Religious beliefs on bitcoin

[crumbcake]

I have no doubt that Hitler wanted to seem Christian, but actions speak louder than words. But, in case that's not enough, here's some words too:

"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

Now there we have the No True Scotsman. No Christian ever thinks any other Christian is "true" if they've given Christianity bad press. Ridiculous. You've no doubt sinned at some point but you think you're still Christian. So, what if Hitler asked for forgiveness for all his sins in the manner you deem most "correct"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Hitler was raised Catholic. In his book <i>Mein Kampf</i> and in public speeches he made statements affirming a belief in Christianity. He called the purge of Jews "positive Christianity." While there is debate over his actual private feelings about the faith, he was a publicly practicing Christian. There exists no known evidence that Hitler was an atheist or agnostic. Again: evidence he was Christian; no evidence he was otherwise.

Hitler said: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

The Reichskonkordat was a treaty signed on 20 July 1933 between the Holy See (Catholic Church) and Nazi Germany, guaranteeing the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired dictatorial powers, and placing constraints on Catholic critics of the regime, leading to a muted response by the Church to Nazi policies. Yes, the Catholic Church colluded with Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law , the prophesy has been fulfilled, let's end this sucker!

[tinus42]

I have no doubt that Hitler wanted to seem Christian, but actions speak louder than words. But, in case that's not enough, here's some words too:

"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

Now there we have the No True Scotsman. No Christian ever thinks any other Christian is "true" if they've given Christianity bad press. Ridiculous. You've no doubt sinned at some point but you think you're still Christian. So, what if Hitler asked for forgiveness for all his sins in the manner you deem most "correct"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Hitler was raised Catholic. In his book <i>Mein Kampf</i> and in public speeches he made statements affirming a belief in Christianity. He called the purge of Jews "positive Christianity." While there is debate over his actual private feelings about the faith, he was a publicly practicing Christian. There exists no known evidence that Hitler was an atheist or agnostic. Again: evidence he was Christian; no evidence he was otherwise.

Hitler said: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

The Reichskonkordat was a treaty signed on 20 July 1933 between the Holy See (Catholic Church) and Nazi Germany, guaranteeing the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired dictatorial powers, and placing constraints on Catholic critics of the regime, leading to a muted response by the Church to Nazi policies. Yes, the Catholic Church colluded with Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law , the prophesy has been fulfilled, let's end this sucker!

Touché! 

[keelba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law , the prophesy has been fulfilled, let's end this sucker!

Wow. I've never heard of Godwin's law before but I'm a believer now.

[ktttn]

You seem very angry with Christians and at God for some reason.

For an atheist, being "angry at god" is like being angry at Voldemort.

There are 20+ page atheist threads raging against Voldemort

Youre posting in one right now.

[crumbcake]

You seem very angry with Christians and at God for some reason.

For an atheist, being "angry at god" is like being angry at Voldemort.

There are 20+ page atheist threads raging against Voldemort

Youre posting in one right now.

That's 'coz i read http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Premi%C3%A8re_Ubu_Roi.jpg/200px-Premi%C3%A8re_Ubu_Roi.jpg at an impressionable young age.
(+1 for evol books ruining minds)

[ktttn]

How dare anyone imply that someone who abused you should seek forgiveness not from you, but from BLANK.

"Forgiveness" is an area that I think many of Christians get wrong. I actually don't think we should offer forgiveness to anyone unless they ask.  The Bible says to be "ready to forgive."  My abuser never did ask me for forgiveness.  So I put him in the hand of God to deal with him.  I felt very sad for his soul.  I cried for him because I knew that if he did not repent, or ask for forgiveness, he was doomed for destruction.  I prayed that he would change.  The reason I had a change of heart was because I was willing to forgive at that point (before then I wanted revenge and was filled with hate)  Looking back now I can see that God was very patient with him.  Perhaps he had a chance, or two, or three, before he was "accidentally" killed in a freak accident.  I am not sure.  It is tragic, really.

