Originally Posted By utahjosh <Yeah, I'm not counting the $20M in Mormon contributions that went to the Prop 8 political campaign. That doesn't seem very charitable. I wonder how many hungry people that money could have fed?> Careful confusing the use of Tithes (church funds) and what a member chooses to do with his or her own money. And you'd probably be surprised how much money has been given by those same Prop 8 donors to feed the hungry and to other charities.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ I doubt I'd be all that surprised. You would probably be surprised at how scant the charitable giving actually is. My workplace is in the middle of its annual charitable giving campaign where you can allot a portion of your paycheck to any one of thousands of charities. There are about 1,000 people in my organization and as they release the weekly totals, I realize that my contribution will make up about 5% of the total giving for the entire campaign. I don't feel like I've gone to any extremes in my giving, just a comfortable amount that seems right for my income level. But it is shocking to know how little the rest of the group gives in comparison, especially when nearly everyone in the organization is making a six figure salary.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But it is shocking to know how little the rest of the group gives in comparison, especially when nearly everyone in the organization is making a six figure salary.<< The thing about that is that people might be giving outside of the company campaign as well. I was one of the United Way coordinators for a place I worked several years ago, and while it is an easy way to give some people prefer to give directly to a specific charity to cut out the middle men, making the donation go farther.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ I don't disagree, K2M. I give directly to some charities as well. I also expect people tithe to their churches. However, I also note the behavior of people around me. I see a lot of new cars in the parking lot, expensive homes being lived in, the latest gadgets being discussed at work, etc., etc. I don't see where there's much left over for charity after all of those indulgences.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't see where there's much left over for charity after all of those indulgences.<< True. No question, a lot of people overstate how much they actually give, too. When I was doing the United Way thing, I always framed that whole part of it (giving to charities directly) as something people often intend to do, but forget to actually do when it comes down to it. So that's why giving via paycheck deduction is an easy way to help.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Funny how this thread went from anti Catholic to anti LDS so quickly. All I have to ask is: regardless of whether or not you think Benedict is a hypocrite, is the message relevant? Are opulance and waste the causes of world hunger?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ It's not necessarily opulence. Generally, it's greed. Greed doesn't have to be opulent.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What this thread has confirmed for me yet again is the absolute sickening hypocrisy of the hierarchy of the Catholic and Mormon religions.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin I'm sure that God is more concerned about how we take care of one another than what idols and temples we build...and honestly that's not a god I would worship.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Jesus was taken to the temple for a ceremony as a child. He returned there as an adult to cleanse "God's House." Seems like he thought the Temple was a good idea.>> An absolutely stellar example of missing the point entirely. I've raised this issue before, and I'll keep raising it until the message sinks in. What, exactly, was Jesus "cleansing" from the temple, Josh? Do you remember Matthew 21? "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." Jesus lay to waste the tables of the moneychangers, the greedy profiteers who took advantage of the poor citizenry who needed to exchange Roman coin for Jewish coin for temple ceremonies. These scumbags were making HUGE profits from the temple visitors, much the same way the credit card leeches are taking advantage of holders by jacking up their interest rates to 30% and tripling their monthly minimum payments. Jesus realized that it was not appropriate to tie profiteering -- the accumulation of wealth -- to religion. So where does that fit in with the discussion at hand, about the Pope whining over the opulence and waste in the world? The pope sits at the throne (literally) of one of the world's most wasteful, opulent, independent political states (Vatican City) masquerading as a "church." His condemnation of others' greedy behavior is akin to the moneychangers in the temple courtyard who took advantage of the temple visitors. A church or temple does not have be elaborate, opulent, or the size of Montana. Those types of churches and temples are far removed from what Jesus was teaching. That's my argument against the pontiff for his complaint. He's represents an organization that actually contributes more to the problem than furnishes solutions. It's not about the temple itself, but what surrounds the temple, what shapes the temple, and the attitudes of those church leaders who build and maintain the temple. That's the message getting buried by the "Jesus wants you to be rich!" crowd. And the more the churches inject themselves into politics and wealth creation, the more the message fades into oblivion.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder No God, and I mean no God, a God in the truest sense of the word, would "command" anyone to build an "opulent edifice" in his honor. That's sheer, utter nonsense. This does more than infer or imply, it directly indicates that God is vain, that God needs reassurance and obeisance, that he needs more than the love people give him. It is vanity in the most vulgar sense, and vanity is a character trait that no God would ever possess. This goes for any "religion" that tries to use God as an excuse to indulge their own excesses. Shame on those people.
Originally Posted By Mr X "This goes for any "religion" that tries to use God as an excuse to indulge their own excesses. Shame on those people." Boy did you hit the nail on the head right there! THEY want the opulence and the riches and the shiny things, therefore in order to justify their greed they go with "god told us to". Pathetic. Oh, and for the record I began this topic not with churches or temples in mind per se (pretty sure Josh was the first one to go on the defensive with his "god wants it" argument), I don't even have any problem with a lovely church or cathedral here and there, I believe it adds quality and beauty to our lives assuming all are welcome to enter. What I had in mind was some dude sitting on a throne reigning over a powerful city/state practically made of freakin gold shouting "opulence is bad! how dare you people!? listen to me, I am your moral compass!". Screw that. <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30972" target="_blank">http://www.theonion.com/conten...de/30972</a>
Originally Posted By LoyalOrderWaterBuffa that link is st. Peters? wasn't it built like in the 1500'S ? what is the pope supposed to do? it's not like he had the vatican commissioned in his name three years ago and talks about feeding hungry people today. do you expect him to tear it apart and sell it off in pieces like a fire saLe and send the proceeds to the hungry?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Are opulance and waste the causes of world hunger?<< Yes. Greed is the cause. And those who preach against greed are almost always just as guilty of it, as this thread proves, and as SPP accurately noted in his comment about hypocrisy. BTW, I've been in a Mormon temple. It's essentially the lobby of a really nice hotel. The things that go on inside hardly need the expense that's given to them. In the earliest days of the church, they did the same things but without the expense. Ironically, the Catholic and Mormon churches' expenses on these things only shows that they're man-made organizations. Only humans would be simple-minded enough to think that human definitions of value, expense, and worth would be pleasing to a God. In short, it projects human understandings of value and extravagance onto God. If there is a god, I sure hope he's not so insecure as to demand such petty tributes.
Originally Posted By Mr X I would think a God would be more pleased by the "gift" of peace on Earth or the "tribute" of feeding all His hungry children etc...
Originally Posted By Mr X A really REALLY nice hotel, ECDC...wow. <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/celestial_room.html" target="_blank">http://www.lightplanet.com/mor...oom.html</a> Now I can see why Josh was so defensive about opulence! That looks nicer than the 4 Seasons lobby in Vegas!
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Ironically, the Catholic and Mormon churches' expenses on these things only shows that they're man-made organizations.>> FWIW, not a dime that parishioners place on the collection plate during Sunday Mass goes to the Vatican. In fact, none even goes to the local Bishop. It all stays in the Parish. How its spent will depend in large extent on the how the local parish is operated. Parishes typically publish the annual budget for parishioners to see. Typically collection plate money goes towards operating expenses and and not capital expenditures, which are usually covered by pledges. In our parish about 20% of the budget went to charity. It is well known in our town that people in need can come to our parish, so much so that pastors from other denominations will send supplicants away to to us (empty handed) knowing that we will help them.
