-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Djevv said:
What do you mean by "current definition"?
I don't know what happens after death (although I am pretty confident that nothing will happen), but what I do know is that you are none the wiser.
Of course he could be lying. Reading the whole chapter, Paul seems to be simply trying to affirm the scriptures. Claiming someone is God and that they rose from the dead is a big claim. What better way to make people believe it than to list the people who saw it. Funny that 500 unidentified people, the 12 apostles and himself are the witnesses though. Does the last part of the passage imply Paul saw him in some sort of vision?
Just not quite enough for someone to record anything about Him. Say like Philo?
If people were attempting to write about Him, what was stopping them?
Djevv said:Dunno that one, although Luke says that many had attempted to write about Jesus, but one thing I do know they did was tell lotsa people about it.
Just not quite enough for someone to record anything about Him. Say like Philo?
If people were attempting to write about Him, what was stopping them?
Go Kevvy!!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24086963-601,00.html
Charities and churches stand to lose billions in tax review
CHARITIES and other non-government organisations could lose billions of dollars' worth of tax perks as the Rudd Government's taxation review prepares to examine whether the concessions offered to the $80 billion non-profit sector are justified.
The investigation, by Treasury boss Ken Henry, is expected to meet with resistance from some of the sector's most powerful groups.
Most of the country's religious groups, which make up about $25billion of the sector, run commercial enterprises. Among them is the Seventh Day Adventists' cereal giant Sanitarium, which generates more than $300 million a year.
Many of the operations have little to do with charitable work but are exempt from various taxes including corporate tax and capital gains tax. The Catholic Church has long opposed reforms such as the creation of a national charities commission to regulate the sector, or charging tax on commercial enterprises.
While any changes eventually recommended by Dr Henry may offer the opportunity to bolster Treasury's coffers, it will create a significant political challenge for Kevin Rudd, a devout Christian who has courted the religious vote.
Australian Industry Group head Heather Ridout, a member of the Henry review's committee, said the non-profit sector was a huge part of the economy and so it made sense to look at it as part of the review.
"The agenda is broad and so all types of entities will be looked at in this review," she said. "The non-profit sector is a very big and important part of this, particularly since we have had a lot of changes in welfare benefits and their interface with tax."
Business enterprises run by religious groups range from pizza chains, insurance companies, wineries, farms, schools, hospitals and aged-care facilities. All are exempt from tax. Australia is one of the few countries in the world where religious groups are not forced to pay tax on business ventures.
In the past few years, sports stars such as cricketers Shane Warne and Ricky Ponting and Formula One driver Mark Webber have set up charities to raisemoney under their own names. They receive various tax deductions.
The sector accounts for 8 per cent of GDP and employs more than 600,000 people, but a lack of transparency and poor accounting standards and corporate governance in the financial arrangements of many organisations has long been a concern.
In an era of heavy corporate regulation, most parts of the non-profit sector remain unregulated.
There is no process for the registration of charities, no consistent collection of information about the activities or funding sources of charities and there is little or no monitoring of the activities of charities.
This means that the Australian Government has no way of knowing how big the sector is, or how much Treasury forgoes in tax each year.
The tax review, and a simultaneous inquiry into the accountability and transparency in its use of public and government funds in the sector, by the Senate standing committee on economics, will now put these activities under the spotlight.
The Senate inquiry is currently accepting submissions into the disclosure regime for charities and not-for-profit organisations. Submissions close on August 29 with a report to be released in November.
World Vision head Tim Costello described the non-profit sector as in dire need of reform. "We don't have a single regulatory system or uniform accounting standards and so it makes it confusing for the public to know who to trust, or who is efficient," he said. "There are 700,000 not-for-profit organisations and the latest fad today is under-30s wanting to start their own not-for-profit equivalent of what in my day was starting a rock band.
"There are also a lot of celebrities and sports stars setting up charities in their own name or naming it after their child. These have a lot of overheads and it isn't fair on the ATO to have to regulate this.
"I would much prefer the Warren Buffett way, who decided to put his money in with Bill Gates. To me that is much more impressive than someone having their own name on a charity."
He also said with the growing number of charities raising money for similar things, it was becoming confusing to the public and there was a risk of "passion fatigue", particularly as petrol prices hit record highs and the economy gets tough.
Peter Shergold, the former secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who recently set up the new Centre for Social Impact at the University of NSW with initial funding of $12.5 million from the federal Government to educate the non-profit sector, said he welcomed any review. "There needs to be a review of the sector because it lacks transparency and the accounting standards need to be streamlined," he said.
"There are 700,000 organisations in the non-profit sector. It is too many. You have 2000 charities that have at least one of their goals tackling breast cancer. This is inefficient and so I think the idea of a charities commission should be explored.
"I feel positive about a standard regulatory regime."
Dr Shergold said some organisations received a lot of money from governments in the form of grants and subsidies and yet there was a lack of transparency.
"We need to look at taxation for charities - who does and doesn't get the gift recipient status," he said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24086963-601,00.html
Charities and churches stand to lose billions in tax review
CHARITIES and other non-government organisations could lose billions of dollars' worth of tax perks as the Rudd Government's taxation review prepares to examine whether the concessions offered to the $80 billion non-profit sector are justified.