Hate and revenge can protect you from harm. God cannot.
Youre doing a great job listings the shortcomings of jesusism. I reccomend that you read something that will help you reconcile your legit criticisms with your grandfathered-in belief. You got kids? Ask them what they freely observe about the real and metaphysical world instead of coloring their perception with insipid dogmatic bullshit and learn what god is and isnt from that. I bet you .1 mbtc were all born atheists.
There are lots of "recovering christian" forums, blogs and sources that will blow your mind. Come back to me when you have looked into any of that.
In conclusion, a book with less than a trillion pages does not contain universal truth. To argue that it does is unworthy of rebuttal.

[wopwop]

i believe

oh lord save us thank you lord for bitcoin

[ktttn]

I have no doubt that Hitler wanted to seem Christian, but actions speak louder than words. But, in case that's not enough, here's some words too:

"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

Now there we have the No True Scotsman. No Christian ever thinks any other Christian is "true" if they've given Christianity bad press. Ridiculous. You've no doubt sinned at some point but you think you're still Christian. So, what if Hitler asked for forgiveness for all his sins in the manner you deem most "correct"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Hitler was raised Catholic. In his book <i>Mein Kampf</i> and in public speeches he made statements affirming a belief in Christianity. He called the purge of Jews "positive Christianity." While there is debate over his actual private feelings about the faith, he was a publicly practicing Christian. There exists no known evidence that Hitler was an atheist or agnostic. Again: evidence he was Christian; no evidence he was otherwise.

Hitler said: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

The Reichskonkordat was a treaty signed on 20 July 1933 between the Holy See (Catholic Church) and Nazi Germany, guaranteeing the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired dictatorial powers, and placing constraints on Catholic critics of the regime, leading to a muted response by the Church to Nazi policies. Yes, the Catholic Church colluded with Nazis.

I love your posts.
What does it take for you to hit ignore? I punched out around hershey highway death penalty.

[ktttn]

^^^ this. Or as Ravi Zacharius once asked of moral relativism: Is anything "Wrong?"

There is no good versus evil, no right versus wrong, except as we perceive it within whatever social structures we accept. Was it OK for your god to rape the 13 year old, Mary, to give birth to himself? Apparently during that time period, it was condoned. Today it is not, even though this is one of the foundation events for a religion that espouses "absolute morals".

I wish people would stop playing so fast & loose.  Religion's link with morality is only incidental, the connection is similar to "life produces shit":  Sure, though not all the time & shitting is not what life's all about.  You don't need to reach for hot-button topics like "OMFG!  Mary waz 13!  Unrape tha loli!!11!," that's nonsense -- that age was the norm at the time.  Ether the world was pedo paradise, or ... non-event.  There are much less loaded examples, though.  Just take this great God-troll:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” - Genisis 22

Ethics are a feeble human construct, an attempt at ruleset without extrinsic references or even a stated goal, Faith bulldozes over them & doesn't even say "whoops.".  

On a side note, there's a Godelian gray zone:  Acts which are neither illegal, immoral, nor even specifically against the tenets of any faith.  Farting in a crowded theater is one such act brought up by Burgess.  It's not illegal or immoral, and nevertheless wrong

Are you implying that arbatrary, manmade morals are less feeble than reviewed ethics? Feeble means weak, as in 'not defendable.'
Farting is like spitting, ultimately the inner workings of the immune systems of those exposed to human farts and spit, work in some rather interesting ways.
Ethics bulldozes over the norm without even raping children.

[crumbcake]

^^^ this. Or as Ravi Zacharius once asked of moral relativism: Is anything "Wrong?"

There is no good versus evil, no right versus wrong, except as we perceive it within whatever social structures we accept. Was it OK for your god to rape the 13 year old, Mary, to give birth to himself? Apparently during that time period, it was condoned. Today it is not, even though this is one of the foundation events for a religion that espouses "absolute morals".

