Faith and Confidence

[Gracchus]

"A confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. A confidence artist is an individual working alone or in concert with others who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as greed, both dishonesty and honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naivety, and the thought of trying to get something of value for nothing or for something far less valuable."

Confidence trick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, how does one tell religion from a con? I would suggest ... profit. What does religion give you but sops to vanity, the image of compassion, and a balm to the fear of death? If the religion asks for money, it's a con game. Why would God need money?

Question: Is God going to reward you with heaven for being a fool?

 

[Davian]

I think George pointed this out some time ago.

"He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more." - George Carlin.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If the religion asks for money, it's a con game. Why would God need money?

God wouldn't. However, churches don't get built and funded on faith alone. Religious organizations will always need money to function. There's nothing wrong with that. Even the impressive Sistine Chapel serves some good purpose.

You'll just have to judge for yourself (if you are a believer) if the televangelist (or whoever) you support with your donations really needs gold bathroom faucets. If you think he does, there is no con. If you don't, then you should ask if you are supporting a conman.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

"A confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. A confidence artist is an individual working alone or in concert with others who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as greed, both dishonesty and honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naivety, and the thought of trying to get something of value for nothing or for something far less valuable."

Confidence trick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, how does one tell religion from a con? I would suggest ... profit. What does religion give you but sops to vanity, the image of compassion, and a balm to the fear of death? If the religion asks for money, it's a con game. Why would God need money?

Question: Is God going to reward you with heaven for being a fool?

I Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

What you said illustrates the wisdom of human.

 

[AlexBP]

So, how does one tell religion from a con?

As you already posted, cons are fraudulent. They promise to deliver something rich they do not deliver and know that they can't deliver. My religion, namely Christianity, promises nothing which it cannot deliver, and hence is not a con.

I would suggest ... profit.

Your suggestion is easily proven false. My priest, for instance, earns about $30,000 per year while living in one of the higher-priced areas of the country, and has to spend a great deal of that on assisting the needy in various ways. A man with his intelligence and talents could easily earn a great deal more in any number of professions, so plainly he didn't join the clergy for the sake of money. The same is obviously true for nearly all other Christian clergy.

What does religion give you but sops to vanity, the image of compassion, and a balm to the fear of death?

Quite a bit: inner and outer peace, community, food and other necessities for huge numbers of other people who have been abused and abandoned by secular society, and a coherent and sensible intellectual worldview. And also eternal life.

If the religion asks for money, it's a con game. Why would God need money?

Eudaimonist already answered this one well. God needs no money; the Church does, for obvious reasons. (To state the obvious, secular institutions want a lot more of my money than the Church does and offer a lot less in return. Giving to them is generally not voluntary, as giving to the Church is.)

Question: Is God going to reward you with heaven for being a fool?

Depends how you define fool. For being a fool by the world's standard, quite possibly the answer is yes.

 

[jayem]

As you already posted, cons are fraudulent. They promise to deliver something rich they do not deliver and know that they can't deliver. My religion, namely Christianity, promises nothing which it cannot deliver, and hence is not a con...

Quite a bit: inner and outer peace, community, food and other necessities for huge numbers of other people who have been abused and abandoned by secular society, and a coherent and sensible intellectual worldview. And also eternal life.

Don't most all religions promise the same things? And each one usually claims it is the true and exclusive path to peace of mind, redemption of sin, and eternal life. These assertions aren't objectively testable. Even if I believed there was such a thing as life after earthly death, how do I evaluate what is the real deal, and what is a con? As the OP implied, it ultimately comes down to faith. Your faith in things unseen bolsters your convictions, which is wonderful, and I can't dispute that. But there are a lot of us natural skeptics, who just don't think that way.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that both extermes "no fraud is done in the name of religion" and "all religious power is exercised for fraudulent purposes" are both false.

Speaking of corruption, I think I circa 2005 I read a CIA declassified document on international financial crime (IIRC) that the Vatican City was up there in the top 10, alongside London and NY, in the list if corrupt cities. If anyone knows the exact whereabouts of that document I would be pleased to have the link.

