The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Welcome To the Club

August 6, 2005 | 28 Comments

Boo fucking hoo:

Boston Archdiocese Facing First Tax Bills.

Owners of vacant commercial property can’t go crying to the tax man just because they’re down on their luck. Even if there’s some justification for exempting a church as a charity, once it’s just an empty building it shouldn’t be treated any differently than an emply shopping center.

And quite frankly, even when a church is full it should be taxed to the max if its “charity” consists primarily of providing a place for people to talk to the sky and sing. A karaoke bar does as much. In fact, churches should be charged a luxury tax if the services they provide are truly as priceless as they claim.

Comments

28 Responses to “Welcome To the Club”

  1. Mookie
    August 7th, 2005 @ 12:49 am

    Good post, TRA. But are you drunk? Lots of errors, might wanna proofread it.

  2. qedpro
    August 7th, 2005 @ 3:17 am

    tax the fucking hell out of them. That way they’re sure to go to heaven

  3. glenstonecottage
    August 7th, 2005 @ 3:39 am


    OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

    I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

    Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.”

    Read the rest at http://www.venganza.org/

  4. Percy
    August 7th, 2005 @ 2:03 pm

    glenstonecottage,

    You are aware that there is virtually no evidence for classic Darwinian macro-evolution, correct? In fact, the bones and fossil evidence used to create the various transitional species before us (which can be found inglenstonecottage,

    You are aware that there is virtually no evidence for classic Darwinian macro-evolution, correct? In fact, the bones and fossil evidence used to create the various transitional species before us could all easily fit into one average-sized coffin. How curious, considering that 150 or so have passed since Origin of Species was released, and Darwin himself said that future fossil record would be the key evidence for his theory. But we have not discovered substantial evidence of any of these so called

  5. Evil_Mage_Ra
    August 7th, 2005 @ 3:10 pm

    Percy,

    While it’s true that no new *phyla* have been observed to evolve, new *species* have been observed to evolve both in the lab and in the wild: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. Given millions of years for evolution to occur, who’s to say that random mutations can’t eventually produce changes dramatic enough for two phyla to come from a common ancestor? We know through geological evidence that the Earth is millions of years old, and we know through fossil evidence that life millions of years ago was dramatically different from life as we know it today. Why did this change?

    Also, plenty of transitional forms have been found: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    While the current evidence for evolution is not inconsistent with God as a starting point, with occasional tampering (as you seem to be claiming), it is also not inconsistent with random, unguided evolution.

  6. Lucy Muff
    August 7th, 2005 @ 5:49 pm

    Percy, there is much that is evidence for ID. It is around you always, all the time. The world is the evidence. This is atheist not see wood for trees. Even Darwin not see wood, even though he clever man. God has made all and he already said that it was good

  7. Evil_Mage_Ra
    August 7th, 2005 @ 6:07 pm

    Lucy,

    I think you meant your comments at me.

    Okay, so what exactly about the world points to design? And if living things are the product of intelligent design, how are humans able to pick out instances of poor “design” in the wild?

  8. Lucy Muff
    August 7th, 2005 @ 6:17 pm

    just because silly human says design is poor does not make it so. Human cannot understand design of god. I say to percy because I agree with him that Jesus is Lord. Babel fish of douglas adams is same thing as design because everything too good for accident. Mere to survive can be accomplished with much simple designs and not needed for so much complex

  9. Evil_Mage_Ra
    August 7th, 2005 @ 9:28 pm

    Some designs are obviously bad. Take the human appendix, for instance. While it serves a useful purpose in other species, in humans all it’s good for is getting infected and killing the owner. Do you really believe that this is good design by any standard?

  10. Jennifer
    August 7th, 2005 @ 10:15 pm

    So the proof of ID is that the design is beyond our comprehension? Lucy, prove ID using an arguement that does not mention evolution.

  11. Vernichten
    August 7th, 2005 @ 10:21 pm

    You’re asking Lucy to prove ID? First ask her to string a coherent sentence together.

  12. Lucy Muff
    August 7th, 2005 @ 11:40 pm

    vernichten, I can string sentance well in chinese, how you? Thought not asswipe

  13. Mookie
    August 8th, 2005 @ 3:06 am

    Lucy Muff, do not betray your cultural heritage to the trappings of the white man. You don’t have to be buddhist or tao, just follow their wisdom. History has shown that monotheistic religions fuck shit up real bad. Europe was suffering under the church during the Dark Ages, while China was enjoying a golden age. How do you honor your ancestors by disgracing their collective wisdom? How do you better yourself by lying to yourself?

