Religion Debate: Pell vs Dan Barker

[linga_is_no1]

Do you seriously believe this? Naive...



Um, do you?

http://www.zenit.org/article-1900?l=english


http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=4582


So were you deliberately lying when you said they run at a loss?

So to prove your point you quote a paper from 2000, and one from 2006? Both papers do admit the Church made a profit in that year, I agree with that. However the profit of both these years is tiny by global company terms, and even tiny by Australian terms.

In 2009 The Church operated at a loss http://www.nlrcm.org/Holy See Financial Statements 2009.pdf
In 2008 The Church operated at a loss:http://www.nlrcm.org/newsroom/2008/Holy-See-Financial-Statement.pdf
In 2007 The Church operated at a loss: http://ihmhermitage.stblogs.com/2008/07/10/the-holy-see-financial-statement-for-2007/.

The Church rarely makes a profit, since statement were published in 1981, profits have only been recorded a handful of times, when the Church does make a profit, it is tiny. By your own statistics the biggest profit the Church has made since 1981 is under 10 million US, this is tiny. If the Church was so good at making money from its followers as you claim, then I'm sure it would be able to squeeze more than 10 million out of its 1.1 Billion followers.

 

[DeanoT]

Please elaborate. Are you stating a person can't do a selfless act without a hidden motive.

There is no such thing as a selfless action. All actions have an intention or purpose, even supposedly altruistic ones. Why do people give to charity or do charitable work ? Because they gain SELF-satisfaction from the deed. The Church gratifies itself by converting, in the false belief that it is doing something to help someone.

 

[linga_is_no1]

There is no such thing as a selfless action. All actions have an intention or purpose, even supposedly altruistic ones. Why do people give to charity or do charitable work ? Because they gain SELF-satisfaction from the deed. The Church gratifies itself by converting, in the false belief that it is doing something to help someone.

So when Maximillen Kolbe sacrificed himself in Auschwitz, he was actually being selfish?

 

[Niximus]

So to prove your point you quote a paper from 2000, and one from 2006? Both papers do admit the Church made a profit in that year, I agree with that. However the profit of both these years is tiny by global company terms, and even tiny by Australian terms.

In 2009 The Church operated at a loss http://www.nlrcm.org/Holy See Financial Statements 2009.pdf
In 2008 The Church operated at a loss:http://www.nlrcm.org/newsroom/2008/Holy-See-Financial-Statement.pdf
In 2007 The Church operated at a loss: http://ihmhermitage.stblogs.com/2008/07/10/the-holy-see-financial-statement-for-2007/.

The Church rarely makes a profit, since statement were published in 1981, profits have only been recorded a handful of times, when the Church does make a profit, it is tiny. By your own statistics the biggest profit the Church has made since 1981 is under 10 million US, this is tiny. If the Church was so good at making money from its followers as you claim, then I'm sure it would be able to squeeze more than 10 million out of its 1.1 Billion followers.

Lol, so it doesn't matter what the money gets spent on, if they spend more than they earn they are doing good?

Money, power and influence.

 

[skilts]

So when Catholics run homes for dying in Asia, many of whom aren't Catholic, the Church is doing this purely for conversion? What possible goal could the Church achieve by helping dying non-Catholic's? Logically the Church could not make money out of these people, as they have none, there also not going to be converted, as they already have their own faith, and the Church buries them in their particular faith tradition.

So why does the Church perform these selfless actions? Can you not accept the good that the Church does, or have you literally been blinded by hate.

Conversion is merely one reason. The other reasons include: getting in credit with god on the day of judgment; self-aggrandisement to the extent you detail ad nauseum, whereby they gain a sense of being useful, and so christian; atoning for 'sins'; a feeling of power and superiority because they are 'needed'; due to embracing being brainwashed, relief from the necessity to ever examine their motives; and the BIG ONE, entry into an imaginary afterlife.

That's a litany of very selfish reasons, which damns all christian do-gooders to everlasting hellfire, which is as it should be.

I could maybe put up with them if they didn't so offensively prostrate themselves before a human invention, to the extreme detriment of their humanity. Christians of your ilk are less than human for this reason. You have rejected your being in favour of a fantasy.

Now, this is perfectly unreasonable and nobody gives a toss if you do this. We just don't want to hear about it. Nor do we wish to suffer exposure to ideas you adopt, which are constructed by others, about how we should conduct our lives. Because you have opted out of life, your fantasies carry no authority with those of us who are still here.

 

[DeanoT]

So when Maximillen Kolbe sacrificed himself in Auschwitz, he was actually being selfish?

Of course there was self-motivation. It doesn't mean that he didn't see a benefit to others too, but of course he believed he would gain from his sacrifice.

 

[skilts]

So to prove your point you quote a paper from 2000, and one from 2006? Both papers do admit the Church made a profit in that year, I agree with that. However the profit of both these years is tiny by global company terms, and even tiny by Australian terms.