Speaking of sainthood, there's your's truly, America.

 

[Davian]

As you already posted, cons are fraudulent. They promise to deliver something rich they do not deliver and know that they can't deliver.

There may be those that are participating in a Ponzi scheme that are not aware that it is a Ponzi scheme, but this does not mean it is not a con.

My religion, namely Christianity, promises nothing which it cannot deliver, and hence is not a con.

On which of the more significant promises have they been able to deliver?

Your suggestion is easily proven false. My priest, for instance, earns about $30,000 per year while living in one of the higher-priced areas of the country, and has to spend a great deal of that on assisting the needy in various ways. A man with his intelligence and talents could easily earn a great deal more in any number of professions, so plainly he didn't join the clergy for the sake of money. The same is obviously true for nearly all other Christian clergy.

This is not easily proven false, as their books are not open for everyone to examine.

Quite a bit: inner and outer peace, community, food and other necessities for

Nothing exclusive to theism

huge numbers of other people who have been abused and abandoned by secular society,

Nothing exclusive to secularism

and a coherent and sensible intellectual worldview.

Do you have a testable definition for "God"?

And also eternal life.

Do you have any objectively verified cases of someone achieving this promised 'eternal life', outside of bible stories?

Eudaimonist already answered this one well. God needs no money; the Church does, for obvious reasons.

For me, the point was: The reasons are not obvious. Why cannot God provide? Is this beyond His capabilities?

(To state the obvious, secular institutions want a lot more of my money than the Church does and offer a lot less in return. Giving to them is generally not voluntary, as giving to the Church is.)

Is tithing entirely voluntary?

Depends how you define fool. For being a fool by the world's standard, quite possibly the answer is yes.

 

[AlexBP]

This is not easily proven false, as their books are not open for everyone to examine.

You're completely wrong about this. The financial decisions of the Episcopal Church are entirely open. My church has a vestry, vestry meetings are open to the public, and thus it's easy for anyone who's interested to know exactly how much money comes in and exactly where it all goes to. Most of the money that comes in gets spent right here in town. A small portion, roughly 20%, gets sent to the national government of the Episcopal Church, which consists entirely of elected representatives, and all of their financial decision-making is also out in the open. A similarly open process governs the financial affairs of most other churches. The only one I know of that has closed books is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka. the Mormons).

The claim that Christian leaders are secretly hoarding cash for themselves is transparently false, and the fact that so many Christian-haters cling to it like leeches is a sign of their own intellectual bankruptcy.

Obviously Gracchus is here on this board to tell us Christians over and over again how much he dislikes us and how much better he is than us. He's not interested in debate, so I see no interest is continuing this thread any further.

 

[Gracchus]

The claim that Christian leaders are secretly hoarding cash for themselves is transparently false,...

Some Christian leaders are hoarding cash, and it is no secret. Billy Graham, Robert Schuler, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Amy Semple MacPherson and Jimmy Swaggart leap to mind. Some are not, but they ususally funnel cash to those who do.

... and the fact that so many Christian-haters cling to it like leeches is a sign of their own intellectual bankruptcy.

Christian haters?! I don't hate Christians. I think they are deluded. I think they are credulous. I think they follow the crowd because the are afraid to walk alone with God. They profess to be proud of being sheep, mindless followers. They will be fleeced and served up with mint jelly, but that is certainly no reason to hate them.

Obviously Gracchus is here on this board to tell us Christians over and over again how much he dislikes us and how much better he is than us.

I believe you are projecting. I will state flatly and without equivocation that I make no claim of moral superiorty. I like many
Christians, but I dislike Christianity, because it has been and remains, like nearly all religions, a source of much evil in the world.

He's not interested in debate, so I see no interest is continuing this thread any further.

Ah! I see! I am not interested in debate, so you are leaving, without presenting argument or evidence. If it weren't so pitiful, I would laugh.