  14. Lucy Muff
    August 8th, 2005 @ 3:43 am

    china make mistake when renounce Christ, so fuck them, I honor me by love of Jesus, enough said

  15. Allan Tham
    August 8th, 2005 @ 4:13 am

    I can string a proper Chinese sentence AND string a proper English sentence. china make mistake when renounce christ? And then what? Doesn’t your Lord (I so do not want to type it in caps) tell you not to question or insult the beliefs of others?

    What? You a heretic now?

  16. Vernichten
    August 8th, 2005 @ 7:36 am

    Lucy, how does your knowledge of Chinese help you here, in this forum where English is spoken (written)?
    Lucy, you’re not really a godidiot, so why do you troll this blog? What possible benefit are you receiving? Your arguments are basically a rehash of biblical slogans and other garbage, you don’t respond to rational arguments and yet you never go away. What do you get out of this relationship?

  17. Vernichten
    August 8th, 2005 @ 9:21 am

    Never mind Lucy, I just realized that this is probably the only place in your life where you can actually get a response to your childish yip-yap.

  18. hermesten
    August 8th, 2005 @ 9:33 am

    Percy, every so often, a Christian comes to this site and purports to show us the errors of evolutionary thought. They all say the same things, and all of these things have been refuted many times, to the point where when another Christians shows up and says the same things we’ve all heard 1000 times, it’s boring.

    How about you supplement your Christian propaganda readings by reading some actual science, then come debate the science instead of the theology.

  19. hermesten
    August 8th, 2005 @ 11:11 am

    Tax em’ all, and let God sort em’ out.

  20. Viole
    August 8th, 2005 @ 12:29 pm

    Hey, this is cool. Once we’ve started taxing churches, it will only be a short leap to start taxing corporations again. That’d be nice.

  21. Dave
    August 8th, 2005 @ 1:58 pm

    Also, please note that at the time that the different phyla diverged, they weren’t that far along in their specificity. If you went back to the late pre-Cambrian, what were later recognized as the beginnings of new phyla wouldn’t have looked all that divergent.

  22. Lucy Muff
    August 8th, 2005 @ 4:25 pm

    vernichten, you are total muppet so insults to me are like busting of nut to porno boy who is your dad. In other word, nothing of it matters to me. If you no like me posts then don’t read it dogface, it all good.

  23. freethinkat
    August 8th, 2005 @ 5:28 pm

    Darn, I didn’t know this tax evasion! I think I will make a church in my home, I will be the preacher and I will drag some suckers and I will read my own interpretation of whatever religious book I come across and whatever charity I get from the coffers I’ll use it to fund my righteous lifestyle. Good Business! I am sorry, I meant… if you don’t come to my church and give me money you’ll burn in hell!

  24. Vernichten
    August 8th, 2005 @ 7:19 pm

    Lucy, I don’t want you to stop yapping, I just wondered why you do it. Now I know.

  25. Lucy Muff
    August 8th, 2005 @ 9:13 pm

    vernichten, there is old chinese proverb. translation roughly is

    “hungry dogs eat shit”.

    You think on that for some time, and pray to Jesus one Lord for all while you at it.

  26. Percy
    August 27th, 2005 @ 5:24 pm

    Evil_Mage_Ra,

    “While it’s true that no new *phyla* have been observed to evolve, new *species* have been observed to evolve both in the lab and in the wild:”

    “Also, plenty of transitional forms have been found”

    My first problem with macro-evolution concerns the fossil record. There are significant gaps in it (including the ones your website presented). The first gap is of course the pre-Cambrian era. We know that life appeared almost immediately after the Earth cooled and water was present (about 3.8 billion years ago). The life that existed at that time was restricted to one-cell. According to Darwinian gradualism, life should have slowly evolved into increasingly more complex forms over next couple of million years, until it became multi-cellular. But this is not what the fossil record says. In fact, 3.2 billion years passed during which life remained constrained to one-cell. Then, 650 million years ago, the globular forms of uncertain identity known as Ediacaran fauna appeared. Approximately 120 million years passed without any considerable morphological changes in these basic forms of life, until the Cambrian era. So, why is there little to no evidence of morphological change in the 3.2 billion years from one-celled life to Ediacaran fauna? Why is there 120 million years before multi-cellular life is discovered?

    Then, there is the Cambrian explosion. Approximately 530 million years ago, with no hint to significant advances in earlier fossils, the basic anatomies of all life appeared almost simultaneously in the oceans. How does classical gradualism explain this?

    We then come to the fact that no new phyla have appeared since the Cambrian explosion (which was 530 million years ago). Did macro-evolution suddenly stop? As Professor Gerald Schroeder states, ” Classes of animals developed within each phyla, but they always retained the basic body plan of their particular phylum.”Evolutionists will often cite the apparent similarities of organisms as signs that evolution happened. This is basically an ad hominem observation. The similarities between organisms is just that: similarities between organisms.

