Religion
Related: About this forumIs it a sin to have more than $400,000 in stocks, money, and not give at least half of it to your
local people in need of food and housing?
What number do you need to get to before you feel the need to increase your giving, progressive giving as in progressive taxation, what would Jesus do?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I personally think those who are rich should give to charity but how much is not my place to say.
randys1
(16,286 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)lastlib
(23,213 posts)I don't.
Actually, I'm on the Republican retirement plan--die as soon as my money runs out.
randys1
(16,286 posts)un christ like in another
cbayer
(146,218 posts)wouldn't you say?
randys1
(16,286 posts)pat robertson while on the tail end of a 3 day bender of alcohol and cocaine.
Over the years I have participated in christianity in extreme ways, years of reading and hundreds of hours in church.
Now, according to Warren you tend to have a position here that is more political than anything...
The religion forum here is similar to me as the gun forum, the attitudes of some NOT ALL, and I am just looking forward to the day when liberals all agree they have no use for superstition or guns.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You said that you don't claim to be a christian then act unchristianly. I guess this is a judgement that you pass on others, but it wouldn't apply to you because you don't claim to be a christian in the present.
Sorry that Robertson was able to seduce you during a binge, but your touches with extremism help me understand why you are now swinging the other way.
Warren who? My position is most definitely political, that is why I am on this site.
I'm looking forward to the day when liberals all agree that religious belief is a personal matter and no one should be condemned for either believing or not believing.
Kind of like where we have gotten with sexuality.
You decide.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)LTX
(1,020 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)But then, who among us is Jesus?
randys1
(16,286 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)to me personally or something else?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.
randys1
(16,286 posts)HOw about instead of all, half...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I may use some of Jesus's teachings as guideposts, but not as commands.
My father gives most of his money away. He believes that if he truly ever needs something, it will be there for him. I doubt that he feels commanded, but I think he does feel compelled.
randys1
(16,286 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)What gave you that idea, by the way?
randys1
(16,286 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)so I guess you assume that I must be one of the bobble-headed religious people that you mock.
This says much more about you than it does about me, doesn't it?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)comment on OPs like this one. I am a Christian but I recognize you do not have to be one to be able to understand what Jesus said. I never make the mistake of assuming that because one knows what he/she is talking about that means they believe in it.
I welcome all views.
goldent
(1,582 posts)to make these kind of assumptions. 30 years ago if you expressed any support of equal treatment for gays (not even including marriage) co-workers would often assume you were gay, or at least view you "with suspicion." I think these co-workers could not imagine why someone who wasn't gay would support gay rights. I assume it still goes no to some extent, but not like it was back then.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The poster is indeed one of the two most prolific theist posters in the religion forum but maintains that she is "agnostic". The poster then delights in springing the "who me?" trap on the unsuspecting.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)There are a number of anti-atheists who like to do the bait and switch number, sorry you had to experience that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You better tell all my friends and family and the atheists that I have a good relationship with here, because I think they should be warned.
By the way.
A doesn't like B.
B is an atheist.
A is anti-atheist?
Er, no.
Let's use a little of that sacred reason and rational thinking here and not draw entirely illogical conclusions just because some doesn't personally feel fondly about you.
Okay?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Oh, the irony. And the hypocrisy.
Indeed.
goldent
(1,582 posts)sacred reason and rational thinking. Atheism just means you don't believe in god - you can use as much irrational thinking as you need.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is the second time he has called me an anti-atheist and the second time I have pointed out the complete lack of logic in his conclusions.
Must of missed the critical thinking class.
bvf
(6,604 posts)FBaggins
(26,728 posts)When did sin ever have a dollar figure attached to it?
You can be guilty of sinful greed/covetousness without any particular amount of assets... and you can be quite wealthywealthy without committing sin.
There are also plenty of scenarios where 400k isn't very much.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Cue the Lutherans. In 3... 2... 1...
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)The current advice is to spend no more than 4% of your invested money so as to hope not to run out before you die. 400k then can be expected to generate a whopping $16,000/year. That's not a lot.
So no, it's not a sin to have that much and not give at least half of it away.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Unless other religions say the same, i dont know
cbayer
(146,218 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Can you answer the question for yourself or not?
randys1
(16,286 posts)any christian?
FBaggins
(26,728 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)FBaggins
(26,728 posts)That there is no such place.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Besides that one, is it your interpretation that the Walton family, with billions who give away almost nothing to help people, are they good christians?
