tracked back to people who deny reality, to people who live and believe the myths and stories, and use that denial to fuel acts of evil.
The Pope, and more broadly the Christians, purport the biggest myth of them all: that a all-knowing, all-power man in sky is always watching you, and he is vengeful and will send you to burn in Hell if you're bad, but he loves you.
By Myth, I mean a story that is widely believed, but not factual. Broad dissemination of non-factual religious myths allows and supports a society with many other myths and many lies - all popular and all broadly believed. Most people to live in a state of denial about their lives, and a small number, in extreme denial commit evil acts.
Strangely, the all-knowing, all-power creator of the universe needs a lot of donations of money from the mortals. What a gig.
I'm no fan of big businesses. Google is better than most. I'll take tax-evading, corrupt businesses over the Christians any day of the week. At least the businesses are not trying to guilt and manipulate people into parting with their money; they are doing the same corrupt actions as the governments taking the taxes.
The article makes some assumptions on what the pope might say. That is not to be confused with what the pope has done or said already. But I guess guessing about what someone is going to do makes great news. Moving on....
The article focused mostly on tax evasion that is taking place in the Italian Government. So the pope writes about how tax evasion is wrong. Is this news? Since when was tax evasion a good thing??! Maybe... it works like this... since the pope plans to say something is wrong... it must be good!
don't have sex. It's not hard.
I call 'Bullshit'
And thus in one line he perpetuates the "Religious" attitude that our bodies and our desires are bad. In reality-land, sex is good, it is healthy, and we would all be better off be teaching everyone how to have more safe, more healthy sex with each other. Teaching people to be open, honest and get their needs met. People would be healthier and happier and without as much conflict.
Religious organizations artificially create an absurd conflict and make people feel GUILTY for wanting sex and following their natural instincts. At the same time, these same organizations offer the SOLUTION for their false, induced and irrational guilt: prayer and devotion, and giving money to the church!
And people fall for it!
In my opinion, there is NO defense for the position taken by major organized religions.
Sitting on a big pile of gold, and money in swiss banks.
Just as any governor who lives in a mansion surrounded by gardens and administrating all the money of his country at his will *ahem* Bush *ahem*.
By the way, do you have proof for "money in swiss banks"? And don't forget that all the Church's money is obtained by donations. You can't say the same for the taxes the US forces you, and where do they go? Hint: It's a three letter word, starts with W and ends with an R.
At least the Pope submits to the Roman Curia for financial decisions.
The "safe sex" crew says we should reduce the number of bullets in the cylinders of the pistol we're using to play sexual russian roulette. That's fine, as far as it goes. The Catholic Church says don't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. It is not self-evident to me why the former position is more reasonable than the latter nor why adherents to the first position are so against the promoters of the latter position.
Specifically: Can't the government already do that with everything else? Seems to me, they do already.
Example: They could just decide that, because I read Slashdot, I could be Slashdot-taxed. This would discourage people from reading Slashdot.
If they're not allowed to do that, I'm sure you could take that law, change some of the words, and use it to prevent them from preferring one religion over another, while taxing them all.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
A lot of saints never read the Bible. A lot of saints were illiterate. A lot of saints lived prior to the Bible's creation. Catholics' Sunday services, Holy Liturgy features a creed, a statement of common belief. If you can say that statement, you're Catholic. It does not include any statement that we believe in the Bible.
We do believe in the Bible, after all, we wrote it. But it's an instruction manual, not a paper fetish. Just like you can run a computer without reading the manual, Mother Theresa could be a saint without reading the Bible.
The Church is the longest running, largest global charity in the history of the world. Unless you believe in taxing nonprofits (and who knows, maybe you're one of the tiny minority that believes in that) consistency demands your favor for the tax exempt status of religious charities as much as secular ones.
Gays, lesbians, etc. are free to be themselves without being labeled sinner just like the rest of us, by acting in accordance with the rules of the Church. Sometimes I don't like the rules either. They can be rather inconvenient for my pleasure's sake. When I break them, I'm labeled a sinner too. One gets over it, usually by reconciling with the Church and trying again.
Gays want to have their cake and eat it too. If homosexuality is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the gays in a eugenic fit of madness. Gays, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that homosexuality is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But gays don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between scylla and charybdis except demagoguery and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS.
Pick your poison.
It is not self-evident to me why the former position is more reasonable than the latter nor why adherents to the first position are so against the promoters of the latter position.
... but the former has the advantage of being pragmatic, while the latter is more and more falling into the category of "wishful thinking".
The way I see it, the "safe sex" crowd is basically trying acknowledge reality without addressing the morality (or lack of morality) behind the need for such protection, since that's really the purview of religious instruction and good parenting. The Catholic Church is trying to address the morality without addressing the reality that many people are ignorant on the subject of sex and are going to have it regardless of anyone's opinion on the subject. Both positions are valid perspectives on the problem
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
In the US at least, the Church's position is actually becoming less and less wishful thinking and more descriptive of reality. The number of virgin marriages are up, premarital sex is down. Practicality is disease avoidance, especially as more treatment resistant strains of STDs arise.
There's a myth that every generation from here on out is going to have more and more premarital sex. That's just not the case.
And I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
Let's see...Luke wasn't actually an eye witness, he just did interviews with eye witnesses. The other three are supposed to have been eye-witnesses, however, all four of the gospels were written decades after the fact, and all four underwent several translations and duplications before their current forms were produced. There may be grounds there for reasonable doubt....doubt of the authorship of the works and doubt of the accuracy of the transcriptions.
But none of that matters. Even pretending that reading the books is as good as directly questioning the people to whom their authorship is attributed, we still have some logical problems with the claim.
If you ask any one of them "On such-and-such a day, did Jesus in fact say, "He who is without sin, cast they first stone," and they say "yes," I would consider it relatively rational to accept the answers as accurate.
However, if you ask any one of them "Was Jesus actually God manifest in the flesh?" it doesn't matter if they all say "Yes"...their eyewitness testimony of his words and deeds are not sufficient to prove his divinity.
Why?
Because their human intellects are too limited to make that determination with accuracy.
Extreme claims require extreme evidence. Something like theft or murder can easily be accomplished by humans, and hence four witnesses testifying to the event may be sufficient grounds for belief. Raising the dead, walking on water, and other such miracles are in an entirely different category, and (IMO) require greater evidence. And EVEN IF those miracles can be proven to have taken place, that STILL doesn't prove that Jesus was the son of God (the demonstration of superior power does not prove the possession of ultimate power...it merely proves the possession of superior power; by analogy, your ability to lift more weight than me doesn't prove that you can lift more weight than any human, let alone more weight than any being in the universe, let alone any amount of weight at all).
