Why church is so dangerous !!!

[RandFan]

So let me get this straight, this thread is about attacking churches in general and nothing in particular?

 

[Lonewulf]

Then add to knowledge and state your reasons why churches are so dangerous. Don;t fight my opinion based on direct experiences with them, but state your opinions and theories about why churches are DANGEROUS.

1) They reinforce odd beliefs.
2) They are tax-exempt, and bloat their coffers with tithes.
3) Because of 2, many "false churches" spring up, who are just some people that want a place to live without having to pay taxes.
4) Because of 1, things like televangelists, evangelists that "heal", exorcists, etc., all seem more and more valid as long as that belief is reinforced.
5) People have died from exorcisms.
6) People have died as evangelists that have claimed to "heal" them practically all but encourage them to not seek real medical aid.

That's what I could think of, off the top of my head, in a few moments. If churches had to pay property tax as long as they were getting tithes (and especially if they specifically demand them), I might be less inclined to dislike them. If exorcisms, evangelists, and televangelists weren't so effective and didn't use churches as their grounds, I might be less inclined to dislike them. If I didn't perceive a lot of these beliefs to be dangerous, and if they didn't involve indoctrinating children (See: Jesus Camp), then I'd be less inclined to dislike them.

So help BRUTO rather than detract from this thread. BLAST THE CHURCHES and state why they are so vile and controling and emented. State truths or experiences, and stand your ground.

Experiences: The churches I went to were damn boring. They should be cited for that.

 

[Lonewulf]

So let me get this straight, this thread is about attacking churches in general and nothing in particular?

Number 1 of my list applies to many churches, but some are more open-minded than others (Such as the Unitarian Universalists).

 

[RandFan]

Number 1 of my list applies to many churches, but some are more open-minded than others (Such as the Unitarian Universalists).

I'm none too happy with religion as of late. However I don't see the need to attack for the sake of attacking. I agree with everything on your list BTW and I think the Unitarian's are but one example of good, non-dangerous churches.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm none too happy with religion as of late. However I don't see the need to attack for the sake of attacking. I agree with everything on your list BTW and I think the Unitarian's are but one example of good, non-dangerous churches.

Right, there are some non-dangerous churches that I can get along with. My views are this:

If a church gets income from it's members through forced tithes, and can afford to pay property taxes and properly feed and clothe it's officials, then it should pay property taxes. This may seem like a "seperation of church and state" issue, but it shouldn't be... especially if you charge every church the exact same. It's not so much charging the church for being a church, but charging the church for the land that it's currently situated on.

If a church gets income from voluntary tithes, and can afford to pay property taxes and property feed and clothe it's officials, then as above; though there may be some exceptions for this particular grouping, which is why I seperate them out for now. I haven't really hammered out my ideas yet.

Harmful beliefs, such as exorcisms (which abuse and kill, and never work), evangelists that claim to "heal" and are shown to be frauds (yay, Randi!), and Televangelists should all be questioned and above all, attacked; not by any particular government force, just by other citizens who demonstrate the ludicrousness of the process. The more that a citizen stands to be harmed by the process, the more that we should work to stop it, through peaceful yet aggressive questioning, and possibly government intervention (where life, limb, and property are at stake).

There may be a line between "faith" and "science" (though I disagree with faith myself, but I wouldn't infringe on other's rights to have it), but when it comes to the physical well-being of another person, I say that you cannot apply an outdated process unless it has been proven to be effective. Exorcisms and evangelistic "healings" are not shown to be effective (or, at the least, no more effective than a placebo); and exorcisms cause more harm than good. Thus, unless they can be shown to be effective, they should be discarded for better science, and discouraged from church proceedings.

That's pretty much my thought on the subject.

 

[bruto]

Then add to knowledge and state your reasons why churches are so dangerous.

I did. You just either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or shucked it off, since, as I will repeat, I think churches are dangerous because they think as you do, distorting, misconstruing and corrupting ideas and truths in the service of sanctimonious [rule 8 prohibits first choice of words] twaddle.

