| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2010 08:44:00 PM · #3601 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just one of those really sad things about you. I'm not, nor never professed to be better than anyone else. I know better.
|
Well, you criticized me of claiming to be better than everyone else a few pages back, even though I never said it. I guess you and I can be equally sad together :)
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 20:47:00. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 08:48:47 PM · #3602 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
...Christianity has also done a lot of good in many places throughout the world. |
Nope. Folks describing themselves as "Christians" (and Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and atheists and agnostics and secularists and Spaghetti Monsterists) have done a lot of good in many places throughout the world. Their religion is incidental to their moral behaviour. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 08:50:35 PM · #3603 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I bring my personal experience to the table and decide gay marriage should not be allowed. |
It takes a special kind of mindset to presume to make a statement such as this. |
I call stalking. Jase has clearly indicated (by silence) that he's not interested in addressing your umbrage with this statement, so stop bringing it up. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 09:09:09 PM · #3604 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Nope. Folks describing themselves as "Christians" (and Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and atheists and agnostics and secularists and Spaghetti Monsterists) have done a lot of good in many places throughout the world. Their religion is incidental to their moral behaviour. |
Statistics disagree. Religious people give more money (4x as much) and time (twice as much) to charity than secular folk. Do you really think that's incidental? How people spend their time and money tells a lot about what they believe. Let's just say some guy named Bob is a Republican, and Bob donates huge quantities of time and money to helping out Mr. McCain get elected as president. Is the fact that Bob is a Republican incidental to his behavior? |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 09:15:20 PM · #3605 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I have been looking for precisely this kind of argument from the theists here, one that asserts some harm to the individual or society (that would result by granting full civil rights to homosexuals) and that doesn't rely solely on the "God/my faith tells me that homosexuality is wrong" statement. If someone has made this argument and I missed it, I apologize and would greatly appreciate hearing it again. |
As would I. Specifically, I would like to hear some harm-based argument that could not be equally applied to heterosexual behavior. |
Better make yourselves comfortable because the wait has been long. That argument should have occured back on page one. After all, we're talking about what society should do regarding gay marriage so arguments based around personal beliefs and self interests need not apply. Now if there was a proposal to force everyone into gay marriage then some of these arguments brought forth might make sense.
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 21:19:32.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 09:21:51 PM · #3606 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Nope. Folks describing themselves as "Christians" (and Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and atheists and agnostics and secularists and Spaghetti Monsterists) have done a lot of good in many places throughout the world. Their religion is incidental to their moral behaviour. |
Statistics disagree. Religious people give more money (4x as much) and time (twice as much) to charity than secular folk. Do you really think that's incidental? How people spend their time and money tells a lot about what they believe. Let's just say some guy named Bob is a Republican, and Bob donates huge quantities of time and money to helping out Mr. McCain get elected as president. Is the fact that Bob is a Republican incidental to his behavior? |
You seem to have missed my point. "Christianity" has done nothing. People describing themselves as such (along with all the others) are the ones doing the work.
But I'll accept your unsupported data that "religious" people give more to charity and volunteer more. I still propose that the individuals doing the giving are acting out of a moral code incidental to their religion. Seventy-six percent of Americans describe themselves as Christian, and only 13% call themselves secular according to this data, so why is it surprising that "religious people" seem to give more? |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 09:32:06 PM · #3607 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I have been looking for precisely this kind of argument from the theists here, one that asserts some harm to the individual or society (that would result by granting full civil rights to homosexuals) and that doesn't rely solely on the "God/my faith tells me that homosexuality is wrong" statement. If someone has made this argument and I missed it, I apologize and would greatly appreciate hearing it again. |
As would I. Specifically, I would like to hear some harm-based argument that could not be equally applied to heterosexual behavior. |
Better make yourselves comfortable because the wait has been long. That argument should have occured back on page one. After all, we're talking about what society should do regarding gay marriage so arguments based around personal beliefs and self interests need not apply. Now if there was a proposal to force everyone into gay marriage then some of these arguments brought forth might make sense. |
My argument all along has been that gay rights will not directly impact Christianity in a negative way. Immigration laws, abortion rights, and even animal rights don't have a direct impact on Christianity or Christian individuals, so why would gay rights? One could maybe produce an argument that gay marriage could potentially be detrimental to society as a whole on the basis that gay parents pose a threat to the traditional family. But that argument may or may not be valid. I know there have been plenty of studies suggesting that children raised by gay parents are just as normal as children raised by straight parents. There are also plenty of studies suggesting that traditional families with a mother and father are best for children. That argument could probably go either way. I don't know enough about those studies to argue one way or the other. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 09:40:58 PM · #3608 |
Originally posted by Louis:
You seem to have missed my point. "Christianity" has done nothing. People describing themselves as such (along with all the others) are the ones doing the work.