Faith that the bread I buy at the store is probably not poisonous is VERY different than faith that over 2000 years ago the creator of the universe took on a human body, worked a few miracles, and set down some teachings which we must obey. The former is easily tested and the claim is very mild, whereas the latter is impossible to test and the claim is very extreme.
You need more than four dubiously-accurate eyewitness testimonies to prove that miracles took place, and you need more than a few miracles to prove divinity.
Currently, our human devices cannot give us more...they are too limited. While the inability to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, a claim without compelling warrant remains a claim without compelling warrant. This claim is very extreme, and very lacking in compelling warrant.
Food for thought: if a glowey being of light appeared before you and asked YOU to murder your son, would you do it? Would you do it believing that the "angel" would stop you at the last second? How do you know it isn't a demon in disguise, who won't stop you at the last second? Would you instead say "get thee behind me Satan?" How would you know it wasn't actually God testing your loyalty, just as he did in the Bible?
A little rationality goes a long way.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I just knew I'd read a Supreme Court ruling on the matter from ~1988. Thanks again.
Really. Its time to put this medieval theocratic crime organization behind us. The Pope is the big boss. Recognize the Church for what it is. Can't bring it down anytime soon, so just move on.
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Did you choose to be gay or straight or lesbian or bi? The concept of a straight person "choosing" to be straight is laughable. Ask them, and they'll say "I was born that way." Same for gays and lesbians.
Next you'll be saying that transexuals "choose" to be transexual, rather than that the formation of their brains was governed by the natal hormonal environment.
Here's one for you - do people choose to be Christians? If so, then God is not all-powerful and sovereign. If not, then why blame people for something that isn't their fault, since they had no say in the matter. Or is god a god of injustice? If so, who would want to follow him? Worship an unjust god? Non, merci.
If there is no predestination, you choose to believe or disbelieve, and the pope is just window dressing. Or there is predestination, in which case who needs the pope anyway, since its all predestined?
The only resolution that works is "God doesn't exist, so the concept of a pope is meaningless." And the same can be applied to other choices that the church claims to pronounce on, including sexuality.
So, bottom line - instead of debating predestination, get down to a concrete instance; since the church is so preoccupied in regulating people's sexuality, is your church going to say that a transexual can't marry someone of their former sex? Or does that make the couple gay? Or that their former spouse cannot divorce them, and vice versa? Or is the church going to practice medecine without a license by advising people not to seek medical treatment that has been proven to be safe and effective? Enquiring minds want to know.
Seriously, we tell Google they have to do all that in oder to evade taxes this way.
I want to see a corporate owned freeway system.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Ok, you've decided that it's an inborn trait. Good luck talking to the gene therapy guys because people keep looking for that homosexual gene so they can turn it off and "solve" the "homosexual problem".
Of course people choose to be christians. If God wanted puppets, he would have never invented free will. You don't seem to be entirely clear on the concept of christianity. Baptism (the initiation ceremony of christianity) is a choice and has always clearly been presented as such. A sovereign may permit opposition and a wise one generally does ("the loyal opposition").
The last time I checked the numbers the Roman Catholic Church was the largest single denomination in US at 26%. If you add up all various Baptist denominations that was in the low 30%s. And just to be picky, they add up to over 50%. which mean Protestants are less than 50% of the US, a fact that must overjoy any WASPs out there. In case anyone misses the distinction I'm making, technically Protestants are Churches that broke away from Communion with the Pope. This includes Lutherans, Presbyterian, the Anglican Communion (CoE, Episcopalian, etc), Methodists, and so forth. It does not include Orthodox (the difference is political, not spiritual) nor Baptists (who never were in Communion with the Pope to start with).
BTW: If any Baptists are reading this, my main source of Baptist info is a graduate of Bob Jones University. How mainstream are they? I know that they are way right politically, but that doesn't mean that doctrinally they are beyond the pale.
As for the sex-scandals, I read that over the past 50 years the amount of Catholic abuse is proportional to other denominations, just all of it has been uncovered over the past 10 years or so instead of trickling in over the past half century. Dunno if that is still the case (unfortunately more cases seem to pop up every month), but it is food for thought for anyone not afraid of statistics.
nuff said !
Its amusing how many people here attack the Pope for this sort of thing. Now change the headline to "Pope shuns Microsoft's policy of hiding tax money in other countries" and see how well it goes over. Guess who gets to pay for all the lost tax revenues that major corporations hide by playing the loophole game.
That being said... I think it would be more productive for lawmakers to just close the loopholes instead of having the practice defined as "immoral" or "sinful". Corporations do not have morals, however they do know the concept of "illegal" and "lawsuit". Hit them where the wallet hurts, and they will stop.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
My point is that Mother Theresa was a member of the church you despise, and is widely held to be an example of a good person who worked to help others. Hm, I guess the church might not be 100% evil after all, eh?
Hm, I guess you're jumping to conclusions: just statistically, any large organization has some good people in it--that doesn't make the organization itself good.
I fail to see what's so unreasonable about being labeled a sinner by any religion, if you're breaking that religion's precepts.
And I fail to see what's so unreasonable to criticize a religion for its history, actions, and social and ethical positions.
In any case, it's not the government's business. It's not like it negatively affects people's ability to live their lives.
Come on, what rock have you been living under? The Catholic church has been meddling in government for two millennia and hurting a lot of people in the process, and continues to this day.
Gays want to have their cake and eat it too. If homosexuality is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the gays in a eugenic fit of madness. Gays, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that homosexuality is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But gays don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between scylla and charybdis except demagoguery and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS.
I agree with your logic! I feel exactly the same way about left-handed people! Have you noticed how almost the majority people in the world are right-handed? So it follows that the few that are left-handed people are an abomination against nature! They are evil, I tell you and must repent their sick ways! Nature did not intend for people to be left-handed! Else why would nearly all of the people be right-handed? These left-handed people are vile and just don't want to give up their disgusting habit of preferring to use their left hand instead of right hand! In the interest of natural order and survival of the species, and to keep humanity free from such freaks, I demand that all left handed people be eradicated in a purge! They should be sent to concentrated camps and not be allowed to marry! Their left hand should be chopped off in fact!
"Left-handed people want to have their cake and eat it too. If Left-handedness is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the left-handed people in a eugenic fit of madness. Left-handed, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that Left-handededness is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But left-handed people don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between left-handedness and right-handedness except ambidexterity and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS."
P.S. You stink, you homophobic dumbass! I am 100% straight(and married) and yet I don't feel threatened by existence of gays and lesbians. It is not like they will convert me into being gay just by existing. I mean I don't see how their bedroom antics harm me or anyone else directly or even indirectly. Your illogical hatred of them points to a definite sexuality-conflict. Are you bothered by their existence, because you feel you might turn into a gay as well? In that case, you quite possibly already are, and are in just denial. And that is what makes you so angry against them!