Don;t fight my opinion based on direct experiences with them, but state your opinions and theories about why churches are DANGEROUS.

Actually my direct experience with churches at the local level has been good. I was raised as a christian, and like my current beliefs or lack thereof, my personal experience is irrelevant to the discussion, which in this case regards whether your statements have any merit.

Forget the messenger because you disagree with me in other areas, and work together in uncovering the conspiracy of the dam church system.

I do not believe there is a conspiracy. A conspiracy is not needed in order to accomplish bad things. The efforts of bible toting airheads to desecularize our society and to kill science and critical thought are for the most part open, above board, and explicit. I find that scary, but find no solace in your correspondingly wacked-out, bible based, mystical mumbo jumbo.

and liberate others by blasting away at why the dam church is so vile. Help people rather than fighting me. In this thread, I am not the topic, I am only one of the messengers.

But I believe your message is so filled with error that even if there is a grain of truth in it, the sum is too far off to accept.

So help BRUTO rather than detract from this thread. BLAST THE CHURCHES and state why they are so vile and controling and emented. State truths or experiences, and stand your ground.

Whoa, there! Where does the state come in? It's the state I want to protect from the churches.

I know it's a misprint, but I kind of like the word "emented." I think it might be a useful term. A person is demented when he or she loses the full function of his brain. Perhaps a person should be considered emented when it appears that the brain itself has been lost.

 

[Lonewulf]

Whoa, there! Where does the state come in? It's the state I want to protect from the churches.

???

I think you misunderstood him. I think he meant "state" as in, "State your reasons", as in verbally state; instead of the government state.

 

[aargh57]

6) People have died as evangelists that have claimed to "heal" them command them to not seek real medical aid.

Just to clarify.

 

[Lonewulf]

Just to clarify.

Good point. Cast aside your crutches and medicine, and never use them again. I forgot about that part.

 

[Z]

I for one don't worry about most churches. At least locally, the churches are dying off. Most of the churchgoers are old - really old - and haven't seen a face under 40 walk through their doors in 40 years.

The only churches I worry about are these generic Wal-Mart-style megachurches - places like The Vinyard or Crossroads locally, that buy warehouses and super-sized plasma screens, then spend each Sunday prattling on in an over-generalized, politically correct, morally ambiguous, hyper-sensationalized fashion to a growing population of upper-middle-class, Cappucino-sipping, Beemer-driving, third-mortgage-owing young professionals. It's a surface-only church, a place to look good and be seen, and it's growing in popularity.

The Roman Catholics? Please. They are SO 19th century any more.
The Baptists? Not up here, in Cinci. Moreso down south where I was raised, in Florida. But even there, they're dying off fast.

Nah, the traditional churches aren't that dangerous any more. But within some of those churches are TRULY DANGEROUS PEOPLE. That is a source for fear and concern.

 

[Lonewulf]

I for one don't worry about most churches. At least locally, the churches are dying off. Most of the churchgoers are old - really old - and haven't seen a face under 40 walk through their doors in 40 years.

Here in Corpus Christi, Texas, most people go to church. And not just the "old folks", either... that also includes many of the young folks.

The only churches I worry about are these generic Wal-Mart-style megachurches - places like The Vinyard or Crossroads locally, that buy warehouses and super-sized plasma screens, then spend each Sunday prattling on in an over-generalized, politically correct, morally ambiguous, hyper-sensationalized fashion to a growing population of upper-middle-class, Cappucino-sipping, Beemer-driving, third-mortgage-owing young professionals. It's a surface-only church, a place to look good and be seen, and it's growing in popularity.

Yeah, those are quite scary.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Yes, Glen you have a lot to learn and a lot of discernments to make.

As do we all. As your religion would have us not do, in fact.

And so if you claim I am wrong, then obviously you deem the damnable devoid atrocious deadly church system as benign .... and GOOD.

Riddle: If you have a dichotomy, but it isn't true, what do you have?

