Colorado pastor charged for cryptocurrency scam he perpetrated at God's command(web3isgoinggreat.com)
web3isgoinggreat.com
Colorado pastor charged for cryptocurrency scam he perpetrated at God's command
https://web3isgoinggreat.com/single/indxcoin
165 comments
These days they are probably transitioning to AI scams or "keto supplements" as the new best thing.
This detail didn’t make it into the summary, but the audacity of it gave me a laugh.
> Hacken, a cybersecurity company, audited the cryptocurrency, according to INDXcoin’s website. State investigators, who obtained copies of Hacken’s audits, say that the Regalados fail to mention that Hacken gave it a rating of “zero out of 10.”
> Hacken, a cybersecurity company, audited the cryptocurrency, according to INDXcoin’s website. State investigators, who obtained copies of Hacken’s audits, say that the Regalados fail to mention that Hacken gave it a rating of “zero out of 10.”
I can see it now: 'your system is horribly and laughably insecure. Please don't launch with this plan.' Is then turned to: 'we have been independently audited by a third-party' (((no need to mention what they said)))
Flashbacks to Mad Magazine:
“This [terrible] idea will change [nothing positively, but will cause] the world [to eat itself].”
“This [terrible] idea will change [nothing positively, but will cause] the world [to eat itself].”
Lots of people mocking the “God commanded me to do X” but if you’re familiar with evangelical Christian culture, this line gets used to justify all sorts of behavior and life decisions that might go against what one would traditionally expect a devout Christian to avoid. Obviously fraud and financial crimes are an extreme version of this, but it’s a line I’ve heard to justify all sorts of legal albeit self-destructive behavior.
“I know I should be saving money for a house but god spoke to me and I spent the downpayment on <fancy car that’ll get repo’d in a year>”
“I know I should be saving money for a house but god spoke to me and I spent the downpayment on <fancy car that’ll get repo’d in a year>”
>... but if you're familiar with evangelical Christian culture, this line gets used to justify all sorts of behavior and life decisions that might go against what one would traditionally expect a devour Christian to avoid.
Religion being used that way isn't limited to evangelicals nor Christianity. In fact, it's basically the reason people are mocking the phrase.
Religion being used that way isn't limited to evangelicals nor Christianity. In fact, it's basically the reason people are mocking the phrase.
You're right. I grew up in an independent evangelical church so I've been attuned to all this since I got out in my teens. To emphasize - American Evangelical Christianity is especially insidious about this on multiple levels. In contrast to Mainline Protestantism, the entire movement is based on two particularly pernicious things that map to cultlike methods.
They are taught to blindly follow and never question authority. The pastor is the "shepherd" of the "flock" and they openly talk about it in terms echoing the way that the Disciples followed Jesus. And there's a reason you hear about what seem to be so many nasty stories of evangelical religious leaders abusing their power than mainline ones. And there's a reason authoritarian politics are so closely identifiable with evangelism in America.
Second, they work HARD TO create an in-group and out-group. There are the "saved" and everyone else. If you're "unsaved" and attend the church, the pressure is INTENSE to commit. RELENTLESS. And once you're in, you're on the inside of an "us against the world" mentality. I'll give an example. You know the current "War On Christmas?" People walking around like NPC's saying "I don't care, I'm going to say Merry Christmas - since when did that become a crime, none of this 'Happy Holidays' stuff!"
I remember being inside the movement in the eighties, and the thing they were completely up in arms about then was that businesses were co-opting Jesus's name by using "Christmas" to sell stuff. So the move to "Happy Holidays" by corporate America wasn't just an inclusive, religiously-neutral way to put it. I distinctly remember listening to christian radio at the time and the conversation being about pressure campaigns to get "Merry Christmas" out of businesses. I'm sure businesses were happy to oblige to stop the PR onslaught. It was the "War on Christmas" of its day. And twenty years later when it fits their agenda to creating division between believers and non-believers? The entire thing reversed directions.
They are taught to blindly follow and never question authority. The pastor is the "shepherd" of the "flock" and they openly talk about it in terms echoing the way that the Disciples followed Jesus. And there's a reason you hear about what seem to be so many nasty stories of evangelical religious leaders abusing their power than mainline ones. And there's a reason authoritarian politics are so closely identifiable with evangelism in America.
Second, they work HARD TO create an in-group and out-group. There are the "saved" and everyone else. If you're "unsaved" and attend the church, the pressure is INTENSE to commit. RELENTLESS. And once you're in, you're on the inside of an "us against the world" mentality. I'll give an example. You know the current "War On Christmas?" People walking around like NPC's saying "I don't care, I'm going to say Merry Christmas - since when did that become a crime, none of this 'Happy Holidays' stuff!"
I remember being inside the movement in the eighties, and the thing they were completely up in arms about then was that businesses were co-opting Jesus's name by using "Christmas" to sell stuff. So the move to "Happy Holidays" by corporate America wasn't just an inclusive, religiously-neutral way to put it. I distinctly remember listening to christian radio at the time and the conversation being about pressure campaigns to get "Merry Christmas" out of businesses. I'm sure businesses were happy to oblige to stop the PR onslaught. It was the "War on Christmas" of its day. And twenty years later when it fits their agenda to creating division between believers and non-believers? The entire thing reversed directions.
I'd rather say that such conduct is mostly confined to evangelicals. Mainstream Christianity teaches that prophecy ceased with Maleachi, and form then onwards we have only the traditions of the Church to go by. That would include a sober ("chaste") lifestyle.
I would say you are probably simplifying this a lot. It's extremely standard to believe God will lead you to, call you to, arrange for you to, etc. move in a given direction. (Pastors, at least in protestant denominations I am familiar with, are "called" to their new jobs, in church parlance, and are "led" to seek new roles.)
I would say most people do not expect God to set a bush ablaze and speak verbally to them, but make it obvious they should do this or that thing.
Of course, one would hope that a pastor would realize feeling called to scam money from his congregation to renovate his house and buy a car to come from Satan, not God. But temptation is strong. :P
I would say most people do not expect God to set a bush ablaze and speak verbally to them, but make it obvious they should do this or that thing.
Of course, one would hope that a pastor would realize feeling called to scam money from his congregation to renovate his house and buy a car to come from Satan, not God. But temptation is strong. :P
One of the cessationists criticisms of prohecy was that it leads to man/self aggrandizing and away from written truthes. It's a positioned that is a poisoned well that naturally creates scammy behavior and fosters a spiritual hierarchy and gnostic heresies.
That's why many conservative evangelicals did mock and accuse charismatic tv preachers of being grifters, unrepresentive and false teachers. Though that public tension and conflict seems to be abandoned for the sake of political unity nowadays.
I've known calvinistic missionaries (all dead now) from these groups, they speak of being burdened, and "feeling" called, but they're clear that a personal burden is not a revelation or prophecy, it's just a personal conviction from the text combined with circumstances and an affinity of where to go, not the voice of god. No different than a person feeling convicted to become vegetarian because of something they read. They cited some passages from paul about going where "he choose" (I've no interest in looking that passage up at this point) and the use of casting of lots to show it's internally driven conviction and pragmatism and not a revelatory special calling. Being explicit that anyone hearing the voice of God probably needed medical help, personal prophecy wasn't a source of inspiration and truth but were warned against.
That's why many conservative evangelicals did mock and accuse charismatic tv preachers of being grifters, unrepresentive and false teachers. Though that public tension and conflict seems to be abandoned for the sake of political unity nowadays.
