Discussion about hot topics trending today

[aretood2]

No, it's financially the same, sorry, but it is.

No, not it is not. If you think that money spent is the same, then you don't know enough about drug addictions and just how much a toll they take in a person's finances.
https://drugabuse.com/financial-toll-addiction/

Sure there's a "10%" but if you do anything beyond pointing out a overly simplified similarity you really are asking for the logical conclusion of "Meth=Baptism".

But let's look at another addiction, Alcoholism. From personal experience in my family, I think Alcoholism is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more in terms of costs than going to church and possibly tithing.

The latter, and I have never changed my position, whether it helps or hurts me.

Yet tithing stops at 10%, drug addictions don't. Tithing isn't tied to any negative consequence in any manner similar to drug addictions. So what's the point of making that comparison at all?

If tithing protects child molesters. it is no different. If addiction protects drug pushers, it is no different.

Catholics don't tithe. It's not a universal thing and in many churches it is a private choice. Sure there are churces that do have it on differing levels be mandatory. But seriously? That's an awfully specific item and tied it to another awfully specific item of which both are limited by specific circumstances and then you treat it as a universal constant reality with which you can use to make such a haphazard comparison that paints paints a most broad brush.

Tood, I think the metaphor was pushed a bit far, but from what I gather, what GF means is that religion changes your brain wiring, and that's a fact. It changes your perspective of the world, your beliefs, your actions, etc. It is, somehow, strikingly similar to any addiction. You need to go to church, and probably get joy from it. You get joy from helping others, which gives you a good feeling. You become ''addicted'' to it. Addiction doesn't have to be good or bad, most Christians enjoy doing good, that is not the point. It is still a sort of propaganda that is spread from door to door. I understand this is at the core of your religion, to spread the ''good news'.

Does that make it bad? No. Hell some people are addicted to cleaning their homes, doesn't make it bad.

Learning Spanish also rewires the brain and going to college does impact behavior and rewire the brain as well. What I am saying is that it is a haphazard comparison and usually a smoke screen. So yeah, I will question it to test if it is being used as a smoke screen for something else.

But if we treat the definition of addiction so broadly, why not call me a dihydrogen monoxide addict? Or an amino acid addict? Take great pleasure at using amino acids and quite frankly I am not the same when I don't get my fair hit of amino acids. The withdrawal symptoms are rather...unpleasant. They are so unpleasant that my body will go through rather drastic changes that lead to death. At some point, semantics really is important.

[Gatefan1976]

No, not it is not. If you think that money spent is the same, then you don't know enough about drug addictions and just how much a toll they take in a person's finances.
https://drugabuse.com/financial-toll-addiction/

Sure there's a "10%" but if you do anything beyond pointing out a overly simplified similarity you really are asking for the logical conclusion of "Meth=Baptism".

What I know is 10% is a baseline, and there are people out there, especially victims of "faith seeder" cons who give far, far more than 10% and it can destroy people financially and emotionally just as any other real drug can.

But let's look at another addiction, Alcoholism. From personal experience in my family, I think Alcoholism is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more in terms of costs than going to church and possibly tithing.

Alcoholism rewires the brain and body far faster, I'm not going to argue with you on that point because I agree.

Yet tithing stops at 10%, drug addictions don't. Tithing isn't tied to any negative consequence in any manner similar to drug addictions. So what's the point of making that comparison at all?

Because while "tithing" stops at 10%, it does nothing to stop a person from giving MORE, nor does it stop people from ASKING for more for some nebulous outcome (for the giver). THAT my friend is where the addiction comes in. In reality, faith "addiction" has more in common with Gambling addiction rather than any substance abuse, I merely used drug addiction as it is easier for people to get their heads around.

Catholics don't tithe. It's not a universal thing and in many churches it is a private choice. Sure there are churces that do have it on differing levels be mandatory. But seriously? That's an awfully specific item and tied it to another awfully specific item of which both are limited by specific circumstances and then you treat it as a universal constant reality with which you can use to make such a haphazard comparison that paints paints a most broad brush.

I treat it as a constant to any -organization-, and I do it because it has been proven true for thousands of years. Those who have power over us will eventually become corrupt. Individuals may not, they may stay the course, but organizations will fall into it.

Learning Spanish also rewires the brain and going to college does impact behavior and rewire the brain as well. What I am saying is that it is a haphazard comparison and usually a smoke screen. So yeah, I will question it to test if it is being used as a smoke screen for something else.

Yes, I hold up Christ as a example of a good man to smokescreen my hatred of Christian organizations.....