 

[Davian]

You're completely wrong about this.
<snip>

If they are not all open, I am not completely wrong.

And what of the other points in my post? Particularly regarding the "coherent and sensible intellectual worldview" and those "fulfilled" promises.

Is the church needed for these things? What do they provide for that money that they take?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

but I dislike Christianity, because it has been and remains [snip] a source of much evil in the world.

Replace "Christianity" with "humanity" and you have a less biased equation.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Replace "Christianity" with "humanity" and you have a less biased equation.

And a more mundane one.

 

[bricklayer]

"A confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. A confidence artist is an individual working alone or in concert with others who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as greed, both dishonesty and honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naivety, and the thought of trying to get something of value for nothing or for something far less valuable."

Confidence trick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, how does one tell religion from a con? I would suggest ... profit. What does religion give you but sops to vanity, the image of compassion, and a balm to the fear of death? If the religion asks for money, it's a con game. Why would God need money?

Question: Is God going to reward you with heaven for being a fool?

There are two types of people in this world: those who are examples of God's grace, with the objects of His mercy; and those who are examples of God patience, with the objects of His wrath.
You, Gracchus, are a very good example.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And a more mundane one.

I am just advising not the pick of religious people as "especially evil". I think that there are many idealistic dreamers who can reform humanity in their imagination by recreating them in the image of their ideal self (which even they cannot live up to), but the truth prevails on the ground in spite of myriadal attempts. It is somewhere close to what Kant said "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." Atheists, skeptics, scientists (and also Christians etc) are no exception.

Cultural aggression in the name of distant dreams is imo often just one more way that humanity shoots itself in the foot. The narrative may say the glorious ends apparently justify the means, but there are millions of groups with various competing ends, and it all goes round in head spinning circles ad nauseam in a wild cauldron of self righteousness and spite. I am not proposing a cure btw, just often skeptical about so called curative ideologies.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

It is somewhere close to what Kant said "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." Atheists, skeptics, scientists (and also Christians) etc are no exception.

Is this statement not self refuting?
If humanity can do nothing right, then his statement must also not be right.

Seems a very pointless atitude to have.

 

[AlexBP]

Some Christian leaders are hoarding cash, and it is no secret. Billy Graham, Robert Schuler, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Amy Semple MacPherson and Jimmy Swaggart leap to mind.

Please provide evidence that any of these people are "hoarding cash", from a respectable source. (i.e. something better than Wikipedia.) For the case of those who are dead, I'd accept evidence that they were doing so rather than are.

Some are not, but they ususally funnel cash to those who do.

Once again, I think that you're lying about this. If you want me to believe this statement, please provide evidence for it.

Christian haters?! I don't hate Christians. I think they are deluded. I think they are credulous. I think they follow the crowd because the are afraid to walk alone with God. They will be fleeced and served up with mint jelly, but that is certainly no reason to hate them.

I believe you are projecting. I will state flatly and without equivocation that I make no claim of moral superiorty. I like many
Christians, but I dislike Christianity, because it has been and remains, like nearly all religions, a source of much evil in the world.

So you don't hate us, you like many of, and you make no claims to moral superiority. You just think we're all evil.

 

[AlexBP]

If they are not all open, I am not completely wrong.

You said that most Christian leaders have their books closed. If they don't have their books closed, then you were wrong.

 

[Davian]

You said that most Christian leaders have their books closed. If they don't have their books closed, then you were wrong.

In your previous post, you stated that not all churches have open books. Do you have a comprehensive list of which churches have full public disclosure?

And what of the other points in my post? Particularly regarding the "coherent and sensible intellectual worldview" and those "fulfilled" promises.

Is the church needed for these things? What do they provide for that money that they take?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is this statement not self refuting?
If humanity can do nothing right, then his statement must also not be right.

Seems a very pointless atitude to have.

I think its a statement about the possibility of moral perfection rather than the possibility of knowledge.