| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2010 11:48:25 PM · #3626 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There are tons of Christian ministries that provide food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for the impoverished. |
Plenty of non-religious groups provide the same services, however the charitable contributions for churchgoers includes substantial donations for the church that have nothing to do with those services.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If churches don't cover the costs needed to function, then the churches will stop functioning... The same sort of principle applies to government spending. If the government stops supporting itself then the government collapses. |
By that logic, oil executives must be more moral than teachers because they pay more taxes to a government that includes social services among its expenses. It doesn't follow. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 11:49:59 PM · #3627 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
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. |
And that's fine.....my point was that I'm sure he doesn't need someone else to say so, which was the point of my first statement, then I moved on to the next statement, which you decided to leave out.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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? |
If you're going to admonish me publicly, then please make sure you have the entire context of the post correct.
Edited to Add:
As a matter of fact, that wasn't even directed at Jason, I quoted it as an example, with an apology beforehand....
Thing is, by virtue of the Christian tenet that they are the chosen, "right" religion, you cannot help but have an air of entitlement, and general superiority.
Unfortunately, it's all too often conveyed in the attitudes.....sorry Jason, but I have to go back to this statement:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bring my personal experience to the table and decide gay marriage should not be allowed.
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 23:56:18.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2010 12:00:04 AM · #3628 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There are tons of Christian ministries that provide food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for the impoverished. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Plenty of non-religious groups provide the same services, however the charitable contributions for churchgoers includes substantial donations for the church that have nothing to do with those services. |
Truth be told, the larger and more effective the organization, religious or not, the more money it costs to administer.
The actual money tracking to the end is largely depressing. That's part of the reason I like to donate my time. 100% of what I give goes right to the end result.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2010 12:04:28 AM · #3629 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Well....I must admit, I missed the part where you stated your feelings on the matter. My apologies. |
Apology accepted.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That'd be because for the most part, at least as far as their public stance goes, they are. |
Yes, and that's unfortunate. Religions cannot change laws in the U.S. Only the government can change laws. Unfortunately, some politicians have used Christianity to gain support. Conservatives have been ingenious in using Christianity as a means for gaining power. Why? Because conservatives realized that a massive percentage of Americans are Christian, so they specifically appeal to Christians in order to garner votes. Unfortunately, this has worked out very badly for Christianity and it's given Christianity a bad name.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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. |
That is sometimes the case. I've always been very picky about which churches I've become members at in part for that reason. A good pastor will not accept more money from the church than he needs to provide for his family. Being a Pastor is a full time job, so Pastors need some sort of salary so that they don't go broke. The last church I attended in St. Paul, Minnesota was Bethlehem Baptist Church. Pastor John Piper has been the pastor there for more than 20 years and has never accepted a pay raise. I currently attend Harvest Bible Chapel in the Chicago area. The pastor there, Dr. James MacDonald, sells a lot of books, but all of the profit from his books goes back into the ministry. None of the revenue from his books goes to him. I don't have much respect for pastors that take more than what they need.
Message edited by author 2010-01-02 00:05:45. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 12:08:25 AM · #3630 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The actual money tracking to the end is largely depressing. That's part of the reason I like to donate my time. 100% of what I give goes right to the end result. |
I continue to give my 10% to the church because I know the church needs it. But I also directly support Africa Inland Missions because a good friend of mine works with them, and I also give directly to Intervarsity Christian Fellowship for the same reason.
Message edited by author 2010-01-02 00:11:27. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 12:20:04 AM · #3631 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
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. |
Er -- no. That's not at all what I was implying, and I'm sure you knew that. Best not to make up things about people's intentions and begin making statements on their behalf when they're not around.
As I'm sure you gathered, I've been implying that selfless behaviour, like bad behaviour, is not the purview of any particular group, and claiming that "religious people" (whatever that may mean and irrespective of their behaviour generally) own the lion's share of socially selfless acts like giving to charity is a self-serving interpretation of the data.
While the statistics appear to be impressive, I'm more inclined to believe that religious people give money and donate time to their own institutions. That's not exactly the pinnacle of selflessness. All three of your own stated donations are to Christian charities, 10% of which is to your own church. The last charity you mention, "Intervarsity Christian Fellowship", is the most self-serving donation you could make -- donating so that proselytizing of your own faith can continue unabated in the halls of your nation's educational system. That is utterly and nakedly self-serving, and, in my view, is exactly the kind of thing Shannon has already pointed out. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 12:29:09 AM · #3632 |
We ought to be making a distinction here, of course, between things that are considered "charitable" for tax purposes and true, help-the-needy charity. As Louis points out, donating money to Christian programs designed to spread the Word, while "charitable" in the eyes of the law, isn't really charity. Give the money directly to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and the like and you'll be making a real difference...
R. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 12:41:03 AM · #3633 |
| My circle of friends gives quite a lot of money and time to political organizations and/or candidates that in their opinion further social justice causes. These donations of time and money probably don't fall into the strict definition of charitable giving, but I think the definition could be expanded to include this type of giving; and if it was included, my guess is that the gap between church-goers and secular folk with regard to giving/donations would shrink dramatically. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 01:13:45 AM · #3634 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
My circle of friends gives quite a lot of money and time to political organizations and/or candidates that in their opinion further social justice causes. These donations of time and money probably don't fall into the strict definition of charitable giving, but I think the definition could be expanded to include this type of giving; and if it was included, my guess is that the gap between church-goers and secular folk with regard to giving/donations would shrink dramatically. |
If you limited the tally of charitable donations to ONLY homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and similar social assistance (removing self-serving and religion-specific purposes), I strongly suspect the statistics would be reversed. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 02:26:39 AM · #3635 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Er -- no. That's not at all what I was implying, and I'm sure you knew that. Best not to make up things about people's intentions and begin making statements on their behalf when they're not around.
As I'm sure you gathered, I've been implying that selfless behaviour, like bad behaviour, is not the purview of any particular group, and claiming that "religious people" (whatever that may mean and irrespective of their behaviour generally) own the lion's share of socially selfless acts like giving to charity is a self-serving interpretation of the data.
While the statistics appear to be impressive, I'm more inclined to believe that religious people give money and donate time to their own institutions. That's not exactly the pinnacle of selflessness. All three of your own stated donations are to Christian charities, 10% of which is to your own church. The last charity you mention, "Intervarsity Christian Fellowship", is the most self-serving donation you could make -- donating so that proselytizing of your own faith can continue unabated in the halls of your nation's educational system. That is utterly and nakedly self-serving, and, in my view, is exactly the kind of thing Shannon has already pointed out. |
I figured that wasn't what you were implying. I knew that my claim was ridiculous, but I believe that your claim is equally ridiculous. Namely, "I still propose that the individuals doing the giving are acting out of a moral code incidental to their religion".
Self-serving in that my donation benefits me personally? No. Self-serving in that my donation benefits other people that share my faith? Yes.
Intervarsity does a lot more than just convert people to Christianity.
Message edited by author 2010-01-02 02:27:14. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 08:00:38 AM · #3636 |
Originally posted by Louis:
The last charity you mention, "Intervarsity Christian Fellowship", is the most self-serving donation you could make -- donating so that proselytizing of your own faith can continue unabated in the halls of your nation's educational system. That is utterly and nakedly self-serving, and, in my view, is exactly the kind of thing Shannon has already pointed out. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Self-serving in that my donation benefits other people that share my faith? Yes. Intervarsity does a lot more than just convert people to Christianity. |
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA is a campus ministry focused on transformation. We believe that when students and faculty are transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ, the campus is transformed and ultimately society is transformed.
The last bit about transforming campuses & society is very much a matter of opinion and not necessarily true.
It's a mission statement, not fact. Perhaps you could elaborate on that as the site is pretty specific about its evangelical purpose.
Message edited by author 2010-01-02 09:30:21.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2010 08:57:43 AM · #3637 |
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. 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. |
Bravo to Jonathon for making this statment. If the Christian community as a whole believed this way, this issue would be a non-issue. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 11:16:31 AM · #3638 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I knew that my claim was ridiculous, but I believe that your claim is equally ridiculous. |
Well, you're going to have to do better than just say so. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 01:12:11 PM · #3639 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA is a campus ministry focused on transformation. We believe that when students and faculty are transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ, the campus is transformed and ultimately society is transformed.
The last bit about transforming campuses & society is very much a matter of opinion and not necessarily true.
It's a mission statement, not fact. Perhaps you could elaborate on that as the site is pretty specific about its evangelical purpose. |
Read the Ministry Overview, that might clear things up a bit.
Here's a few excerpts:
"InterVarsity campus staff consider it a privilege and responsibility to disciple Christian students as they are being formed in Christ-like character."