I wish people would stop playing so fast & loose.  Religion's link with morality is only incidental, the connection is similar to "life produces shit":  Sure, though not all the time & shitting is not what life's all about.  You don't need to reach for hot-button topics like "OMFG!  Mary waz 13!  Unrape tha loli!!11!," that's nonsense -- that age was the norm at the time.  Ether the world was pedo paradise, or ... non-event.  There are much less loaded examples, though.  Just take this great God-troll:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” - Genisis 22

Ethics are a feeble human construct, an attempt at ruleset without extrinsic references or even a stated goal, Faith bulldozes over them & doesn't even say "whoops.".  

On a side note, there's a Godelian gray zone:  Acts which are neither illegal, immoral, nor even specifically against the tenets of any faith.  Farting in a crowded theater is one such act brought up by Burgess.  It's not illegal or immoral, and nevertheless wrong

Are you implying that arbatrary, manmade morals 1 are less feeble than reviewed ethics 2? Feeble means weak, as in 'not defendable.'
Farting is like spitting, ultimately the inner workings of the immune systems of those exposed to human farts and spit, work in some rather interesting ways. 3
Ethics bulldozes over the norm without even raping children. 4

Not sure what you mean. Could you clear up a few things for me, if it's not much effort?  Here are the questions:
1. Which them is those?
2. ditto.
3. ...i guess, maybe, depends on what you mean by "like" & how easily you are amused.
4.  A poke at absurdism?  I'm lost...

[ktttn]

^^^ this. Or as Ravi Zacharius once asked of moral relativism: Is anything "Wrong?"

There is no good versus evil, no right versus wrong, except as we perceive it within whatever social structures we accept. Was it OK for your god to rape the 13 year old, Mary, to give birth to himself? Apparently during that time period, it was condoned. Today it is not, even though this is one of the foundation events for a religion that espouses "absolute morals".

I wish people would stop playing so fast & loose.  Religion's link with morality is only incidental, the connection is similar to "life produces shit":  Sure, though not all the time & shitting is not what life's all about.  You don't need to reach for hot-button topics like "OMFG!  Mary waz 13!  Unrape tha loli!!11!," that's nonsense -- that age was the norm at the time.  Ether the world was pedo paradise, or ... non-event.  There are much less loaded examples, though.  Just take this great God-troll:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” - Genisis 22

Ethics are a feeble human construct, an attempt at ruleset without extrinsic references or even a stated goal, Faith bulldozes over them & doesn't even say "whoops.".  

On a side note, there's a Godelian gray zone:  Acts which are neither illegal, immoral, nor even specifically against the tenets of any faith.  Farting in a crowded theater is one such act brought up by Burgess.  It's not illegal or immoral, and nevertheless wrong

Are you implying that arbatrary, manmade morals 1 are less feeble than reviewed ethics 2? Feeble means weak, as in 'not defendable.'
Farting is like spitting, ultimately the inner workings of the immune systems of those exposed to human farts and spit, work in some rather interesting ways. 3
Ethics bulldozes over the norm without even raping children. 4

Not sure what you mean. Could you clear up a few things for me, if it's not much effort?  Here are the questions:
1. Which them is those?
2. ditto.
3. ...i guess, maybe, depends on what you mean by "like" & how easily you are amused.
4.  A poke at absurdism?  I'm lost...

4. I am become absurdism incarnate.
3. Little smelly poo particles.
2. Meow.
1. Morals are all arbitrary inventions of man. Ethics are logic based.

[crumbcake]

^^^ this. Or as Ravi Zacharius once asked of moral relativism: Is anything "Wrong?"

There is no good versus evil, no right versus wrong, except as we perceive it within whatever social structures we accept. Was it OK for your god to rape the 13 year old, Mary, to give birth to himself? Apparently during that time period, it was condoned. Today it is not, even though this is one of the foundation events for a religion that espouses "absolute morals".

I wish people would stop playing so fast & loose.  Religion's link with morality is only incidental, the connection is similar to "life produces shit":  Sure, though not all the time & shitting is not what life's all about.  You don't need to reach for hot-button topics like "OMFG!  Mary waz 13!  Unrape tha loli!!11!," that's nonsense -- that age was the norm at the time.  Ether the world was pedo paradise, or ... non-event.  There are much less loaded examples, though.  Just take this great God-troll:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” - Genisis 22

Ethics are a feeble human construct, an attempt at ruleset without extrinsic references or even a stated goal, Faith bulldozes over them & doesn't even say "whoops.".  