You do realize that until very recently, people were routinely trained out of left-handedness, right? Also, that's just for the US. There are plenty of places in the world where people are trained out of left handedness as a matter of course to this day. In other words, this is a bad example.
Turning back to homosexuality, I do not favor eugenics in any way, shape, or form. I do my best to love my brothers and sisters despite their sins as I hope they love me despite my own. Do you know what a Catholic calls someone who is not tempted to sin? A saint. I'm not a saint.
Being "born gay", or any other way, is not important. We are all born imperfect (Original Sin). Arrogance and Gluttony are my particular problem areas. It doesn't mean I'm off the hook for controlling them. The Old Testament describes a really tough set of requirements for getting to Heaven. The New Testament presents a replacement approach. In neither scenario do I see much room for "well, I was born different, so I need an exception." Naturally Jesus can show mercy and you might be able to get into Heaven, but there is no way you can know. Following the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the only way to be sure that you will get you into Heaven, provided you mean it and are not just paying lip service. Naturally your spiritual mileage may vary, this is just the doctrine of the Church.
Predestination is a Protestant thing (Calvinistic, I believe). Catholics are into Free-Will. The difference is one of attitude. Older Protestant groups were literally predestined in that God decided before you were born what your fate was, and there wasn't anything you could do to change it. Most modern Protestants believe that if you have faith in Jesus, God will ensure that you make it to Heaven. God decides who believes enough. The Catholic stance is that you have to keep trying to be good enough, and God will ensure that you make it. If you never stop trying, you'll get in.
Geek example: The Lord of the Rings vs. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
For those who don't know Tolkien and Lewis were roommates, and Tolkien fired up Lewis's religious fervor. In the LotR Frodo never stops trying to destroy the ring. In the end, it is just too tough and fate conspires to ensure that it gets done (Gollum bites his finger off). In LWW the kids and the people of Narnia fight the good fight against the Witch, but eventually Aslan shows up and saves the day. Tolkien was Catholic and his story shows the free will of Frodo to never quit, while the Anglican Lewis's Narnia demonstrates God doing the work, not the people. This isn't quite the predestination of old, but it isn't the free will of Catholicism either.
I'm not aware of the Church having any particular decrees on transexuality, but I imagine it would be against it. You were given a gender, and it is not your place to change it. Feeling the urge to change God's plan is pretty much the definition of temptation, and giving into it is Evil. Some of this stuff is black-and-white.
As for the medical thing, what sort of red herring is this? When has the Church ever recommended against medical procedures? I hear about faith healing in non-Catholic denominations, that is it. Down here in the South it seems that Baptists in particular like faith healing. Any Catholic examples? There are rules against abortion, birth control, and euthanasia, all of which because a life is ended (or prevented). The Church is equally against the death penalty and wars (even the Crusades don't live up to St. Aquinas's Just War requirement). But I've never heard of anythign preventing a medical procedure. Note: that until recently organ donating was taboo because of the literalism of "resurection of the body". You'd need those body parts. The Church was equally against cremation for the same reason. Both stances have soften, and my Church is even putting in a columbarium, which was unheard of 20 years ago.
BTW: The prohibition on divorce is that a vow was made to God. You shouldn't be able to walk away from them, should you? That is why there is a movement within the Church to bless "living together" and save the Sacrament of Marriage for those who are ready to take on more commitment. I don't expect this to show up within my lifetime, but the Church moves slowly.
PS: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand Catholicism, and that your not simply a troll. You seem to lump all of Christianity into one box, which is kind like saying "all Chinese look the same".
Newsflash : Except for converts, majority people don't choose to be a christian or hindu or muslim or a budhhist. If you for example were born into a budhhist family, chances are fairly low that you would choose to practice any other religion and rituals instead of what rest of your family is practicing. So please stop talking out of your ass! You have just as much choice in being a certain religion as you have a choice in your nationality/citizenship. If you were born in a british family, you would be an american. If you were born in germany or in Nigeria, you won't have a choice in nationality either. You *might* apply for an australian or canadian citizenship when you grow up, but the percentage is quite small. And baptism is just as much a choice as is a particular citizenship for a newborn i.e. next to none.
*God* may want opposition, but *Christians* apparently don't, based on your own demonstrated intolerance for critics of your religion and your own irrational hatred of gays and lesbians etc.
I thought that Bill Gates bought the Catholic Church?! See Here
And you seriously feel that such people must necessarily be trained, even if they are comfortable with the way they are and are not causing you any harm by being left-handed?
I give up. Someone who sees everyone even slightly different in the least manner, as "undesirable", and needing to be "trained" out of it, is ironically abnormal himself and in need of severe psychiatrical therapy.
Yes we get your brand of "Christianity" perfectly : "love all our brothers and sisters ... except homosexuals, muslims, hindus, atheists and people with different skin-tones! The latter need training, operations, skin-grafts and brainwashing to correct their horrible manner of existence!". You know what? you can keep that intolerant, self-righteous philosophy and goto hell that your "merciful" god and religion is so fond of threatening you with, in order to extract compliance. I would stick with the religions and beliefs that are a bit more benevolent and tolerant than Christianity or Islam.
In the days of the GOP (late 1800s) the Democratic Party was the Party of "Rum, Rome, and Rebels". For the non-US folks out there, that would be lax morals, Catholics, and Southerners (this was just after the war).
OK, then wake me up when PBXVII does something amazing, because in this case it doesn't look to me like things have changed a lot. Hmm, people want me to face off against the evil corporate monsters, so let's decry the activities of some well-known large corporations. Looks like following the popular vote to me, especially when you consider that the church does plenty things itself to avoid paying the piper.
... oh, wait ... not popular enough.
There are plenty of other things that large corporations - and in fact the corporation that have been mentioned - do that would be far more "evil," and moreover in many cases are actually illegal. This one's an easy way to get publicity and possibly public support though... since most people would be happy to feel a little indignation over tax-related issues. Maybe the pope should take a peek at the AT&T wiretapping scandal
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/his
"After the fall of Rome, European medicine was dominated by the Church, which adopted the ancient belief that illness was punishment from God and treatable only by prayer and penance. The Church regarded the suffering caused by disease to be the will of God and as a requirement for eternal redemption. Anybody who dared to heal people, outside the authority of the Church, was accused of interfering with the will of God. Folk healers were accused of achieving their successes with the help of the Devil and were called witches. And, the cure, itself, was considered evil by the Church. For eight long centuries, from the fifth to the thirteenth, the godly, anti-science stance of the Church had stood in the way of the development of virtually everything, including medicine and any improvements in the living conditions of the peasant population. Then, in the 13th century, there was a revival of learning, touched off by the crusades which brought contact with the Arab world."