Also, things have to be devoid of something. They can't just be devoid.

Sorry Bro, if you haven't figured out where they are coming from by now, then I nor the Holy Spirit that could speak to you 24/7 ....... can help you.

No arguments there. Seeing as the Holy Spirit doesn't exist and all.

Why you people love the church system is beyond me. Any true skeptic or 12 year old knows it is phony and hypocritical. Surely you are older than 12.

Again, I don't love churches. I don't even like them. In fact, I dislike the church system, and the religion system.

Need I write what the Lord blasted them with. have you been sooo sheltered that you have never ever read it before.

What, you mean the fire and brimstone shtick? Please. That's not going to scare an atheist. Or any other thinking person. If a god felt like annihilating cities Sodom-and-Gomorrah-style, he'd have done it at least once by now, and it would be recorded.

No, the Bible doesn't count as a record.

Do you not know what the Lord said he would do to their faces and what he would smear on their faces ?

Again, less scary and less convincing than the fire/brimstone shtick. Try harder.

 

[bruto]

???

I think you misunderstood him. I think he meant "state" as in, "State your reasons", as in verbally state; instead of the government state.

You're right. My mistake.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I love my Unitarian church. It has fellow Humanists. They don't mind discussing evolution once in a while.

Today was a very thought provoking sermon on community, the betterment of fellow man via ethical science, etc.

All the church wants is the betterment of all fellow humans and a positive future for all living creatures.

Makes me think there may be some hope for humans afterall.

 

[Jackalgirl]

...They can not refer to a website or much less their own website, because by their very lack of any orientation and being unable to connect up anything, they are forced to be null and void and weaponless mentally. They can NOT have websites or share any truths because they deny all truths and are afraid of truths that connect and show reason and logic and design.

You seem to imply that only people who are onto some kind of Truth are capable of having a website, and that they must have a website in order to prove their ability to access this "Truth". Or, alternately, only people who are capable of reason and logic can maintain websites, and must maintain a website in order to prove their capability to reason and use logic.

Would you say that is it possible for someone to maintain a website that is not "True", either because of his/her own personal delusion or because of a deliberate attempt to present falsehood?

For example: the Vatican See has its own website: http://www.vatican.va/. It does not state that it is dangerous. You are insisting that Churches (with a capital "C", as in organizations) are dangerous. If you are correct, then it logically follows that the Catholic Church's website is incorrect. However, it does exist -- someone in the Church has the technological ability to create and maintain this site.

Scientology has its own website: http://www.scientology.org/. It calls itself a Church. And, in fact, it actually exhibits (to my own personal satisfaction, at least) many of the reprehensible qualities you assign to Churches in general. And yet it does not mention this on its website. But clearly, someone in Scientology has the know-how to create and maintain a site advocating its own brand of "Truth".

Are these two Churches, therefore, "True", or sharing "Truths"? Is it possible for a relgious-themed website to not be "True"?

Now, mind you, I am presuming that these sites are maintained by Catholics and Scientologists, respectively, and this is probably a huge assumption to make, but not an unreasonable one.

To be absolutely sure, though, try this site: The House of Netjer. I know the guy who maintains that one, and he's a Priest of the House. He actually maintains the site -- that is, he's a capable programmer and has done all the coding, with the exception of some of the bits that have been handled by other members of the Church -- the point being that the House of Netjer does not contract with an outside agency to maintain its site.

Is this website "True"? Is it sharing "Truths"? If not, how can this be so? It does, in fact, exist, and therefore, by your logic, must be True. Or, otherwise, it's possible for someone to maintain a website that presents religious information that is not True. In other words, it's possible for someone to present -- either intentionally or non-intentionally -- information on a website that is false.

So could you explain, again, how having a website is any indication of either a person's ability to be open-minded or use reason and logic, or of the truthfulness of a person's position?