On a side note, there's a Godelian gray zone:  Acts which are neither illegal, immoral, nor even specifically against the tenets of any faith.  Farting in a crowded theater is one such act brought up by Burgess.  It's not illegal or immoral, and nevertheless wrong

Are you implying that arbatrary, manmade morals 1 are less feeble than reviewed ethics 2? Feeble means weak, as in 'not defendable.'
Farting is like spitting, ultimately the inner workings of the immune systems of those exposed to human farts and spit, work in some rather interesting ways. 3
Ethics bulldozes over the norm without even raping children. 4

Not sure what you mean. Could you clear up a few things for me, if it's not much effort?  Here are the questions:
1. Which them is those?
2. ditto.
3. ...i guess, maybe, depends on what you mean by "like" & how easily you are amused.
4.  A poke at absurdism?  I'm lost...

4. I am become absurdism incarnate.
3. Little smelly poo particles.
2. Meow.
1. Morals are all arbitrary inventions of man. Ethics are logic based.

4.  I Am Become Death.  Words clever people wish they've said, or thought,  at the right moment.  Drop the "incarnate" -- it's implied by "I am become." 
3.  "little smelly poo particles"?  See 1 below.
2.  ditto.
1.  Oh, i see wut U did ther!  Troll harder.

 

[Tekkna]

There is a difference because murder is a relative moral. I am still awaiting your absolute moral.

The difference is between the separation of the words kill and murder.

You don't provide any evidence or argument but simply state a position.

Which is pretty much what you were doing, or perhaps I don't see your actual argument.
From what I read, which may not be what you intended, as you seem to think you made a point:
1. The word moral is a weapon
2. I think God is bad, despite believing all morals other than mine are bad
3. Atheists can have morals without religion

None of these are actually making any points, just stating what you believe.

They are more commonly known as "laws" but yes, bad law is created every day and governments (and their citizens) allow it to happen for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately other clan/government groups decided other "morals," other law, should prevail.

So the strongest group decides?

I didn't think you'd give up this easily.

I didn't.

Well, I suppose I should be happy you even tried to argue your point, thin as it is. Why would the choice of writing material be any more a human choice than the words written? The argument sounds pretty arbitrary. You'd be better off just saying "faith has no need of logic" and leave it there.

... what?
I completely answered your point, and you say it's thin without even criticizing my actual point?

This type of response from you is getting kind of boring, there's nothing to argue against. The most coherent point you made was choice of writing material, everything else being really ... pointless.

Because the bible is the inspired ward of God? The choice of papyrus as writing material was logical, and quite insignificant.

Well, I must say I wasn't expecting you to condone child abuse. One would think I'd know better by now. At least your values can serve as a warning to others to steer a wide course around religion.

I'm not condoning child abuse.

Slavery

The bible does not condone the modern conception of slavery, and in fact condemns it. If you had read my post at all you would have noticed this.

It does condone a specific form of slavery, namely the payment of debts. The idea was if you could not conceivably pay a debt you owed someone you would work in order to cover part of it.

[Tekkna]

Ah, the ever-faithful and often used christian fallback.
"You don't understand the bible" or "You're using the wrong translation". It covers a whole lot of delusion for you without you needing to fire nary a brain cell.

Atheists understand your bible and your god delusion. It is why we are atheists, and why we need to constantly inform christians of the passages in their own book of rules.

"Atheists: Teaching Christians The Bible, Since 325AD"

No.
More like atheists constantly twisting and contorting the bible to attempt to make themselves seem logical.