I've known calvinistic missionaries (all dead now) from these groups, they speak of being burdened, and "feeling" called, but they're clear that a personal burden is not a revelation or prophecy, it's just a personal conviction from the text combined with circumstances and an affinity of where to go, not the voice of god. No different than a person feeling convicted to become vegetarian because of something they read. They cited some passages from paul about going where "he choose" (I've no interest in looking that passage up at this point) and the use of casting of lots to show it's internally driven conviction and pragmatism and not a revelatory special calling. Being explicit that anyone hearing the voice of God probably needed medical help, personal prophecy wasn't a source of inspiration and truth but were warned against.
This actually depends on your denomination quite a bit. What you're outlining is a fairly conservative approach. There's a decent sized amount of "charismatic" Christians who firmly believe in prophecy here and now. What qualifies as prophecy, and how to handle it can differ quite a bit from congregation to congregation.
Those are evangelicals. It goes back to the problem of Protestantism’s sola scriptura philosophy, rejecting 1500 years of theological inquiry and study - something that didn’t happen with Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
There are non Protestant charismatics.
Is charismatic christianity not entirely under the evangelical umbrella?
Literally every Christian denomination believes in communication from God, whether that counts as "prophecy" or not.
Well, yes, Marian apparitions are a thing, but the Virgin isn't going to tell anyone to go out and buy a Porsche.
The way this understanding is generally formulated is that "public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle", but I have not actually encountered this as a formally defined teaching or doctrine.
Cessationism.
It's been a big part of the modernistic bent of the dominant Calvinistic protestant denominations. It was also drove the focus on literacy and certainly influenced the trend towards academic and textual rigor.
Widely abandoned in the U.S. only quite recently by low and high protestant calvanistic conservative groups alike.
Pentecostal and charismatic groups have been around obviously but weren't taken too seriously and were even warned against by dominant evangelicalism, but that has relatively recently changed in conservative Presbyterian circles and influential groups in baptist circles like Sovereign Grace Churches (though they aren't baptist, they've become heavily culturally entwined via southern seminary and other places).
This has basically reintroduced miracles and promoted an embrace of magical thinking in laity's daily life that was long absent from those bookish, stuffy, severe, and practical protestants.
It's been a big part of the modernistic bent of the dominant Calvinistic protestant denominations. It was also drove the focus on literacy and certainly influenced the trend towards academic and textual rigor.
Widely abandoned in the U.S. only quite recently by low and high protestant calvanistic conservative groups alike.
Pentecostal and charismatic groups have been around obviously but weren't taken too seriously and were even warned against by dominant evangelicalism, but that has relatively recently changed in conservative Presbyterian circles and influential groups in baptist circles like Sovereign Grace Churches (though they aren't baptist, they've become heavily culturally entwined via southern seminary and other places).
This has basically reintroduced miracles and promoted an embrace of magical thinking in laity's daily life that was long absent from those bookish, stuffy, severe, and practical protestants.
No, cessationism is about charismatic gifts, but the GP mentioned "prophecy" and I'm referring to "public revelation" so now we've got a thread with three different concepts being bandied about and debated as if they're central to a single controversy.
Prophecy is explicitly one of the charismatic gifts.
It's been used to justify all sorts of child abuse, also. Going back to Abraham's abuse of his son Isaac and Lot and his Daughters.
Christianity isn't the only religion abused by flawed people to do bad things. Its more of a reflection of the people involved and not the religion. It's sad.
Modern american evangelical christianity suffers from a particular moral rot that isn't unique to it but is also not common to other branches of the faith. Specifically, there's a firm conviction that once you're saved you remain saved, and you can find lots of people who behave as if as a result, nothing they do really matters. They can be selfish, they can be rude, they can be cruel, they can be unfaithful, and it's all fine in the end because they're still safe. They'll tell you of course that everyone should do their best, and they might even tell you that they're doing their best, but the basic tenets of their specific flavor of faith are essentially that Nothing Really Matters. The most extreme evangelical/nondenominational Christians take this especially far like the pastor in the article, and I feel bad for people of faith who have to share the same label with them.
(for context, I worked in evangelical christian ministry for multiple years when I was younger)
(for context, I worked in evangelical christian ministry for multiple years when I was younger)
Sadly, I agree. The "always saved" and "faith without fear" motto's give most the idea that humility doesn't matter anymore. Pastor's fill them up with their being special and elect, which is in the heavenly realm, not here on earth. The concept of servant-believers, for most, isn't even on their radar.
2015 was a sort of tipping point, IMO, that has caused a sort of paradigm shift in Christianity. (sorry, a little vague, but I'm still trying to understand all the changes.) My hope is that all Christianity will go back to basic tenets of faith, biblically taught.
2015 was a sort of tipping point, IMO, that has caused a sort of paradigm shift in Christianity. (sorry, a little vague, but I'm still trying to understand all the changes.) My hope is that all Christianity will go back to basic tenets of faith, biblically taught.
> biblically taught
And there’s the key. If only people would read the Bible. If they would read even just Philippians 3:12 or Hebrews 10:26 or any of a number of other passages, they would see at once what heresy “once saved, always saved” is.
But no, Christianity is too often just a club. Most people have no actual interest in the Bible. God has ever worked with minorities and remnants. Christianity strongly Bible-based will always be small by comparison.
I rather like the way Dickens framed it in A Christmas Carol:
> “There are some upon this earth of yours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us, and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.”
And there’s the key. If only people would read the Bible. If they would read even just Philippians 3:12 or Hebrews 10:26 or any of a number of other passages, they would see at once what heresy “once saved, always saved” is.
But no, Christianity is too often just a club. Most people have no actual interest in the Bible. God has ever worked with minorities and remnants. Christianity strongly Bible-based will always be small by comparison.
I rather like the way Dickens framed it in A Christmas Carol:
> “There are some upon this earth of yours,” returned the Spirit, “who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us, and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us.”
People we're talking about sending missionaries into the church in the late 90s for this reason, people railed against this rise of the influence of para-church organizations and multi-denominational initiatives.
But the people who wanted to keep the definition of the american church a "small c" lost pretty thoroughly to the political action clubs.
The SBC boycotts/cancelation of Disney in 1997 and the memetic cancelation of General Mills cereal was all outworkings from Jerry Falwells take over of american christian expression using Francis Schaeffers films to provide emotional impact and introduce new political reasoning and adopt what was previously "the roman catholic" issue of abortion as a primary political, religious and social wedge issue. That was the core "ratchet" issue.
With Lamar Alexander, Alan Keyes and a few others politicians campaigning with extremely heavy religious strategies in republican primaries in 96 you see a turning point and culmination of the political work of Falwell and others through the 80s. It showed that there was effectively no pushback left among evangelicals to messaging that conflated Republican & Christian, the assimilation was sufficiently complete.
Idk, there's almost an infinite amount of causes and drivers but there were a lot of bad turning points along the way.
In what feels like a past life I actually went to a influential seminary in the early 00s, the few older professors we're academic and rigorous, the rest of the younger professors and the students themselves we're... bad, just really awful people with odd pathological relationships and furtive self serving behaviors, the amount of extremely insular "christian celebrity" worship was shocking to me at that age.
But the people who wanted to keep the definition of the american church a "small c" lost pretty thoroughly to the political action clubs.
The SBC boycotts/cancelation of Disney in 1997 and the memetic cancelation of General Mills cereal was all outworkings from Jerry Falwells take over of american christian expression using Francis Schaeffers films to provide emotional impact and introduce new political reasoning and adopt what was previously "the roman catholic" issue of abortion as a primary political, religious and social wedge issue. That was the core "ratchet" issue.
