| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2011 02:44:24 PM · #601 |
Well we're having two conversations Mousie.
It first looked like you were blaming convenience on the reason why religious people give more than secular people, but here you say there's lots of convenience to give even outside church so I'm not quite sure where you are going with that.
As far as motivation, you have to motivate yourself. Nobody in any church I've ever gone to is twisting my arm to give. These days the pastors practically fall over themselves to tell new people NOT to give (so they don't feel compelled to do so). But if you don't go to a church or organization then I guess you have to motivate yourself even moreso. Basically, if someone tells me it's not convenient enough to give or they don't have significant enough external motivation to give, I would just say those are excuses.
When you said "For all practical purposes, the choice in the matter is whether to give or not when an opportunity arises, it has little to do with seeking out opportunity, in my opinion." I would agree. As Nike likes to put it: Just do it.
Message edited by author 2011-02-25 14:45:14. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 04:43:11 PM · #602 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... These days the pastors practically fall over themselves to tell new people NOT to give (so they don't feel compelled to do so). |
You are pulling our collective leg right?
Not only do they collect in church, pay no taxes and line up at the public trough, but in these parts they frequently come banging on your door, sending their minions disguised at school chilren.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 05:11:20 PM · #603 |
Honestly Ray, I have never witnessed such behavior ever. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but I promise that in at least the last three churches I've attended, when the offering plate is passed the pastor will say something like, "If you are visiting or new to us today, please do not feel obligated to give. Let the service be our gift to you." And I'm not sure I've ever heard of kids running from door to door. That's boy scouts and girl scouts. Or the public schools. Or sports teams.
Scout's honor.
Message edited by author 2011-02-25 17:12:56. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 08:30:44 PM · #604 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Honestly Ray, I have never witnessed such behavior ever. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but I promise that in at least the last three churches I've attended, when the offering plate is passed the pastor will say something like, "If you are visiting or new to us today, please do not feel obligated to give. Let the service be our gift to you." And I'm not sure I've ever heard of kids running from door to door. That's boy scouts and girl scouts. Or the public schools. Or sports teams.
Scout's honor. |
But this is still pressuring, because although you are excused, it is still bringing attention to the very fact that NORMAL REGULAR patrons GIVE. Who wants to be the stingy new guy that showed up?
And again, I don't want to say it's bad, per se, but it certainly can't be ignored. Peer pressure is simply directing people to ends; they may be good, they may be bad, that depends upon the situation. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 09:20:12 PM · #605 |
| Well, what can you do? It's a far softer sell than telethon days on NPR. :) |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 09:58:34 PM · #606 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
But this is still pressuring, because although you are excused, it is still bringing attention to the very fact that NORMAL REGULAR patrons GIVE. Who wants to be the stingy new guy that showed up?
And again, I don't want to say it's bad, per se, but it certainly can't be ignored. |
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Every church is supported by its congregants, and every churchgoer understands this. This talk about "normal, regular patrons" is silly. I've NEVER felt pressured to give when I have been in a church not my own, and I have never been made to feel in any way less welcome because I did not give.
At least in the churches with which I am familiar, congregants have what amounts to a contractual arrangement with the church, where they commit to giving a certain amount of money in support of the church and its ministry on an annual basis, and when the collection plate is passed around that's what most people are depositing; their pro-rated, weekly commitment to their church.
There may well BE churches where the pressure to give is immense (Evangelical? Southern Baptist? I don't know...) but that's by no means the universal experience of Christian churchgoers in this country ΓΆ€” that much I can tell you from personal experience.
R. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 10:45:26 PM · #607 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Every church is supported by its congregants, and every churchgoer understands this. This talk about "normal, regular patrons" is silly. I've NEVER felt pressured to give when I have been in a church not my own, and I have never been made to feel in any way less welcome because I did not give.
At least in the churches with which I am familiar, congregants have what amounts to a contractual arrangement with the church, where they commit to giving a certain amount of money in support of the church and its ministry on an annual basis, and when the collection plate is passed around that's what most people are depositing; their pro-rated, weekly commitment to their church.
|
No, I agree with you Robert. I'm not intending to say that it's some "oh it's okay... you're NEW ::wink wink::" sort of thing. I meant exactly what you describe- the EXPECTATION. My initial example was of workout partners, and it's not like your partner will call you a jerk if you can't make it (for whatever reason) but that doens't mean that there is not pressure to come. We're speaking of expectations, and unless you're saying there is no pressure implied by expectations of a social group, I think my point is perfectly valid. As I said, it comes off as terribly negative, but groups serve as nagging forces to encourage behaviors we already endorse (and which are the reason we take part in said groups in the first place). |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 11:21:18 PM · #608 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It first looked like you were blaming convenience on the reason why religious people give more than secular people, but here you say there's lots of convenience to give even outside church so I'm not quite sure where you are going with that. |
There is plenty of convenient charitable opportunity in the secular world. There is all that and more in the religious world, by nature of the organized social structure often focused on charitable activity. You can't possibly mean to imply that religious people don't partake in secular life. It's called a super-set. 'Lots' is less than 'lots more'.
