who wrote the Bible?

[doppelgaenger]

you can't buy into heaven which i think a lot of people who donate seem to on some level believe. it's not a new thing, it's been going on since forever

What's the word.... oh yeah, indulgences.

They used to sell indulgences. Don't you know about that shit?

[Illusional]

plagiarist.

Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

i did nothing of the sort...

no you didn't, i just edited your post... muhahaha

raverboy

editing is not copying.

hey, atleast i didn't delete the damn thing.

raverboy

[vashti]

That's your privilige vashti. As you are entitled to your opinions, so am I to mine. Would be a dull world if we'd all agree on the same.

And maybe there's a grain of truth in both our opinions combined. Who knows.

Or maybe you just don't know what you are talking about?

I've sat on a governing board for a religious institution, and believe it or not, they have mortgages, utilities, and staffing bills to pay. In order to pay those bills, they MUST raise money, and it is a HUGE problem. Without money, the doors close. People donate because they love their place of worship and have formed bonds to its congregants and leadership. It is not the spirituality they pay for (at least, not entirely), but also a sense of community, purpose, and meaning, and if they have children, they are also paying for religious and moral education, and the ability for them to have exposure to like-minded families. Depending on how politically active their religious movement is, they are also supporting advocacy of political movements they find important.

For the record, the salary of a clergy person is generally (though probably not always) enough to allow them to live near where they work. Why should congregants expect that their CHOSEN spiritual leader should live any differently than its congregants?

[Yggdrasil]

Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

i did nothing of the sort...



editing is not copying.

hey, atleast i didn't delete the damn thing.

raverboy

Crybaby

...........

[Lipp]

You know what cracks me up? Churches filled to the brim with statues, stained glass, gold tabernacles, marble floors, mahogany altars and everything else.

Have the leaders of the various Christian denominations not read the New Testament? Were they unable to pick up on the not-so-subtle meaning behind much of what their messiah taught?

By the way, as a result of my archi studies, actually one of the main reasons why the church has focus on building grand (and seriously overdone) buildings is because the people they appealed to (in that time, the uneducated masses) couldn't read the text or understand the messages too well, so instead they slam buildings into their face to convince them of god's greatness et cetera.

So yeah. Waste money, convince tons of dumb people. Sounds about right.

[Lipp]

I beg to differ, Ygg. I admire a lot of buddhist philosophy, same as I think most of the 10 Commandments are decent rules to live by. But those temples and all that gilt inside totally indicates religion.

How about the buddhas in asia that people purchase gold to rub on for good luck & prosperity?

All those new monasteries & statues aren't cheap. You can go to a monastic retreat that is *supposed* to be free, but donations are *strongly* encouraged, at a recommended daily rate. That requires a certain amount of 'salesmanship' done by the monks & staff. Ever been to a monk's talk? That = organized religion as much as any priest's sermon.

Plus, they may not pray to a 'god' but their required leap of faith regarding karma & reincarnation is just as belief-based as the concept of God in any other religion.

Otherwise, tho, I kind of like buddhism myself.

I quite like buddhism as well, partially because despite as you mentioned karma and reincarnation and all that they are closer to keeping things simple - following the teachings of a wise guy instead of a supreme being that watches over them. And at least over in lanka its spread in society causes everyone to be quite friendly and peaceful.

[Lipp]

Sri Lanka? Are you aware there has been a 25 year civil war on there? Only very recently (perhaps) resolved. Tens of thousands of people have been killed there over the years.

Duh, it's kind of hard to miss when living there for two years.

I meant on a community-level rather than the differences in ethnicity, religion and history in the conflict running up north while the south and middle is largely undisturbed. There was little need to worry about mugging, assaults or any of that, and the people are quite friendly and open (and no, this goes beyond your average "be nice to white people so that you can make them buy your shell necklaces" stuff)

[vashti]

Lipp, I would love to see your family's photo albums.

[Illusional]

Crybaby

...........

don't talk about friz like that.. it hurts his feelings.

raverboy

[bluesummer]

Have the leaders of the various Christian denominations not read the New Testament? Were they unable to pick up on the not-so-subtle meaning behind much of what their messiah taught?

Yeah, this confuses me. I thought the New Testament preached the virtues of being humble and living free of excess.

Yet, my very good friend (a very devout Christian) has stressed the point to me many times that God wants us to be wealthy and prosper. I'm afraid I'm confused.

[Mish]

Yeah, this confuses me. I thought the New Testament preached the virtues of being humble and living free of excess.

Yet, my very good friend (a very devout Christian) has stressed the point to me many times that God wants us to be wealthy and prosper. I'm afraid I'm confused.

I think it's to do with the separation of the church into the right and the left branches who have very different interpretation of Christianity. The right of the church has always been associated with some type of hypocrisy, they believe that God gives people entitlement for example the wealthier people have probably been rewarded by God for their great deeds and donations which is why they are wealthy, while the poor are poor because they must have sinned too many times. This branch of Christianity became corrupt and thrived under monarchy that respected entitlement which indirectly led to many socialist revolutions in the last couple of centuries. Then it solidified as an opponent to socialism in the west and thus never really disappeared. I understand completely how hypocritical this is.

[IndiReloaded]

Wow. Some religious folks can be hypocritical? Who'd have thought? Its not like they set themselves up for failure, or anything by having to follow that shambolic book they put so much store in.

[Mish]

Wow. Religious folks can be hypocritical? Who'd have thought? Its not like they set themselves up for failure, or anything by having to follow that shambolic book they put so much store in.

Again, it's not all Religious folks who are hypocritical, it's some. We use our own hypocrisy when we try to paint a whole "type" of people with one brush stroke.

[IndiReloaded]

I think the word 'can' (as opposed to 'are') makes my sentence conditional. But I can edit my post, I don't think it will change the general tone of my point.

[Mish]

I think the word 'can' (as opposed to 'are') makes my sentence conditional. But I can edit my post, I don't think it will change the general tone of my point.

Well, that post does imply that all Religious folks are hypocritical because they set themselves up for failure to follow a shambolic book. It doesn't acknowledge that the following of the book varies greatly as most people follow only parts that they prefer, following the book in its entirety is not a requirement.