Post by: telewinz on October 16, 2005, 03:18:55 AM
Post by: Ben on October 16, 2005, 04:50:06 AM
Quote
If an ant colony should decide to worship YOU, would you need or want some material "wealth" from them?
They shall build an idol in my image and honor me with feats of strength during Festivus, or I shall extinguish their puny lives with the wrath of the size 11 Converse All Star.
Post by: ...has left the building. on October 16, 2005, 05:18:31 AM
Post by: telewinz on October 16, 2005, 07:26:19 AM
Quote from: Daniel Flory
I know plenty of clergymen who accept a "$0" per year salary, all cash goes to building new places to worship or to charitable activities. I guess I'm not sure what your arguement is...?
It's simple; is their a religion that does not require the wealth of it's worshippers to prosper? An almighty deity requiring material wealth is like a millionaire relying on a charity operated soup-kitchen.
Post by: jefnvk on October 16, 2005, 07:48:11 AM
Needless to say, buildings and materials cost money.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 16, 2005, 08:51:11 AM
Quote from: jefnvk
I don't quite get where you are going with this. My best guess is that you are wondering why they pass around an offering basket at church?
Needless to say, buildings and materials cost money.
I agree I don't know where this is going.Needless to say, buildings and materials cost money.
Sacrifices are not necessarily "for" the deity. They could easily be for the worshipper as well.
Post by: Justin on October 16, 2005, 08:54:13 AM
Most churches rely on donations to keep the power on, send out missionaries, and do things like set up soup kitchens and food pantries. Given that we live in a quasi-capitalist society, I don't quite understand how one would go about accomplishing these things without money.
Post by: Strings on October 16, 2005, 09:44:07 AM
If you're refering to the "televangelist" type thing: I don't really see them as representatives of a religion, but more an example of a cult of personality...
Post by: telewinz on October 16, 2005, 12:33:40 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 16, 2005, 01:07:06 PM
1) The money requested goes not to the deity per se but to keeping up the worldly institutions dedicated to it.
2) The money is requested not because the deity has any need for it for but because the mere act of giving is beneficial to man.
What problems are you having with those two answers? Others: have I summarized your responses adequately?
Post by: Marnoot on October 16, 2005, 01:24:05 PM
Post by: grampster on October 16, 2005, 01:26:24 PM
Post by: telewinz on October 16, 2005, 01:28:49 PM
The main purpose of the tithe was to support the Levitical priesthood. The Levites were responsible to minister to the people, and were prohibited from owning land, which obviously limited the ways in which they could earn income. Gods plan was that their support came from those to whom they ministered, much like the direction of Scripture for the Church today (1 Cor. 9:1ff; Gal. 6:6ff, etc.). The tithe also provided welfare for widows, orphans, etc. What about Malachi 3:6-10? That says people who do not tithe are robbing God.
I ake again, what religion (including pagan) doesn't rely on the material wealth of it's worshippers to prosper/survive? If you don't know of one...just say I don't know.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 16, 2005, 01:37:39 PM
Post by: Antibubba on October 16, 2005, 01:56:39 PM
Post by: jefnvk on October 16, 2005, 02:26:24 PM
Quote
I still don't understand why a deity requires the wealth of it's worshippers to survive/prosper.
So you want to know why the diety just doesn't make the money appear? The heck if I know. Might as well just ask why the diety doesn't force everyone to believe in them.
Post by: grampster on October 16, 2005, 02:29:53 PM
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on October 16, 2005, 02:46:37 PM
There HAVE been some who have done unconscionable things in the name of religion.
The whole Jim Bakker 'resort for Jesus' thing where the money was diverted into his own lavish lifestyle (and Tammy Faye's makeup fund
); many other greedy and less than honest characters shedding tears of sincerity to save our souls as long as we send the largest denomination bill we have in our wallets.Regardless of which side of the fence you're one re: religion, I think we've all seen enough dastardly deeds done in the name of Gawd to turn us off.
The one thing I frequently have to remind myself is this:
It's not the Creator pulling the shell game, it's the (fallen) creation.