For an institution that insists on inflexibility and on authority/infallibility of an event and philosophy that is dated 2000 years back, the church can hardly escape from its action in their full scope and totality. They can hardly claim, oh that happened 1000 years back, those were different people and then proceed to shove ancient practices, rituals and beliefs down the throats of masses claiming that those are still unmodifiable and infallible.
Christianity as a religion may be a good enough philosophy, but the Church and any such "organized religion" is definitely a mere outdated cult.
you want cookies as of this moment. also you want cheese.
Read radical news here
elaborate
Read radical news here
what about bono? imho he's a far more influential champion of Christian morality
Notwithstanding the joys of the Inquistion.
RR
The Vatican City only became a state in 1929. Learn some history. (And, to rub lemon juice in, it isn't actually ruled by the Holy See -- though, admittedly, it and the Holy See are closely linked.)
i would advise you that, as a matter of fact.
church had been doing "charity" work since early 3rd century, with arms even reaching into administrative duties, and when charlemagne established papal states it became a state for the first time in history, not removed from existence until late 19th century. read more here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States
Read radical news here
If I claim to be a Jedi, can I buy Star Wars DVDs tax free?
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
I'm all for preventing tax havens, lets start by taxing the church's incoome.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
1. Tithing (Deuteronomy 14:22ff) was not a tax. The best we could probably compare it with is a tribute in the style represented in Hitite (and other Ancient Near East) Suzerain-Vassal treaties. (See Mendenhall's "Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, http://home.earthlink.net/~cadman777/Law_Cov_Mende nhall_TITLE.htm originally printed in Biblical Archeology magazine.
2. Giving outside tithing required? Can you cite this so I can look it up? The only thing I can think of is the offerings taken to build Solomon's temple, and those were strictly voluntary.
3. I would agree that initially Israel had a religious state, and that originally the Levites (among other things) handled the issues you mentioned.
4. Punishable by death? I can only assume you're thinking of Ananias and Sapphira. In the record, God killed them for lying, not for failure to comply to any giving requirements. Peter even told them that their resources were their own, to use as they saw fit. (Acts 5:1-11)
Protestant Christian here, enjoying the debate.
One remark: if faith is not about predestination but about choice, it might be logical that this is the case because the supreme being chose to give us free will. That also means that it is my responsibility to do with that as I choose, as long as I accept the consequences (which are written out for me). So: no, that is not unjust, but it also doesn't mean that the supreme being in question is not all-powerfull. It just means that he wants us to make our own choices instead of forcing it on us.
Please continue.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
Somewhere in your phrasing I got lost. If gays don't want to be eugenically eliminated then they must have chosen it intentionally?
Of course whenever I hear someone start a paragraph with "gays want" or "women want" or "blacks want" I figure the speaker is about to put their foot in it by speaking for some group they have no authority to speak for, and by lumping them together like so much gray paste.
-josh
Wait wait, having sex is equivalent to firing a gun at your head?
It sure looked like you were trying to communicate, and had worthwhile things to say but at some point you have become so frothy that no one could possibly take you seriously.
-josh
You have to admit that the Bible is pretty unreadable; I've tried three times to go cover to cover and only once manage to get past genesis (the first chapter).
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I had no idea there were perfect humans! You never make the wrong choice? Willingly? Virtually everyone I know does on almost a daily basis - myself, I know I am too fat and yet every day I choose again to do nothing about it. A third of the people of this country do the exact same thing, each and every day. If you are a christian moslem or jew, how often do you choose to not go to temple services? How often do parents sit the kids in front of the tv rather than actively involving their kids in something as a family?
You can't make a choice where someone "innocent" will be hurt? I don't know anyone truly innocent except maybe a baby - and kids need choices made for them that often involve them being hurt. You balance the hurt they experience now against the potential for greater pain an suffering - but there is no way around some amount of pain no matter how some may try to pretend. Isn't that what religion is supposed to be there for? To help us weak and feeble creatures cope?
Yeah I'm sick of Ireland getting held up on this one all of the time. Ireland collects taxes like any other country. This criticism of Ireland is usually a complaint of capitalists and free market proponents so you would think they would recognise competition as an essential factor within the free market. Ireland offers cheaper taxes to promote investment and promote growth. What's wrong with that?
I never get used to these constant resurrections
Yes, but is that because more people are going to church and listening to what they're being told and are becoming more "moral" as a result, or is it simply (as you say) that they're afraid of catching a resistant strain of syphilis (or AIDS, for that matter)? The answer to that is less obvious, but in either case their behavior is motivated by a fear of consequences. The former is fear of God, the latter is fear of a pathogen. Personally, given what's going on in this country today, I'm betting on the pathogen.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That "champion of Christian morality"?
Insert Dermot Morgan's "C.J. Haughey" voice: "You Two? Four tuneless gobshites who couldn't hit a cow's arse with a guitar."
IX CCXLIX XVII II CLVII CXVI CCXXVII XCI CCXVI LXV LXXXVI CXCVII XCIX LXXXVI CXXXVI CXCII
Thus, any sexual relation that is done just for pleasure is a sin. This includes many heterosexual practices: masturbation, adultery, sex before marriage, and any sex inside marriage that's done for pure pleasure (using condoms fit this). In the heterosexual field, only sex made for reproduction inside a marriage is legit.
This is what excludes homosexual relations. Not the fact that a person is born an homosexual, but the fact that no homosexual intercourse can yield a baby. An homosexual that does any kind of sex (since all of them are "for pleasure only") is in the same sinful category as an heterosexual that also does any kind of "for pleasure only" sex. It is the exact same sin: that of not setting your bodily acts as those acts of a sacred temple, which is what the body is according to the Christian faith.
Now, please note that nothing in this prevents an homosexual of being a traditional Christian. He is just forbidden, as every other Christian, of doing "for pleasure only" sex. And if he at some moment indulges in doing it, he must, as every other Christian that also do so (including but not limited to a husband who looks his own wife "with desire"), confess and practice penitence.
"Being successful" in this endeavor is not what counts, else only saints would be true Christians. What actually counts is the continuous pursue of that goal by the Christian, the permanent moving in that direction.
As you see, from this point of view an homosexual Christian's struggle is only barely more difficult than that of an heterosexual Christian's struggle. So small is the difference in fact, that I really don't see why it's even brought into discussion. To be a good Christian is incredible difficult for anyone who try. Homosexuals aren't significantly worse in this by any stretch of imagination.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
f you don't like the way your nation is run, you may avail yourself to the free market of nations to find one you like better, or you may build your own.