He nowhere says that rich people can't get into heaven.
I express no opinion on someone else's eternal destination based on my opinion of their actions... not just because it isn't my place to judge... but because those actions aren't the determinate of that destination (according to the Christian theology)
randys1
(16,286 posts)wasnt that JEsus?
Now he didnt say NO rich people could, of course, but how many camels can fit thru the eye of a needle?
are we going to argue about the word "hard'?
FBaggins
(26,728 posts)But he nowhere said that they can't get to heaven.
The theology here is quite clear. You can't get yourself into heaven. You can't earn your way into heaven... or buy your way in. Wealth can get you almost anything you want in this world... but doesn't get you even an inch closer to heaven.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)Regarding wealth, since that's what's being discussed in this subthread, he does say something that a wealthy person can do to get into heaven:
Matthew 19 (bolding added by me):
17 Why do you ask me about what is good? Jesus replied. There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.
18 Which ones? he inquired.
Jesus replied, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,[c] and love your neighbor as yourself.[d]
20 All these I have kept, the young man said. What do I still lack?
21 Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, Who then can be saved?
26 Jesus looked at them and said, With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
27 Peter answered him, We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?
28 Jesus said to them, Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
He gives many other examples of a thing that will get you into heaven if you just do that one thing.
It seems to me either your meaning isn't so clear or else you're in disagreement with things that Jesus said (as told in the Bible - not saying that I personally believe these are actual quotes of an actual person).
FBaggins
(26,728 posts)Actually... He doesn't. To be specific, every Christian theological flavor that I'm aware of will tell you that he wasn't talking to everyone... he was talking to a particular man, and did so knowing that what he was asking for was not something that was possible for him to do.
IOW... he doesn't say how "wealthy people" can get to heaven. He's talking to one specific wealthy... a wealthy person whose wealth was the thing keeping him from following Jesus.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Because the passage from Matthew I quoted is explicitly addressing more than just the one man, at least in this translation.
For example:
And the other parts that talk about "someone who is rich" - these various parts of the passage are explicitly talking about rich people in general, not just the one man. How do the "theologies" get from this to what you say (other than by wanting to very badly)?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)to justify to themselves why it's OK to have lots of possessions, etc. Jesus only said it was "hard" and by that they think he means only rich people who love their money more than anything else won't get into heaven and you see the good folks love Jesus more than all their stuff, so you see it's no problem for them. Ta da!
bvf
(6,604 posts)passing through needle's eye.
Hard.
I suppose you could puree the whole camel first, or use a 400-foot long needle. . .
Jesus' message here is clearly "die poor or go to hell."
The apologists have been spinning this forever, presumably in the name of biblical "scholarship."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You continue to make a false assumption about me. Why is that? Does who I really am not fit with your agenda or something?
I'm so naive and gullible sometimes. I thought you came in to ask a sincere question about wealth and the poor and what the right thing to do is.
But I fear I was wrong. You are the guy that equates belief in god to belief in leprechauns and makes other disparaging remarks about religious believers.
So, let's be honest. What is your point here?
randys1
(16,286 posts)my point is religion causes way more harm than the good it does, MUCH MORE , so I want to point out that unless you are about the very best a religion has to offer, then you are contributing to the very worst
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But then I might be making assumptions about your agenda. Why don't you clarify it for me.
randys1
(16,286 posts)so you are an atheist, i never would have guessed
jewish? muslim?
my point is religion causes way more harm than the good it does, MUCH MORE , so I want to point out that unless you are about the very best a religion has to offer, then you are contributing to the very worst
https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote
I probably shouldnt post in the religion forum, last time I did it came to no good.
I am just so sick of religion
cbayer
(146,218 posts)religious believers simply because you are personally sick of religion.
Maybe you should open your heart and mind and learn a few things about what progressive/liberal religious people do and why you are really on the same team with them.
Just a thought.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)I am sincerely and honestly surprised that she is not religious.
I asked this question because christians in the whole irritate the shit out of me, especially rightwingers, not that there are any here but I wanted to know what the answer was.
Is that wrong?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)things religious, except of course when she has decided that it is ok to mock religious things, like for example creationists and Mormon beliefs. One of her favorite activities is to welcome new posters here who are not clearly theists by attacking them relentlessly for posting things she disapproves of.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I was getting confused as hell, sincerely so.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)That can be so confusing.