But I'll accept your unsupported data that "religious" people give more to charity and volunteer more. I still propose that the individuals doing the giving are acting out of a moral code incidental to their religion. Seventy-six percent of Americans describe themselves as Christian, and only 13% call themselves secular according to this data, so why is it surprising that "religious people" seem to give more? |
Interesting... Religious people donate more money than secular people, but it is done out of compliance with moral code and is incidental to their religion. So what you're saying is that religious people are mysteriously more inclined to act based on moral code than secular people? It sounds like you are implying that religious people have a better understanding of moral code than secular people.
By the way here's data to support my claims.
The following is copied from here.
Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true?
A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).
Very little of this gap is due to personal differences between religious and secular people with respect to income, age, family, or anything else. For instance, imagine two people who are identical in income, education, age, race, and marital status. The one difference between them is that, while one goes to church every week, the other never does. Knowing this, we can predict that the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer.
And here's a news article published last Christmas that basically says the same thing.
Article |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 09:48:58 PM · #3609 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I have been looking for precisely this kind of argument from the theists here, one that asserts some harm to the individual or society (that would result by granting full civil rights to homosexuals) and that doesn't rely solely on the "God/my faith tells me that homosexuality is wrong" statement. If someone has made this argument and I missed it, I apologize and would greatly appreciate hearing it again. |
As would I. Specifically, I would like to hear some harm-based argument that could not be equally applied to heterosexual behavior. |
Better make yourselves comfortable because the wait has been long. That argument should have occured back on page one. After all, we're talking about what society should do regarding gay marriage so arguments based around personal beliefs and self interests need not apply. Now if there was a proposal to force everyone into gay marriage then some of these arguments brought forth might make sense. |
My argument all along has been that gay rights will not directly impact Christianity in a negative way. Immigration laws, abortion rights, and even animal rights don't have a direct impact on Christianity or Christian individuals, so why would gay rights? One could maybe produce an argument that gay marriage could potentially be detrimental to society as a whole on the basis that gay parents pose a threat to the traditional family. But that argument may or may not be valid. I know there have been plenty of studies suggesting that children raised by gay parents are just as normal as children raised by straight parents. There are also plenty of studies suggesting that traditional families with a mother and father are best for children. That argument could probably go either way. I don't know enough about those studies to argue one way or the other. |
So you don't oppose the legalization of gay marriage?
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 09:52:29 PM · #3610 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Religious people give more money (4x as much) and time (twice as much) to charity than secular folk. Do you really think that's incidental? How people spend their time and money tells a lot about what they believe. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
God does not reward us for doing something good or decent... a true Christian does not do something good in hopes of getting rewarded for it. Instead, a true Christian does something good simply out of love because he/she believes that is exactly what Christ did for them (something good out of sheer love). |
According to your two statements, Christians do not perform good deeds because it's a religious requirement, but out of love because someone else has done something good for them. A non-believer follows the exact same principle: a good deed is not a requirement, but a matter of love for your fellow man (no pun intended), and doing what you would imagine a decent person would do. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 09:53:54 PM · #3611 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So you don't oppose the legalization of gay marriage? |
No. Homosexuality is in disagreement with my religion, but discrimination is also wrong according my religion. I cannot be a proponent of gay marriage, but I also cannot be a proponent of discrimination. Get it? |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 10:02:37 PM · #3612 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. |
Weekly offerings/tithes and helping out with the church picnics, etc. would dramatically inflate both numbers, so this is hardly surprising. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 10:11:28 PM · #3613 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. |
Weekly offerings/tithes and helping out with the church picnics, etc. would dramatically inflate both numbers, so this is hardly surprising. |
But if moral code is just part of being human, then shouldn't non-religious people give just as much as religious people? So, either religious people have "unlocked" more of their natural moral code than non-religious people, or religious people are just more generous in their efforts to support social justice.
Either way, you don't need to go to church in order to donate to charity. You can cheer for the Yankees without actually being at Yankee Stadium can't you?
