Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://ncronline.org/blogs/future-church/facing-hunger-pope-demands-end-opulence-and-waste" target="_blank">http://ncronline.org/blogs/fut...nd-waste</a> "Calling hunger “the most cruel and concrete sign of poverty,” Pope Benedict XVI today told a special summit of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that “opulence and waste are no longer acceptable when the tragedy of hunger is assuming ever greater proportions.”" Well, duh. So, what about YOUR opulence in your palace there in the Vatican? How soon will you be tearing it down in the name of hunger?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF OK, Papa Ratzi...give up the Prada slippers, the gold rings, the costumes, etc.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Depends on who you believe: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/2203856/Pope-Benedict-XVI-does-not-wear-Prada-says-Vatican.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...can.html</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201914.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...914.html</a>
Originally Posted By BeccasMommy And this is one of the many reasons that as an adult and a catholic i have wandered from the church, the opulence in the eye of all the those in the world who live in hunger and desperate poverty and their disregard for other basic human dignity like the rights of homosexuals and the equality of women in service of the faith... but i will say i have a similar distaste for most organized religion in this fashion, the opulence of the megachurch, media savvy groups... i think that the essence of the Christ story is to live a simple life of service, not have a building with seating rivaling a sports stadium and a huge television following
Originally Posted By Mr X What could possibly be more obnoxious than a Pope bitching about opulence!? Seriously.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox San Francisco is named for St Francis of Assisi, who was born into the upper class of Italy, only to later renounce it and embrace a life of poverty and attending to the poor. Francis is also considered one of the original environmentalists, having a deep and abiding love for the natural world, often expressed in his writings and preachings. The Vatican has been so far removed from Franciscan ideology, it's really depressing. These are the basic Christian fundamentals that should be embraced by all churches, yet the major denominations are more political organizations and real estate empires than charitable groups, groups which should be working to improve humanity and the environment instead of tearing it apart. The Pope and his band of bishops are swimming in so much hypocrisy now, I don't know how they can possibly recover. The pontiff's recent efforts to invite Episcopalians and Anglicans to ditch their churches and re-unite with the Catholic church magnifies the desperation these men must be facing, to keep their organization from shrinking. And I don't see how whining about excessive wealth furthers their cause, while they sit on such a huge amount of wealth and resources themselves. St Francis saw the world around him, and realized the accumulation of wealth that his family devoted their entire lives to, was the wrong path for the betterment of humanity. I don't know when precisely the Vatican lost touch with reality, but they need to wake up and get with the program and return to the Franciscan doctrine, if they want to be taken seriously. And that goes for ANY organized church with massive amounts of wealth. Organized religion could and should be a force for positive change in the world. But clowns such as the Pope sitting at the top of these groups always find a way to F it up. Francis tried to reach these poor bastards in the 12th and 13th centuries, but ultimately, his message fell on deaf ears. More's the pity.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <major denominations are more political organizations and real estate empires than charitable groups, groups which should be working to improve humanity and the environment instead of tearing it apart.> Don't you think a large church could do both or even more things? Why couldn't a church be financially responsible by purchasing real estate to support itself, building opulent edifices to honor God (and because he commands it), and also give millions and millions of dollars to help the needy and improve the world?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Churches are largely self-serving. When you look at the operating costs of most congregations, the amount of money spent to pay the staff, keep the lights on, pay the mortgage on the buildling, and other overhead dwarfs the amount of charitable giving by a significant degree.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Why couldn't a church be financially responsible by purchasing real estate to support itself, building opulent edifices to honor God (and because he commands it)" God commands churches to build garish buildings? God has that much vanity?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<building opulent edifices to honor God (and because he commands it)>> WHOA! Back the ecumenical truck up! "God" commands this? Through Christ? REALLY? Jesus gave up his upper middle class lifestyle, to live and walk amongst the poor. When did he EVER tell the unwashed masses to take their life savings and pour it into opulent temples? Once again, we see a small but politically vocal group take the main teachings of their alleged messiah and corrupt them to their own self-serving agendas. Francis was ticked off at the Vatican for this very behavior, openly criticizing their outrageous opulence which overshadowed the oppressive poverty of their followers, which was the correct response for those supposedly following the teachings of Christ. Building massive cathedrals or temples which theoretically "honor God" while amassing ridiculous amounts of wealth to use primarily for political campaigns and election advertising and the advancement of corporate profitability is NOT part of the original teachings of Christianity. And any church or organization which professes to follow the teachings of Christ while engaging in this behavior needs to be called out for the hypocrites that they truly are. SG got it right. The percentage of the collection plate that goes to "charity" is but a drop in the bucket. Large religious institutions are more concerned with being political players on the world stage to further their own importance and, subsequently, their power over the people, than they are about religious teachings. It's all about reshaping religious dogma to their own self-serving purposes. Karma be damned... do-gooders like Jesus and Francis are no longer welcome.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <"God" commands this? Through Christ? REALLY?> Well, he commands we build houses to him. Temples, mainly. And buildings to house the church. And when God asks to build a house for him, I'd make it a pretty nice one. <SG got it right. The percentage of the collection plate that goes to "charity" is but a drop in the bucket.> You'd need to go church-by-church and look at actual numbers before making any actual claims. Otherwise, you're full of it.
Originally Posted By BeccasMommy while i sit and spend some time wondering what the sound of an ecumenical truck backing up would be... I'm pretty sure that Jesus said whenever two or more are gathered in my name... not whenever 2500 people get together in a giant glass and crystal edifice are gathered in my name the idea that God (big or little G) requires a temple to know his value is ridiculous let us take, for example, Mother Theresa, she and her followers, even today, give up comfortable lives to serve the poorest of the poor, do you think God values their service any less because their order does not use money to build a temple, but a school and safehouse instead?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << You'd need to go church-by-church and look at actual numbers before making any actual claims. Otherwise, you're full of it. >> How much of the $5B in annual tithes to the LDS church goes to charity?
Originally Posted By utahjosh It is not hypocritial for a church to build a beautiful temple: From some LDS references (Bible Dictionary): "A temple is literally a house of the Lord, a holy sanctuary in which sacred ceremonies and ordinances. A place where the Lord may come, it is the most holy of any place of worship on the earth. Whenever the Lord has had a people on the earth who will obey his word, they have been commanded to build temples in which the ordinances of the gospel and other spiritual manifestations that pertain to exaltation and eternal life may be administered. The tabernacle erected by Moses was a type of portable temple, since the Israelites were traveling in the wilderness. Building and properly using a temple is one of the marks of the true Church. The best known temple mentioned in the Bible is that which was built in Jerusalem in the days of Solomon. "
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ How about a New Testament reference that would apply to modern day Christians?
Originally Posted By utahjosh It's sad to see so much bitterness toward God and religion. Sure, I don't agree with everything every religion preaches, but around here belonging to a church is just plain evil or something.