If your point is that religion causes more harm than good, why don't you just cut to the chase instead of setting this lame trap in which you hope to draw in christians so you can disparage them.
You are basically saying that if you, as a christian, are not just like Jesus then you are contributing to the worst of religion, which, frankly, is a large pile of steaming horse shit.
I see you sport a GLBT flag as your avatar. There is a great thread in here right now about religious leaders who are fighting for GLBT civil rights. You might want to check it out. Would love to know your feelings about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218173123
Also, check out the NALT project.
http://notalllikethat.org
Actually, I don't think you will check out either. It might disrupt your preconceived and obviously rigid ideas about religion and religious people, sort of like I just did, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
randys1
(16,286 posts)constantly n religion topics so i made an assumption'
It wasnt a trap, it was a sincere question for christians...
I edited so you wouldnt have to go look around for my other answers to your questions
Do religious people do good things?
All the time, some do, I stand by my statement that the good religion (any and all religions) do is far outweighed by the harm
But I apologize again, even here in this thread you are defending religion so I thought you were religious
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I would not be embarrassed to be a religious person, but you think you would be insulting me by making that assumption. That is all on you.
You are stating a belief (that the good religion does is far outweighed by the harm) which is based on faith and not fact. It is your opinion. My opinion is that it does both good and harm and I am absolutely defending religion when it does good.
If your question is sincere, then stand back and let people respond without immediately pushing them into a corner that says "bad christian".
Sorry to be so rough on you, but this really pushes my buttons. I am embarrassed that I fell for it.
randys1
(16,286 posts)or are not religious and if so what kind.
Why is that?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)don't insinuate that I am avoiding the question for some reason.
I am a nonbeliever, probably most accurately labeled as an agnostic. I also like the term apatheist, in that I don't know if there is a god or not, and I don't care if there is a god or not, and nothing would change for me personally if there were or were not a god.
I support the good that religious people and groups do and stand up against the bad, particularly the religious right in the US.
I feel that religion is used as a wedge issue within the democratic party and those that are either anti-religion or anti-atheist feed into that. It prevents us from seeing our allies and unnecessarily creates counter-productive divisions.
For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to anti-theism, which is why I am reacting so strongly to your thread here.
Any other questions?
randys1
(16,286 posts)one, I guess I dont have the same positive feeling about religious people that you do.
You see to me religion on the whole and in many cases Christianity, causes so much grief, suffering etc., that the good it does better outweigh the bad, and it never does as far as I am concerned.
if your point is not to alienate those within the party, i guess that is a righteous goal, especially if it results in NOT getting SC justices who outlaw abortion thus killing thousands
cbayer
(146,218 posts)about religious people.
I think your mind is closed but I wish for you that you will set your prejudices aside and really take a look at what good is being done.
Of course I will stand against any courts who try to outlaw abortion, as will the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
http://rcrc.org
Catholics for Choice
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org
The Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing
http://www.religiousinstitute.org
Now, how about we work together instead of driving away people just because they hold a different position when it comes to a belief in god?
randys1
(16,286 posts)a nightmare.
Not sure why we need to create more tolerance for religion to do that, but then one of my favorite people on the planet is Mark Thompson or Matsimela Mapfumo of Sirius Left radio and he is a christian preacher about as religious as you can get and as left as you can get and as Black as you can get...
So there are some that I like, christians that is, not Black people
I like ALL Black people, I think...well not clarence thomas or ben carson maybe..
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I most definitely do not like all religious people. Not by a long shot.
You are likely to get support for what you are doing here and will find some who will promote you and attack me for challenging you.
But I think you are wrong in what you are doing. I think you would probably really like most of the religious people on this site and the supporters of religion who post in this group. Perhaps before you proceed with disparaging them, you might get to know them.
Frankly, I think the standards for charity should be about the same whether they are guided by religion or not. Give what you can when you can.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Someone recently posted a wonderful Audrey Hepburn quote that I would like to place here:
I hope you keep this in mind as you decide for yourself who I am.
FWIW, I think you managed this thread really well and I toast you for doing that. It has turned out to be interesting and enlightening.
bvf
(6,604 posts)You yourself posted that.
You forgot this, from the same font of wisdom:
"You can always tell what kind of a person a man really thinks you are by the earrings he gives you."
Does this also fit into your personal philosophy?
