Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[basics]

Gnostic Christian Bishop,

I did not make Jesus my scapegoat as He was already that from before God created the worlds. I accept that He was my scapegoat although might I suggest New Covenant parlance in that He was my Saviour, unlike the scapegoat who remained dead, risen to life again. If I cannot learn all I need to from out of God's word and the creed comes from that, what it says is only what is written. The offer still stands and people are coming to Jesus all across the world when called out by God.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Gnostic Christian Bishop,

I did not make Jesus my scapegoat as He was already that from before God created the worlds. I accept that He was my scapegoat although might I suggest New Covenant parlance in that He was my Saviour, unlike the scapegoat who remained dead, risen to life again. If I cannot learn all I need to from out of God's word and the creed comes from that, what it says is only what is written. The offer still stands and people are coming to Jesus all across the world when called out by God.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs youhave done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them,--- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat isimmoral.

And you say you have accepted to do so.

Thanks for showing us the morals your religion has created in you.

Regards
DL

[basics]

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs youhave done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them,--- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat isimmoral.

And you say you have accepted to do so.

Thanks for showing us the morals your religion has created in you.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop,

Jesus Christ being part of the Godhead put Himself in that position knowing that man couldn't do it, so how is it my fault as I wasn't born then? You say another innocent person so apart from the Godhead who else is innocent? Like all of mankind I was a sinner carrying the curse that God placed on all mankind so with His love for man He did what He had to to save some. Why He chose me is something only He can answer but we are told it was by Grace and who can argue with that? Was it immoral of Him to do so? Therefore my friend let's hear you and your morals say that you deserve all that is coming to you for where is the morality in knowing you are in sin and doing nothing about the marvelous offer Jesus Christ affords even unto you?

[Gaidin]

This is all an interesting takeaway from the fraud point of the thread. Might be we want to steer it back or at least connect it?

[basics]

This is all an interesting takeaway from the fraud point of the thread. Might be we want to steer it back or at least connect it?

Gaidin,

The connection is that GCB is making out that the story of and about Jesus is fraud. Not only that but he insists that His followers are immoral so a response in kind was necessary.

[Gaidin]

Gaidin,

The connection is that GCB is making out that the story of and about Jesus is fraud. Not only that but he insists that His followers are immoral so a response in kind was necessary.

That has literally nothing to do with whether modern governments and modern fraud and whether fraud executed through religious means should be regulated.

Interesting segue, hilarious red herring.

[Iskar]

I fear a lot of talking here is being done at cross purposes. GCB seems to infer all religions are fraud and should be cracked down upon by government (his real point is against religions I guess, the fraud stuff is just a seemingly unideological way of wrapping it), basics holds that only his religion is non-fraudulent and Gaidin, you're actually trying to honestly argue the case of what action should/should not be taken towards those using religion in a fraudulent way. As much as I appreciate your staunch attempt to actually discuss something (instead of preaching a preset position), I think you're wasting you're time here.

[Love Mountain]

I think the focus should switch to rephrase the question in a way that properly captures the spirit of the discussion or to perhaps to focus on a tangent of this discussion. Anyway, I don't think there should be regulation of religions even the ones that are "practices" with the intent of defrauding people. While this may seem like it would be socially harmful, I think that even the most elaborate lies will eventually unravel themselves and thus religion as a whole will lose its luster to society. This may seem to run contrary to the historical record, after all, Christianity and Islam are growing in certain senses, but atheism and agnosticism on the whole is on the rise in many highly-developed countries. There's also a competing marketplace of ideas in general with many Asians for example who embrace philosophies rather than deities.

In short, I think that bad ideas tend to discredit themselves, especially during periods of progress. I don't think there's a need to regulate private behavior, but a need to allow people to make their own mistakes. Plus, religion can often be a comfort to the least fortunate members of society and that has some value in of itself. I think governments instead should regulate and focus on education and social work instead of trying to regulate what people spiritually believe in. Regulating education to prevent teaching bad ideas like creationism as opposed to forbidding Christianity for example. Focusing on uplifting people from poverty rather than forbidding people from donating to religions, etc. Bad ideas tend to expose themselves.

[Diocle]

I fear a lot of talking here is being done at cross purposes. GCB seems to infer all religions are fraud and should be cracked down upon by government (his real point is against religions I guess, the fraud stuff is just a seemingly unideological way of wrapping it), basics holds that only his religion is non-fraudulent and Gaidin, you're actually trying to honestly argue the case of what action should/should not be taken towards those using religion in a fraudulent way. As much as I appreciate your staunch attempt to actually discuss something (instead of preaching a preset position), I think you're wasting you're time here.

No, he's not against all religions, he's just against Christianism, it's an old, boring story.

Anyway, I think the way chosen by pope Innocent III in 1209 to deal with the problem of Cathars, Gnostics, or Manichaeans (that is the same), has been a wise solution. IMO, Manichaeism is still one of the most perverted and dangerous form of pseudo-religion potentially plaguing mankind.