With Lamar Alexander, Alan Keyes and a few others politicians campaigning with extremely heavy religious strategies in republican primaries in 96 you see a turning point and culmination of the political work of Falwell and others through the 80s. It showed that there was effectively no pushback left among evangelicals to messaging that conflated Republican & Christian, the assimilation was sufficiently complete.
Idk, there's almost an infinite amount of causes and drivers but there were a lot of bad turning points along the way.
In what feels like a past life I actually went to a influential seminary in the early 00s, the few older professors we're academic and rigorous, the rest of the younger professors and the students themselves we're... bad, just really awful people with odd pathological relationships and furtive self serving behaviors, the amount of extremely insular "christian celebrity" worship was shocking to me at that age.
I call it moral rot specifically because I don't think it's a problem you can solve purely through biblical teaching or faith doctrine alone - you need to confront the mindset and the behavior, because ultimately a person's relationship with the god of their choice is a personal thing and not something we can exert control over. No matter how robust your biblical teaching is a person can still decide "it's between me and God, though" and choose to live in a morally flawed way because the bible gives them enough latitude to interpret it in a supportive way, as many people do.
And in this context I think confronting the mindset is a valuable thing to do even if you are speaking with an atheist. Essentially, questions like:
* If everyone adopted your mindset, what kind of world would we live in?
* Do you think your friends and family would be proud of you if they knew you were acting this way?
* Would you feel good if you knew all your friends and family were acting like you?
* Are you acting in a way you might regret later in life?
And in this context I think confronting the mindset is a valuable thing to do even if you are speaking with an atheist. Essentially, questions like:
* If everyone adopted your mindset, what kind of world would we live in?
* Do you think your friends and family would be proud of you if they knew you were acting this way?
* Would you feel good if you knew all your friends and family were acting like you?
* Are you acting in a way you might regret later in life?
Your viewpoint is very American and very Protestant. A lot of these things you call changes I saw as a regular feature in the evangelical south in the early 00s.
Going to “basic tenets” and doubling down on sola scriptura is just fundamentalism and is why evangelicals and the like are the way that they are. And they’re (relatively) modern inventions!
Going to “basic tenets” and doubling down on sola scriptura is just fundamentalism and is why evangelicals and the like are the way that they are. And they’re (relatively) modern inventions!
Given my experiences with Catholics, I have a hard time believing it isn’t just as common across Christianity as a whole, at least in the US. And in that sense I would sooner say it is a failing of teaching and faith in The Lord, that atheist (and thus hedonistic) thoughts are more pervasive and people believe they can “trick the system” in the future.
The problem is a world view based on appeals to authority and nothing claimed about said authority can be proven or disproven.
I’m an atheist and frequent places where men have anonymous gay sex and the majority of the men are “devout” Christians for me it’s a kink, I don’t feel a lot of guilt, and neither do they, lies are their choice and it shows.
> I don’t feel a lot of guilt, and neither do they
I can tell you haven't tried to date such guys. They may not feel enough guilt to keep them from engaging in casual sex, but many of them absolutely feel guilt. Indeed, sometimes it's a complex of immovable guilt and shame, in the style of classic Freud, with the entire panoply of coping mechanisms deployed to deal with the dissonance (projection, affect isolation, displacement, dissociation, reaction formation, etc.)
I can tell you haven't tried to date such guys. They may not feel enough guilt to keep them from engaging in casual sex, but many of them absolutely feel guilt. Indeed, sometimes it's a complex of immovable guilt and shame, in the style of classic Freud, with the entire panoply of coping mechanisms deployed to deal with the dissonance (projection, affect isolation, displacement, dissociation, reaction formation, etc.)
This is how we incubate various diseases. Monkey pox being a good example (but it’s origin story doesn’t get mentioned because it goes against the current zeitgeist).
> Who knew God was a degen!
That is a great line.
> Regalado had told investors that the funds would be going to "widows and orphans", but spent most of it on himself and his wife.
Maybe his parents are dead and his wife was windowed in the previous marriage :)
He actually contradicts himself as he denies spending the money on himself and hiss wife, and admits spending money on a home renovation "the Lord told us to do".
I thought when someone said something like "your house looks divine" it was a metaphor!
That is a great line.
> Regalado had told investors that the funds would be going to "widows and orphans", but spent most of it on himself and his wife.
Maybe his parents are dead and his wife was windowed in the previous marriage :)
He actually contradicts himself as he denies spending the money on himself and hiss wife, and admits spending money on a home renovation "the Lord told us to do".
I thought when someone said something like "your house looks divine" it was a metaphor!
“Pastor for an online ministry” - the cool new way to say “televangelist,” and apparently just as trustworthy.
I didn't know televangelist were a thing until a year or two ago, and remember having my mind blown (in a "but why" way).
How is that a thing. Why do so many people fall for it? How do these people get discovered. The only reason I know about them is because of a meme YouTube video where a reporter drilled a televangelist on camera.
Aside: may I propose we style the Internet variety as eVangelists?
How is that a thing. Why do so many people fall for it? How do these people get discovered. The only reason I know about them is because of a meme YouTube video where a reporter drilled a televangelist on camera.
Aside: may I propose we style the Internet variety as eVangelists?
The son of some family friends decided one day to suddenly give up his life and devote 100% of it to some guru in India. He was moderately religious christian, as most are here in Norway, and I'd spent a lot of time with him as we were of similar age and our families met regularly through our childhood. As such I knew him as quite bright and well informed.
Suddenly he was devoting all his time to studying rites and rituals, almost cutting out contact with is family, and taking up extra jobs so he could send money to this guru.
My dad met this guru once when he visited here in Norway. My dad said he spent way more time talking about the stock market than anything spiritual.
Yet to this day, a couple of decades later, their son is still laboring hard for this guy.
I did get to speak to him a few times after he had converted. For me this whole thing was utterly bewildering.
Looking back at us growing up, I suppose what he was seeking was somewhere to belong. It wasn't about this or that religion specifically, that seemed almost incidental, looking in from the outside.
His life had gotten a new meaning: follow these rites and rituals, and do whatever this guy says. In return he got a sense of belonging.
Still really weird to me, and still very hard for his parents. But their son willingly and with open eyes embraced this.
I've reflected on this several times, and my conclusion is that some people just want to believe, so they can belong.
Suddenly he was devoting all his time to studying rites and rituals, almost cutting out contact with is family, and taking up extra jobs so he could send money to this guru.
My dad met this guru once when he visited here in Norway. My dad said he spent way more time talking about the stock market than anything spiritual.
Yet to this day, a couple of decades later, their son is still laboring hard for this guy.
I did get to speak to him a few times after he had converted. For me this whole thing was utterly bewildering.
Looking back at us growing up, I suppose what he was seeking was somewhere to belong. It wasn't about this or that religion specifically, that seemed almost incidental, looking in from the outside.
His life had gotten a new meaning: follow these rites and rituals, and do whatever this guy says. In return he got a sense of belonging.
Still really weird to me, and still very hard for his parents. But their son willingly and with open eyes embraced this.
I've reflected on this several times, and my conclusion is that some people just want to believe, so they can belong.
I know a an Indian guy who made good money as an engineer in US. Then he quit and went back to India to study under a guru. Then he divorced his wife who he had a child with, and started dating one of the gurus other acolytes. Seemed tragic and potentially hypocritical to me—tho I don’t know enough about his religion to know if it values loyalty to family etc.
what you say may be true, but it is remarkably blind to the possibility that this teaching community has real meaning for the guy, in addition to the social effects.