Explain.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Why would that be? Isn't it charming? I suggest that given that you are now being attacked for assuming that one of the most prolific theistic posters in the religion forum is in fact "a believer" is a very good reason to withdraw the apology.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Are you saying she is actually religious, but pretends not to be so as to further arguments somehow?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And note she doesn't explicitly claim to be a non-believer either, she claims to be in some squishy agnostic realm between belief and non-belief. However, whatever her actual beliefs are, she is one of the two most prolific theistic posters here, so her actual beliefs are irrelevant, her political position in this forum is that of a defender of religion.
randys1
(16,286 posts)much harm, one would think one would want to resolve these things, not contribute to them.
But I will be honest, unless you are practically a monk, unless you are overly generous with your time and money, I dont consider you a valid christian.
So I am not the most open minded when it comes to this stuff.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 28, 2014, 02:47 AM - Edit history (1)
all the inconvenient shit.
Don't like the idea of eternal damnation? Fuck it. It's gone.
Don't like the idea of wealth as a bar to basking in the beatific vision forever and ever? Look to "biblical scholarship" as a way to justify croaking with a ten-figure bank balance.
Don't like the idea of eating human flesh? Call transubstantiation a rhetorical device of some kind (the Vatican disagrees).
About the only thing they can't throw away is belief in an imaginary friend who presides over all the horseshit. That seems to be changing, but it's a slow process. Casting off delusions forged since childhood isn't easy.
rug
(82,333 posts)Or atheists who do not monomaniacally attack all things religious?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)which is silly
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You have made clear you are not a fan but you don't have to have an approved position to post in here.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Maybe you should be writing letters to the very publicly rich pastors of various Christian churches.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)by giving their money to those very publicly rich pastors of various Christian churches.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)- Matthew 19:21
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Makes me even more glad I am non-religious. Means I can keep my money with a good conscience.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)water into wine and all.
rug
(82,333 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)400K in California would not last long enough to live. In Mississippi it may. It all depends. Another thing is if your house is paid and you get a decent pension, you may survive the 400K. All of it is circumstantial and lifestyle.
randys1
(16,286 posts)scripture somewhere other than the needle and rich man, where he says to give your money away?
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Acts 2 : 44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
Acts 4 : 32-35
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Of course, this seems to say that they were only interested in helping fellow Christians. Also, people who sold some land and held back some of the money for themselves were struck dead, supposedly by God, and needless to say, the congregation took notice.
Acts 5 : 11
Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
Well, I guess so.
CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)as a minimum. They're very happy to get more than that, of course.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you get the opportunity to look at the budgets of some of your local mainstream churches, you might learn a lot about the money that comes in and where it goes.
Or you can keep basing your beliefs on something other than facts.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)its a big difference in having assets, than out and out cash.
rug
(82,333 posts)No Vested Interest
(5,166 posts)does not advance his cause when he isn't familiar enough with his subject to refer to the words of Jesus he would have others adhere to.
A simple google pulls up the biblical accounts of the young rich man who obeys the commandments but turns away when Jesus suggests that he sell all he has and follow Jesus. Jesus then gives the "eye of the needle" parable, as recounted by several gospel writers.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)But that doesn't mean a thing to believers. They cherry pick and dismiss whole tracts of the Bible to fit their own beliefs.
To answer your original question, the rich must give much of their money away or they are not going to Heaven. Jesus said so explicitly, there is no getting around that. He was not being wishy-washy or ambiguous. Unless you can pass a camel through the eye of a needle, rich people need not apply.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or just keep thinking you know what it means.
Lets get some facts straight, ok?
Religious believers give at least as much, and probably more, to charity than secular groups and religious organizations are some of the top charitable organizations on earth.
Your gross assumptions about religious people are wrong once again and your broad brush statement about "believers" without any attempt to distinguish between them is grossly prejudiced.
The data makes it crystal clear, but that doesn't mean anything to anti-theists. They cherry pick and dismiss whole reams of data to fit their own beliefs.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)In order to cover so many hypocrites. I would only need a finely sharpened pencil to cover those who practice Christianity as preached by Jesus.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Am I misinterpreting this?