HELLO MC FLY, KNOCK KNOCK, that's exactly what the Pope is going to say is immoral. He wants you to have lots and lots of babies to pay the taxes and the tithe and to never move or find a different religion without permission; like all collectivists the Holy Sea considers you chattel. Why do you think communists and theists hate each other so much, it's not because they are so different, it's because they are the same and the communists don't want to share you.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Its an inborn trait caused by exposure to testosterone in utero. We can tell the amount of testosterone a fetus is exposed to in the first trimester - it also affects the 2D:4D ratio (the ratio between the index and ring fingers). This has a direct effect on how people's brains develop. There's nothing more "wrong" with it than there is with any other natural development. Its part of who we, as mammals, are.
In other words, its a part of nature, and all-natural. And it exists for many, many mammals, not just humans. Ever have a dog hump your leg? They don't care what sex, or what species ... So when a preacher gets up and says same-sex activity is wrong and unnatural, he's full of shit, wilfully ignorant because he just has to look at nature - its everywhere. And anyone else who parrots the same line has given up their critical judgment and bought into a lie.
Or have you never seen a male dog?
The U.S. debt crisis is finally over! We merely have to send the Pope a tax bill for 9 billion dollars, and he will apparently pay it!
"I'm not aware of the Church having any particular decrees on transexuality, but I imagine it would be against it. You were given a gender, and it is not your place to change it. Feeling the urge to change God's plan is pretty much the definition of temptation, and giving into it is Evil. Some of this stuff is black-and-white.
As for the medical thing, what sort of red herring is this? When has the Church ever recommended against medical procedures? "
You can't have it both ways ... saying that a person who seeks treatment for gender identity dysphora is "giving in to temptation", and claiming that the church would not recommend against medical procedures.
As for the "you were given a gender" bit being black and white - you mistake gender and biological sex. Gender is what's between the ears, sex is what's between the legs. Most of the time, the two match; sometimes they don't. People don't "choose" to be mismatched any more than they "choose" to be straight, or gay, or lesbian, or like chocolate and hate spinach. Its just the way they are.
Your gender identity is controlled by a region of the brain called the BTSc. Its development is controlled by how the fetus' genes express themselves in the first 3 months of development. For example, in a Male-to-Female transexual, the fetus' genes are programmed not to order the gonads to release sufficient testosterone to masculinize the BTSc, and the result is that the child is born with a male anatomy, but a female gender identity. Their true gender identity begins to assert itself as time goes on, despite intense cross-gender socialization (I say cross-gender, because the childs' true gender identity is female, not male, even though their anatomical sex is male).
Forcing them to "fit into" a social scenario where they must deny who they really are is cruel. Religious groups that go around trying to "save" transexuals from "the error of their sin" are mean-spirited. Or do you believe that someone would actually WANT to have to tell their friends and family "I'm getting a sex change."
Modifying the brain is not only impossible - it would be unethical as well, since that would involve changing who they are. So doctors do what they can - they change the body to match the mind.
You can argue that its the body that counts, and not the mind, but you won't get far. If we were to transplant your brain into another body, you would still be you, right?
The same argument goes for same-sex behavior. Its inate, and as long as nobody gets hurt, there is nothing wrong with it. Calling it a sin reveals a lack of understanding of biology, as well as a need to impose your will on others despite the evidence. This is not rational behavior.
Because it is our baby. . . . On second thought it might be to say out of this delusional discussion. Do you people even realize what makes you delusional?
Glad you're enjoying it and realize that its all in good fun :-) Some people take it WAY to seriously. Then again, some people need to get a life [./ducks :-) ]
Seriously, how do you reconcile the concept of a loving god with one who actively punishes his creations for eternity? Even parents only use punishment with the hope of saving their kids from future pain.
When we condemn someone to jail for life, we limit it to 25 years. We still hold out some hope. Plus, we don't want to demean ourselves by sinking to the same level.
If you take the view that I, an atheist, am a flawed person, full of sin and rebellion against god, how does it then appear that I have more of a sense of morality and justice than god? To say "I made you, and I can and will torture you forever because I made you" is no more right than to say that you can torture a cat to death because you own it.
Certainly we are worth as much as a dead cat.
If god existed, then he/she/it would have the power to prevent this sort of wrong. By allowing it, god would be an enabler, and just as guilty of sin as the person actually committing the sin. Even our flawed laws recognize the injustice of someone standling idly by doing nothing when they could act to save a life.
Then there's the question of mercy. "I will have mercy on those who I chose to show mercy." The quality that defines mercy is that you show it to those you would rather not. Otherwise, its just a selfish indulgence - doing your own thing, expressing your own will. But no, there is no mercy for those who are condemned, not in god's heaven and hell.
So, we end up either with an imperfect, unworthy god who is not just or merciful, or no god. Better no god than a god who is so flawed that we have to demean ourselves to follow it.
After all, if YOU were god, wouldn't you DO something? Isn't the whole world full of pain, suffering, injustice? And those poor souls who are condemned to hell by rejecting God - no mercy, but rather, revenge? God can't turn the other cheek?
The god of the bible, ultimately, is a cheap walmart knockoff. A real god could do better.
Your turn :-)
"You have to admit that the Bible is pretty unreadable; I've tried three times to go cover to cover and only once manage to get past genesis (the first chapter)."
I've read it cover to cover about 20 times. My excuse at the time was that I was a believer ... but each time reading it, there were more contradictions, as well as more stuff that I realized was just plain wrong, and no amount of apologetics could change that and still maintain any degree of intellectual honesty.
The final straw was realizing that our own flawed human laws were in many ways more just and merciful than those of the god of the bible. Even if I were still convinced that god existed, I would refuse to follow, simply because the god of the bible is ultimately a cheap wally-world knockoff, not worthy of respect. Better to be an atheist, and reject the whole premise of the existence of any god.
For a really full analysis of the idea that you can't trust a single word that is written in the bible you should check out The Age of Reason by Tom Paine, you can get it online for free (It's out of copyright now).
The two books together form what I consider to be the fullest argument I've ever seen, and the best, that pretty much all of the bible is a lie - or if not a lie, a silly story. It's well worth a read
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
No, picking up a girl in a bar when you have your beer goggles on and having sex with her is like russian roulette. You never know what you're going to wake up next to and what diseases you might have just picked up. That's pretty standard sex ed 101 and the Catholic Church agrees. The sex ed crew wants you to wear a condom so you have less chance (but still a nonzero chance) of catching a disease (waking up to coyote ugly has no cure other than sobriety). The Church says don't play that game at all and reserve your sex for your marriage bed where it's not russian roulette. Now which is the more reasonable position again?
In a country of 300M+, I'd be confident in betting that there's a bit of both going on. But the objective facts are that virginity is becoming more popular and thus the timeless Church teaching is being followed by more people, thus is not becoming more irrelevant.
Let me pick an analogy. Sometimes people don't jaywalk because there's a cop right there writing tickets and sometimes they do it because they don't want to get hit by a car. But in both instances a reduction in jaywalking rates is an increase in respect for the law.
