patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Even the Christian right isn't so fucking retarded as to think that recognizing secular same-sex marriages means the state will force their local pastor to marry two guys in gay biker outfits while all the kids are made to watch them consummate the marriage. Then again, I could be wrong.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Some of that seems to skirt the edge. The state forced a church to allow for gay marriage on its own property.

I really don't have a dog in that fight anymore, but I can understand the concern.

freak80 says

The state forced a church to allow for gay marriage on its own property.

I really don't have a dog in that fight anymore, but I can understand the concern.

"The judge determined that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association breached its agreement to make the pavilion available to the public on an equal basis. The association was also required to make the pavilion public in exchange for a state tax exemption it received that requires equal access on a non-discriminatory basis. Metzger also noted that while the association is free to practice its mission without government oversight, it had never attached any religious ministry to the wedding venue until it received Paster and Bernstein’s application."

As churches have acquired more property, they have sought to produce revenue while at the same time avoiding taxes. In this regard, they have behaved quite similarly to other businesses. Nothing required the church to buy a beach pavilion and rent it out as a public accommodation, but having gone into that business, they were required to follow the same rules as everyone else in that business. The same would apply if they bought a restaurant but didn't want to comply with the health code: if they invest in a line of business to make money, they have to follow the same rules as anyone else in that business.

leo707 says

Ummm...maybe...*er*...sort of. I think that it can be just an emotional experience.

IT's an experience, that has an emotional component to it. You could say that for some there might be an element of dishonesty in the experience that they are having if it is for the sole purpose of tricking themselves in to having the positive emotions that flow from it.

So ? What's all this judging about anyway ?

If it's that some take this line of thinking to the question, is it real ?
Is this experience real ? (or is it emotion ?) To me that's not very far from saying, "am I real ?" Aren't I comprised of my experiences ?

curious2 says

if they invest in a line of business to make money, they have to follow the same rules as anyone else in that business.

Damn straight. This church would have been in hot water had they tried to ban blacks from getting married on the pavilion as well, and rightfully so for the exact same reasons.

Personally, I don't think that churches should get any special treatment when it comes to land and property taxes.

marcus says

dishonesty in the experience that they are having if it is for the sole purpose of tricking themselves in to having the positive emotions that flow from it.

As I think about it this doesn't make sense. An experience is just an experience and can not be dishonest. Maybe the reflection on the experience or the communicating about it can be.

I often wonder if there is a law of the universe which explains why trolls are so delusional.

9

sbh says

Dan8267 says

Personally, I don't think that churches should get any special treatment when it comes to land and property taxes.

Or any special tax treatment at all. We've just returned from a road trip through the bible belt and I'd wager there is a church per every 5.6 people. What a scam! If the rest of us are "taxed enough already" why should this underground black market go unscathed?

LOL. Schools (many universities occupy huge land plots) and churches are exempt due to their non-profit status conducting non-profit activities. Some argument can be made that school dormitories and church rectories should face property tax just like any other residential housing.

Reality says

Schools (many universities occupy huge land plots) and churches are exempt due to their non-profit status conducting non-profit activities.

For profit institutions that do some non-profit work should still be taxed. If I buy a McMansion and hold a weekly scout meeting in my backyard, would I still get taxed on my McMansion?

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Schools (many universities occupy huge land plots) and churches are exempt due to their non-profit status conducting non-profit activities.

For profit institutions that do some non-profit work should still be taxed. If I buy a McMansion and hold a weekly scout meeting in my backyard, would I still get taxed on my McMansion?

Yes, you'd still be taxed because the non-profit use of the property is not exclusive or even predominant, and you are not a recognized non-profit organization. Many born-again churches run into that sort of problem with the IRS precisely because they can not prove the residential buildings that they own is exclusively or predominantly used for non-profit purpose. That's why I suggested that some argument can be made for collecting property tax on dormitories owned by colleges and rectories owned by churches, as they are the parts of the property that are predominantly used for residential purpose, not the school's teaching or church's religious gathering purpose, which are tax exempted due to non-profit.