    In order for the species-to-species transitions that the website you gave listed to be credible, they must contain 1) obvious common ancestors, and 2) transitional forms that could almost definitely have evolved from said ancestors. That is to say, if A is the ancestor and B the descendant:

    A ———————————- B

    Where between them “-” represents the transitional forms. The vast majority of these forms must have been found in order for this to be believable. Finding one or two forms in 150 million years is not sufficient.

    Futhermore, classical evolution cannot explain diversity and complexity of life. From biological studies, we know that micro-mutations are generally too small to observe, and macro-mutations almost always (indeed, in practically every instance we’ve observed them) are detrimental to the organism they’re found on. We also know that macro-evolution allegedly happens according to “random, gradual mutations” and natural selection. We further know that the “fittest” according to genetics is the animal which is able to reproduce the most, and that in order for a mutation to benefit an animal and conceivably become a dominant trait in the genus, the mutation must enable the animal to in some way produce more offspring than those without the mutation. These are all part of the theory of evolution. The facts, however, are that all organisms developed with the basic body plans in their phyla, and that there have been no intra-phyla developments. Why, if evolution is random, are there structured taxonomies? Why would an unguided process produce an organized result?

    How does 5% of a wing, or 5% of an eye (Professor Gould), or 5% of a limb (in the supposed fish to reptile transition) make the organism in question more capable of reproducing!? The appearance of supposed

  27. Percy
    August 27th, 2005 @ 5:27 pm

    Evil_Mage_Ra,

    “While it’s true that no new *phyla* have been observed to evolve, new *species* have been observed to evolve both in the lab and in the wild:”

    “Also, plenty of transitional forms have been found”

    My first problem with macro-evolution concerns the fossil record. There are significant gaps in it (including the ones your website presented). The first gap is of course the pre-Cambrian era. We know that life appeared almost immediately after the Earth cooled and water was present (about 3.8 billion years ago). The life that existed at that time was restricted to one-cell. According to Darwinian gradualism, life should have slowly evolved into increasingly more complex forms over next couple of million years, until it became multi-cellular. But this is not what the fossil record says. In fact, 3.2 billion years passed during which life remained constrained to one-cell. Then, 650 million years ago, the globular forms of uncertain identity known as Ediacaran fauna appeared. Approximately 120 million years passed without any considerable morphological changes in these basic forms of life, until the Cambrian era. So, why is there little to no evidence of morphological change in the 3.2 billion years from one-celled life to Ediacaran fauna? Why is there 120 million years before multi-cellular life is discovered?

    Then, there is the Cambrian explosion. Approximately 530 million years ago, with no hint to significant advances in earlier fossils, the basic anatomies of all life appeared almost simultaneously in the oceans. How does classical gradualism explain this?

    We then come to the fact that no new phyla have appeared since the Cambrian explosion (which was 530 million years ago). Did macro-evolution suddenly stop? As Professor Gerald Schroeder states, ” Classes of animals developed within each phyla, but they always retained the basic body plan of their particular phylum.”Evolutionists will often cite the apparent similarities of organisms as signs that evolution happened. This is basically an ad hominem observation. The similarities between organisms is just that: similarities between organisms.

    In order for the species-to-species transitions that the website you gave listed to be credible, they must contain 1) obvious common ancestors, and 2) transitional forms that could almost definitely have evolved from said ancestors. That is to say, if A is the ancestor and B the descendant:

    A ———————————- B

    Where between them “-” represents the transitional forms. The vast majority of these forms must have been found in order for this to be believable. Finding one or two forms in 150 million years is not sufficient.

    Futhermore, classical evolution cannot explain diversity and complexity of life. From biological studies, we know that micro-mutations are generally too small to observe, and macro-mutations almost always (indeed, in practically every instance we’ve observed them) are detrimental to the organism they’re found on. We also know that macro-evolution allegedly happens according to “random, gradual mutations” and natural selection. We further know that the “fittest” according to genetics is the animal which is able to reproduce the most, and that in order for a mutation to benefit an animal and conceivably become a dominant trait in the genus, the mutation must enable the animal to in some way produce more offspring than those without the mutation. These are all part of the theory of evolution. The facts, however, are that all organisms developed with the basic body plans in their phyla, and that there have been no intra-phyla developments. Why, if evolution is random, are there structured taxonomies? Why would an unguided process produce an organized result?

    How does 5% of a wing, or 5% of an eye (Professor Gould), or 5% of a limb (in the supposed fish to reptile transition) make the organism in question more capable of reproducing!? The appearance of supposed

  28. Percy
    August 27th, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

    Agh, I wrote ad hominim instead of “begging the question”. Wherever you see “ad hominem”, read it as begging the question, lol. >.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links