Im gonna nerd out here:
America has a long history of "preachers", and "evangelists". I was in a thread yesterday that referenced Johnny Appleseed who was ministering and planting nurserys.
There is "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinners_in_the_Hands_of_an_Ang... ) That continues to be looked at and dwelled upon.
This carries through into modern times... Sam Kinison who was a famous and very distinct comedian gets a lot of his style from being a tent revival style preacher (You can watch is comedy that is very NSFW and his preaching its an interesting counter point). Mind you Sam is a contemporary of Jim Baker (a massive scandal that makes this one look small), and his wife Tammy Fay. And in the very present The show The Righteous Gemstones makes fun of the excess and money that preachers can generate.
America has a long history of "preachers", and "evangelists". I was in a thread yesterday that referenced Johnny Appleseed who was ministering and planting nurserys.
There is "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinners_in_the_Hands_of_an_Ang... ) That continues to be looked at and dwelled upon.
This carries through into modern times... Sam Kinison who was a famous and very distinct comedian gets a lot of his style from being a tent revival style preacher (You can watch is comedy that is very NSFW and his preaching its an interesting counter point). Mind you Sam is a contemporary of Jim Baker (a massive scandal that makes this one look small), and his wife Tammy Fay. And in the very present The show The Righteous Gemstones makes fun of the excess and money that preachers can generate.
Baby Billy's Bible Bonkers!
A lot of people live in bubbles and local networks that don’t have regular access to the normal tools of skepticism that you and I might take for granted. If you’ve been brought up to believe what you’re told, these people can be very convincing.
This is no longer an exclusively offline type of localism either. There is no shortage of online bubbles that are well insulated from outside perspectives.
It’s not even a “poor, dumb people” thing. We are all subject to the network effect and must make continuous active effort to avoid sinking into a comfortable echo chamber. I know so many people who grew up combatting religious fundamentalism, dispatching creationist arguments with expert logical fallacy-fu, only to later fall into their own malign belief systems, losing the ability to question. Even academia, where the foundation stones of skepticism and innovative thinking were laid, has bubbles of very smart people whose working environment is being drained of heterodoxy.
This is no longer an exclusively offline type of localism either. There is no shortage of online bubbles that are well insulated from outside perspectives.
It’s not even a “poor, dumb people” thing. We are all subject to the network effect and must make continuous active effort to avoid sinking into a comfortable echo chamber. I know so many people who grew up combatting religious fundamentalism, dispatching creationist arguments with expert logical fallacy-fu, only to later fall into their own malign belief systems, losing the ability to question. Even academia, where the foundation stones of skepticism and innovative thinking were laid, has bubbles of very smart people whose working environment is being drained of heterodoxy.
There's probably a better way to explain this, but I think it's just an emotional hook. A lot of things seem crazy when you don't get to experience the emotional aspect of the experience. You can sort of test this out by describing things which are commonly enjoyed, but in cold, cynical terms.
For instance, why do people like going to concerts? It's $100 or more to be surrounded by a hostile crowd, probably catch COVID, certainly induce some hearing damage, have zero peace and quiet for hours, etc. None of these "costs" really stack of up course if you find going to concerts rewarding in an emotional sense. If the concert itself never moved you emotionally, it'd be very difficult to see why people would put up with all the additional externalities of the whole event.
This isn't a perfect comparison, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at.
For instance, why do people like going to concerts? It's $100 or more to be surrounded by a hostile crowd, probably catch COVID, certainly induce some hearing damage, have zero peace and quiet for hours, etc. None of these "costs" really stack of up course if you find going to concerts rewarding in an emotional sense. If the concert itself never moved you emotionally, it'd be very difficult to see why people would put up with all the additional externalities of the whole event.
This isn't a perfect comparison, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at.
I’ve genuinely gotta ask: is not having heard of this an age thing, or a location thing?
Location. Like male circumcision it simply doesnt exist outside of the USA, unless you count random african countries like Ghana.
No idea why, if anyone wants to enlighten me let me know.
No idea why, if anyone wants to enlighten me let me know.
It’s very common in South Korea as well as in Jewish and Muslim populations globally.
Your comment reflects a very Europe-centric view of the world.
Your comment reflects a very Europe-centric view of the world.
That is because I live in Europe.
> if anyone wants to enlighten me let me know.
Cut off the tip of your ding dong and get to eat bacon. Or not. Easy choice. /s
Cut off the tip of your ding dong and get to eat bacon. Or not. Easy choice. /s
Isn't it the opposite?
Kinda a naive statement. Around 1/3 of males in the world are circumcised with highest rates in the US, Middle East, and South Korea.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/16194-circu...
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/16194-circu...
Just to be clear, because the intro to that article is not, it's much more rare for circumcision to be required for purely medical or hygiene reasons. Let's not prepare that excuse.
This form of genial mutilation is most often performed on babies for no reason other than perpetuating religious or cultural expectations of the parents.
This form of genial mutilation is most often performed on babies for no reason other than perpetuating religious or cultural expectations of the parents.
I made no statement or determination on whether the practice was right or wrong or why it may be done. I only refuted the statement that it was only seen in the US and Africa. Your positions on the genitalia of American men sound very well thought out and I encourage you to pursue that further!
No, that is incorrect, linking to a study discussing the benefits of circumcision implies bias. If you had linked to both a positive and negative article, such as one regarding how it permanently destroys male sensitive at the head of penis both producing discomfort for female partners during initial penetration, aswell as permanent trauma in child in other studies, then you would have not made a biased statement with your link pasting.
You are obviously passionate about other people’s genitalia, but putting words in his mouth and accusing him of bias when it’s clear from context what he meant is a bad look.
The article did not present the criticisms enough. It's mostly about bodily autonomy.
Imagine if 1/3 of the world gave their babies botex or other face modifications after birth because they thought their babies looked ugly and I was on here defending the baby's rights to not be unnecessarily modified without their consent.
Then you come on here and joke about how passionate I must be about other people's faces. It's not about the faces or genitalia, it's about one's right to bodily autonomy.
Imagine if 1/3 of the world gave their babies botex or other face modifications after birth because they thought their babies looked ugly and I was on here defending the baby's rights to not be unnecessarily modified without their consent.
Then you come on here and joke about how passionate I must be about other people's faces. It's not about the faces or genitalia, it's about one's right to bodily autonomy.
Traditional: a word used to apply a veneer of legitimacy. Deligitamizing adjacent alternatives.
Like referring to public school as "traditional education" in comparison with the implied "non-traditional" home schooling (which is the actual tradition).
Like referring to public school as "traditional education" in comparison with the implied "non-traditional" home schooling (which is the actual tradition).
Although you are being a bit rude calling me naive, you are not wrong regarding your percentage, and I was wrong in my general attitude that few people do outside the USA, however I meant, most countries that practice circumcision other than the USA ( western / developed ). However you are right regarding all countries, and for this I thank you for opening my eyes.
I am from Europe where it isn't a thing, this table should help explain the difference in opinion in the West.
Top 5 Countries by Circumcision Rate High and Low
United States 50-60%
Indonesia >90%
Pakistan >90%
Bangladesh >90%
Egypt >90%
(European Countries with Lowest Circumcision Rates)
Finland <1%
Denmark <2%
Norway <2%
Sweden <3%
Iceland <1%
PS - it was unprofessional to add a link to a random article on reasons for circumcision, it makes you sound butthurt, no one asked or cares to discuss genital mutilation reasons. If you are interested in sharing your vague opinion and articles about it then Ill bite. Not anyone cares in this thread about my opinion on this matter (understandably) but I find it barbaric and have only pity for any man subjected to it as a child.