But if we treat the definition of addiction so broadly, why not call me a dihydrogen monoxide addict? Or an amino acid addict? Take great pleasure at using amino acids and quite frankly I am not the same when I don't get my fair hit of amino acids. The withdrawal symptoms are rather...unpleasant. They are so unpleasant that my body will go through rather drastic changes that lead to death. At some point, semantics really is important.

Semantics are important.

[Annoyed]

Philosophically or rationally speaking, there is no difference between selling booze door-to-door and trying to convert people into your faith. Both are addictions, as to what's good or bad, that's a personal decision. On one hand you have alcoholics that destroy families, on the other you have politicians that use your faith as a conduit to election or use their position of authority to molest kids, just like a drug pimp would use his to brutalize or kill his enemies.

Religion is an addiction? Sorry, I can't buy that.

I don't care if it lights up some area of the brain on a scanner, almost everything you do lights up one area or another. You might as well say that living is an addiction.

And "on the other you have politicians that use your faith as a conduit to election" is just a cheap shot at views that you don't like. Just as an example, it seems that you think people who oppose abortion on religious grounds shouldn't have representation. They are just as entitled to be represented as the local boss of the planned parenthood chop shop is.

[Chaka-Z0]

Religion is an addiction? Sorry, I can't buy that.

I don't care if it lights up some area of the brain on a scanner, almost everything you do lights up one area or another. You might as well say that living is an addiction.

And "on the other you have politicians that use your faith as a conduit to election" is just a cheap shot at views that you don't like. Just as an example, it seems that you think people who oppose abortion on religious grounds shouldn't have representation. They are just as entitled to be represented as the local boss of the planned parenthood chop shop is.

*Somewhere in an AA support group*

Okay so let's go around the circle, please say your name and problem.

"Hi I'm Daniel and I am an alcoholic"
"Paul, heroin."
"Hello! Susan here, cocaine for me"
"My name is Pablo, and I am addicted to Christ"

Okay I do admit it sounds a bit ridiculous

[jelgate]

*Somewhere in an AA support group*

Okay so let's go around the circle, please say your name and problem.

"Hi I'm Daniel and I am an alcoholic"
"Paul, heroin."
"Hello! Susan here, cocaine for me"
"My name is Pablo, and I am addicted to Christ"

Okay I do admit it sounds a bit ridiculous

You forgot the last one.

"My name is Annoyed and Im addicted to conspiracies"

[Chaka-Z0]

as an example, it seems that you think people who oppose abortion on religious grounds shouldn't have representation. They are just as entitled to be represented as the local boss of the planned parenthood chop shop is.

I do think they shouldn't have representation. These folks are next to my job in the streets every single day brandishing half-eaten-zombified babies pictures. I just can't take them seriously, and their position which is basically a religious one. These folks are Christians (organization led exclusively by men) that wishes to control what women do with their body. Absolutely stupid, radical-like position. You want to go back to the stone age? Be my guest, but I'm sure a bunch of ladies and folks such as myself would disagree with that.

[Chaka-Z0]

You forgot the last one.

"My name is Annoyed and Im addicted to conspiracies"

Good joke. We all know AA groups are led by lizardmen there's no way he would even be there, unless everyone wears a tinfoil hat.

[Annoyed]

I do think they shouldn't have representation. These folks are next to my job in the streets every single day brandishing half-eaten-zombified babies pictures. I just can't take them seriously, and their position which is basically a religious one. These folks are Christians (organization led exclusively by men) that wishes to control what women do with their body. Absolutely stupid, radical-like position. You want to go back to the stone age? Be my guest, but I'm sure a bunch of ladies and folks such as myself would disagree with that.

We'll have to disagree there. Even if someone has a position that I disagree with, he absolutely has the right to express it, and to have his/her voice represented.

And it's not only men that oppose abortion. Looking at the numbers, the genders aren't too far apart on this.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235646/...attitudes.aspx

And outside of rape situations, women do have absolute control of their bodies. Keep their pants on or take 'em off.

[Annoyed]

Good joke. We all know AA groups are led by lizardmen there's no way he would even be there, unless everyone wears a tinfoil hat.

Is that why so many alcoholics fall off the wagon? Lizards are cold-blooded, all the alkie has to do is turn the thermostat down and they go into hibernation or whatever.

[aretood2]

What I know is 10% is a baseline, and there are people out there, especially victims of "faith seeder" cons who give far, far more than 10% and it can destroy people financially and emotionally just as any other real drug can.