In 2009 The Church operated at a loss http://www.nlrcm.org/Holy See Financial Statements 2009.pdf
In 2008 The Church operated at a loss:http://www.nlrcm.org/newsroom/2008/Holy-See-Financial-Statement.pdf
In 2007 The Church operated at a loss: http://ihmhermitage.stblogs.com/2008/07/10/the-holy-see-financial-statement-for-2007/.

The Church rarely makes a profit, since statement were published in 1981, profits have only been recorded a handful of times, when the Church does make a profit, it is tiny. By your own statistics the biggest profit the Church has made since 1981 is under 10 million US, this is tiny. If the Church was so good at making money from its followers as you claim, then I'm sure it would be able to squeeze more than 10 million out of its 1.1 Billion followers.

You have uttered and embraced so many lies, you have no idea what a lie is any more.

 

[Grin]

You seriously have your head buried in the sand.

If the Church was about money, then why would it bother with Africa and Asia? Surely it would just target the richer areas of the world, but you chose to ignore this because you want to live in subjective world where your opinion equal reality.

Consider that the Church is trying to help mankind.

So the 'Church' is a bit like the Chinese Government who's interest in Africa must also be a selfless act of purity.

A question.

Would you be Catholic if you had been brought up in a muslim culture, or is your christianity purely a result of your culture?

Besides, as I have previously proved, God's a humanist anyway.

Here's the evidence:

1. God created man in his image. If God is a perfect creator then we are exactly like him.

2. God introduces himself to the world through Moses. Pharoh asks Moses "Who is your god" Moses answers "I am"

3. God is made man through Jesus

4. Jesus (God) faces Judgement. Pilot acuses him "You say you are the son of God" Jesus answers. "No. that's what you say". Jesus called himself the son of man.

5. Jesus sums up the 10 comandments "Love the lord your god (love yourself) and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Thus placing moral authority in the hands of the individual human rather than God.

6. On judgement day God seperates the sheep and the goats and tells them: "What you did to the least of your brothers you did to me".

It seems clear that we are all God, and that organised religion with it's modern equivilents of pharacies and saducies flies in the face of God's and Jesus' mesage of morality being up to the individual rather than perscribed by a human heirachy interested in maintaining it's own power or in reinforcing the status quo.

 

[linga_is_no1]

Lol, so it doesn't matter what the money gets spent on, if they spend more than they earn they are doing good?

Money, power and influence.

Go look at where the money is being is spent on, I don't know where you live, but seriously look around you. There is a probably a school in your suburb, probably a St.Vinnies, a hospital not too far away, maybe an aged care home too, maybe a soup kitchen and homeless shelter.

You are clutching at the straws in your deluded belief that the Church's efforts to help people are actually a money making scheme, despite reality showing otherwise.

Conversion is merely one reason. The other reasons include: getting in credit with god on the day of judgment; self-aggrandisement to the extent you detail ad nauseum, whereby they gain a sense of being useful, and so christian; atoning for 'sins'; a feeling of power and superiority because they are 'needed'; due to embracing being brainwashed, relief from the necessity to ever examine their motives; and the BIG ONE, entry into an imaginary afterlife.

That's a litany of very selfish reasons, which damns all christian do-gooders to everlasting hellfire, which is as it should be.

I could maybe put up with them if they didn't so offensively prostrate themselves before a human invention, to the extreme detriment of their humanity. Christians of your ilk are less than human for this reason. You have rejected your being in favour of a fantasy.

Now, this is perfectly unreasonable and nobody gives a toss if you do this. We just don't want to hear about it. Nor do we wish to suffer exposure to ideas you adopt, which are constructed by others, about how we should conduct our lives. Because you have opted out of life, your fantasies carry no authority with those of us who are still here.

That was quite a rant. I have noticed a trend through your posts, none of them seem to contribute anything! It just seems to be you repeating the same hate speech, over and over again. You might want to get some new material.

I love that you think Christians do nice things to feel "nice" about themselves, I can't believe the nerve of these people sometimes! Doing nice things, to feel "nice". What a bunch of tossers! You also have a crack at Christians because apparently they have a desire to feel 'needed', well if doing charity makes them feel needed, then there is no problem with that. One of the things this world needs right now is charity, and if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with yourself.

Everything Christians try to do, and I say try, is to honour what Jesus told them to do. Whether they Catholic or whatever, Christians all try to do good. It sounds like you yourself would benefit from a Christian conversion, people might actually like you for a change.

And when you say 'we' are sick of Christians, who do you mean? We live in a majority Christian country, do you mean 'we' as in the very small minority of people like you? Which only includes you? Don't speak for others when you can barely speak for yourself.

So the 'Church' is a bit like the Chinese Government who's interest in Africa must also be a selfless act of purity.

A question.

Would you be Catholic if you had been brought up in a muslim culture, or is your christianity purely a result of your culture?

Besides, as I have previously proved, God's a humanist anyway.

Here's the evidence:

1. God created man in his image. If God is a perfect creator then we are exactly like him.

2. God introduces himself to the world through Moses. Pharoh asks Moses "Who is your god" Moses answers "I am"

3. God is made man through Jesus

4. Jesus (God) faces Judgement. Pilot acuses him "You say you are the son of God" Jesus answers. "No. that's what you say". Jesus called himself the son of man.