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)I was addressing the rich.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The Bible makes it crystal clear
But that doesn't mean a thing to believers. They cherry pick and dismiss whole tracts of the Bible to fit their own beliefs
Your post seemed a rather broad brush of us all.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)My recent foray into the Interfaith group confirmed that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And you will be happy to know many religious people help the poor.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)Which included non-believers.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)-
It appears my wide brush was needed.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You may call it whatever you want but we thought your posts were not appropriate for the room. I told you when you were ba ned you can ask the hosts to rethink your ban after 3 months.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)It specifically includes non-believers. The group is nothing but a lie as it stands now. I won't be back.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If you wish to critcize religion then the room is not a good fit. And the sop is fine just how it is.
The owners of the site have msde clear that the hosts run the rooms.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you have a thoughtful perspective and are not just whitewashing.
You are not just whitewashing are you?
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)The only true Christian who ever lived, died on a cross.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you are saying that Christ was the only true Christian, I guess you could make a point. But many, christian and not, try to emulate him in some way.
In terms of how you define "true christian", how would you say you personally are measuring up? I know you are not a christian, but if you are setting up some kind of ideal, you could still be on the spectrum.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)My idea of Christianity is based on my parochial school upbringing. While there is much said by Jesus that I try to emulate, I dismiss his divinity and his own religious beliefs. Because I don't claim to be a Christian, I make my own decisions. Jesus probably wouldn't approve of some of them, but I think he would consider me a nice guy with a good heart. I am sure he would share my disgust at some of the people who call themselves Christians.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think you are probably spot on about Jesus thinking you are a nice guy and that he would share your disgust with some people that call themselves christian.
But I think he would not approve of your broad brush attacks on those who try to follow him or other religious figures and would advise you to be more tolerant. Bottom line is, I think he would encourage you to treat others as you would want to be treated.
I'm pretty sure you don't want to be treated the way you treat religious believers just for being believers. Do you?
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)whenever you see it. I won't alert on you like others do to me.
Our difference is that you see many many good believers. My view is that there are too few. They become especially invisible when some ass like Pat Robertson speaks for them. How can one man spew his shit without a host of believers shouting him down? When that happens, I'll buy into your outlook.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are far too few good people and we can always use more whether they are religious or not. People that are prejudiced towards others based on single traits, like being religious, are some we could do with less of, imo. This is not goodness.
Pat Robertson is an ass. I would venture to say that he speaks for not a single christian on this site and he is roundly shouted down every time he spews some stupid shit and it gets posted here.
Have you ever, even once, seen anything but condemnation of Robertson on this site? Ever? The religious who are vocal here are pretty regularly shouted down, even when they are attacking the religious right.
I don't expect you to buy into my outlook, but your all out disparagement of religion and religious people is counter-productive.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)has nothing to do with money.
This is the children's level of understanding of a much, much deeper concept. And, unfortunately, this is the level of understanding of most people of most of what Jesus is credited with saying and/or teaching.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)The story about a rich man not being able to enter heaven has nothing to do with money.
-
The only qualifier Jesus put on it is the word "rich". If that word has nothing to do with money, then what does it mean? However you define it, Jesus says it has to go.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)This oughta be good.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)All snide, insulting remarks.
Nevertheless......... look inside.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)So in other words, it is about the money. Goodbye
pangaia
(24,324 posts)You just didn't see the answer.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Are you expected to live on that money for decades, or is it above and beyond a guaranteed income?
Did you already 'tithe' on it (or even more than 10%) as you received it in income?
Do you have it because you simply saved it, while others around you spent that amount already on frivolous things?
We're constantly told by commercials that we 'need' a million or more to 'retire', so I don't think I'd be admonishing people who actually saved up to retire. Either they'll end up needing to use it, or they can leave whatever's left to the less fortunate when they die. It's not like poverty is going to disappear before they die.
Me, if I hit the lottery and won 400k after taxes for myself? Yes, I'd probably give half of it away. If I won 'millions', I'd probably give an even larger percentage away. Although 'local' wouldn't be my deciding factor as to who the money went. I'd aim it towards the most deeply impoverished folks in the country, the folks living on reservations in the Dakotas.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And your philosophy on this can be applied to people who are religiously motivated and to those that are not.
It comes down to being a good person and doing the right thing. There is no concrete and definitive answer.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And it benefits us all. We work more efficiently and progress faster as a species when we expend resources on taking care of one another, not fighting over material goods. Heck, we might even have interstellar travel by now if we hadn't wasted so much time fighting one another over the millennia.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)of an average middle class house or a college education?
That's not "rich," in the U.S. at least it's solidly middle class money.
The government already takes half away to give to poor people and defense contractors.