Under existing tax laws, for-profit institutions usually don't get property tax exemption at all even if they occasionally make the property available for non-profit use.

Reality says

not the school's teaching or church's religious gathering purpose,

Ah, but the "religious" gathering purpose should not be treated specially by the tax code.

Dan8267 says

The lie, as you said, is that there is a greater truth to the emotional high or

What comes first?:
1 - the physical world, in which the brain exists, and in which we are, as a whole, but a phenomenon explained by the laws of physics, or
2 - the sensory perceptions and the emotions that we experience, and in which the physical world exists only as a perception.

Yes we perceive an external world in which we feel immersed, as the scenery changes when we turn the head. And this world is an incredibly consistent experience. But first, all this exists as a sensory perception.

Thus we assume that the tree exists whether we experience it or not. But this is always an assumption. We can never be certain that this is not an illusion as the matrix is or a deception by a demon as Descartes would have it. The consistency of the world is also an assumption. It's inductive logic. The cloudless sky was always blue, and so it will be tomorrow.

Dan8267 says

. I've said we shouldn't embrace irrationality and let it take over our governments, laws, educational system, morality, and ethics. I stand by that,

Not irrationality, but emotions like beauty are typically affecting our governments and laws. There are investments in art etc... Even as beauty doesn't exist in the physical world outside our brains. Whether we like it or not, human beings are emotional beings, not robots. Emotions can sometime be irrational if we look at things purely materialistically, but they still make sense to us.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9UzZDOBWGro

Dan8267 says

Actually, I don't really care whether or not I agree or disagree with someone on a topic as long as it's not a deal killer like:

- honor killing rape victims is good

- slavery was justified

- the lives of foreigners are worthless

What I don't stand for is

- trolling

- disingenuous arguments (Straw Man, deliberate misrepresentation of facts, twisting a person's words to mean something you know they don't, etc.)

- complete lack a emotional maturity

I thought this was choice.

Because my arguments with Dan have often eventually led to my assertion that we can not know whether religion in totality has been bad for mankind, and my belief that in total it's probably been a significant positive.

He then tries on repeated occasions to suggest that I was advocating killing rape victims or other fundamentalist atrocities.

This is both a straw man argument AND trolling. This is why I find the above quote so amazing.

The real reason Dan's anger at me started was my calling him arrogant, especially with regard to his anti religion talk. I stand by that. Other times I sort of called him names, pointing out how he is obviously young (initially I truly thought he was a teenager). There was one occasion where I alluded to Schrodengers Cat to make a very specific point, to which Dan launched in to a long discussion of Quantum Mechanics. Another time in the middle of an argument he posted a long example of some code he was writing, to show us how smart he was.

You can't make this stuff up. He's come a long way though.

Other than calling him arrogant, or an adolescent, he would be hard pressed to show where I have trolled him in the middle of an argument, or advocated crimes that were motivated by religion. Although I could point to several times when he tried to twist my point of view to be that I was advocating that.

Dan8267 says

What I don't stand for is

- trolling

- disingenuous arguments (Straw Man, deliberate misrepresentation of facts, twisting a person's words to mean something you know they don't, etc.)

- complete lack a emotional maturity

Lol...

And on the Third Day this thread Rose from the Dead...

Says my very own personal troll. I'm still flattered that you're so obsessed with me.

The first reports of Jesus' life date from 60 years after his alleged ressurection - and those are all written by Christians. The first reports about Christ the Messiah come about 20-30 years after the later documents alleged he lived.

The time between the Roswell Incident and "UFOs are Real" was about 20 years. More than enough time for a legend to be born and heavily embellished.

1947: Downed Weather Ballon, false report of UFO, quickly clarified by News and Military.
1950s: First books on sekrit UFO published.
1960s: Dead Alien bodies rumored at Roswell
1970s: Full Legend: Complete UFO Crash and Coverup, Live Aliens negotiating with US Gov't., Technology from wreckage used by USAF.