5. Jesus sums up the 10 comandments "Love the lord your god (love yourself) and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Thus placing moral authority in the hands of the individual human rather than God.

6. On judgement day God seperates the sheep and the goats and tells them: "What you did to the least of your brothers you did to me".

It seems clear that we are all God, and that organised religion with it's modern equivilents of pharacies and saducies flies in the face of God's and Jesus' mesage of morality being up to the individual rather than perscribed by a human heirachy interested in maintaining it's own power or in reinforcing the status quo.

Everything that happens now has a correlation to the past, my and your upbringing is effected by what happened in the past. If my parents chose to be Muslim instead of Catholic by exercising their free will, then I would have been brought up a Muslim. They however exercised their free will to remain Catholic, I was effected by their decision. The argument that 'if you had been raised this religion, then you would be that' is weak, because it denies that people's previous decisions before you have an impact on your life. God allows all people to have free will, he will not intervene to stop this will, so naturally you will be effected by your parent's call. The reason only teenagers ever argue this point is because it is so easy to refute.

I think most Christian agree that God is humanist to a sense, but Jesus himself made it very clear that he came to Earth to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. The fact that Jesus (God) sacrificed himself to save humanity from its own sins, proves that he was not as humanist as you think him to be, because at the end of the day only God could save humans from themselves.

When Pilate confronts Jesus, he says "No. that's what you say". He is saying that you say I am the son of God, the term "son of man", means the same thing, this is basic scripture interpretation. When Jesus says 'Love the lord your god and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He was not saying that mankind was a God, and he was certainly not saying that we should go it alone. This is obviously an instruction of how at the end of the day we take responsibility for what we do, but it does not suggest that other people won't help us along the way. If Jesus thought it was each individual for himself, then he would not have bothered creating disciples or sending the 72 followers out.

Jesus said to Peter 'you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it'.

Seems pretty clear.

 

[evo]

I have noticed a trend through your posts, none of them seem to contribute anything!

That particular post of his contributed plenty.

You just didn't notice.

 

[skilts]

... well if doing charity makes them feel needed, then there is no problem with that. One of the things this world needs right now is charity, and if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with yourself.

My mother said it best. On a cold and frosty morning, she'd almost invariably say, "It's as cold as charity". Like you, she was a devout catholic, and like you, she never really examined her beliefs, but she certainly saw through the self-seeking cynics who paraded their 'charity'.

 

[linga_is_no1]

My mother said it best. On a cold and frosty morning, she'd almost invariably say, "It's as cold as charity". Like you, she was a devout catholic, and like you, she never really examined her beliefs, but she certainly saw through the self-seeking cynics who paraded their 'charity'.

You need to get out more.

 

[skilts]

You need to get out more.

I gave up playing cricket ten years ago.

 

[Chief]

Jesus said to Peter 'you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it'.

Seems pretty clear.

Prove Jesus ever actually said those words to anyone, let alone Peter.

 

[linga_is_no1]

Prove Jesus ever actually said those words to anyone, let alone Peter.

I'm not doing your research for you. Go read a book.

 

[Inferno]

As would I. Word is that Pell comfortably accounted for Hitchens in that one.

That Dan Barker was a staunch Christian Preacher but he had some life event that made him turn Atheist in 84. No suprise a traumatic event made him lose hope and thus ever since he has felt the need to rebel and blame God for everything.

You really do talk out of your arse don't you?

http://www.theage.com.au/national/path-to-losing-his-religion-20100313-q59j.html

IN THE beginning, Dan Barker found God and saw that he was good. He was a teenage evangelist at 15, spouting sermons on street corners in southern California. At 16, he worked for a faith healer in Los Angeles and spoke in tongues. When he prayed, he felt at peace.

...

In the late 1970s, he wrote two popular children's Christian musicals. He still receives royalties from their performance in schools. ''I still enjoy the music but I cringe at the lyrics,'' he says. Atheism came slowly to him, more a ''migration'' than a lightning strike of reason.


Exposure to more liberal Christians pushed him from preaching hellfire and damnation. Then, in his early 30s, he studied theology, philosophy, history and science. Slowly, his beliefs began to unravel.


''I would yell at myself on the Californian freeways, where I would be praying and talking to God, but at the same time another part of my brain was saying: 'What are you doing? How can you talk to God when there's no evidence?' What drove me into the pulpit was to know the truth and speak the truth, and that's the same thing that drove me out,'' he says. ''The likelihood of the existence of God keeps getting smaller and smaller - to a point where you have to round it off.


''The phrase I like to use is that I dumped out all the bathwater and I found there was no baby there.''


He stopped preaching and, in 1984, sent a letter to friends and family, telling them he had become an atheist.

 

[skilts]

You really do talk out of your arse don't you?

http://www.theage.com.au/national/path-to-losing-his-religion-20100313-q59j.html

It would appear he's not even prepared to do his own research. Don't feel too slighted Chief.