I wouldn't mind discovering that there is a special place of eternal torment reserved for those that encourage little old ladies to send their Social Security check in the name of the Lord so Reverend Dudley Dogood can buy a new Lexus...er, I mean, feed the starving children.
Post by: telewinz on October 16, 2005, 03:55:38 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on October 16, 2005, 04:31:09 PM
Post by: griz on October 16, 2005, 06:36:34 PM
Quote
What deity would exist without the donated wealth?
Rabbi already answered that question, the checks are written to the church, not God. Apparently there is no example of God's (physical) signature, so ironically no bank would trust him 
Post by: Justin on October 16, 2005, 06:38:45 PM
This is a conundrum of positively existential proportions.
Post by: matis on October 16, 2005, 07:30:15 PM
Your question is nonsensical on its face. And you know it. And your further "clarifications" show it.
In the mood to make fun of people tonight, are you?
Now give us your pained protestations of innocense, why don't you?
matis
Post by: Guest on October 16, 2005, 07:50:21 PM
In 3rd world countries or similar they're willing to do without church buildings, just meet...basically anywhere handy.
They experimented with radio evangelism in the 1920s-30s era but realized it was costing too much, forcing money-begging which they otherwise didn't do (and haven't since).
I'm not one now because...I don't think they've got the WHOLE truth like they think they do...but there's a lot to admire about them. The Jehovah's Witnesses. (And a lot *annoying* of course
...like, say, the belief that God will take back control over the world once they've knocked on every single door...hence they *track* that I kid you not...)What else...one of the three weekly meetings breaks the congregation up into pieces and uses people's homes. That's "plan b" in case they lose the main congregation building or if there's persecution...yeah, they literally have plans on how to go underground, even in the US. Given they were flat-out banned in the US during WW2 (and it was a LOT worse in Germany, the USSR, etc.) it's not completely irrational.
Funny story: there's only one "ornately massively overdecorated" JW church building...and they got it by accident. They bought an old theater back east somewhere, intending to turn it into one of the larger regional "assembly halls". It looked plain enough. Once the all-volunteer crew started digging though, they realized they'd stumbled on an old 1920s-era "movie palace" - the monster of a chandellier was in pieces in storage, ditto the original red velour seats in bad shape, there was an entire replacement ceiling covering up a big guilt dome, the doors were solid brass under about 20 layers of paint...it went on and on.
They did a bit of research, gathered the volunteers together, said "hey, it'd be more work to restore this place to original, we could also just do functional, let's take a vote". The vote (by the volunteers) was to do a restoration. They give tours during the week when not otherwise in use...it's the only JW building anywhere that could give parts of the Vatican a run for it's money
.
Post by: Antibubba on October 16, 2005, 08:49:24 PM
It isn't about money, it's about sacrifice. Money is merely a convenient medium of measuring sacrifice. If I am poor, I can assist in the sweeping or trimming the grass, perhaps after services. If I'm wealthy I can fund a bigger building, or help buy new prayer books, or sponsor missionaries. But the "organized" in "organized religion" implies that effort of some sort is taking place, and effort takes energy, time, labor. And money is an excellent indicator of work, production, and in the case of giving to a church, a measure of what a member is willing to give up to prove-primarily to himself, one hopes-his devotion to his beliefs.
Post by: Strings on October 16, 2005, 09:11:40 PM
Post by: roo_ster on October 18, 2005, 03:32:52 AM
Post by: telewinz on October 18, 2005, 01:31:15 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on October 18, 2005, 02:13:00 PM
Quote
Yeah, Standing Wolf, but telewinz has never given you any money, hence you must not exist.
This is a conundrum of positively existential proportions.
Hey, don't overlook my kitty, eh?
This is a conundrum of positively existential proportions.
Post by: thorn on October 19, 2005, 12:01:38 PM
Post by: Strings on October 19, 2005, 02:39:18 PM
Post by: thorn on October 19, 2005, 10:09:55 PM
really , i feel left out. God is always asking these guys on tv to give Him money, all i get to do is try and do the right thing
Post by: Antibubba on October 19, 2005, 10:26:00 PM
Post by: Guest on October 19, 2005, 10:43:34 PM
Post by: thorn on October 20, 2005, 02:11:07 PM
right on! and that doesnt always involve money