Why is this so hard to parse? It seems entirely logical to me. Other people here have also made the observation that employees of large corporations donate more than people in small businesses. It's the same thing. Heck, I know I wouldn't donate money to educate kids in India if I didn't sit across the aisle from an Indian co-worker who asks me to do it based on our common bond as employees at the same global company. (Asha For Education, BTW)
So yeah, I'm still 'blaming' convenience and logistics. I'm not sure where you're going with your implication that my point isn't sensible, by pointing out the (irrelevant) scale of secular opportunity. Increasing the number of choices for secular charity only serves to increase choice for religious folks as well.
-----
And jeeze, being told that you don't have to GIVE even though normal members GIVE but you get a pass (the first taste's free, right?) even though GIVING is a known expectation of churchgoers (Re: Bear) and they'd obviously prefer you GIVE once you're comfortable... how is that not an influence? It's expressly discussed!!!
Why are you guys pushing back so hard on the idea that churches enable charity? Heck, I think charity is just about the only redeeming quality churches have apart from a somewhat related sense of community!
Message edited by author 2011-02-25 23:25:09. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 11:24:04 PM · #609 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
I meant exactly what you describe- the EXPECTATION. |
Bingo. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 11:32:33 PM · #610 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Why are you guys pushing back so hard on the idea that churches enable charity? Heck, I think charity is just about the only redeeming quality churches have apart from a somewhat related sense of community! |
Well, I'm not one of "you guys" in this particular discussion, I don't think. It's just that passing-the-plate is not "charity"; it's supporting (literally supporting) your church. It's like dues in a club; when you invite your buddy to play a round at your club, you don't expect him to pony up a pro-rated portion of your monthly dues, do you? (Assuming you've ever belonged to a country club or a yacht club or a tennis club, whatever...) So there's a little confusion here, in my mind; the minister gets PAID from those tithes, the building fund gets PAID from those tithes, and so forth and so on, and the church itself tithes back to the national organization that provides its umbrella. This isn't charity, it's nuts and bolts.
R. |
|
|
|
02/26/2011 02:08:25 AM · #611 |
It seems possible to me that if people are told week in and week out to "Love God. Love others." that they might actually go out and do some of that. Is it too crazy to think there is something to that?
Message edited by author 2011-02-26 02:18:46. |
|
|
|
02/26/2011 11:34:34 AM · #612 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems possible to me that if people are told week in and week out to "Love God. Love others." that they might actually go out and do some of that. Is it too crazy to think there is something to that? |
Seems to me that that is the plan which has been in effect for about the past 5000 years. If it hasn't worked up until now, even with the threat of eternal damnation (or burning at the stake), why do you think it will work in the future?
Personally, the appeal to the logic that species survival and quality of life for all might improve if we were to avoid unnecessary fratricide (i.e. war, oppression) worked OK for me. I think if you were to survey people on actual issues, like should we be kind to each other and freely contribute to help out the disadvantaged, attitudes between the religious and non-religious would be quite similar. On the whole, I suspect a bell curve of atheists' and believers' attitudes on various subjects would be quite similar, just that one group does not require the threat of Hell to do the right thing.... |
|
|
|
02/26/2011 02:38:12 PM · #613 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...So there's a little confusion here, in my mind; the minister gets PAID from those tithes, the building fund gets PAID from those tithes, and so forth and so on, and the church itself tithes back to the national organization that provides its umbrella. This isn't charity, it's nuts and bolts. R. |
...I for one am in full agreement with your premise Robert, but would you not also agree that when we factor in the "Tax Free" aspect of the church that we are in fact all contributors to varying degrees.
I have no problems in paying my fair share for road maintenance, schools and publicly funded services, but I do have a problem with funding religion.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/26/2011 05:59:39 PM · #614 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
On the whole, I suspect a bell curve of atheists' and believers' attitudes on various subjects would be quite similar, just that one group does not require the threat of Hell to do the right thing.... |
Come on Paul, your being pedantic. If you want to play that way, the come back is that while the one group requires the threat of Hell to do what's right, the other group just doesn't do it (ie. giving). But that's silly. We know atheists give just as we know Christians don't just do stuff to avoid hell (which is a pretty poor understanding of Christian doctrine anyway). |
|
|
|
02/26/2011 09:13:30 PM · #615 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Why are you guys pushing back so hard on the idea that churches enable charity? Heck, I think charity is just about the only redeeming quality churches have apart from a somewhat related sense of community! |
Well, I'm not one of "you guys" in this particular discussion, I don't think. It's just that passing-the-plate is not "charity"; it's supporting (literally supporting) your church. It's like dues in a club; when you invite your buddy to play a round at your club, you don't expect him to pony up a pro-rated portion of your monthly dues, do you? (Assuming you've ever belonged to a country club or a yacht club or a tennis club, whatever...) So there's a little confusion here, in my mind; the minister gets PAID from those tithes, the building fund gets PAID from those tithes, and so forth and so on, and the church itself tithes back to the national organization that provides its umbrella. This isn't charity, it's nuts and bolts.