The investigation, by Treasury boss Ken Henry, is expected to meet with resistance from some of the sector's most powerful groups.
Most of the country's religious groups, which make up about $25billion of the sector, run commercial enterprises. Among them is the Seventh Day Adventists' cereal giant Sanitarium, which generates more than $300 million a year.
Many of the operations have little to do with charitable work but are exempt from various taxes including corporate tax and capital gains tax. The Catholic Church has long opposed reforms such as the creation of a national charities commission to regulate the sector, or charging tax on commercial enterprises.
While any changes eventually recommended by Dr Henry may offer the opportunity to bolster Treasury's coffers, it will create a significant political challenge for Kevin Rudd, a devout Christian who has courted the religious vote.
Australian Industry Group head Heather Ridout, a member of the Henry review's committee, said the non-profit sector was a huge part of the economy and so it made sense to look at it as part of the review.
"The agenda is broad and so all types of entities will be looked at in this review," she said. "The non-profit sector is a very big and important part of this, particularly since we have had a lot of changes in welfare benefits and their interface with tax."
Business enterprises run by religious groups range from pizza chains, insurance companies, wineries, farms, schools, hospitals and aged-care facilities. All are exempt from tax. Australia is one of the few countries in the world where religious groups are not forced to pay tax on business ventures.
In the past few years, sports stars such as cricketers Shane Warne and Ricky Ponting and Formula One driver Mark Webber have set up charities to raisemoney under their own names. They receive various tax deductions.
The sector accounts for 8 per cent of GDP and employs more than 600,000 people, but a lack of transparency and poor accounting standards and corporate governance in the financial arrangements of many organisations has long been a concern.
In an era of heavy corporate regulation, most parts of the non-profit sector remain unregulated.
There is no process for the registration of charities, no consistent collection of information about the activities or funding sources of charities and there is little or no monitoring of the activities of charities.
This means that the Australian Government has no way of knowing how big the sector is, or how much Treasury forgoes in tax each year.
The tax review, and a simultaneous inquiry into the accountability and transparency in its use of public and government funds in the sector, by the Senate standing committee on economics, will now put these activities under the spotlight.
The Senate inquiry is currently accepting submissions into the disclosure regime for charities and not-for-profit organisations. Submissions close on August 29 with a report to be released in November.
World Vision head Tim Costello described the non-profit sector as in dire need of reform. "We don't have a single regulatory system or uniform accounting standards and so it makes it confusing for the public to know who to trust, or who is efficient," he said. "There are 700,000 not-for-profit organisations and the latest fad today is under-30s wanting to start their own not-for-profit equivalent of what in my day was starting a rock band.
"There are also a lot of celebrities and sports stars setting up charities in their own name or naming it after their child. These have a lot of overheads and it isn't fair on the ATO to have to regulate this.
"I would much prefer the Warren Buffett way, who decided to put his money in with Bill Gates. To me that is much more impressive than someone having their own name on a charity."
He also said with the growing number of charities raising money for similar things, it was becoming confusing to the public and there was a risk of "passion fatigue", particularly as petrol prices hit record highs and the economy gets tough.
Peter Shergold, the former secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who recently set up the new Centre for Social Impact at the University of NSW with initial funding of $12.5 million from the federal Government to educate the non-profit sector, said he welcomed any review. "There needs to be a review of the sector because it lacks transparency and the accounting standards need to be streamlined," he said.
"There are 700,000 organisations in the non-profit sector. It is too many. You have 2000 charities that have at least one of their goals tackling breast cancer. This is inefficient and so I think the idea of a charities commission should be explored.
"I feel positive about a standard regulatory regime."
Dr Shergold said some organisations received a lot of money from governments in the form of grants and subsidies and yet there was a lack of transparency.
"We need to look at taxation for charities - who does and doesn't get the gift recipient status," he said.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I accept your apology, my reference to the "Ape" was that I am offended by it. I dont have all the answers to the questions that you ask, I am confident that the answers do exist, even if they are not revealed fully. I do respect your views. My mind does not need all the scientific questions answered for me to have faith in God, I expience that faith on a daily basis for the last 22 years, nothing in Heavan or on Earth can convince me that my experiences are not real. But I do acknowledge that your mind works differently and you require the answers from a scientific viewpoint and I accept that and I respect you because of that.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I looked at something TT posted and it made the point that atheists had changed their stance from their being no God, to not having a religion to avoid the burden of proof. I thought it was interesting.
Panthera tigris FC said:
How do you know?
Disco08 said:
Ok so Paul is lying. Why? When you answer this please remember, he was formerly a Pharisee who violently persecuted Christians, he then completely changed his outlook and became and incredibly hardworking preacher who basically began Christianity in the Gentile world. His entire ministry depended on his character. When he preached he refused to take money from the congregation and worked as a tentmaker. When he was jailed he repeatedly won the trust of his captors who allowed him to continue his ministry. He also suffered all sorts of beatings and finally beheading (by tradition) in the time of Nero - for something he KNEW was false. Crazy, and you wonder why I continually call you for inventing conspiracy theories to gloss over the facts. Dont forget we know that Christians suffered 'exquisite tortures' at the hand of Nero in 64AD from the pen of Tacitus.