I'm not going to feel guilty about keeping what's left so my kid can go to college and I can retire, no matter what your fairy tale Jesus commands. Let his followers start by giving away half their money, or better yet by paying taxes on their very profitable tax-exempt churches.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You might want to do little research on those "very profitable tax-exempt churches". While your description may apply to some, most churches survive on a shoestring and use much of their income for charity.
Also, the tax-exempt status has to do with them being non-profit groups. Unless you want a huge first amendment issue, you could not revoke that status just for churches just because they are churches, and not revoke it for other 501.c.3's.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You might want to do little research on those "very profitable tax-exempt churches" - here I did some for you:
Churches across Americalike shopping malls, houses, corporations, hospitals, schools and just about everything elsehave erupted in size in the last few decades. The number of megachurches in the U.S. has leaped to more than 1,300 todayfrom just 50 in 1970.
Featuring huge stages, rock bands, jumbotron screens, buckets of tears and oodles of money, as well as the enormity of the facilities, pastor personalities and incomeover $8.5 billion a year all toldthese churches are impressive forces flourishing at staggering rates.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/26/americas-biggest-megachurches-business-megachurches.html
Yup - survivin' on a shoestring.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)It's an illusion that most churches survive on a shoestring. They do so by hiding their property wealth in many cases, and paying out salaries to people as a non-profit. The churches to which a majority of Americans belong (as opposed to a majority of churches) are in the aggregate VERY wealthy institutions who pay NO taxes.
And the tax-exemption for non-profits is for taxes on . . . profits. So you're wrong that this is a simple first amendment issue too. Churches make money on property too but pay no property taxes. Also, churches routinely violate the rules under which their tax exemption is supposed to operate, which includes refraining from direct political endorsements.
Special pleading not needed. Churches are by and large a money-making scam and always have been going back to the days of the Apostle Paul.
Glad to join you here, but just to be clear I am a radical atheist and think religion is the opiate of the masses, along with TV.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)actual data.
Where do you get your information about the nefarious bookkeeping of "most churches"? Your statement that the majority of Americans attend churches that are very wealthy institutions is just plain not accurate and your statement about paying NO taxes shows that you don't really understand the tax status of religious groups.
There are significant problems with IRS enforcement of some churches who are in fact making profits and are involved in political endorsements. I strongly support more IRS oversight.
You are, I guess, talking about the parsonage exemption when you talk about property taxes. This is an exemption for churches that other non-profits do not get. I support that it be revised.
You really need to provide evidence that "churches are by and large a money-making scam". I am betting that you can not and that you are voicing your individual beliefs which are grounded in faith only.
I will give you some data to chew on, because that is how I roll.
Pastors are the lowest paid degreed professionals in the country. Salaries for ministers in this country range from about $24K to $72K. If you include megachurches, the average salary is about $45K. In addition, ministers work incredibly long hours and are generally on-call 24 hours/day. If you remove the highly paid ministers of mega-churches, average salary drops to $28K. One out of five take second jobs in order to make enough money to live.
While there has been a significant growth in megachurches, they are only 0.5% of all the churches in the US, which is no where near what you appear to believe.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Minister/Salary
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2013/12/15/average-pastor-salaries-in-united-states-churches/
http://www.christianpost.com/news/seven-updated-trends-on-megachurches-in-america-81860/
Just to be clear I am a radically opposed to anti-theists, particularly those who can not see any of the positives and present made up facts instead of actual data. I think religion has strong positives as well as strong negatives. I don't watch TV.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)about him in Bible, Quran or the Torah as wearing rags, homeless and handing out all cash to anyone?
According to the Quran he hung around with Muhammad , Jesus was considered one of the Islamic prophets.
Quran has the most believable physical description of him. IMO, All are just books of stories which I believe the Torah was first and constantly added more new 'stories' over the centuries.
Sometimes just 'giving' of your time is plenty
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)cilla4progress
(24,726 posts)Mostly avoiding ad hominem attacks ...
My two cents: I heard this said on some progressive radio interview show about religion/religious people. Very simple, and I subscribe to the principle:
"Religion is good for good people, and bad for bad people."
Discuss.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Politics? Money? Discussion boards, lol?
IMO, the critical part is being able to distinguish who is doing good things and who is doing bad things.
