Religion fear tactics

The church scares its members into being good then offers incentives: They say that 'sacrifice' gets paid off later after you pass on into the after life.

How do you feel about this?

l2stupid ftwinzorx lawl

From my perspective, we all can achieve greater goals when we all sacrifice a little (or more). Most of the time you cant get people to do a little bit of labor unless somehow they will benefit. Scare tactics are one way to motivate people.

Christian Churches asks for 10% of your income before taxes. Just imagine if we all put in 10% more money into trust worthy people what could happen. How about our Schools? Infrastructure? Research?

Putting in time to help the community is another one. Do you think your neighborhood could improve if everyone spent one day a week cleaning it up? Actually helping the community? Picking up trash? Touch of paint? Help a disabled vet with house hold chores?

Sorry, wishful thinking. Silly Communist ideas of mine...

Allimar

Do you feel that legislation put in place to make people help the community, or give ten percent of their wealth before taxes to trust worthy people would be a good thing?

As far as I'm concerned there is no better judge of what should be done with capital than the person who earned it.

Taxation is theft; and if you support the forced surrender of capital, I consider you to be an accomplice to criminal behavior.

Wealth of any sort should not be "sacrificed," only invested.

quote:

---

Christian Churches asks for 10% of your income before taxes. Just imagine if we all put in 10% more money into trust worthy people what could happen.

---

They would become untrustworthy as they have every other time when you give your power and wealth, sacrifice yourself, to them.

They will become addicted to it and you will become dependent upon them as always.

And if you base your sacrifice, or efforts, on a corrupt monetary and taxation system per se, then you perpetuate a corrupt enterprise, regardless of how "good" your intentions are.

I know, you have no idea where this line of thinking fits in to this conversation, but then again, what's new.

If you clean up your area then you do your part towards bettering your community, if you have the means time and freedom not well provided in this society to do more, feel free, but don't try to self righteously force others to.

Because like everyone else, everywhere else, you will eventually be demanding sacrifice for non essential matters and become just as bad as everyone else who tries to force their will on others.

Or even worse, force the will of someone else on yourself and others.

quote:

---

The church scares its members into being good

---

That's the running theory, they actually scare them into being bad, by scaring them into scaring themselves and others into submitting to or forcing the will of others onto themselves and others, while calling what they do good.

Especially when any demands of sacrifice are in play, even more especially when that sacrifice is money, goods, or labor.

Notice how they don't ask you to sacrifice your natural desire to help by not giving into it, so as to teach others to fend for themselves, avoiding giving just for the sake of giving and creating dependence, allowing someone to see what truly matters in life and where priorities actually lie.

"As far as I'm concerned there is no better judge of what should be done with capital than the person who earned it.

Taxation is theft; and if you support the forced surrender of capital, I consider you to be an accomplice to criminal behavior."

Well put.

pst (you sound like a fiscal conservative lol)

quote:

---

pst (you sound like a fiscal conservative lol)

---

I wiki'd "fiscal conservative" because I didn't know what one was except for some vague notion. In a broad sense, yes, I do fall into that category.

But according to wiki, there are fiscal conservatives (labeled as "deficit hawks" ) who advocate raising taxes and lowering government spending to come to a balanced budget. I am not one of them.

Any further taxation will only further stunt the growth and potential of the economy.

I say starve the government and let it die a slow and painful death; then celebrate.

"But who will pave all the roads?? Who's gonna pay for the education???"

The people who are immediately involved. Everyone takes care of themselves. No one gets a free-ride unless by the mutual consent of all the parties involved. No one pays for things they don't use or support.

We're big kids now, I think we can decide the best uses of our money.

Daddy gov't is being a little protective of us... I wonder if it's out of love?

The people in use of the local commodities and involved in the local market place are the ones most likely to make informed decisions - not some giant institution removed from the situation.

I don't see how anyone can disagree with this stance. Let's cut out the middle man already and have some real freedom.

Since the government and monetary/economic/banking system is maintained through forced ignorance and fear and proverbial carrot dangling much like religion, this is a natural progression of the original question and resulting conversation.

That was for those who may not get it before I remark on this next point.

quote:

---

Any further taxation will only further stunt the growth and potential of the economy.

I say starve the government and let it die a slow and painful death; then celebrate.

---

Like the current government models of the world that mostly need to die and be born anew, the current monetary/economic/banking models are in even greater need of restructuring.

Attempting to sustain or grow them as they are now is literally self imposed slavery that is perpetually degrading to the point of eventual and inevitable suicide, its sheer cannabalism.

quote:

---

proverbial carrot dangling

---

I think that sums up this whole thread quite nicely.

Quote

"The people who are immediately involved."

Elimination of government so the strong thrive sounds a bit like elitism to me.

quote:

---

Elimination of government so the strong thrive sounds a bit like elitism to me.

---

quote:

---

No one gets a free-ride unless by the mutual consent of all the parties involved.

---

If the people, the masses, properly educated themselves and utilized their power, elitism would not exist.

Elitism ends up in the denial of access to needs, something that when enough people realise it, all hell breaks loose.

The people don't all need to be given their necessities, but they must all have reasonable access to them.

And eliminating the current government does not necessarily need to occur, its the corruption that must cease.

Even if another form of government was utilized or none at all, this would be the case. Because we govern ourselves and others in groups regardless of whether we structure a government, this is evidenced in every household, some more efficiently and productly than others to be sure.

But without the elitism there would be balanced imbalance.

Some people need more resources to do more good works while some just need better access to information to disseminate better education while some others just need the basics and can be happy and content and even usefull members in society by just being good people and or providing some basic and minimal service, even if its just raising kids or caring for elderly, sick, and weak.

Do not bother yourself with labels, there is right and there is wrong, this is subjective to be sure, be we are speaking in very specific terms, and that is as a functioning and beneficial social structure for all of mankind.

If you want to stick to a term, label, or phrase, just base it all on the golden rule.

Quote

"If the people, the masses, properly educated themselves and utilized their power, elitism would not exist. "

So who do propose support this education or are the people who can't think for themselves responsible for educating themselves on something they know nothing about.

Or should we start a fad where all the system controlled retards try to get educated by the few who would be willing to thus having yet another small group of peoples opinions governing their lives only this time with no enforcer.

Catch 22 either you loose or you loose.

quote:

---

Elimination of government so the strong thrive sounds a bit like elitism to me.

---

That's weird, it sounds like nature to me. It sounds natural. Nature doesn't have to force plants to grow or animals to eat or birds to fly. And if it did, wouldn't it be counter-productive?

You really think that if people weren't forced to, no one would give change to a beggar on a street? Do you find it surprising that the ones who involve themselves the most with charities for the [insert charity cause here] have also been intimately affected by whatever the charity represents. The need automatically creates the charity. There's no need to force these things to exist.

What's effecting people on a local level is what they should concern themselves with as they are the most informed people to do so. Naturally, some people have the ability and will to exert more influence on a community than others. Sorry, life isn't fair.

If people are so apathetic to let a private business or corporation get out of control and don't organize some kind of boycott to stop it (the people hold the real leverage in any situation), then I think they deserve whatever oppression they experience.