[Tekkna]

I have no doubt that Hitler wanted to seem Christian, but actions speak louder than words. But, in case that's not enough, here's some words too:

"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

Now there we have the No True Scotsman. No Christian ever thinks any other Christian is "true" if they've given Christianity bad press. Ridiculous. You've no doubt sinned at some point but you think you're still Christian. So, what if Hitler asked for forgiveness for all his sins in the manner you deem most "correct"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Hitler was raised Catholic. In his book <i>Mein Kampf</i> and in public speeches he made statements affirming a belief in Christianity. He called the purge of Jews "positive Christianity." While there is debate over his actual private feelings about the faith, he was a publicly practicing Christian. There exists no known evidence that Hitler was an atheist or agnostic. Again: evidence he was Christian; no evidence he was otherwise.

Hitler said: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

The Reichskonkordat was a treaty signed on 20 July 1933 between the Holy See (Catholic Church) and Nazi Germany, guaranteeing the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired dictatorial powers, and placing constraints on Catholic critics of the regime, leading to a muted response by the Church to Nazi policies. Yes, the Catholic Church colluded with Nazis.

You're not even listening to what I'm posting, I'm not saying he was a "bad" Christian, I'm saying he did not even believe in Christianity at all.

"Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself. -- Hitler

Hitler allied himself with the church earlier on because he did not think he could defeat it. I highly doubt Hitler was even a Theist

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death... The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble." -- Hitler

But I'm sure there is

"When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians.... the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry... and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier. The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul.... Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely." -- Hitler

great controversy over the issue as to whether or not Hitler was Christian.

"We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." -- Hitler

And I suppose I must concede to your point that there is no evidence that

"Science cannot lie... It's Christianity that's the liar" -- Hitler

Hitler was an athiest.

'Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobillization by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.' -- Hitler

Ah well, I can only speculate from his actions that he was not Christian.


It's not like Hitler would ever use Christianity as tool to gain acceptance either, that is too far fetched.

[ktttn]

Atheists are just as bad as religious people.

To say 'there is no God' is as bad as saying 'believe in my religion and follow my [insert your God here]'.

The only way to be is agnostic - 'I don't know and don't rightly care'...

Agreed. Only sort of turned on its head. -ish
Acknowledging bald fallacy legitimizes consideration of it. Every time.
Both atheists and theists refer to external gods, Agnosticism is internal, psychological, deals with questions of knowability in terms of that argument.
This places the debate correctly, but does not entirely answer it.

[neurobox]

Atheists are just as bad as religious people.

To say 'there is no God' is as bad as saying 'believe in my religion and follow my [insert your God here]'.

The only way to be is agnostic - 'I don't know and don't rightly care'...

Agreed. Only sort of turned on its head. -ish
Acknowledging bald fallacy legitimizes consideration of it. Every time.
Both atheists and theists refer to external gods, Agnosticism is internal, psychological, deals with questions of knowability in terms of that argument.
This places the debate correctly, but does not entirely answer it.

When you are dealing with matters of eternity and infinity, parallel items are indistinguishable, but one realm containing another is not hard to visualize.

As a theist (I suppose), my God is, in a sense, internal as well as external. Everything is in Him, yet He is in me. I do not define him, but now I have begun to define myself as he sees me: I am in Christ, thus he sees only Christ in me. The multidimension/higher order/infinite/spiritual mechanics of this seem much more intricate and subtle, though. I suspect we don't have the language to fully convey it, even if we could begin to grasp it.

Science used to see the world in 4 humors and 4 elements, adding a fifth whenever it didn't jive. Our understanding has grown exponentially, from biology, to chemistry, to particle physics, to informational dimensions, to quantum physics, and it's only begun to get stranger and quarkier, leaving more questions than answers. I'm not against science, but sometimes I wonder if atheists (and their satanist protagonists) are. Why should it surprise anyone if we eventually discovered that the reality is orders of magnitude more organized than we though, but we can hardly tell from the present state of continual degradation that we see on earth? Were you to encounter counter-entropic evidence, it ought to cause you to question.

In closing, it's as much foolishness to say I don't know and I don't care as it is to declare what you cannot prove. (Yes, I know that goes both ways.)