TLDR We were just talking about how its unheard of in western democracies outside the US
I am from Europe where it isn't a thing, this table should help explain the difference in opinion in the West.
Top 5 Countries by Circumcision Rate High and Low
United States 50-60%
Indonesia >90%
Pakistan >90%
Bangladesh >90%
Egypt >90%
(European Countries with Lowest Circumcision Rates)
Finland <1%
Denmark <2%
Norway <2%
Sweden <3%
Iceland <1%
PS - it was unprofessional to add a link to a random article on reasons for circumcision, it makes you sound butthurt, no one asked or cares to discuss genital mutilation reasons. If you are interested in sharing your vague opinion and articles about it then Ill bite. Not anyone cares in this thread about my opinion on this matter (understandably) but I find it barbaric and have only pity for any man subjected to it as a child.
TLDR We were just talking about how its unheard of in western democracies outside the US
The article was the source for the top countries and overall percentage I used in my statement. It’s fine if you would like to make unsubstantiated claims but I felt it was better to provide a source for my claim.
Is Ghana a western democracy or did you just toss them in for some extra bias/flair? Maybe you just had trouble staying on track with the thread which was about televangelists and didn’t mention male genitalia at all.
Is Ghana a western democracy or did you just toss them in for some extra bias/flair? Maybe you just had trouble staying on track with the thread which was about televangelists and didn’t mention male genitalia at all.
To be honest, I just mentioned it was uncommon due to location I had no idea someone was going to reply with links to articles about the benefits of male circumcision, I felt compelled to reply as a result.
But it is a fair enough comment to say I should stay on track when I called you out on it too ( I edited that out as I felt it was a bit rude to comment on your attitude ).
Regarding Ghana I dont think you understood my point, I don't believe Ghana is a Western Democracy, but I do believe it has a high right of circumcision, my point is simply that noone in the West circumcises, only the USA. I guessed Ghana was a poor country with comparatively poorer and lower levels of education and GDP with a high percentage rate of circumcision and it seems I was right - its over 95%
PS - you are again being rude by suggestion I am trying to add flair to look cool. You clearly are having trouble understanding by basic point and instead guessing its because I am trying to sound cool. If you look at my account its over a decade old with barely any points on it, I dont care about upvotes.
But it is a fair enough comment to say I should stay on track when I called you out on it too ( I edited that out as I felt it was a bit rude to comment on your attitude ).
Regarding Ghana I dont think you understood my point, I don't believe Ghana is a Western Democracy, but I do believe it has a high right of circumcision, my point is simply that noone in the West circumcises, only the USA. I guessed Ghana was a poor country with comparatively poorer and lower levels of education and GDP with a high percentage rate of circumcision and it seems I was right - its over 95%
PS - you are again being rude by suggestion I am trying to add flair to look cool. You clearly are having trouble understanding by basic point and instead guessing its because I am trying to sound cool. If you look at my account its over a decade old with barely any points on it, I dont care about upvotes.
Do not worry as that is not what I meant by flair, I would never suggest that you look cool. Especially after ragging on the good people of Ghana.
lol
> lol
Racists always have such a way with words.
Racists always have such a way with words.
I thought you were joking, when you said I was "ragging on the good peole of Ghana".
You are now saying I was "ragging" on Ghana by stating their 94% circumcision rate, when I was just stating a statistic. But your comment does belie that you agree circumcision is bad, hence your perception its insulting to mention countries with high circumcision rates. Aleast we can put this conversation behind us now.
I'm glad we finally reached common ground.
Regarding the racism comment, I dont quite understand what circumcision has to do with racism, but if it helps I am a minority.
You are now saying I was "ragging" on Ghana by stating their 94% circumcision rate, when I was just stating a statistic. But your comment does belie that you agree circumcision is bad, hence your perception its insulting to mention countries with high circumcision rates. Aleast we can put this conversation behind us now.
I'm glad we finally reached common ground.
Regarding the racism comment, I dont quite understand what circumcision has to do with racism, but if it helps I am a minority.
Counter proposal: how about iVangelist?
Why can't God be fairer about his commands? Some people get all the fun ones and I get stuck updating package.json every week.
What’s funny is if he promises eternal rewards instead of $$$ this isn’t illegal at all.
Usually not even illegal if the material rewards promised are kind of vague: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
At least the Church of the SubGenius has a triple money back guarantee if you don't get eternal salvation.
He’s a pastor, not a priest. They have a whole thing about indulgences. It’s kinda their founding prohibition.
Though based on this guy’s fundamental moral failings, that probably wouldn’t have stopped him…
Though based on this guy’s fundamental moral failings, that probably wouldn’t have stopped him…
That's a brilliant idea: indulgences on the blockchain!
Just wait for the chain to fork from an argument over whether proof of work is necessary or proof of faith is sufficient.
Are we putting confessions on the blockchain too?
Eternal rewards are out of jurisdiction.
That isn’t funny and there isn’t a widely accepted intrinsic value to eternal paradise. You’re just anti-religious and want the excuse to let us all know
There'll be edge cases, but I think it's pretty clear that there is in fact a widely accepted intrinsic value to eternal paradise. What isn't widely accepted is the intrinsic value of some tradition telling you that eternal paradise exists and you can get into it.
I disagree, I think it's mildly funny. But there isn't a widely accepted intrinsic value to humor, I guess.
[deleted]
Affinity fraud is one of the most successful kinds of scams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_fraud
This one seems to be two in-groups at once. Believers in cryptocurrency and believers in a particular type of Christian god.
This one seems to be two in-groups at once. Believers in cryptocurrency and believers in a particular type of Christian god.
To a certain extent participation in organised religion is an indicator of the propensity of the subject to be manipulated.
If you have divine prescience is that insider trading? Would the SEC prosecute based on oracular accuracy? Would RFJ pay out on that even?
Only if god is a director/exec or someone subject to a non-disclosure agreement.
According to answers to this question, "Is it insider trading if I bought Boeing puts while I am inside the wrecked airplane?" [1]
"Insider trading, I like to say, is not about fairness, it’s about theft. It’s illegal to trade on information that isn’t public and that you have some duty to keep secret" - Matt Levine
[1] - https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/98706/is-it-insider-...
According to answers to this question, "Is it insider trading if I bought Boeing puts while I am inside the wrecked airplane?" [1]
"Insider trading, I like to say, is not about fairness, it’s about theft. It’s illegal to trade on information that isn’t public and that you have some duty to keep secret" - Matt Levine
[1] - https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/98706/is-it-insider-...
This is hilarious, thank you! Hahaha! :) Next time the plane goes down, have to remember that: crack open the brokerage account, ladel on the puts hahaha :) might even be an incentive to start taking MAXes preferentially :ghost_face:
It would be a strong defense, except I heard that unfortunately the prosecutors were all told in a dream by God to prosecute him for fraud. Nothing they can do about it except move forward with the charges, it's just God's will that there be legal consequences for this. /j
"So the charges are that Kaitlyn and I pocketed $1.3 million, and I just want to come out and say that those uh charges are true," said Regalado in the video, presumably causing a cold chill to run down the spine of his defense attorney in the middle of whatever he was doing.
Frequently the role of a defense lawyer is to negotiate the best available guilty plea.
How do you tell a scam coin from a non scam one? It's like a cult vs a religion, as far as I can tell the only difference is popularity.
In cases like this it is really easy to tell since the whole thing appears to have been some exchange website where you traded dollars for the supposed crypto coin but there was no way of taking those coins out (because the blockchain and coin didnt exist in the first place). In a sense it really wasn't an actual crypto scam, but a traditional ponzi scheme marketing itself with crypto buzzwords.