 

[Davidjayjordan]

You seem to imply that only people who are onto some kind of Truth are capable of having a website, and that they must have a website in order to prove their ability to access this "Truth". Or, alternately, only people who are capable of reason and logic can maintain websites, and must maintain a website in order to prove their capability to reason and use logic.

So could you explain, again, how having a website is any indication of either a person's ability to be open-minded or use reason and logic, or of the truthfulness of a person's position?

Jack, False skeptics never come to any conclusions and so be their very nature can have no foundations on any truths as they are afraid to stand on anything when they believe in nothing except what is the norm and what is fed to them.

True skeptics search for answers and stand on them just as true scientists stand on the principles and laws they have observed and tested.... and then search further and further.

Hence a true skeptic could have a website, a false skeptic by their very nature avoids making any statements or claiming anything except nothingness.

SEE The differentiation thread on the Conspiracy Board for the difference between true and false skeptics.

IE Jack when you come to a conclusion, a truth, then that truth is probably not a mere subjective truth but an objective one that would help others. And when websites are FREE, and it only takes 20 minutes to make a PAGE, then it is inexcusable for true skeptics not to have one or have some other outlet of expression to share what they know or have learned. false skeptics balk at putting anything in print or on-line as they believe in nothingness, and nothingness does not make a good web-site. Although you could try.

Prewit made one page with the word NOPE on it.

Your choice.

And do learn probablity and set theory rather than Yes, and NO extremism in your logic.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Now back to why churches are dangerous.... for as the Lord said from direct personal experience from the Beginning of Creation...to the church rulers that controlled and dominated the Lord's people..... they are blind guides, hypocrites whited tombstones, snakes and vipers.

So why do you like the church system soooo much and defend it soooo much. ?

***********************************

1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

No arguments there. Seeing as the Holy Spirit doesn't exist and all.
(( Glen your belief system doesn't change reality. It doesn't negate the Holy Spirit, or any other person's existence. Your belief system is just that a belief, nothing more. If it conforms to the real world and the real spiritual workld, all the better, if not,you lose.... and better get it together and get more scientific)))

Again, I don't love churches. I don't even like them. In fact, I dislike the church system, and the religion system. ((Great, then you should be agreeing with me and helping in furthering the charges against them and it, rather than opposing what I am writing. Focus, Glen focus..)))



What, you mean the fire and brimstone shtick? Please. That's not going to scare an atheist. (((Again your belief system has absolutely no effect on the real world and the reaql judgments of the Lord. Your belief that judgments don;t occur, doesn;t change the fact that real judgments occur.))) Or any other thinking person. If a god felt like annihilating cities Sodom-and-Gomorrah-style, he'd have done it at least once by now, and it would be recorded.(((SEE world history and why He sets up one and dethrones another. have you never read history and the cause of the effects..)))

No, the Bible doesn't count as a record. (((Again your belief system has no validity in what really happenned. You just can;t create your own history , current event illusions and non prophecy for the future. It has to concur with what really happennned, is happenning and will happen SEE Prophecy Challenge Thread)))

Again, less scary and less convincing than the fire/brimstone shtick. Try harder.

(((Nah the scripture I was referring to isn;t that devastating at all, no fire and brinmestone just a little smearing of what they are saying back on their faces.... Everybody gets what they deserve, nothing more...Glen..Hope it doesn't happen to you. )))

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Glen and ALL, here's what the Lord will be spreading on the faces of the priests that have corrupted his truths..... its rather graphic, nevertheless it is should be mentioned if we are to state that the Lord is opposed to the lies of the church system and those lying to the people.

Dung is another word for feces.... and it means just what it says..

For everyone gets what they deserve.... nothing more, nothing less, for the Lord is fair and just..

*************************************

And now, O ye priests, this commandment [is] for you.

Mal 2:2If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay [it] to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay [it] to heart.

Mal 2:3Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread DUNG UPON YOUR FACES, [even] the dung of your solemn feasts; and [one] shall take you away with it.

 

[fuelair]

What does that face DUNG taste Like, DJ?