I wouldn't want to follow a God that I can define, or who obeys my crude scientific assessments. I tried that before, and found something that is definitely not God. Don't test God, but ask him, and he'll convince you. He knows how to.

[KeyserSoze]

This will sound weird to you but after praying about it, we felt like God wanted us to invest in Bitcoin.  Still not sure why.  

Doesn't sound weird, it sounds typical. Your god has commanded you against your actions and you want to convince yourself otherwise, so you "pray on it" and surprise surprise, the ruler of the universe gives you an exemption.

We have not really made much yet

I wouldn't think of it this way yet. Even those who were in even earlier still needed a few years to make any money, if that was their goal. If you believe Bitcoin has a chance then owning just a few should return a sizable gain once it explodes.

I divided my tiny stash by 3. One third I just hold, never move. One third I buy and sell during daily/hourly swings. Another third I buy/sell all at once when I think major moves will happen. So far, I'm "ahead" but only as unrealized gains. I pulled out my original investment a while ago so if I lose it all then I never really lost anything at all but my time and "potential gains".

I still do not understand why you think God does not want us to be wealthy? 

I think it is plainly spelled out in the bible passages I have already posted, among others. The central thrust is to give everything you have away and "give no thought to the morrow" while following Jesus' teachings. Here's more bible teachings greed is causing you to ignore:

Mathew 6
19“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.20“But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22“The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.23“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
24“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

If a women was no longer a virgin, she was not allowed to marry (She was considered used property) so perhaps it was God intervening to cause her to at least have a family? Perhaps a merciful action based on the cruel society that they were living in at the time?  I am just speculating here.

There is no excuse for forcing a woman to marry her rapist. None. Why would you think it was OK back then unless morals are relative, not absolutely handed down from your god? Or was it that your god was just wrong?

[Rassah]

I do feel like there is a movement towards Christianity being less accepted, or popular, in our society than it used to be.  This is my own perception of course. 

You would be correct. The country is becoming more secular, and churches are losing attendees all over the country. Much of it has to do with the churches preaching fire and brimstone about things like cohabitation, sex before marriage, contraception, and homosexuality, and the younger generation, after having gay friends, reading up the truth about contraception, and accepting that it's OK to have sex before marriage to try things out, are realizing that this preaching is nothing but old dogma and ignorance, and are leaving the churches in droves. In a way, the churches have brought the downfall on themselves, when they noticed their flock start to dwindle, and way overcompensated, driving everyone away. I can't say I feel sorry for them.

[Rassah]

In spite of that I have learned many things through the experience.  I have been able to help others that have gone through similar things.  I have a faith that is strengthened because I know that God will help me through anything I have to go through.  I had a pastor once say,  "This life is the closest to hell we will ever be."  That is comforting a strange way.  I know that could start a whole different debate on hell.  But as a Christian, with my world view, it makes sense to me that we are going to suffer on this earth but it is a short lived time when thinking of Eternity.  

Our experience does define us, and even if it's bad, it makes us who we are. If you like who you've become, you probably wouldn't have your life happen in any other way, since if that bad experience could somehow be wiped from the past, you wouldn't be you anymore. At least that's how I feel. I truly believe that what doesn't kill us, only makes us stronger. However, I find what your pastor said to be incredibly sad and misguided. Life isn't hell, life is whatever we make of it. If you can't make the best of your present situation, can't strive to better yourself, and can't be happy with what you have, then you'll never be happy in heaven either. After all, if you can't find happiness with what you have here, how would a few extra things make you any happier there? Living in heaven you'll just eventually get bored with what you have, even if it's more stuff, and will continue to feel like you are in hell. And if you do find happiness in what you have or in what you do here, then why wait for heaven? To me, personally, the strive for knowledge, experiencing new places, foods, music, entertainment, people, and things is what brings me joy, and overcoming hardships and building on top of them is what brings me pride in myself and my life. If what they say about heaven is true - that in heaven we will know everything, will never need for anything, will never feel strife, and will live for ever (which is an amount of time we can't even really comprehend) - then that would truly be hell for me.