Those that paint all religion as good or bad are making the mistake and missing the opportunity to form coalitions to push back against the bad.
cilla4progress
(24,726 posts)Religion and money are the two most potent forces, I believe. They embody the material and non-material drives that are at the base of all human existence.
And good and bad, yes, there is definitely a muddle in the middle. But obvious extremes on both ends. And all religions and philosophies address them.
My religion is this: we are all connected.
Period.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It is positive and could be very instructive. It also leaves the door(s) wide open for how that might be the case.
cilla4progress
(24,726 posts)In truth, all religion is open to interpretation. As it should be.
And this concept, as well as the golden rule to which it is related, are embodied, as I say, in all faiths, and in humanist doctrine as well. I believe it is a universal truth.
If this one simple precept were truly followed, we'd be in a much better place.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)All religion should not only open to interpretation but those interpretations should be subjected to inquiry.
It is most annoying when someone proclaims what christian is or muslim is or even what atheism is. It is particularly annoying when someone who doesn't call themselves one of those things makes the proclamation.
cilla4progress
(24,726 posts)in discussions about religion, or beliefs. That's where subjectivity comes in and the division starts.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Should has it's place at times, particularly when it comes to being open minded and not prejudiced.
When it is prescribing certain beliefs, I would agree with you.
Perhaps there is a better word, but I'm not sure what it might be.
cilla4progress
(24,726 posts)the only things we should be are loving and open.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's a lot harder than it sounds.
So glad you joined this thread.
cilla4progress
(24,726 posts)I work on it every day.
Thanks.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Like those perfect assholes at places like Star of Hope in Houston. Oh sure, they pretend to volunteer countless hours and to provide food and shelter to the homeless and to give thousands of dollars to sustain that little, disgusting, refuge. But do they give away everything they have? I doubt it. Pack of hypocrites.
It's great to be unaffiliated. No can call me a hypocrite.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Monthly basis. If a retired person retiring at 65 and expecting distribution of $2000 a month would run out of money before 17 years. It may sound like lots of money but to depend on it in retirement would cut one's activities to almost nothing. The person who "gave" very much money to charities would be standing in the receiving line themselves in 17 years.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)If one wants to be able to live securely and not become a burden on others, in this age and in this culture, that sum will barely suffice to cover medical and other insurances and provide a living income from dividends and/or interest.
My answer would be quite different if the question was about a $400,000 annual income.
randys1
(16,286 posts)regardless.
It was an interesting thread.
BTW if you are who I think you are, you are one of the posters i enjoy and read the most here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But I guess if you feel it is within your purview to define "a real, true christian", then you can draw any conclusions you want.
NYC_SKP is probably who you think he is, but he is a persona non-grata among the atheists with specific beliefs here, so I would beware of chumming up with him.
That's sort of sarcasm, btw. He's a friend of mine, so that's another strike against him.
randys1
(16,286 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And Spiders. We should have a rule!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Damn them all to hell!
Hope you had a wonderful holiday, buddy.
Wish you could get down here one of these days.
I think you would love it and it would love you.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)And Jesus never had stocks, as no such thing existed until after 1600.
Greed isn't a process that lends itself to progrssive notions. Some people have acted with singluar generosity. Most see the aquistion of money as the end all and charity as a tax break.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)From what we know about Jesus from the only work that records him (the Bible), Jesus and his followers practiced religious communism, as many monastic communities do to this day. However, that's impractical for those of us trying to live a more "normal" life. Also, here in England, our safety net is a bit better so there's a less life-or-death need for housing and food (which is not to say that we don't have homeless or hungry, we just have less of them).
I don't think it's helpful to set an exact dollar figure because how much you feel able to give is going to depend on your personal circumstances. For example, if I was making 400k a year, I'd feel able to give away 200k or thereabouts to charity in the confident knowledge that we'd still be able to put food on the table next year. However, I'm disabled and may never be able to work again. In light of that, if I were to suddenly gain access to large sums of money, my first action would be to secrete enough away that we wouldn't need to worry that, should the Tories succeed in killing off the welfare system, we wouldn't have to worry.
My SO and I have an agreement that, if we win the lottery, we give a million each to the Cat's Protection League (who have brought us our beloved cats) and the PDSA (charity that provides free vet care to poor people). After that, we work out how much we need to live reasonably well for the rest of our lives and give the rest to some combination of Cancer Research, HomeStart (local housing org for poor people), various educational trusts and local food banks.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Many would benefit.
I think your philosophy on this is admirable.