Loving puppies can also destroy people financially and emotionally. Faith seeders and drugs are fundamentally different. No one breaks down through withdraw from sending their favorite televangelist a check the way they do from not drinking beer, or smoking, and much less heroin or meth. Needing to shoot up again is an entirely different process than wanting to write another check so you can stay out of hell or keep your ancestors spirits happy or make the sun rise again.

My puppies comment? Well, it's more serious actually. Any hobby, any good deed, any act that people become attached to can also have someone doing it to the extreme and to a compulsive level. But there is no such thing as a casual junkie. There is no such thing as occasionally using crack or meth. There is such a thing as simply going to church.

Alcoholism rewires the brain and body far faster, I'm not going to argue with you on that point because I agree.

Who cares? Really? Do you think I care that my dad's brain was rewired or not once or twice of fifty times or never? No. What matters is the actual impact in family life. That's what makes the difference, which Chaka pointed out. I know what you'll say, that it's not the message or the christians but the big bad church. But you're forgetting what the church is...or is supposed to be. Maybe it's best to be specific and not paint with broad brushes?

Because while "tithing" stops at 10%, it does nothing to stop a person from giving MORE, nor does it stop people from ASKING for more for some nebulous outcome (for the giver). THAT my friend is where the addiction comes in. In reality, faith "addiction" has more in common with Gambling addiction rather than any substance abuse, I merely used drug addiction as it is easier for people to get their heads around.

Tithing, once again, is not universal. The Catholic church doesn't tithe. Some churches that require it or suggest it don't require the tithes to go to them (see link). Some churches reject the tithe entirely as having to do with agricultural practices in Israel contingent on the existence of the temple and temple sacrifice (also a position held by many Rabbis). As for the door knockers you mentioned as religious pimps, Jehovah's Witnesses don't tithe.

That's at least two large churches that struggle with the issue of child sex abuse that have no tithing. Do you see the disconnect?

As for giving more...it seems to me that your beef is with people giving money to churches period. Did you know there are people who over donate to charities to the point that they ruin their lives? I guess we should compare charities to drug cartels now, you know, using your logic and all.

I treat it as a constant to any -organization-, and I do it because it has been proven true for thousands of years. Those who have power over us will eventually become corrupt. Individuals may not, they may stay the course, but organizations will fall into it.

So...it's hard to keep up. First it's door knockers, but then it's tithing and then it's pedophiles...and now...what? All religious organizations are door knocking tithe obligating child sex abusers with magical voodoo powers of "brainwashing"? Okay, sorry, the last one wasn't mentioned but I am trying to predict your next move.

Yes, I hold up Christ as a example of a good man to smokescreen my hatred of Christian organizations.....

When you paint in broad brushes...it's really not that much of a stretch actually.

Semantics are important.

And addiction is used for very specific things with very specific connotations.

*Somewhere in an AA support group*

Okay so let's go around the circle, please say your name and problem.

"Hi I'm Daniel and I am an alcoholic"
"Paul, heroin."
"Hello! Susan here, cocaine for me"
"My name is Pablo, and I am addicted to Christ"

Okay I do admit it sounds a bit ridiculous

Hi my name is Tood. I just fell .of the wagon last night. Someone slapped me, and I....*Gets teary eyed and someone holds my hand* I turned the other cheek! I just had to get my fix of Jesus!!! *cries*

I do think they shouldn't have representation. These folks are next to my job in the streets every single day brandishing half-eaten-zombified babies pictures. I just can't take them seriously, and their position which is basically a religious one. These folks are Christians (organization led exclusively by men) that wishes to control what women do with their body. Absolutely stupid, radical-like position. You want to go back to the stone age? Be my guest, but I'm sure a bunch of ladies and folks such as myself would disagree with that.

Is it though?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life
12% of athiests are pro-life in the US. I wonder what religious views are causing them to be so?

It's a very nice and convenient cop out though. First, just point out that many people who are pro-life feel compelled on not just a secular moral grounds but also religious grounds. And then discount that completely. You don't have to deal with the question of life, when it begins, and the moral imperatives involved. It's an easy and simple hand wavey solution.

The second copout is the "men" part. Because, after all, women who are pro-life are feeble things easily controlled by men and obviously are unable to come to the correct opinion that real women have.

[jelgate]

Hi my name is Tood. I just fell .of the wagon last night. Someone slapped me, and I....*Gets teary eyed and someone holds my hand* I turned the other cheek! I just had to get my fix of Jesus!!! *cries*
.

Dr. Jelgate can help. Everytime you feel the urge to walk on water or raise the dead you eat a strip of bacon. Unless you want to bring my grandfather. Then you better do it or...ELSE

[Coco Pops]

And Ooh look

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/u...efinition.html

But hold on how can they do that?