[Gaidin]

I think governments instead should regulate and focus on education and social work instead of trying to regulate what people spiritually believe in.

If they believe it they're not committing fraud.

[Love Mountain]

Tell that to the prosperity gospel crowd. Disgusting human beings.

[Gaidin]

Tell that to the prosperity gospel crowd. Disgusting human beings.

RTFT.

[Himster]

Are you saying that fraud enforcers should ignore fraud and that non-enforcement of the law is better for the majority, even though that majority, which would be gays and women who are subjected to homophobia and misogyny and have been religions longest running victims?

I'm saying all religions are inherently fraudulent. To enforce anti-fraud laws on some little cult in Alabama, then one must equally enforce those exact same strictures on the Catholic Church and all Jews and all Muslims etc. To not do so would be hypocritical and to do so would be a crime against humanity.

Are there no gays or women in your family?

No, there are no gays or women in Ireland. All men are grown like trees and we're animated by an army of fairies.

If people don't want to enforce fraud they should take fraud off the books. Nearly all people talking religion aren't pawning fraud because they believe it. But if they're committing a fraud on their fellowship and it can be proven it should absolutely be done so.

I don't care what religion it is. This is about fraud. If they're starting a new religion and it's provable fraud, crush the religion. If it's an old religion and he's swindling the fellowship crush the pastor and the fellowship can find other places to worship.

Enforce the god damn law or wipe fraud from the books. Period.

Yes, I agree. Except I think unintentional fraud (ie genuinely believing in religious tripe and spreading it) has little difference with genuine fraud. It's almost impossible to distinguish between them.

[Iskar]

So is it fraud if I hold and live by the Catholic creed without selling salvation to others?
Of course selling indulgences would be fraud in a way - even theologically, as the church can have no power over divine judgement, but we don't do that anymore. What is being collected in donations these days is collected specifically for humanitarian purposes, to maintain schools, hospitals or kindergartens, or, the purpose I find less important, for the maintenance or reconstruction of buildings, organs and works of art. All of that is pretty clear in where the money is going for what reason, no fraudulent misleadings there.

[Himster]

So is it fraud if I hold and live by the Catholic creed without selling salvation to others?

Only if you consider it possible to commit fraud against your self.

Of course selling indulgences would be fraud in a way - even theologically, as the church can have no power over divine judgement, but we don't do that anymore. What is being collected in donations these days is collected specifically for humanitarian purposes, to maintain schools, hospitals or kindergartens, or, the purpose I find less important, for the maintenance or reconstruction of buildings, organs and works of art. All of that is pretty clear in where the money is going for what reason, no fraudulent misleadings there.

There are constant scandals surrounding the Catholic Church and its allocation of funds. Collections for "specific" purposes that are then re-allocated is a regular occurrence.

[basics]

Since all religions stem from the Gospel that God predicted in the garden it is not impossible to see that the core of their argument here is the Bible and Christianity. We therefore don't have far to go to see that the writers continually warn of false gospels the perpetrators of such committing many frauds in the name of God. With the advent of super technology and international finance we can find abuses in many places but the Bible clearly states that when Jesus comes back these abuses will be dealt with as judgement begins with the church before all else. He will decide what is fraudulent not a bunch of politicians with a left wing bent or even the most conservative unbeliever amongst them. Any conviction for fraud has to be delivered on the basis that the victim of such has lost out on something he or she was promised but never happened so how can that be proved as God's timing can be much longer than our expectations? It took forty years for Israel to get into the promised land. It took me forty years before Jesus Christ was revealed to me.

[Aexodus]

Can we please just discuss in objective terms? At the time of Jesus, he was considered a 'fraud' by the Romans and the Jews, so surely the notion of some religions being more 'fraudulent' than others is purely subjective. Your Gospel may say one thing, but another's Torah, Hadith etc says another, so it's not really a great basis for making a point.

[Iskar]

Only if you consider it possible to commit fraud against your self.



There are constant scandals surrounding the Catholic Church and its allocation of funds. Collections for "specific" purposes that are then re-allocated is a regular occurrence.

Really? Do you have any particular cases at hand? I know there are a number of issues with bishops turning a blind eye to wasting the diocese's funds or even doing it themselves but that usually concerns the existing financial assets of the diocese (you know, the stuff we robbed and accumulated during the middle and early modern age), not the collected donations of church members. The latter are mostly handled by separate institutions as well, such as Caritas, Misereor, Diakonie, etc. from whom I have yet to hear of misallocation or corruption.

[Diocle]

I still need to understand the difference between a common "religion" and a "fraudolent religion" .. in my opinion it is the definition of "fraudolent religion" that actually is fraudolent in itself.

[basics]

I still need to understand the difference between a common "religion" and a "fraudolent religion" .. in my opinion it is the definition of "fraudolent religion" that actually is fraudolent in itself.

Diocle,

In the eyes and minds of most on these threads there is no difference as all religion is fraud. Having to be responsible to only themselves gives them contentment in abundance so why change?