Further comment, if you read Tektonics there is a lot of research around that shows that culturally New Testament society was High Context, they knew a lot about the church without being explicitly told. Therefore I think it is likely that everyone knew who the witnesses were and Paul was simply reminding them.
And yes, he saw a vision on the road to Damascus.
Disco08 said:
Nothing, they did, but likely a lot of ancient documents were lost. Who knows.
Panheras in answer to your question or theory that because the Human DNA is 98% the same as an Ape how do I answer that.
Well according to scientists Bats and Horses have similar DNA are you suggesting that Bats and horses have the same ancestor?
Bats and horses get strangely chummy, New Scientist, 25 June 2006.
Also 1% of DNA makes up about 30 million letters differnce between and Ape and a human, are you suggesting that 60 million letters difference in DNA letters could possibly be changed in what 4.54 million years? where is the evidence to support this?
Well according to scientists Bats and Horses have similar DNA are you suggesting that Bats and horses have the same ancestor?
Bats and horses get strangely chummy, New Scientist, 25 June 2006.
Also 1% of DNA makes up about 30 million letters differnce between and Ape and a human, are you suggesting that 60 million letters difference in DNA letters could possibly be changed in what 4.54 million years? where is the evidence to support this?
Are you saying that evolutionary science in medicine has achieved great things for the Human Race?
Are you aware that the biggest advancement in human health over the last 200 years was the introduction of the sanitary system, yet the Bible clearly says in the OT that you should was your hands!
Are you aware that the biggest advancement in human health over the last 200 years was the introduction of the sanitary system, yet the Bible clearly says in the OT that you should was your hands!
jayfox said:
Good Question Jayfox, also sixpack how is it that you cannot stop your mind from thinking thoughts? try it shut your eyes and get every single thought out of your mind. doesn't in fact magnify those thoughts even greater when you try and get rid of them.
When you die your thoughts will be magnified and will live on forever.
tigertime2 said:
My quote was specifically about humans and chimpanzees, to be accurate. As for horses and bats, of course they share a common ancestor, just not as recently as humans and chimpanzees. They are both mammals, so their common ancestor was around far more recently than say the common ancestor of horses and crocodiles, which was around more recently than the common ancestor of horses and petunias! Molecular evidence has provided complete support for evolutionary theories and provided an amazing insight into the mechanisms of evolution. Organisms that were classified as closely related, based on morphological and/or developmental observations have been shown to group together based on molecular sequences - as predicted by evolutionary theory. You also failed to address those non-functional, parasitic sequences that we share.
Actually, your 60 million base estimate is low, there are generally quite a few more than that between humans and chimpanzees (however in many cases those important sequences you referred to in an earlier post - the protein encoding genes - can be identical!). Of course those can change over 4.54 million years! If you double your estimate to 120 million bases that is still only about 26 mutations per year. How many generations is that? How big are the two populations (humans and chimpanzees)? How often do mutations occur in these species' germlines? More than ample time to generate that sort of diversity.
In your young earth model where it all started with 2 individuals (Adam and Eve) about what, 8000 years ago? How can all humans differ by at least 0.2% (~6,400,000bp)? That is about 8000 mutations per year in the population. That is far less time and a far smaller population than what you doubted in the human/chimp scenario. Don't try a 'goddidit' clause on this one either, because we can see the genetic differences from generation to generation and we don't see anything like this sort of mutation rate in humans.
tigertime2 said:
Modern medicine relies on evolutionary theory to predict how pathogens and parasites will evolve in relation to their hosts (humans). This provides information on how to best treat the disease, prevent transmission, prevent the evolution of drug resistance etc etc. This goes for all diseases with an infectious or biological cause, including some at the forefront of modern medical investigation - HIV, malaria, antibiotic resistant bacteria etc etc.
Just because you aren't abreast of current medical research and the role that evolutionary biology plays, doesn't mean it doesn't play a critical role.
Panthera tigris FC said:
The bacterium found on the Pharohs are essentially the same as we have today. Pathogens and bacteria multiply themselves millions of times in a short period of time how come the "Evolution" effect does not happen faster and they are essentially the same?
My quote was specifically about humans and chimpanzees, to be accurate. As for horses and bats, of course they share a common ancestor, just not as recently as humans and chimpanzees. They are both mammals, so their common ancestor was around far more recently than say the common ancestor of horses and crocodiles, which was around more recently than the common ancestor of horses and petunias! Molecular evidence has provided complete support for evolutionary theories and provided an amazing insight into the mechanisms of evolution. Organisms that were classified as closely related, based on morphological and/or developmental observations have been shown to group together based on molecular sequences - as predicted by evolutionary theory. You also failed to address those non-functional, parasitic sequences that we share.
Well you call it a common ancestor and I call it a common creator.
Where is the Molecular evidence that you mention?
Well you call it a common ancestor and I call it a common creator.
Where is the Molecular evidence that you mention?
Tiger74 said:
Slavery still goes on today.
The OT should be taken in context not out of context.