I was trying to get past the "dumbass" portion of your comments and try to seriously answer you. I say I love homosexuals as I love every other sinner, sincerely. I don't think that homosexuals are any worse sinners as a category than rapists, usurers, abusers of their parents or people who are guilty of any of the other serious sins on the Catholic list. All sinners are in danger of losing their souls and suffering everlasting punishment in Hell. I'd like that to befall nobody. The worst thing you can do to someone is set them up for Hell so for a practicing Catholic, preaching repentence and reconciliation is an act of love. You may not understand this alternative lifestyle but that does not make it any less valid or true.
if people had all the freewill they could, it would be possible to never fall into sin
So if God made us flawed, then it is not just for God to punish us for being flawed. Therefore, either God is unjust, or God does not punish us for acting as a result of our flaws (or the whole religion is bunk, but we needn't discuss that possibility now).
If I understand the doctrine of Original Sin correctly (which I very well may not, I get a different description of it from every person I ask), we are all flawed because of Adam's sin. If that is true, then God must have enforced the rule that says "the child of a flawed sinner is a flawed sinner, by default." In that case, I am still created from the get-go as a flawed being (through no act of free will on my part), and God is STILL unjust for punishing me for being the way He created me.
Did Adam have all the freewill he could? If so, why did he fall into sin? Was it ignorance? According to the text of the Bible, it was love (an attribute with which God had created him). So again we have the same problem....either he committed his first sin because he was flawed initially by ignorance or love (hence created flawed by God and therefore God is unjust for punishing him (let alone the whole rest of humanity)), or he committed his first sin as a truly free act of evil (which is not supported by scripture and logically makes no sense...why would a truly free being who has dwelt in the presence of God and who has no flaws (hence no ignorance, no arrogance, etc) ever choose to do something that harms himself without providing any benefit to anyone?).
It makes NO SENSE.
Some of the moralistic principles of Christianity make sense from a basic humanitarian perspective...but the theological teachings, like this one, are just so self-contradictory and illogical as to be ludicrous. I really don't understand how an intelligent, clear-minded person can accept these ideas as being rational, let alone factually accurate.
Often when I have this conversation with true believers they start saying things like "you love your sin more than you love god..." which angers me. I am trying to look at the teachings from an objective point of view and I suddenly get my character attacked. As I stated, I think the moral principles are good, and I live by high moral principles myself. I do not "love my sin" and I am not trying to throw the Bible down so that I can justify working all manner of evil. What I love are intelligence, rationality, and clarity, which seem to be sorely lacking in the realm of theology. If God has any understanding of justice at all, he will approve of my questioning.
Hehe... OK, here goes...
;-)
First: you seem to equal "eternity" to "forever". That might be correct in popular speech, but strictly (and in most theological cases) it means: without time. That is a hard thing to grasp, so I dare you to define the experience of eternity for me (does it have spacetime, does it have memories, etc). Queue quantum physics and string theories
Secondly: I do not favor the death-penalty, so let's analyze a maximum punishment of 25 years. That can mean that someone looses his life (figuratively), but besides that: we are still talking about this earthly life. In this earthly life, the Bible teaches us that we have an infinite amount of chances. Please add this to my first point. God is in that respect probably more righteous than most western governments.
Third point coming up: I reckon a God that does not provide me with free will more immoral than a God that does not put an end to evil. Just about the same thing as freedom and privacy vs. Orwell's 1984. Queue anti-terrorism debate here.
4th: When I read the Bible, I get the feeling that mercy is available to everyone, no matter who, as long as he / she abides to a certain set of rules. Those rules aren't that hard, so no biggie there. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Take note, that while the AKJV talks about "everlasting", the word we use in the Dutch translations is "eternal". There, point one is saved (pheew).
Last and fifth point: If I were God, I would mourn this earth and what mankind has done to it. But I wouldn't (yet) intervene, simply because I gave this earth to mankind as a gift. If I give a child a beautiful gift, and I see that the child is destroying it, I will not take the gift away. I know that the earth is more that "just a gift", but then consider this: if God lives outside our known spacetime, and we will live there too, then the time that this earth exists is in consideration so small that the question "when do I intervene" might be still pondered over.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
maternal hormonal imbalance will kill a certain number of unborn children, disfigure others, and cause emotional imbalances in still others and somehow all this is just "a part of nature, and all-natural" and thus should not be avoided if we can? Pray tell me why should we not avoid hormonal shifts that cause miscarriages and why the same logic wouldn't work just as well for homosexuality *if* you're actually correct that it's a hormonal issue?
1. Nobody had a clue about quantum physics or string theory when the bible was written. Incidently, quantum physics removes the need for a "creator." (and on that topic, if everything needs a creator, who created the creator???)
2. The bible does not teach that we have an infinty of chances. Quite the contrary, it indicates that past a certain point, forget it. Once you're dead, there are no more chances. And even in life, there are no infinities of chances. There is no portion of the bible that, in context, supports such a notion. To the contrary, it advises that the time for repentence is now, because you may not get another opportunity.
3. You missed the third option - there is no god. This removes the dilemma. one of the other 2 options, as you accidently point out, result in a god who is not consistent, and certainly not one who you would choose to follow; the other not only allows bad shit to happen, but exploits it for his own ends. Evil is as evil does ...
4. As George Carlin said - "Yeah, yeah, I know, he died for my sins 2000 years ago ... but what has he done for me LATELY?" Now, this whole "salvation schtick" assumes that there is a god, that he has the right and power to judge me, and that if I say "no", that I am punished. Having been through it, I'll take my chances as an atheist. Certainly there's nothing in scripture that I fand compelling, since I found the book to not only have too many contradictions, but also some major moral flaws - the first being God ordering the killing of 200,000, including children. This is not right, I found it disturbing the first time I came across it (and it didn't get better with every battle where Israel was commanded to either put the enemies to the sword, or utterly destroy them, or rape their women - "take them as their wives"). Anyone doing that today would be charged with either war crimes or crimes against humanity.
5. If your kid is playing russian roulette with a gun, you take the gun away. If children are without sin, or otherwise are not under judgment, then it is wrong for them to be allowed to suffer for even one instant; that god, whose very presence is incompatible with wrong allows such an injustice shows that, if god existed, he's not so high and mighty and clean and clear of purpose, and certainly not all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing. An all-powerful god would have a way of resolving such ncompatibilities. Think of it as the anthropomorphic principle as applied to disproving the existence of god. Because we can conceive of, as well as see, manifest injustice, there cannot be a god.
If you feel that someone being gay or lesbian or bi is wrong, you're entitled to your opinion. However, you're not entitled to impose that opinion on others. The biggest problem gays and lesbians run into isn't their sexuality, but how others treat them.
