How many poor people can 60,000,000 euros feed?

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

10/15/2007 06:57:18 PM · #51

"surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot?"

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/15/2007 07:01:39 PM · #52

Not wanting to get involved, but the Vatican does have a huge number of priceless works of art, both hanging on their walls and stored in massive vaults.. why dont they flog off a couple of these to help the needy, surely the church dosesnt NEED these paintings? does it?

I am terribly agnostic so enjoying this discussion immensley.

10/15/2007 07:05:12 PM · #53

Originally posted by sher:

A church is supposed to express the power and glory of God and not for aggrandizement of itself.

One and the same. Or more specifically, since the latter doesn't exist, the former is glorified instead. Actually, beautiful gigantic churches are a testament to the power and glory of mankind.

Originally posted by sher:

Since you do not believe, I can't imagine that any amount of money spent would not be considered ridiculous by you.

Right. See my post about that $150 shack being a waste of money.

Originally posted by sher:

So you may call me unsavory all you like...

Well, I wasn't calling you anything. One may come off as blustery, intransigent, bellowy and rude, but it has little to do with any one particular individual, so don't be insulted. Who doesn't come off as just a wee bit intransigent anway, when talking about one's (dis)beliefs?

Originally posted by sher:

...but I will still argue that it is up to a particular church to decide how much they want to spend to fulfill it's own vow to it's people and to God.

Sure, they can do anything they like, no question. And when any one of those organizations appears to be hypocritically violating its own tenets, i.e., the vow of poverty or of eschewing worldly wealth, or if their tacit refusal to do their jobs comes about because their priorities are all screwed up, it is up to particular brands of rude and nosy people to point that out wherever they can.

Originally posted by sher:

And I still say that if this church offers solace and a peace to the people who will worship there, then it is doing goood.

By preaching to the choir?

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

10/15/2007 07:23:56 PM · #54

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 19:24:41.

Dr.Confuser

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/15/2007 07:24:39 PM · #55

Not saying it's right or wrong, but the Catholic church doesn't exactly have a corner on grand and expensive buildings.

St. Peter's in Rome is probably the biggest Catholic example I can think of. But ...

Anybody been to the Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca or the Great Mosque in Mecca?

How about the Potala Palace in Lhasa?

Or maybe the Forbidden city in Beijing?

Religions and governments (religions by another name) have been doing this throughout history.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/15/2007 09:38:46 PM · #56

Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:

Not saying it's right or wrong, but the Catholic church doesn't exactly have a corner on grand and expensive buildings.

Right you are. The total cost of the new Environment and Energy Building at Stanford University is projected to be a whopping 118 million dollars, nearly TWICE the cost of the church in Portugal that spawned this thread. But I tend to doubt whether any of the anti-religious posters to this thread have a problem with spending that much money for a building when it's done by a university.

10/15/2007 09:53:05 PM · #57

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Not saying it's right or wrong, but the Catholic church doesn't exactly have a corner on grand and expensive buildings.

Right you are. The total cost of the new Environment and Energy Building at Stanford University is projected to be a whopping 118 million dollars, nearly TWICE the cost of the church in Portugal that spawned this thread. But I tend to doubt whether any of the anti-religious posters to this thread have a problem with spending that much money for a building when it's done by a university.

Reckless clouding of the issue.

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

10/15/2007 09:57:53 PM · #58

Originally posted by Louis:

Reckless clouding of the issue.

Actually, I'd be very interested to hear your view on "spending that much money for a building when it's done by a university". I'm not intending for it to be a loaded question; I'm genuienly curious.

10/15/2007 10:01:01 PM · #59

Originally posted by Louis:

Reckless clouding of the issue.

I don't think pointing out that people spend Billions on simply products they don't need, building that serve nothing but entertainment purposes, and all others sorts of leisurely things clouds the issue.

From your point of view (correct me if I'm wrong), religion is just a convenience for the stupid, so why wonder when you see them do stupid things? Shouldn't this just be par for the course?

Maybe you should convince some truly enlightened people to fix the world instead of the idiot religionistas? After all, they're too stupid to see the point anyways.

10/15/2007 10:10:26 PM · #60

Originally posted by wavelength:

From your point of view (correct me if I'm wrong), religion is just a convenience for the stupid....

You stand corrected. Also, thank you for providing yet another example of putting forth arguments based on assumptions you made because of opinions you have.

10/15/2007 10:12:08 PM · #61

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by wavelength:
From your point of view (correct me if I'm wrong), religion is just a convenience for the stupid....

You stand corrected. Also, thank you for providing yet another example of putting forth arguments based on assumptions you made because of opinions you have.

And your argument that the money was better spent on the poor was based on what, again?

Apparently Christians don't have the market cornered on hypocrisy either.

dacrazyrn

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/15/2007 10:12:28 PM · #62

What I was told by one of my emergency room patients that was wearing a $500 leather jacket, $250 leather chaps, designer handbag, lots of bling, gotta boob job, bragging about how they are buying an american chopper bicycle for her son this week and asking for "free samples of Vicodin" cuz they are on Medicaid and can't afford it...
..."It's my money, and I will do with it what I want to."

Same idea here with the church.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/15/2007 10:13:31 PM · #63

Originally posted by klstover:

Actually, I'd be very interested to hear your view on "spending that much money for a building when it's done by a university".