Edit: So which is it? Are religious people more concerned with social justice than non-religious people, or are religious people just more moral?
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 22:13:51. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 10:40:25 PM · #3614 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
But if moral code is just part of being human, then shouldn't non-religious people give just as much as religious people? |
No, you're missing the point. Charitable donations include funds given to the church itself, so people who attend church and donate offerings/tithes claim those as as donations even if it's only funding their own activities. In 2000, the Catholic Church alone collected over $8.5 billion in donations (note: this is the church itself, not Catholic Charities). The vast majority of that money goes toward church operations- cathedrals and building maintenance, salaries, abuse settlements, robes, bibles, etc. So, while you can say the people who attended those churches made sizable charitable donations that non-attendees didn't, you can't automatically conclude that they're more generous or altruistic.
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 22:49:01. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 10:44:32 PM · #3615 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Weekly offerings/tithes and helping out with the church picnics, etc. would dramatically inflate both numbers, so this is hardly surprising. |
Tithing isn't much more than church sanctioned extortion. I'd love to see what happens to the numbers if that was taken out of the picture.
BTW, got any figures on time?
I don't give much in the way of money, but I give a lot of my time. Most of the people I'm involved with in various organizations give of their time as well, and it's not about the church......it's about HUMAN DECENCY, and the giving to make this world a better place with no thoughts of reward, or ulterior motives.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 10:50:44 PM · #3616 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I bring my personal experience to the table and decide gay marriage should not be allowed. |
Originally posted by Louis:
I call stalking. Jase has clearly indicated (by silence) that he's not interested in addressing your umbrage with this statement, so stop bringing it up. |
Well, Jason's a big boy, and that was a fairly raw and telling statement, so if he doesn't care to answer, then perhaps he should say so himself.
Taking my personal views aside, don't you feel that it goes along with the entitlement aspect that is a major part of this whole issue?
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 22:52:35.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 10:52:47 PM · #3617 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't give much in the way of money, but I give a lot of my time. Most of the people I'm involved with in various organizations give of their time as well, and it's not about the church......it's about HUMAN DECENCY, and the giving to make this world a better place with no thoughts of reward, or ulterior motives. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times). |
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 10:53:48 PM · #3618 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So you don't oppose the legalization of gay marriage? |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
No. Homosexuality is in disagreement with my religion, but discrimination is also wrong according my religion. I cannot be a proponent of gay marriage, but I also cannot be a proponent of discrimination. Get it? |
Then what point are you trying to make by joining this discussion?
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 10:57:04 PM · #3619 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't give much in the way of money, but I give a lot of my time. Most of the people I'm involved with in various organizations give of their time as well, and it's not about the church......it's about HUMAN DECENCY, and the giving to make this world a better place with no thoughts of reward, or ulterior motives. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times). |
Missed that, but it's certainly not true in my case.
Not to be pedantic, but I would like to know the source of your stats.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 11:04:18 PM · #3620 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The vast majority of that money goes toward church operations- cathedrals and building maintenance, salaries, abuse settlements, robes, bibles, etc. So, while you can say the people who attended those churches made sizable charitable donations that non-attendees didn't, you can't automatically conclude that they're more generous or altruistic. |
Oh, come now, Shannon! You can't expect us to believe that these are serious expenditures to run & maintain?
  
I mean, really! How much could it possibly cost just to heat the places alone.......did I mention it's been in the teens, temp-wise, for about the past ten days????
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 11:07:25 PM · #3621 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just one of those really sad things about you. I'm not, nor never professed to be better than anyone else. I know better. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Well, you criticized me of claiming to be better than everyone else a few pages back, even though I never said it. I guess you and I can be equally sad together :) |
No, what I said was by virtue of your religion having the attitude that you are the "right" religion, there's an implicit superiority that seems to travel with that.
At least that's been my experience with the majority of Christians that I've met. It's that whole attitude that you have it all figured out, and know you've got it right. It's real, and quite noticeable to us heathens on the outside.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 11:22:25 PM · #3622 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times). |
Missed that, but it's certainly not true in my case. |
The same situation applies. It's like comparing the volunteer time of PTA members to non-PTA members. The first number will be inflated by default because you're comparing an organization with a high rate of internal participation to the general public, so the PTA group will tend to have more volunteer time even if it's only for their own self-interests rather than the good of the community. A churchgoer who helps set up the annual potluck dinner for members is contributing time that isn't applicable to a person who doesn't belong to such a group, however it's not a contribution of social justice.