Not even a traditional ponzi scheme, that would be using new funds to pay returns to older marks. I can't figure out if just taking people's money and telling them it's going up but refusing to give it back has a name or if it's just, you know, lying.
Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely.
https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html
https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html
The difference between a cult and a religion is this: a cult wants it all but a religion just wants their cut.
I’ve heard it phrased differently: the difference between a religion and a cult is that in a religion the person at the top of the pyramid making the most money is dead.
Bruh. It’s 2024. Can we stop assuming only religion on the face of earth is Christianity?
Muhammad and Siddharta are dead too.
But our prophet Muhammad pbuh doesn’t make money. There is no tax or obligatory donation in an Islamic state. Every wealthy Muslim is required to find a poor person and give 1/40 of their wealth to them every year, and we do this ourselves where I am. No authority is involved.
Despite not really wanting to go into a historic or theological debate, I can't help but notice that the guy went on to be an actual king of sorts - so there definitely was something in it for him, at the time.
I do agree that, overall, the formal structure of Islamic clerical organisations looks somewhat more horizontal (look ma, no pope!), and precepts towards charity look more stringent than the average "try to be good" message of other religions; but it's hard to deny that there are - and were - a lot of very temporal benefits accruing towards people of power under Islamic rule. Some rulers even derive their legitimacy from dynastic relationships to the prophet - that's worth a lot of money...
I do agree that, overall, the formal structure of Islamic clerical organisations looks somewhat more horizontal (look ma, no pope!), and precepts towards charity look more stringent than the average "try to be good" message of other religions; but it's hard to deny that there are - and were - a lot of very temporal benefits accruing towards people of power under Islamic rule. Some rulers even derive their legitimacy from dynastic relationships to the prophet - that's worth a lot of money...
No one denies our prophet pbuh was the ruler of the Islamic state. As are the caliphates after him. It’s Christianity which has no doctrine regarding governance of people, or modern Christians who have weird ideas like religion should not be involved in governance. Someone needs to rule and spread the religion through territorial expansion, as it is the only way people can be saved. Say what you like, but it’s coherent.
Muslims would be pretty firm that Mo was just a prophet. They're worshipping God, not this prophet bloke. The Christians have this neat hack where their prophet guy literally was God. If you haven't grown up with it, the logic of Trinitarianism is completely batshit but if you grew up around Christians it just seems normal. An Iranian friend was astonishing that Unitarianism wasn't the default because it seemed less crazy.
Now, we do say "God is dead" but by that we don't mean in the sense that "Mohammed is dead" or "Elvis is dead" or "Margaret Thatcher is dead". We're talking about the idea, and so that's rejected by the Faithful.
Now, we do say "God is dead" but by that we don't mean in the sense that "Mohammed is dead" or "Elvis is dead" or "Margaret Thatcher is dead". We're talking about the idea, and so that's rejected by the Faithful.
> Muslims would be pretty firm that Mo was just a prophet.
Nobody said that "the guy at the top of the pyramid making most of the money" is supposed to be god.
Doesn't matter anyway, y'all are taking a joke way too seriously.
Nobody said that "the guy at the top of the pyramid making most of the money" is supposed to be god.
Doesn't matter anyway, y'all are taking a joke way too seriously.
Please do note that not all Christians believe in the trinity. It’s mainstream, but far from universal. As an example, I am a Christadelphian, and we refute the doctrine of the trinity, as it simply doesn’t appear in the Bible, and is indeed well documented as having been developed from roughly 100–325 AD.
The different between a cult and a religion is whether the main character is dead yet.
Part of the problem is that there is a huge space where something can be:
A) Designed and deployed in good faith (not designed as an actively bad-faith fraud)
B) Still is an extremely risky investment
C) While there can still be participants (not necessarily the proginators), who operate in bad faith to exploit the shortcomings of a good-faith design
Figuring out which is which while avoiding getting rekt is not easy, but can be done.
Figuring out which is which while avoiding getting rekt is not easy, but can be done.
Some scam coins are reasonably obvious if you look at the technical details: things like the code allowing the founders access to large pools of funds that they claim they don't have access to. Obviously it's possible to obfuscate or even run a scam-coin without this, but many of the largest rug-pulls have been pretty blatent in this regard.
It's genuinely a difficult question because there are projects that have the exact same technical designs that are still legitimate projects. So how do you evaluate this? From my perspective it used to easier. I'd just look at the problems that the company was focusing on and ask: (1) are they solving a real issue (2) are they making a valid contribution with their solution?
Normally both 1 and 2 would be eliminated as projects tried to intentionally use buzzwords to confuse investors into thinking they were doing something cool. They would write papers that mentioned nothing specific and you would sometimes come away thinking: 'what the fug are you even building' or often 'this exists already so what is your take on it?' The latter of which is hard to deny because many tokens, ICOs, blockchains really don't need to exist. Technically you could have argued that Ethereum didn't need to make a new blockchain because a third-party system could have been made that added smart contract logic on top of Bitcoin like a soft fork. This would have been similar to master coin.
I'd say that the quality of the people around a project can tell you a lot. Often scammers use impressive sounding publicists to make them seem like they're successful entrepreneurs. But when you dig deeper its all just paid shilling.
Normally both 1 and 2 would be eliminated as projects tried to intentionally use buzzwords to confuse investors into thinking they were doing something cool. They would write papers that mentioned nothing specific and you would sometimes come away thinking: 'what the fug are you even building' or often 'this exists already so what is your take on it?' The latter of which is hard to deny because many tokens, ICOs, blockchains really don't need to exist. Technically you could have argued that Ethereum didn't need to make a new blockchain because a third-party system could have been made that added smart contract logic on top of Bitcoin like a soft fork. This would have been similar to master coin.
I'd say that the quality of the people around a project can tell you a lot. Often scammers use impressive sounding publicists to make them seem like they're successful entrepreneurs. But when you dig deeper its all just paid shilling.
By that standard dogecoin is a scam.
Isn’t that the point of dogecoin? A literal parody?
A parody isn't a scam.
A well-done parody would look much like a scam without digging into it and recognizing it as a parody.
It's a parody of a scam wherein you actually lose your money. It's a scam with a winky-face emoji.
By my standards everything including bitcoin is... They do not provide any meaningful solution. Or their value proposition is not real.
Maybe some might offer a valid case like anonymity, but very limited pool.
Maybe some might offer a valid case like anonymity, but very limited pool.
Dogecoin does do something different - it has ongoing tail inflation. Whether that is a good idea or not is debatable. But it does operate differently then btc.
I think it is.
[deleted]
Bitcoin
He should have called it the INRIcoin, that couldn’t have failed!
This was clearly the work of the devil...
That's the gist if it, isn't it? If the scam works it's Divine Providence, but if the scam blows up in their face then the devil made them do it. What matters the most is that it's never their responsibility and thus they are never responsible and accountable for anything they do.
Under christian theology the devil made me do it isn't an excuse it's a condemnation. The blame still lies entirely with you. That is in fact the whole point.
That's a good observation, but the part where this breaks down is that these evangelists are clearly not Cristian.
Yes! But when will the church have the courage to point this out? Fact based judgement is righteous.
You are correct which is why it's important to call them out on that.
> these evangelists are clearly not Cristian
No true scottsman would ever have perpetrated such a scam. In fact, true scottsmen never do anything bad.
No true scottsman would ever have perpetrated such a scam. In fact, true scottsmen never do anything bad.
> No true scottsman would ever have perpetrated such a scam.