$118 million dollars is about 83 million euros (nowhere near double), and you're talking about a high technology building that is designed to explore and evaluate "green" construction. It's designed to use 50% less energy and 90% less water than traditional buildings of comparable size, built with recycled and rapidly renewable materials. The building will enable the development of future environmental and energy technologies, and nearly half of the construction cost was donated by Yahoo's founder. Not exactly an apples and oranges comparison.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

10/15/2007 10:17:13 PM · #64

Originally posted by wavelength:

And your argument that the money was better spent on the poor was based on what, again?

Er.. read the thread? Anyway, how about the fact that it's the Catholic church's mandate? Also, refer to klstover's post about the Christian mandate to "help the poor" as outlined in the bible. And perhaps you could explain to me how it's hypocritical to point out the glaring hypocrisies of an organization like the Catholic church? Or was that your assumption-based opinion speaking again?

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

10/15/2007 10:20:59 PM · #65

I have an assumption based opinion that is backed up by past practice.

10/15/2007 10:24:09 PM · #66

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by klstover:
Actually, I'd be very interested to hear your view on "spending that much money for a building when it's done by a university".

$118 million dollars is about 83 million euros (nowhere near double), and you're talking about a high technology building that is designed to explore and evaluate "green" construction. It's designed to use 50% less energy and 90% less water than traditional buildings of comparable size, built with recycled and rapidly renewable materials. The building will enable the development of future environmental and energy technologies, and nearly half of the construction cost was donated by Yahoo's founder. Not exactly an apples and oranges comparison.

The people who funded the money for the church would tell you that the building serves to bring people together, foster a sense of community, be a focal point for the church where leaders can look for ways to better themselves and their community, where missions can be started, where charity and the overall goodness of mankind can be encouraged and fostered, thereby bettering society as a whole. And natively bring about the natural desire to help those that have less, to teach about compassion and goodwill.

The difference is that each group sees the one need as more important that the other. I doubt that anyone can really argue whether the mission of making others around you better people is really a bad or unworthy one.

If you made the argument that they often fail, I'd be right there with you. The environmental movement has failed at a lot of things in their mission too.

I'm not sure how the donation coming mostly from one donor plays any different than if it were from many.

10/15/2007 10:27:59 PM · #67

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by wavelength:
And your argument that the money was better spent on the poor was based on what, again?

Er.. read the thread? Anyway, how about the fact that it's the Catholic church's mandate? Also, refer to klstover's post about the Christian mandate to "help the poor" as outlined in the bible. And perhaps you could explain to me how it's hypocritical to point out the glaring hypocrisies of an organization like the Catholic church? Or was that your assumption-based opinion speaking again?

wow, completely just oblivious. and you assumed that I hadn't read the thread. me making a different conclusion doesn't mean I didn't see the same set of information. go ahead, assume away.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/15/2007 10:30:29 PM · #68

Originally posted by wavelength:

wow, completely just oblivious.

Yeah, guess so. We're not all adept at slicing through the sarcasm of others I suppose. So, care to explain my glaring hypocrisies to someone as thick as me?

AJSullivan

10/15/2007 10:34:41 PM · #69

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ajdelaware:
People will donate even if its not their faith. ... any religious organization, no matter what the faith, is a business. They have overheads, costs, bills, expenses, etc. You gotta spend money to make money.

Fair enough, but spending money on gold decorations, sculptures, crystal, marble and stained glass isn't quite the sort of overhead expense I'd expect from a non-profit or charitable organization. Besides, I thought that particular location was its own attraction?

How many centuries ago did Michaelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel? 1500s right? He was paid $3000 bucks then....imagine how much that is today?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

10/15/2007 10:37:31 PM · #70

Originally posted by wavelength:

You could accomplish that with a large tent, and universities make no vow of poverty or mandates to help the needy. One wonders how Moses or other early Christians could possibly have fostered a sense of community without such grandiose facilities.

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

10/15/2007 10:39:38 PM · #71

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by wavelength:
The people who funded the money for the church would tell you that the building serves to bring people together, foster a sense of community, be a focal point for the church where leaders can look for ways to better themselves and their community...

You could accomplish that with a large tent, and universities make no vow of poverty or mandates to help the needy. One wonders how Moses or other early Christians could possibly have fostered a sense of community without such grandiose facilities.

Do you or Louis give money to the church?

10/15/2007 10:40:19 PM · #72

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by wavelength:
wow, completely just oblivious.

Yeah, guess so. We're not all adept at slicing through the sarcasm of others I suppose. So, care to explain my glaring hypocrisies to someone as thick as me?

I never said you were stupid Louis, but your general un-charity to those that you deem unworthy of your respect comes to mind.

I'd make the pretty safe assumption that you probably have some pretty good reasons and observances why you think Christians are just a bunch of superstitious idiots. I have some pretty good reasons and observances on why I think most Athiests are more hate-filled than they accuse believers of being, and generally their un-belief is based more off their own arrogant assertion of their own self-righteousness and will than anything approaching a reasoned argument.

By the way, I'm playing devils advocate here. Pretty badly, obviously. I don't really like Catholics, their politics, or their beliefs, and I do think they spend way too much money on themselves. But it's kind of like the difference between you calling your brother ugly, and the kid down the street doing the same ;)

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 22:43:38.