On the other hand, as I pointed out elsewhere in this this thread, part of the hormonal balance in utero, that also controls the development and structure of the BSTc (which governs gender identity) is controlled by the fetus' genes expressing themselves, which causes the fetus' gonads to release hormones at specific times. It is the fetus' genes that cause a person to be a transexual, to have a brain structure that, at least in part, is of the opposite sex. Again, their biggest problem isn't how they see themselves, but how others treat them.
For all those involved, who they are is right for them. For some, its probably a hormonal/developmental situation, for others its literally in their genes. Why label it as sin? Why try to "correct" it by trying to eliminate it, when the people who are most concerned don't have a problem with it?
Would you want to prevent gays and lesbians from being who they are? Would you want to prevent transexuals from becoming who they should have been? (The two are completely separate questions, btu - transexualism has nothing to do with mating habits).
This is "bad" because by not paying local taxes, they're not supporting their local government and social programs. If you live in the [insert your country here] and use the Netherlands as a tax haven, then you're not paying your fair share for your country's universal health care, or 911 services, or military that keeps your democracy free, or whatever.
What's your view on government and social programs that hurt us and make us less free? Tax dodge as much as possible? Remember that the tax dollars that fund the things you like, also funds the things that you don't like.1) The mention of quantum physics and string theory was purely humoristic. The fact that the Bible was written millenia ago is, however, totally void, since I believe in God today. Quantum physics removes the need for a creator indeed, but it does not remove the possibility.
;-) ), the anthropomorphic principle is one of the proves of Gods existence (the universe is there, because if it weren't, we would not be here to observe it).
2) I was talking about an infinite amount of chances in this earthly life. On death, this life ends (be there another one or not, unless you believe in reincarnation, which is, by the way, more or less forbidden by the Chinese government). From birth to death, the Bible gives us an infinite amount of chances. It stresses, however, that we do not know when death will arrive. As such, it's better to act now, because you may not get another opportunity.
3) I have no dilemma. Keeping with my analogy, I think no government is more immoral than whichever government. Besides that, it is rubbish to talk about how evil God is when we have to measure it against the option of no God at all. Obviously, any being is as evil or more evil when existing than when it does not exists. As for your last point at 3: see my former point 5.
4) Here should come a major theological debate about the difference between the Old Testament versus the New Testament. See Matthew 5: 38-39 and Acts 10: 9-16 for a notion about the regarding the (often savage) laws. Basically, with the death and resurrection of Christ, the need for a punishing God is abolished (the "flaw" you mentioned is a case of "an eye for an eye"). As for what Jesus has done for me lately: with his death 2000 years ago, He gave me certainty and peace of mind right now.
5) I see God not as all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing but rather as the One with the most wisdom, the most power and the most knowledge. That means there is no other being with more wisdom, power and knowledge. That could indeed mean that God is all-wise and all-knowing, but certainly not that He is all-powerful. He still can't create a stone He himself can't lift. That being said, He promised us this world until judgment day. Upon intervening, He would break his own law, therefore rendering His law (and in my believe: morality as a whole, since that is His law) null and void. Besides that: I think you're using the anthropomorphic principle wrong. In my version of the truth (
6) I purposefully debate on this issue from my set of beliefs. That means that I automatically assume that God exists, and that Jesus died for our sins. I also assume that morality is Gods law, and that without Him, there would be no question of Good and Evil.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
If "the need for a punishing god was abolished" is ruled out by the bible itself.
- - "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent" (Numbers 23:19)
So, God does not change his mind. Except when he does. So its impossible to avoid the conclusion that the bible is wrong abut the essential nature of god.
Besides, the Bible states the God is the creator of everything, including evil. (Isaiah. 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38). So why the reluctance to put the blame at the doorstep of the creator of all evil, God himself?
Fear? The cracking of a belief system that people have invested too much in psychologically, socially, and economically, so that, when they are finally bereft of the idea of God, they will panic and go "My god, why have you foresaken me?" and flee right back into the mire of superstitious beliefs? Because that's what a lot of people do, when faced with the conclusion that the bible is just a book, and god is not within its pages. They go into denial.
That was only true in Ancient Israel, the modern situation is entirely different.
I really should dig into my Bible to respond properly, but here goes:
About Numbers: first, I find the word "should" a keyword there. Secondly, in my opinion, God never did lie or repent throughout the biblical history. Christ took upon Him the punishment meant for mankind. From that day onward, the rules have changed. That means that there was no longer a need for punishment. I did not mean "the need for a punishing god was abolished" as a shift in how we see or describe God. I meant it as a (planned, by the way) change of course by God.
Now, about evil being created. As I gather from the notes about the verses you mentioned, "evil" as in Isaiah and Amos is being interpreted as punishment (language differences are cited, as well as change of meaning in our time. I know that "hatred" used to be a lot softer in the days most translations were done). Genesis 19: 19 is given as reference. As for Lamentations: "evil and good" is also translated as "misfortune and fortune" (this is the best translation I could manage from Dutch to English; an alternative would be: "trouble and blessings").
Those of who you think are in denial might appear in my eyes as folks who were in doubt, but were reassured in their faith. Personally, I'm doubting a lot lately, even this (little) debate is more a strain for me than it would've been a year ago. I don't know where I end up, it's likely that I'll accept that doubt is part of the process of believing. But the thought of loosing my religion (thanks REM) is not scaring me a bit. The thought of being wrong is much more scaring. I rather find out the truth than hold on to something which isn't. So no, fear is not an issue for me. Maybe, just maybe, my views are so different from yours that I see absolutely no need to put the blame at the doorstep of the creator of all.
(One last note: if I say that He is the creator of all, the natural response would be: evil is part of all. That might be true, but that doesn't mean that the creation of evil was intended or initiated by God himself. Made possible, maybe (see my points on free will).
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
The criteria for including a gospel in the Bible was simple really, it had to have been penned by someone who actually knew Jesus. Only 4 gospels met this criteria. This makes sense really, as in a court of law a first hand account is trusted over a second hand account, or "hearsay".
Most of the "gospels" not included were actually written long after the time when Jesus walked the Earth. The "Gospel of Judas", for example, was written around 200 A.D., around 200 years after the fact. While I realize that 200 A.D. was 1800 years ago and seems awfully close to 30 A.D., in reality the author was no closer to Jesus than I am to say, George Washington.
Hey, I wasted 15 years of my life believing before I realized that I had, to a large extent, pulled the wool over my own eyes. It became a question of intellectual integrity.
I'm reminded of the story of how Abraham Lincoln had to argue a case one way in the morning, and the exact opposite way in the afternoon. He won the morning trial, and the judge said "You know you're going to lose this afternoon's case." Abe said "Not at all - I'm going to argue that you were wrong in your decision."
