3 edits
Originally posted by kevcvs57What makes you so arrogant to state how much you know about religious
I have not displayed any jealousy, perhaps a certain amount of smug self satisfaction when religious leaders expose themselves and their organizations for the empty facade that I know they are.😏
organizations. Where does this extra knowledge come from?
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is not extra knowledge it is called common knowledge, you have once again displayed your blind slavish adherence to these man made institutions by trying to defend this hypocritical trough snuffling. Or are you referring to my smiley face, Lol did you think you had copyright.😏
What makes you so arrogant to state how much you know about religious
organizations. Where does this extra knowledge come from?
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57Other people refer to it as my smug face. So I will refer to it as your arrogant
It is not extra knowledge it is called common knowledge, you have once again displayed your blind slavish adherence to these man made institutions by trying to defend this hypocritical trough snuffling. Or are you referring to my smiley face, Lol did you think you had copyright.😏
face. How is that? Anyway, if it is such common knowledge then why do they
keep racking in the dough? With that arrogant face of yours, you must have
some extra knowleged that those people that keep giving and giving are lacking.
Come on, at least give my smug face a little clue.
Originally posted by sonhouseI am a programmer. I am rich by the standards of my country. I am poor by US standards.
Well if I didn't have a car I would lose the house, we would be living in government controlled housing living of government dole and would never see our kids again. I think its a fair trade. What do you do for a living if I may ask?
Originally posted by Rajk999Why does the society matter? Would it be OK by the standards in the Bible to wear such a watch in a society in which it was normal to do so and not luxurious? Or are your really just trying to avoid admitting your own hypocrisy? Are you trying to argue that it is OK for you to be rich and have luxurious items because they are normal in your society - regardless of the fact that there are starving Africans in another society who would benefit from the sale of your watch.
Is there some society in which a $30,000 watch is not luxurious? The fact is there is none. That kind of watch is a status symbol of wealth in any society. And thats the reason why they removed it from the photo. They know that its is not acceptable by the standards in the Bible.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSociety is all we have, our norms are all we have. People who think there is a god have no clue as to how to really live, they just refer to a supernatural being who has been entirely man made and then build up an edifice of power with it.
Why does the society matter? Would it be OK by the standards in the Bible to wear such a watch in a society in which it was normal to do so and not luxurious? Or are your really just trying to avoid admitting your own hypocrisy? Are you trying to argue that it is OK for you to be rich and have luxurious items because they are normal in your society - rega ...[text shortened]... at there are starving Africans in another society who would benefit from the sale of your watch.
It has to say something when a supposedly spiritual leader lives a life of luxury while his subjects are starving in some cases and in a country where sexual slavery is the norm. It is the height of hypocrisy, an indication such a person ONLY cares about the perks of office and will do anything to maintain that office. There is no spirituality here only hand waving and then back to his fine wines and where he gets his next helicopter.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseBut there are different societies. Sure, I know that Jesus was probably racist and only thought about the Jews, but his message as quoted earlier surely implies that if there are poorer people in another society, then you should give them your stuff (as a Christian).
Society is all we have, our norms are all we have.
I just find it interesting how everyone seems to readily justify their own wealth whilst criticizing the Russian Orthodox leader. The difference in wealth between the leader and you, is less than the difference between you and the poorest people on earth.
Despite not being Christian, I feel some guilt for not giving more to the poor than I currently do. It is an ongoing moral question for me as to how much I should give to those less fortunate than myself and in what ways.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn any society on this planet, a $30,000 watch would be considered beyond extravagant. In Russia the watch is worth 1.5x the national average salary.
But there are different societies. Sure, I know that Jesus was probably racist and only thought about the Jews, but his message as quoted earlier surely implies that if there are poorer people in another society, then you should give them your stuff (as a Christian).
I just find it interesting how everyone seems to readily justify their own wealth whil ...[text shortened]... estion for me as to how much I should give to those less fortunate than myself and in what ways.
1 edit
-Removed-In other words, he is happy with the status quo, where the leaders get all the perks, and the hoi poloi get the scraps. He aspires to that status.
It just goes to prove that religions are all man made. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries. It could just as easily say, look, here is how it is, to every person in the entire universe, much less to just mere humans, all at once, forget the speed of light problem, it would be above such issues.
Of course that would be if a god exists at all. I can't say a god doesn't exist, it would be foolish to just spout the non-existence of a god, but I can say with internal certainty it doesn't exist in the organized religious view of how it should exist.
your bible was made by talented writers, nothing more. All you have is words and feelings of religious awe which are all in your brain. It has been proven the religious feeling is buried in a center of the brain that can actually be stimulated to make you feel a supernatural presence by magnetically stimulating certain areas of the brain.
So all religious feeling is just that, feelings. No supernatural connection exists. It's all man made, the religions of the world. No heaven, no hell, no devils, no angels, all that is just the desperate longings of mankind trying to make sense of the often hostile universe. End of story.
Of course, your programming would prevent you from seeing the obvious but that is the case with all religious folk. All deluded by people who start religions not for spiritual purposes but simply to build a power base so they can buy 30,000 dollar watches and the latest Lear Jet.
Originally posted by Proper KnobAnd I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is the apparent claim that you are not guilty of also having extravagant goods. I am fairly sure that you do, and that you are being a hypocrite when you criticize him. Also, I do not buy the excuse that if you live in an extravagant society then it is OK to have extravagant goods. I believe that despite sonhouses denials, owning a car could be considered extravagance.
In any society on this planet, a $30,000 watch would be considered beyond extravagant. In Russia the watch is worth 1.5x the national average salary.
Originally posted by sonhouseAs I pointed out earlier, what evidence is there that he purchased this watch or that he understood the value of the watch? Couldn't it be that it was a gift and, being a monastic, he did not initially recognise how expensive it was? Can you categorically say that Patriarch Kirill does not give to charity?
In other words, he is happy with the status quo, where the leaders get all the perks, and the hoi poloi get the scraps. He aspires to that status.
It just goes to prove that religions are all man made. A real god wouldn't need intermediaries. It could just as easily say, look, here is how it is, to every person in the entire universe, much less to just m ...[text shortened]... simply to build a power base so they can buy 30,000 dollar watches and the latest Lear Jet.
-Removed-Who said that the laity paid for it? Even if it were the case that the Patriarch purchased the watch using church money, it is far from clear that the laity paid for it. Many churches invest wisely, have their own property and do not rely substantially on the financial support of the laity.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see. Anyone who has more than the poor starving Africans, and who criticizes the wearing of the $30,000 Rolex is a hypocrite.
And I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is the apparent claim that you are not guilty of also having extravagant goods. I am fairly sure that you do, and that you are being a hypocrite when you criticize him. Also, I do not buy the excuse that if you live in an extravagant society then it is OK to have extravagant goods. I believe that despite sonhouses denials, owning a car could be considered extravagance.
You are a smart guy.