[Gatefan1976]

Loving puppies can also destroy people financially and emotionally. Faith seeders and drugs are fundamentally different. No one breaks down through withdraw from sending their favorite televangelist a check the way they do from not drinking beer, or smoking, and much less heroin or meth. Needing to shoot up again is an entirely different process than wanting to write another check so you can stay out of hell or keep your ancestors spirits happy or make the sun rise again.

Is it?
Drugs have an -additional- component, that being the physical, sure, but that physical component is still rooted in brain chemistry.

My puppies comment? Well, it's more serious actually. Any hobby, any good deed, any act that people become attached to can also have someone doing it to the extreme and to a compulsive level. But there is no such thing as a casual junkie. There is no such thing as occasionally using crack or meth. There is such a thing as simply going to church.

There is such a thing as a recreational user though. I know people who never normally smoke, but get a few drinks in them, they will smoke a cigarette or take a few puffs on a cigar. Again, I never brought hardcore addictive substances into this discussion, what I have said all along is that for people with addictive personalities there will be no "simply going to church" because their brain is not wired that way. They will go to church all the time and twice on Sundays, and at that point, it's an addiction.

Who cares? Really? Do you think I care that my dad's brain was rewired or not once or twice of fifty times or never? No. What matters is the actual impact in family life. That's what makes the difference, which Chaka pointed out. I know what you'll say, that it's not the message or the christians but the big bad church. But you're forgetting what the church is...or is supposed to be. Maybe it's best to be specific and not paint with broad brushes?

I have ALWAYS been specific, I blame churches (all of them, so drop the catholic bit, cause they are not the only church accused of sexual misconduct), I blame large organizations that encourage group-think and quash individuality, I blame corporations who think that the sum is more important than the parts, I blame governments who do the same. The very fact you have to put the caveat of "or supposed to be" tells me you know exactly what I mean, that when groups get to big, they create power structures, and the goal of any power structure is to protect ITSELF, not those it is meant to represent.

Tithing, once again, is not universal. The Catholic church doesn't tithe. Some churches that require it or suggest it don't require the tithes to go to them (see link). Some churches reject the tithe entirely as having to do with agricultural practices in Israel contingent on the existence of the temple and temple sacrifice (also a position held by many Rabbis). As for the door knockers you mentioned as religious pimps, Jehovah's Witnesses don't tithe.

Yeah, they make "offering's" instead, and make it pretty clear where you are on the pecking order if you don't "volunteer" your time or money.

That's at least two large churches that struggle with the issue of child sex abuse that have no tithing. Do you see the disconnect?

Nope, because the disconnect is between being "a law", and "strongly suggested".
You can be a catholic, or a JW and never tithe, but your peers will not think very well of you as you are not "helping the community"

As for giving more...it seems to me that your beef is with people giving money to churches period. Did you know there are people who over donate to charities to the point that they ruin their lives? I guess we should compare charities to drug cartels now, you know, using your logic and all.

At that point, they ARE no better than cartels.
If you don't care enough about people giving to you to tell them that there is a point where it is self destructive, you don't care about them at all, you reduce them to a resource to be plundered. This is true of any organization, left, right, religious or secular. It's very essence of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

So...it's hard to keep up. First it's door knockers, but then it's tithing and then it's pedophiles...and now...what? All religious organizations are door knocking tithe obligating child sex abusers with magical voodoo powers of "brainwashing"? Okay, sorry, the last one wasn't mentioned but I am trying to predict your next move.

It's commonly called escalation Tood.

When you paint in broad brushes...it's really not that much of a stretch actually.

It's broadly accurate.
The individual (Christ) is a person to be admired as a person, much like Tarana Burke should be admired, or Rosa Parkes, or Martin King.
The organizations that sprung from those ideals however, I'm not sold on.

And addiction is used for very specific things with very specific connotations.

Yes, beyond your control, and There are people out there who are out of control with their religious beliefs.

Hi my name is Tood. I just fell .of the wagon last night. Someone slapped me, and I....*Gets teary eyed and someone holds my hand* I turned the other cheek! I just had to get my fix of Jesus!!! *cries*

On the other hand, I saw some gays, so I shot them all because sodomy is a sin *get's a hard glint in the eye* and those sodomites deserved it, and I would do it again because living in sin is evil and they deserved punishment!!
*laughs*

[Coco Pops]

Was the reporter really killed for criticizing Trump in Saudi Arabia?

Who ordered that?

[jelgate]

Trump? Probably called his friends to do it like he called the Russians to hack the 2016 election