We can argue, but when it comes down to it, its not the arguments that will carry the day. Its the lack of integrity that the bible espouses. David was a man after God's own heart - yeah, right. He had a loyal soldier killed so he could have the guys' wife. Solomon - 300 wives and 700 concubines - sounds like one of those cults we hear so much about. Look at how they treated their enemies - god encouraged them to either kill them all, or kill the men, and rape the women (do you think they went voluntarily to be their wives, after their husbands were slaughtered?). Invoking the new testament doesn't cover up these injustices. This is the god that jesus supposedly wants to reconcile you with. I have no wish to be reconciled with anyone who could order such things.
Flee while you can :-)
The pope is decrying living in a collectivist society and cheating on taxes within it. He's not criticizing actually moving to places with lower tax rates.
If you don't like collectivism, leave your collectivist country.
I think I'll leave the debate with this.
Thanks, it's been fun!
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
No problemo. Feel free to email me if you want to continue it in a less public fashion.
Actually, the sin is non-procreative sex not any sense of attraction or love. You can get a hard on looking at your niece. She might be gorgeous. It's a purely heterosexual attraction and your desire might even be procreative. There isn't any sin so long as you don't do anything about that but boffing your niece is a sin.
Homosexuals don't sin because of who they are, who they are attracted to just as some confused teen doesn't sin because he got a hard on looking at a close relative. They sin when they engage in sexual acts that aren't on the narrow approved list, just like everybody else who strays off that list.
Homosexuality, no matter what else it is, is incredibly hard to satisfy because you're a distinct minority and you're going to be facing a lot of rejection even in a perfectly homosexual-friendly environment vis a vis your otherwise identical heterosexual twin. No parent really wants to set their kids up for that sort of pain if they can help it so if homosexuality does end up being determined as biologically determined, a "cure" will be found, and in the vast majority of cases used.
No matter what your sexual desire, the Church has the same rules. It happens that those rules tend to frustrate homosexuals more. Sorry about that but there's divine revelation for you.
We've gone very far afield from the Pope's economic writings (which haven't even been written) so excuse me if I don't open up yet another can of worms with the transsexuals.
It's a truly ridiculous approach to life, though. Risk exists. Manage it. Choose paths that bring happiness, not paths that have zero risk, which is a chimerae anyway. You have chances of getting infections just breathing. Sex is part of a happy life for many. Managing the risk is responsible.
The comparison *is* ridiculous anyway. STDs can be a bummer, they can even bring a long steady decline over many years, which is no fun. They don't splatter your brains across the wall. It's a scare tactic to equate them, which is standard MO for churchies when it comes to sex. Don't masturbate or you'll GO BLIND! Don't have sex or YOU WILL DIE!
These kinds of messages aren't effective because people know they're lies, and then they stop listening to the warnings at all.
-josh
"Homosexuality, no matter what else it is, is incredibly hard to satisfy because you're a distinct minority and you're going to be facing a lot of rejection even in a perfectly homosexual-friendly environment vis a vis your otherwise identical heterosexual twin. No parent really wants to set their kids up for that sort of pain if they can help it so if homosexuality does end up being determined as biologically determined, a "cure" will be found, and in the vast majority of cases used. "
I think that the question of rejection isn't a big issue - after all, if it is, most slashdotters would have slicked their wrists long ago :-)
On the "no parent" thing, when I had "the talk" that every parent has with their children, I told both my daughters that the ONLY criteria I had was whether they were happy, and not being taken advantage of. As far as I was (and am) concerned, who they go out with is their choice - I don't care about ethnicity, nationality, religion, economic, social, gender preference, age, or any other criterion, provided they're happy. Remember the "Its better to have a crust of bread on a rooftop ..."?
By being totally accepting about this sort of thing, I ended up with them both coming to me when they had questions about their boyfriends, guys in general ("yes, almost all men are dickheads"), and other, unrelated stuff.
Why do I hold to this position? Because I really do care more about whether they're happy, than if they "measure up" to "my expectations." I love them, I'm proud of them, and they know it.
As for "cures" - who says its a disease that needs curing? I should imagine that most guys would want as many gay guys around as possible - reduces the potential competition for women ... and with the sex ratio so imbalanced in China, we'd better hope they become a LOT more open about same-sex relationships, or they could very easily go to war to find "war brides".
ha, ha, suicide jokes, yeah, that's the ticket. Homosexuals have a high suicide rate. Male homosexuals especially have high disease rates. The "lifestyle" seems to be paired with an awful lot of markers of an unhappy life. That's not propaganda, just CDC data. Just take a look at the stats and say you'd want that for your daughters if mom could take a few pills and avoid the hormonal imbalance in vivo (if that actually is what's causing homosexuality).
Most of what you're conjecturing is contradicted by the CDC data sets. For policy, anecdotes make nice stories but poor guidance.
If you think a christian life is one of risk avoidance, you are woefully undereducated about christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. Risk should be managed which means sometimes it should be embraced, other times avoided. Which formula for risk management is reasonable is what we're discussing, though you don't seem to recognize it.
The sex as russian roulette thing I first got in public school sex ed, not in religion classes. It was the 80s, AIDS was new, scary, and killing lots of people. Before the retrovirals came out, it was a pretty ugly decline and you died in lots of interesting ways. You may find the comparison ridiculous but don't automatically assume that it's coming from the Church because it strikes you as ridiculous.
So according to your way of thinking nobody should become a dentist, because they have high suicide rates, and nobody should be a native american, because they too have high suicide rates, and god forbid ANYONE be a teenage girl, or black ...
So, since girls suicide rates are soaring, are you going to advocate they all start taking testosterone and getting sex changes? I doubt it.
Are you going to claim that, because blacks have a high suicide rate, that they should pull a Michael Jackson?
People are what they are ... its when they don't accept it, or society (and people like you) don't accept it, that stupid things happen. You're part of the problem.
If this were only about suicide rates you might have a point if you were actually correct about dentists being particularly high for suicide. Among medical professionals they're beat out by MDs and psychiatrists apparently.
More on point, happy, well adjusted homosexuals seem to be a lot rarer on the ground than pedophilia and incest victim homosexuals. Of the homosexuals that I've met, the number of reasonably well adjusted homosexuals who are healthy are a distinct minority. And I'm sorry but I'm not part of the problem when it comes to hepatitis and other diseases that run rampant through the homosexual community. You can wave away some of the problems as society induced but certainly not all of them, not unless you have an ideological ax to grind. It's not a happy community, never was, likely never will be.
Hooray for your combination generalization and straw man.
I criticised your typically Catholic views on sex because they are nonsense. You equated the real risk of sex with a ridiculously unacceptable risk, falsely.
Your extrapolation into this being a commentary on all catholic views is a fantasy.
-josh