"Our campus staff encourage students to pursue healthy relationships and to love people of every ethnicity and culture."
"Our work with faculty is aimed at fostering communities that provide fellowship and mutual support to those in the academic community."
Now, I'm not a spokesperson for Intervarsity so I could be wrong. But from what I've read on the website, and from what my friend has told me, Intervarsity focuses on three things. Helping Christian students grow in their faith, promoting relationships between people of different backgrounds, and creating healthy communities that can provide support for students. When their vision statement talks about "transforming campuses", that sounds like preaching the gospel but I don't think that's the intention. Transformation is a huge part of Christianity. "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." - 2 Corinthians 3:18. As I understand it sharing the gospel is just a part of Intervarsity's goal, and it isn't done forcefully or in a way that would be offensive to non-Christian students. I gather that Intervarsity's primary goal is simply to help Christian individuals and Christian communities in an environment that is often hostile to them.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I knew that my claim was ridiculous, but I believe that your claim is equally ridiculous. |
Well, you're going to have to do better than just say so. |
When you said that religious peoples' actions are incidental to their religious beliefs. That's a bold statement.
Message edited by author 2010-01-02 13:32:49. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 02:35:43 PM · #3640 |
One thing that always gets my goat on these threads is people are really quick to lay the ills of religion at the feet of those who adhere to the faith, but they are very reticent to admit the good of religion is the doing of those very same people.
The truth is religion is a very strong positive force for what others might call "humanitarian" aid, be it locally (homeless shelters, soup kitchens) or globally (medical work, infrastructure work). But people here are either blind to it or pay it as little lip service as they can get away with or worse try to find any cynical angle they can to attribute it to self-serving behavior.
This aspect, more than most on the thread, makes me downright ill. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 03:04:23 PM · #3641 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One thing that always gets my goat on these threads is people are really quick to lay the ills of religion at the feet of those who adhere to the faith, but they are very reticent to admit the good of religion is the doing of those very same people. |
Your perception is skewed. Pretty much anyone will freely acknowledge that much good is done in the name of the church, however you can't make the blanket statement that religion is an agency of good and ignore the historical evils perpetuated under the same cause. The posts you're referring to hinge on that issue. Sure, you can point to medical help, food aid, orphanages and the like— no dispute there— but there's also religious oppression, slavery, ethnic hatred and discrimination (the issue at hand), wars, and genocide on the grounds of personal faith. The Vatican has missionaries to help (and also promote membership) in Africa while at the same time prohibiting condoms that could stem rampant deaths from AIDs. As with any other social organization (elected governments, ACORN, etc.), you'll find both good and evil in pursuit of their respective agendas, and to suggest either one exclusively will draw a foul. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 03:28:57 PM · #3642 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Your perception is skewed. |
And yours isn't?
Originally posted by scalvert:
however you can't make the blanket statement that religion is an agency of good and ignore the historical evils perpetuated under the same cause |
I don't think DrAchoo was suggesting that we ignore the historical evils of organized religion, he's just suggesting that we not ignore the good. Remembering the good does not require forgetting the evil.
The world is full of both secular good and evil, and religious good and evil. Of course some secularists will claim that religious evil is more evil than secular evil, while some religious people will claim that secular evil is more evil. In reality, evil is evil, and to suggest that one evil is more evil than another is just plain ludicrous.
Message edited by author 2010-01-02 15:30:10. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 03:38:09 PM · #3643 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The truth is religion is a very strong positive force for what others might call "humanitarian" aid, be it locally (homeless shelters, soup kitchens) or globally (medical work, infrastructure work). But people here are either blind to it or pay it as little lip service as they can get away with or worse try to find any cynical angle they can to attribute it to self-serving behavior. |
Why is it that we're supposed to give special note to something that the rest of us engage in anyway?
If you have that ever-elusive human decency, it's one of the things that you do as a combination of the gratitude you feel for being fortunate and caring for the world around you.
I would be completely surprised to find that any of us in this discussion doesn't make purposeful commitments of time and money to make their world a better place.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2010 03:41:06 PM · #3644 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This aspect, more than most on the thread, makes me downright ill. |
What makes me ill is the inference that the religious have some kind of moral code or value system that's better than the secular. The religious have no such claim to a moral high ground, and all references to atrocities committed by organized religion and to self-serving "charities" that exist only to promote their own agenda and stack their numbers is a response to such a claim.