I'm not referring to the scam. I'm referring to not abiding by basic tenets of the Christian faith.
I'm not referring to the scam. I'm referring to not abiding by basic tenets of the Christian faith.
Some members of _your faith_ perpetrated a scam, and you're trying to deny their membership in your group. Sure you can make up whatever reason you want to do that. That's the basic way of implementing a "no true scottsman" argument. Just make some shit up.
> Some members of _your faith_ (...)
It's not my faith. Also, televangelists aren't christian either. Again, those who fail to follow the basic tenets of a religion cannot claim to be followers of said religion.
> That's the basic way of implementing a "no true scottsman" argument.
Either you haven't got the point or you're just trying to be contrarian. I think the point I made is clear and easy to understand. I won't repeat myself.
It's not my faith. Also, televangelists aren't christian either. Again, those who fail to follow the basic tenets of a religion cannot claim to be followers of said religion.
> That's the basic way of implementing a "no true scottsman" argument.
Either you haven't got the point or you're just trying to be contrarian. I think the point I made is clear and easy to understand. I won't repeat myself.
> those who fail to follow the basic tenets of a religion cannot claim to be followers of said religion
I don't know what you are referring to as the "basic" tenets of a religion. The majority of muslim men in western societies drink alcohol even though it is strictly forbidden in the Quran, and yet those men are considered to be "muslim" regardless.
You can find various infractions for any follower of any religion and then subsequently argue that this person isn't following the "basic tenets" of that religion and therefore is not a member of that group. That's the "no true scottsman" argument that you can make to rhetorically "remove" "undesirable" members from the group and thus make the group look better. It has nothing to do with reality.
Televangelists are very obviously, very clearly, Christian. They don't follow all of the teachings of the Bible, just like no other Christian follows all of the teachings of the Bible. Not sure who gave you the authority to dictate what their religious identity is.
I don't know what you are referring to as the "basic" tenets of a religion. The majority of muslim men in western societies drink alcohol even though it is strictly forbidden in the Quran, and yet those men are considered to be "muslim" regardless.
You can find various infractions for any follower of any religion and then subsequently argue that this person isn't following the "basic tenets" of that religion and therefore is not a member of that group. That's the "no true scottsman" argument that you can make to rhetorically "remove" "undesirable" members from the group and thus make the group look better. It has nothing to do with reality.
Televangelists are very obviously, very clearly, Christian. They don't follow all of the teachings of the Bible, just like no other Christian follows all of the teachings of the Bible. Not sure who gave you the authority to dictate what their religious identity is.
I don't know enough to comment on the specifics of your thread with the other poster, but I thought I would offer a suggestion for "Core Tenents".
Though there are many instructions in scripture that many christians ignore or fail to live up to, there are a set of core beliefs that comprise the essential nature of the Christian faith. The Apostles Creed summarizes most of them for Christianity.
As an example, if you deny the deity of Jesus, then you can not reasonably claim to be a christian. This is the case with Mormon's, who are sometimes called Christians, but whose theology differs in significant ways from Christianity.
---
There is also another way to approach the idea of "that person isn't really a christian". Though it is in fact, impossible for a human to judge definitively, Jesus does say that "you shall know them by their love one for another" (John 13:35). And the bible does teach that under certain circumstances, the Church is to treat someone claiming to be christian as though they are not, because they refuse to acknowledge and/or address behaviors that are instructed in scripture.
The Church isn't generally good at that, which may be the point of the OP. But, it does allow the Church to say that someone who unrepentantly practices sinful behavior doesn't represent Christianity.
Though there are many instructions in scripture that many christians ignore or fail to live up to, there are a set of core beliefs that comprise the essential nature of the Christian faith. The Apostles Creed summarizes most of them for Christianity.
As an example, if you deny the deity of Jesus, then you can not reasonably claim to be a christian. This is the case with Mormon's, who are sometimes called Christians, but whose theology differs in significant ways from Christianity.
---
There is also another way to approach the idea of "that person isn't really a christian". Though it is in fact, impossible for a human to judge definitively, Jesus does say that "you shall know them by their love one for another" (John 13:35). And the bible does teach that under certain circumstances, the Church is to treat someone claiming to be christian as though they are not, because they refuse to acknowledge and/or address behaviors that are instructed in scripture.
The Church isn't generally good at that, which may be the point of the OP. But, it does allow the Church to say that someone who unrepentantly practices sinful behavior doesn't represent Christianity.
> But, it does allow the Church to say that someone who unrepentantly practices sinful behavior doesn't represent Christianity.
And this right here allows you to take any Christian, point to something sinful that they appear to be doing, and claim that they're not really Christian.
And this right here allows you to take any Christian, point to something sinful that they appear to be doing, and claim that they're not really Christian.
Hm... but in my example, in order for the Church to do that, they would have to formally excommunicate that individual. That isn't something done often, and doesn't really support what you seem to be saying it does (unless I misunderstand you).
The Church doesn't get to just point at a person who commits a sin and say that person isn't a Christian. There is a formal process for evaluating if that individual meets certain criteria (laid out in scripture). Its not done without serious consideration.
And there is a significant difference between saying that a person "isn't a Christian" and saying that some practice by a christian "doesn't represent Christianity".
For a practice to be considered "Christian" it should resemble the established and agreed upon tenets of the Christian faith, as laid out in the Bible and generally agreed upon by the Church at large.
Its like, I can claim to be a lawyer, but to actually be one, I need to pass the Bar. And a lawyer can be disbarred, if their actions show them to unable to execute the duties of a lawyer in accordance with the standards set by the state they practice in.
Similarly, a licensed Lawyer can claim something is lawful, but that be false when compared to the actual written code of that state. Someone can then come along and say that the advice and practice of that Lawyer does represent the actual law of that state.
----
Look, I get it. Its frustrating to see christians do bad things, and for the church to not take responsibility when it should. And I'm not defending that. It is also frustrating for the Church when people do not represent it fairly. This is a common issue with any organized group of people, because People aren't always reliable. A fact the Bible has much to say about.
The Church doesn't get to just point at a person who commits a sin and say that person isn't a Christian. There is a formal process for evaluating if that individual meets certain criteria (laid out in scripture). Its not done without serious consideration.
And there is a significant difference between saying that a person "isn't a Christian" and saying that some practice by a christian "doesn't represent Christianity".
For a practice to be considered "Christian" it should resemble the established and agreed upon tenets of the Christian faith, as laid out in the Bible and generally agreed upon by the Church at large.
Its like, I can claim to be a lawyer, but to actually be one, I need to pass the Bar. And a lawyer can be disbarred, if their actions show them to unable to execute the duties of a lawyer in accordance with the standards set by the state they practice in.
Similarly, a licensed Lawyer can claim something is lawful, but that be false when compared to the actual written code of that state. Someone can then come along and say that the advice and practice of that Lawyer does represent the actual law of that state.
----
Look, I get it. Its frustrating to see christians do bad things, and for the church to not take responsibility when it should. And I'm not defending that. It is also frustrating for the Church when people do not represent it fairly. This is a common issue with any organized group of people, because People aren't always reliable. A fact the Bible has much to say about.
Was there actually any cryptographic aspect to this, or was he even lying about it being a “cryptocurrency”? He’s taking money on Venmo and running an “exchange” that trades only in this coin.
It would be interesting if “cryptocurrency” is now this entrenched as a synecdoche for any scrip-y scam.
It would be interesting if “cryptocurrency” is now this entrenched as a synecdoche for any scrip-y scam.