R. |
Per the passing the plate- I was referring to all the activities around the church that require giving, which is what the initial discussion was on. I see why you thought my initial statement was absurd now, but I was speaking in regard to overall generosity and acts of charity. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 05:57:40 PM · #616 |
Testing...testing...1...2...3...
Is this thing on? Is everyone abstaining from Rant these days?
My question for atheists is are Humans better than animals?
If you were walking in the woods and you saw a boy and his dog drowning and you realize you could only save one of them, who would you save? The boy or his dog and why? |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 06:24:20 PM · #617 |
| Humans ARE animals. I'd save the boy... dogs can swim. ;-) |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 06:34:36 PM · #618 |
| It would depend on if the boy is a Christian. If so, let God save him. Really, I'm just kidding, but why would you even come up with a question like that? I don't know anyone that would save a dog over a child. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 06:37:01 PM · #619 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
My question for atheists is are Humans better than animals?
If you were walking in the woods and you saw a boy and his dog drowning and you realize you could only save one of them, who would you save? The boy or his dog and why? |
Really? We need invisible superheroes in the sky to figure these thing out for us?
The primary branch of atheism is called humanism. Humanists think people matter, that reason is a better life guide than myth or tradition.
Rationally, if I am a human, I would save the human. Save the tribe, save the species, save the thing that is most like me, this is to increase the chances of your own survival. Save the boy, then save the dog, but don't even notice the bug in the water drowning next to the dog. What do you think I am some whacky Jain or some other religious type that thinks all life matters?
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
ΓΆ€” Mark Twain
BTW Texas is considering a bill to make it illegal to discriminate against creationists, now if only they would give the same protections to married women or gays.
Message edited by author 2011-03-17 19:22:18. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 08:51:58 PM · #620 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
why would you even come up with a question like that? |
It's a common theme with these guys. Achoo has posed absurd "moral dilemmas" several times as if someone who doesn't believe in Zeus or the Tooth Fairy would give an unexpected answer (a manifestation of the quaint primitive belief that people cannot be moral unless they're trying to please the gods). |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 10:36:52 PM · #621 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Testing...testing...1...2...3...
Is this thing on? Is everyone abstaining from Rant these days?
My question for atheists is are Humans better than animals?
If you were walking in the woods and you saw a boy and his dog drowning and you realize you could only save one of them, who would you save? The boy or his dog and why? |
Certainly the dog, poor thing probably went in to the woods to save the boy who forgot to listen to God and stay out of the woods that one can somehow drown in. |
|
|
|
03/17/2011 10:47:25 PM · #622 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
ΓΆ€” Mark Twain |
Side note: In a few days I'm taking  Isaac to see Hal Holbrook perform his Mark Twain Tonight show -- almost as good as seeing the author himself, though now Mr. Holbrook has to make himself up as a younger man ...
I once heard a suggestion for an experiment to compare the two species: "Lock your wife and your dog in the trunk of your car, then go away for an hour. When you open the trunk again, which one do you think will be glad to see you?"
From the (Atheist) Kids Say The Darnedest Things Dept.: Isaac's mom called me the other day to report that he had banged his leg climbing over a small fence, at which he blurted out "Oh Your God, that hurt!"
So now, if you see OYG in response to a post, you'll know what it means ... :-) |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 12:30:16 AM · #623 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
why would you even come up with a question like that? |
The question was brought up to me and I have a way to answer it, but I was wondering how an atheist would answer it. The kid isn't part of your "tribe" and won't increase your chances of survival. In fact, you might drown yourself if you try to help. Maybe you should not rescue either of them.
You could feel more sorry for the dog who probably was dragged in by the boy. At least the boy made a choice to go in the water.
Are we really more important than other animals? We're all just animals. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 01:10:41 AM · #624 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's a common theme with these guys. Achoo has posed absurd "moral dilemmas" several times as if someone who doesn't believe in Zeus or the Tooth Fairy would give an unexpected answer (a manifestation of the quaint primitive belief that people cannot be moral unless they're trying to please the gods). |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The question was brought up to me and I have a way to answer it, but I was wondering how an atheist would answer it. |
See? He was just wondering what someone who doesn't believe in Zeus would do... like that has any relevance to the situation. Maybe then we can ponder what someone who doesn't believe in Odin might do if he found a wallet in the woods or whether someone who doesn't believe in alien overlords from Romulus would intervene in a domestic dispute. After all, how could they possibly make a decision without believing in those things?! A head scratcher for sure. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 01:16:24 AM · #625 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
After all, how could they possibly make a decision without believing in those things?! A head scratcher for sure. |
How often do we make unique decisions without the advantage of experience, context, culture, etc.? |
|