To say it again: those predisposed to doing good will do so, irrespective of religion, and those predisposed to doing ill will likewise act according to their nature. Anyone suggesting that religion makes people better somehow is myopic and biased. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 03:56:57 PM · #3645 |
| Well I'm happy to hear people think that religion can be a good force in the world. Usually we just talk about the opposite. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 04:02:58 PM · #3646 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This aspect, more than most on the thread, makes me downright ill. |
What makes me ill is the inference that the religious have some kind of moral code or value system that's better than the secular. The religious have no such claim to a moral high ground, and all references to atrocities committed by organized religion and to self-serving "charities" that exist only to promote their own agenda and stack their numbers is a response to such a claim.
To say it again: those predisposed to doing good will do so, irrespective of religion, and those predisposed to doing ill will likewise act according to their nature. Anyone suggesting that religion makes people better somehow is myopic and biased. |
True. It floors me that this (i.e. religion does good) is even brought up as some kind of defense for religion while at the same time trying to justify discrimination, which is the opposite of doing good.
Message edited by author 2010-01-02 16:04:23.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2010 04:07:52 PM · #3647 |
Originally posted by yanko:
True. It floors me that this (i.e. religion does good) is even brought up as some kind of defense for religion while at the same time trying to justify discrimination, which is the opposite of doing good. |
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The way I interpret above is, "How can we ever talk about religion being good when it's so bad?" Obviously there are two sides to the coin.
Anyway, one difference between religion and atheism is that religion has the capability of being transformative and inspirational (for good or bad, I suppose) while atheism, not being any sort of creed cannot. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 04:19:03 PM · #3648 |
Actually what probably annoys me more about Richard's post is it's back to the relative-moral atheist (although Richard is agnostic, isn't he?) suddenly talking about things like there is a "line in the sand" that ought not to be crossed and the line represents more than just his opinion.
Discrimination, in itself, is not bad. We should be discriminatory at times. Of course we can discriminate against people for things that we should not judge them on (which is bad). But what qualifies as such is back to an opinion. More than half the country currently feels it is perfectly fine to discriminate between a gay marriage and a traditional marriage. But as soon as this is brought up, that absolute line in the sand is drawn because someone brings up, "well, at one time most of the country was in favor of slavery".
I just find it interesting. I think people feel there are absolute moral lines we should not cross and the proof of the pudding is in how they talk (like Richard's post). We can talk relativism all we want and that there is no such thing as "basic human rights", but nobody acts that way and when people hear that I am against gay marriage they think I am wrong in a very real sense that goes beyond their personal experience and opinion.
And around we go...
Message edited by author 2010-01-02 16:20:03. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 04:21:19 PM · #3649 |
Originally posted by Louis:
To say it again: those predisposed to doing good will do so, irrespective of religion |
Probably because if a person thinks they're already good enough, then they probably won't think they need some religion to make them better.
Originally posted by Louis:
and those predisposed to doing ill will likewise act according to their nature. Anyone suggesting that religion makes people better somehow is myopic and biased. |
Actually, Christianity attracts people who feel a need for change or transformation, and as such many immoral people are made more moral through it. Christianity promises forgiveness and acceptance regardless of the wrong a person does. So, naturally, people who feel they've done wrong often turn to Christianity. Once a broken person realizes what Christ has done for them, they are so filled with joy and freed from guilt that they turn their life around and feel the desire to share that good with others. Christianity teaches that a person does "good works" not as a requirement, but as a natural expression of the love and grace that person experiences through faith in Christ. Christianity teaches that good works should be the result of being saved, and those that use good works in an attempt to achieve their own salvation will not be saved. Salvation comes through Christ's work for us, not through our own work.
Message edited by author 2010-01-02 16:31:46. |
|
|
|
01/02/2010 04:45:08 PM · #3650 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually what probably annoys me more about Richard's post is it's back to the relative-moral atheist (although Richard is agnostic, isn't he?) suddenly talking about things like there is a "line in the sand" that ought not to be crossed and the line represents more than just his opinion.
Discrimination, in itself, is not bad. We should be discriminatory at times. Of course we can discriminate against people for things that we should not judge them on (which is bad). But what qualifies as such is back to an opinion. |
What line am I drawing? You're the one drawing a line in the sand saying there's good and bad discrimination. I make no such claims.
|
|