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 23:30:57. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 11:24:03 PM · #3623 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
[quote=DrAchoo]I bring my personal experience to the table and decide gay marriage should not be allowed. |
Originally posted by Louis:
I call stalking. Jase has clearly indicated (by silence) that he's not interested in addressing your umbrage with this statement, so stop bringing it up. |
Well, Jason's a big boy, and that was a fairly raw and telling statement, so if he doesn't care to answer, then perhaps he should say so himself.
Whether or not he should, he doesn't have to. There is no requirement that anyone ever respond to anything in the forums they don't feel like responding to (there are, cases where one must not respond). It's one thing to restate a question to someone when you believe they may not have see it, but there comes a point where a non-response should be considered a tacit statement that, for whatever reason, the person does not intend to respond. In this case, that point has probably passed.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 11:27:01 PM · #3624 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Then what point are you trying to make by joining this discussion? |
In my very first post I said that Christians should stop freaking out about gay rights. That's been my point from the very beginning. Then a bunch of people started asking me all these questions and criticizing me just because I'm Christian and here we are. People assume that Christianity is opposed to gay rights, so when a Christian guy like me gets involved in a discussion like this everyone assumes that I'm the bad guy. Christianity has a right to promote whatever beliefs it wants within the Christian community, but I don't think Christians should discriminate against anyone, especially against people outside the Christian community. All communities should have the right to be as inclusive or exclusive as they want, on whatever grounds they want. However, no community should try and force it's beliefs on another community. Christianity is about willful acceptance, not forced acceptance. Americans (edit: American Christians) have forgotten that.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Not to be pedantic, but I would like to know the source of your stats. |
I posted a link above, but the stats are from charitynavigator.org
Originally posted by scalvert:
No, you're missing the point. Charitable donations include funds given to the church itself, so people who attend church and donate offerings/tithes claim those as as donations even if it's only funding their own activities. In 2000, the Catholic Church alone collected over $8.5 billion in donations (note: this is the church itself, not Catholic Charities). The vast majority of that money goes toward church operations- cathedrals and building maintenance, salaries, abuse settlements, robes, bibles, etc. So, while you can say the people who attended those churches made sizable charitable donations that non-attendees didn't, you can't automatically conclude that they're more generous or altruistic. |
I realize that the majority of church giving goes to the church itself. But there's a perfectly good reason for that. If churches don't cover the costs needed to function, then the churches will stop functioning. If churches stop functioning then local ministries and global ministries have no support base, and not all ministries are about spreading the gospel. There are tons of Christian ministries that provide food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for the impoverished. My mom helps out with a local ministry at here church in which she helps women being released from prison find ways to provide for themselves so that they don't revert back to crime. That's a good ministry that benefits society that has nothing to do with spreading the gospel. The same sort of principle applies to government spending. If the government stops supporting itself then the government collapses.
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 23:33:24. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 11:44:46 PM · #3625 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Then what point are you trying to make by joining this discussion? |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In my very first post I said that Christians should stop freaking out about gay rights. That's been my point from the very beginning. Then a bunch of people started asking me all these questions and criticizing me just because I'm Christian and here we are. |
Well....I must admit, I missed the part where you stated your feelings on the matter. My apologies.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
People assume that Christianity is opposed to gay rights. |
That'd be because for the most part, at least as far as their public stance goes, they are.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I realize that the majority of church giving goes to the church itself. But there's a perfectly good reason for that. If churches don't cover the costs needed to function, then the churches will stop functioning. If churches stop functioning then local ministries and global ministries have no support base, and not all ministries are about spreading the gospel. There are tons of Christian ministries that provide food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for the impoverished. My mom helps out with a local ministry at here church in which she helps women being released from prison find ways to provide for themselves so that they don't revert back to crime. That's a good ministry that benefits society that has nothing to do with spreading the gospel. The same sort of principle applies to government spending. If the government stops supporting itself then the government collapses. |
Comparing the usage of church funds used in maintenance to government spending really sucks as an analogy.......8>)
It's also been my experience that much more of the money given to churches gets spent on the church administration than it does on their outreach programs. That's the reason I cut the money I gave my church by 66% this year and used it directly in how I give back to the community. And my church seems to have much more community involvement than what I've seen in most.
|
|
