The Giant Noodle
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,332
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Location
- Northern Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Religions have created good people with good morals... even if some religious people choose to ignore the principles of their faith. People can disagree with some of their opinions, but almost all of the religious people I know have their hearts in the right place.
I'll agree with that.
I will also say that most of these people would have their hearts in the right place even without religion. If there were no religion in the world, nice people would still be nice people.
I'll agree with that.
I will also say that most of these people would have their hearts in the right place even without religion. If there were no religion in the world, nice people would still be nice people.
Religions have created good people with good morals... even if few religious people choose to ignore the principles of their faith. People can disagree with some of their opinions, but almost all of the religious people I know have their hearts in the right place.
Almost all of the atheists I know have their hearts in the right places, too.
What if all of the money that was spent in our country on big church buildings to feed the egos of religious leaders was instead given to house the temporarily homeless? OR to cure cancer? Or to feed the hungry people around the world?
people are people, good or bad, and i think all the good done in the world, as well as all the bad, that has been done in the name of religion would have still been done, people of like-mindedness would still coalesce, religion just provides a convenient vehicle for that to happen.
At least with the church my family attends, a lot of the money DOES go to those things. A group of about 40 christians a day goes to another church to serve meals to about 300 poverty stricken people. And the operation is funded by churches in the area as well as other donations from charitable people.
Not to mention the money spent on churches is intended to bring in and support more members... not to "feed the ego" of the pastor. More members = more money donated.
The money also supports students in going to college, funding operations to feed the hungry in other countries, and sends members to locations all over the world to donate their time to help the needy (among other things).
IF that's the case, then the net effect of religion is zero. And when one takes into consideration the amount of money spent on the PRACTICE of religion (separate and apart from charitable activities), then the financial impact of money being spent on an religion purely for entertainment value is substantial.
When I drive past the huge churches near my house, monuments to someone's huge ego, and empty about 90% of the time, I think about all of the poor people in our community who struggle, the senior citizens who can't afford their prescriptions, the children who never get new clothes, and I am rather disgusted by it all.
and if governments met under a tarpaulin on top of a hill, they'd save money too, and if people didn't fix dents in their cars bumpers, they could give that money to charity, but appearance, to some, is just as important as their actions.
Really, the message of the Bible isn't that complicated:
Micah 6:8: "What does the lord require of you but to do justly, love tenderly, and walk humbly before your God."
Does someone REALLY need to spend their time, 40 hours a week, to help you figure out how to do those 3 things?
That's good, but I suspect that if you looked at it on a percentage basis, it's probably 25% of tithes that go to charitable purposes, and the rest goes to pay for a building, pastoral staff, music director, secretary, etc.
What would you think of a charitable organization where only 25% of contributions actually went to the cause, and 75% went to administrative costs?
And what do those full-time people actually DO with their time when they aren't preaching?
I mean, think about it. Matthew 25 suggests the kind of things that Christians should be doing, and yet, a lot of pastors are paid to do those things, and members aren't. Why is that?
Really, the message of the Bible isn't that complicated:
Micah 6:8: "What does the lord require of you but to do justly, love tenderly, and walk humbly before your God."
Does someone REALLY need to spend their time, 40 hours a week, to help you figure out how to do those 3 things?
Religion, to me, is like a sort of Amway scheme where you have an entire group of people who've figured out a way to get paid for finding new recruits to buy into their pyramid.
secularists in general being too few or too disinterested to actively engage in charitable enterprises on a regular basis.
our 'superior' ethical and scientific knowledge would not be possible without first having an 'obstacle' like religion to overcome.
As I'm guessing you're an atheist, this might be hard to understand... .
I think so. "Doing justly" isn't such a simple concept, as the discussions in this forum show. There are many different ideas and many bitter disagreements over what it means. Clergy need to be educated in the teachings of Christianity in order to educate the people, and that means we have to support them in their vocation. The benefit is that religion, rightly understood, gives us a true understanding of justice and a weapon against the abuse of power. Expensive mega-churches are another issue. From what I know of them, they tend to preach a message of personal satisfaction rather than justice.
That's good, but I suspect that if you looked at it on a percentage basis, it's probably 25% of tithes that go to charitable purposes, and the rest goes to pay for a building, pastoral staff, music director, secretary, etc.
What would you think of a charitable organization where only 25% of contributions actually went to the cause, and 75% went to administrative costs?
Too true.
Think about this one...
Afghan claims explosion causes more damage to Buddha statue « RAWA News
The net effects of religion are probably a wash in the civilized west. But what about the net effects in someplace like Afghanistan or Uganda? More negative than positive, I'd suggest.
I have very few problems with small groups of believers that meet in homes with unpaid clergy.
Do you have any evidence to support this or are you just making it up?
Moreover, even if we're just talking about monetary donations, there are plenty of charitable donations that are made in part because of a person's religion that aren't specifically given to the church itself.
edit: As an aside, you presume that money spent on pastors, music, the building, etc. is just wasted as administrative expenses. Why on earth would you assume that? One of the main purposes of a church is to provide religious services for its members, so it makes perfect sense that a substantial portion of donations would be spent on those things.
If a homeless shelter spent 75% of its revenue on its building and staff, would you consider that to be "administrative costs"?
If a suicide counseling hotline spent 75% of its revenue on its phone lines and operators, would you consider that to be "administrative costs"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?