I guess if a core part of your belief system is that an unexplainable deity speaks through only certain people who you need to trust without good reason to, small problems like this sometimes happen! Oh well, acceptable losses, right?
God only gives total losses like that to his strongest cryptocurrency soldiers.
In a superdeterministic universe, that would be probably true.
[deleted]
Combining 2 grifts, religion and crypto.
Story as old as time.
Take religion, the perfect tool designed to manipulate the credulous masses and now add the latest grift of the moment and take in the money... And when you get called out, blame god.
And these evangelicals claim to be morally superior than the rest of us. Pfff
Take religion, the perfect tool designed to manipulate the credulous masses and now add the latest grift of the moment and take in the money... And when you get called out, blame god.
And these evangelicals claim to be morally superior than the rest of us. Pfff
"A Christian did something bad, let's insult God and Christianity!"
That's the point of this article and its title.
But no one cares about the missionaries who risk their lives to benefit others, and all positive things are thrown out the window.
Then, let's blame God because a human did something bad "in His name."
See the irrationality of the "logic"?
That's the point of this article and its title.
But no one cares about the missionaries who risk their lives to benefit others, and all positive things are thrown out the window.
Then, let's blame God because a human did something bad "in His name."
See the irrationality of the "logic"?
Most missionaries are engaged in the selfish pursuit of a free vacation. Otherwise they could stay home and deliver alms to their local impoverished masses.
May I know what source you're using for saying "most missionaries" globally are like that?
[deleted]
"god says scam the rubes"
[deleted]
[deleted]
This post and the commments it attracts seems more appropriate for /r/atheism. It’s not technology (what about a stripe scam pastor?) and it’s not something interesting that wouldn’t be peddled in gossip journalism.
Cryptocurrency-related topics frequently make the front page. At the end of the day, what's appropriate for this site is what its readers find interesting.
There is a specified rule and popular posts are constantly removed for allegedly breaking it.
Followers of Jesus Christ are commanded and equipped to test prophets rather than blindly believing them. Here's God's Word on that:
"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, “Let’s go after other gods” (which you have not known) “and let’s serve them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God, fear him, keep his commandments, and obey his voice. You shall serve him, and cling to him." (Deut. 13:1-4)
"But those who are determined to be rich (greedy) fall into a temptation, a snare, and many foolish and harmful lusts, such as drown men in ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some have been led astray from the faith in their greed, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (1 Tim. 6:9-10)
More Scripture on that topic: https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/is-gambling-a...
Knowing these, we can look at the cryptocurrency market to see it's mostly gambling, get rich quick schemes, attempts to rebel at authority (esp IRS), unstable, and often with illegal activity. This would keep us away from most of that even if we'd consider it for legitimate instruments or smart contracts. Anything that's helpful, not sinful, is a gift from God who raises up many brilliant inventors to solve our problems. Even indirectly like how smart contracts inspired millions to be invested in tooling for verifying software.
With that general impression, we look at the guy starting a cryptocurrency with high skepticism. We'd say: "Brother, why would a man of God charged with preaching Christ dying for our sins and moving money to society's helpless need a cryptocurrency? Are you serving God or money? And should the church's money be focused on such things? If you lack a Biblical answer, then perhaps you have been tempted by the Devil to set your heart on the wrong things. Please pray God helps you overcome this, focus on what truly matters, and serve Him faithfully."
And we'd pray for them. And God would help them overcome temptation or set an example of who to protect His flock from.
"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, “Let’s go after other gods” (which you have not known) “and let’s serve them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God, fear him, keep his commandments, and obey his voice. You shall serve him, and cling to him." (Deut. 13:1-4)
"But those who are determined to be rich (greedy) fall into a temptation, a snare, and many foolish and harmful lusts, such as drown men in ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some have been led astray from the faith in their greed, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (1 Tim. 6:9-10)
More Scripture on that topic: https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/is-gambling-a...
Knowing these, we can look at the cryptocurrency market to see it's mostly gambling, get rich quick schemes, attempts to rebel at authority (esp IRS), unstable, and often with illegal activity. This would keep us away from most of that even if we'd consider it for legitimate instruments or smart contracts. Anything that's helpful, not sinful, is a gift from God who raises up many brilliant inventors to solve our problems. Even indirectly like how smart contracts inspired millions to be invested in tooling for verifying software.
With that general impression, we look at the guy starting a cryptocurrency with high skepticism. We'd say: "Brother, why would a man of God charged with preaching Christ dying for our sins and moving money to society's helpless need a cryptocurrency? Are you serving God or money? And should the church's money be focused on such things? If you lack a Biblical answer, then perhaps you have been tempted by the Devil to set your heart on the wrong things. Please pray God helps you overcome this, focus on what truly matters, and serve Him faithfully."
And we'd pray for them. And God would help them overcome temptation or set an example of who to protect His flock from.
The verses from Deuteronomy aren’t a clear-cut condemnation, because they refer to following other gods vs the God of the old testament. Deuteronomy was transcribed at a time when there were a ton of potential gods for the Israelites to follow.
The Bible also has lots of stories of people taking incredible risks to follow the leaders God chose for them, so I'm not sure it has great advice for biblically-minded investors under the sway of a greedy pastor.
The Bible also has lots of stories of people taking incredible risks to follow the leaders God chose for them, so I'm not sure it has great advice for biblically-minded investors under the sway of a greedy pastor.
In His Word, God says He never changes. His character remains the same. They lived by the Law with its morals.
With that in mind, the Deuteronomy passage says that anyone claiming to be a prophet, but contradicting God's existing Word (eg commands), is a liar. Most people falsely claiming to be prophets have poor character, be ego/money centered, people pleasers, often contradict the Word, cherry-pick what serves them, and/or fail in their predictions or miracles (see Deut. 18). The Deut. 13 test is even easier today since we have the whole Word, including Jesus' and Apostles' ministry, to test them with.
With that in mind, the Deuteronomy passage says that anyone claiming to be a prophet, but contradicting God's existing Word (eg commands), is a liar. Most people falsely claiming to be prophets have poor character, be ego/money centered, people pleasers, often contradict the Word, cherry-pick what serves them, and/or fail in their predictions or miracles (see Deut. 18). The Deut. 13 test is even easier today since we have the whole Word, including Jesus' and Apostles' ministry, to test them with.
If you give to others, you will be given a full amount in return. It will be packed down, shaken together, and spilling over into your lap. The way you treat others is the way you will be treated. (Luke 6:38)
You and I know this verse is talking about forgiveness, but the Bible contains very many verses that can, out of context, be used to justify a great many evils.
Back to your original point:
> Followers of Jesus Christ are commanded and equipped to test prophets rather than blindly believing them.
Recent history shows us that followers of Jesus also make spectacularly good marks for anyone with a good sales pitch and some memorised lines of New Testament teaching.
You and I know this verse is talking about forgiveness, but the Bible contains very many verses that can, out of context, be used to justify a great many evils.
Back to your original point:
> Followers of Jesus Christ are commanded and equipped to test prophets rather than blindly believing them.
Recent history shows us that followers of Jesus also make spectacularly good marks for anyone with a good sales pitch and some memorised lines of New Testament teaching.
I'm quite surprised the crypto-scam "geniuses" and the Prosperity Gospel criminals did not join forces. Put those two together, and you've got a con worthy of taking over the Republicans...
I'm convinced that the vast majority of these folks are either selling unlicensed securities, sham interests in social media / crypto / real estate / commodities / life coach etc, or they are stealing directly from the federal government via tax shams and assistance programs. The sheer number of hustle culture participants that "participated" in PPP (paycheck protection program) for example fraud is frightening.