UFOs are Real, 1979 Documentary (Great Music, Whacky Content)
http://youtu.be/mQABJLJKLyQ

I tend to believe that there are probably a lot of aliens, maybe even in our galaxy. Them coming here is doubtful though. But then again, when we see how bizarre particle physics is, it's good to keep an open mind. Who knows? But yes, doubtful (and I get your point about Jesus, although I believe that the man really lived).

Back to the subject of aliens. On the one hand,, I'm not a believer (of them having visited us). On the other hand, the rate of technological change since the late forties is truly remarkable. I can see why some people would infer the possibility of us doing some backwards engineering on a crashed ship, thus speeding up our technological progress.

I believe we have different parts to our minds. We have the subconscious mind which is the seat of emotions, the regulator of unconscious bodily functions, and our most authentic self. I believe this to be what's colloquially known as the "heart."
Then we have the rational mind which is capable of abstraction, deductive, inductive reasoning, and is the seat of "self." When you say "I" you are referring to this part of you.
Then we have the other. This could be defined as spirit or mojo or a thousand other different words from different cultures. Every culture believes in the spirit or soul. Thus, I haven't the arrogance to say "everyone is stupid, there is no soul."

The difference between heart and self seems obvious, but here is where's we get tripped up the most easily. You can lie to yourself, but your heart knows the truth and is incapable of lying. You can change your mind a dozen times a day but you can't change your heart without months or years of patient training. And since your heart has control of your autonomous body functions, to be "sick at heart" is liable to make your body sick as well. People can and do die "from a broken heart." It's not just something poets write about. If you are at war with your heart, your body will keep score. To be united in purpose with your heart is the key to health and happiness.

Now the soul or spirit, that I don't know much about.

I would map it out or frame it a little differently. I see the self as the ego. It's me, my personality, what I mean when I say I. There is both emotion and rational mind attached to the ego, but the ego drives such things as feelings of self worth. Or feeling insecure. It drives things such as lust and greed.

(btw I'm not talking ego in the freudian sense)

Then I would say there's a higher self which knows what's best for you. One is not always in touch with their higher self, but the ego is likely to tell one they are, even when they aren't. Some would say that the soul or spirit is where the higher self lives.

The rational mind is a layer over these, it's always there and can support the higher self or the ego or sometimes both simultaneously (or neither).

As for heart. This one I don't understand so much, but I agree about it knowing what are the deepest truths and feelings you have. But I believe those deep truths and feelings are sometimes born of the ego.

I do not see these as independent or compartmentalized.

The area of subconscious and the roles it plays and where it gets its motives, inspiration and desires. That is the part that I feel least clear about.

But as a relatively old guy, I can say that it seems learning occurs on all these levels. Including the heart. But some of what the heart learns, are life lessons I could have done without.

humanity says

there's a higher self which knows what's best for you.

No no no - members of Congress know what's best for you: the knowledge comes from their immortal corporate sponsors, and is revealed by the immortals' earthly representatives, who are called lobbyists. It is not possible for any part of you to know what is best for you, unless you are a lobbyist.

There's no evidence for a magical immeterial part of a person (soul/spirit/ghost) that can "live on" after death. The idea comes from the human inability to accept mortality.

The fact that no two cultures/religions/individuals agree on what actually happens to the "soul" after death proves it's an imaginary concept.

Monotheistic Jesus speaks.

Freaky!
Where are you and yourborderline religious athiest love hate fest??

freak80 says

There's no evidence for a magical immeterial part of a person (soul/spirit/ghost) that can "live on" after death. The idea comes from the human inability to accept mortality.

marcus says

The real reason Dan's...

Jesus Christ, Marcus, I didn't realize you were so obsessed with me.

SoftShell says

Freaky!

Why must you resurrect this thread? I've heard enough nonsense from Marcus in 2013 to keep me satiated until 2015.