Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

seriously, i want people to discuss this. why is it that you wont find that many revernds below the poverty line? while youll find many who are among the richest people in their communities. here im referring more to evangelism/america. point out to me if im completely wrong in this assumption.

and if so, what does it say about the relegion?

Because they're well off, and belong to religions that suck funds from middle class people.

God wants you... to write me checks.

Oh, hi there, Mormons.


Wait is that? Your clergy isn't paid? They do it for free and have to work a real job outside of their voluntary work? That's preposterous! How dare they be selfless like Jesus taught.

^dont start feeling too good now......

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^dont start feeling too good now......



Right. "Pride" is the path to hell or something like that.

^more like, dont judge others lest ye be judged yourself. but im no christian so what the hell do i care, hate EVERYBODY, love YOURSELF! ayn rand ftw!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^more like, dont judge others lest ye be judged yourself. but im no christian so what the hell do i care, hate EVERYBODY, love YOURSELF! ayn rand ftw!

lol....leon, I've always like your threads, but I can't help feeling a bit partial to this one...

^aww thnxxxx. although, i though the quality of my threads and posts in general was going down, seeing as i dont tend to care enough, orrrrr spend too much time on kmc anymore.

but really, where are all the poor ministers! hmmm, maybe going to pat robertson's colledge really was a better idea than yale law.......

Originally posted by leonheartmm
seriously, i want people to discuss this. why is it that you wont find that many revernds below the poverty line? while youll find many who are among the richest people in their communities. here im referring more to evangelism/america. point out to me if im completely wrong in this assumption.

and if so, what does it say about the relegion?

Well this says to me that God wants them to be rich. Alternately we can take a capitalist/materialist perspective and say that because they're rich they deserve to be rich and HOW DARE YOU QUESTION RICH PEOPLE! Finally I would point out that ministers and priests work for organizations that get most of their money via donation, so obviously most people either don't care or think this is a good thing.

More like they were deluded into thinking it was a good thing by the organizations themselves.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well this says to me that God wants them to be rich. Why wasn't Jesus rich?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Why wasn't Jesus rich?

Why does that matter?

In America, where EVERYTHING is valued, and in fact, culturally, one expects to pay more for better service, why would religion be excluded from this?

Like many things, the closer you come to the extremities, the worse things are. Catholics are very traditional, and may give money just because that's what is expected at mass. Gotta keep up the cathedral. Gotta send people to convert to the one true faith. gotta keep sending money to vatican city and del papa. gotta build up the priory so the diocese can afford more monks. gotta run campaigns to become prior, bishop, archbishop, cardinal.
people have done these things since the creation of the OTF when st. peter himself

and then there's evangi. they need the money for technology. gotta buy the projector screens on which we will be posting the words for the praise songs. make sure the minister is not dressed in clerical robes, because ministers are people too. pay for the mission trips to exotic places but make them jump through the evangi hoop before they can get human help, not spiritual guidance.
keep the youth group huge and involved, suck them in with totally cool houses that are dream homes for teenagers and make sure that it's 99percent fun and 1percent religion.


catholics think IN with the money.
evangi think OUT with the money.
either way, i guess it's not being handled well because money is demanded every week.

It's because the majority of these people aren't doing anything but scamming money from people. If they would start preaching correctly there wouldn't be any "stadium churches."

501c3 corporations, are not churches.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'"

Churches don't have to obtain 501c3 status to be tax exempt.

Also, they can't prohibit the free exercise of religion/ faith.
So, find an unregistered church or home church.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Like many things, the closer you come to the extremities, the worse things are. Catholics are very traditional, and may give money just because that's what is expected at mass. Gotta keep up the cathedral. Gotta send people to convert to the one true faith. gotta keep sending money to vatican city and del papa. gotta build up the priory so the diocese can afford more monks. gotta run campaigns to become prior, bishop, archbishop, cardinal.
people have done these things since the creation of the OTF when st. peter himself

There's also the various huge Catholic charities . . .

For many in America, religion is a business, just another way to make profits.

Originally posted by inimalist
In America, where EVERYTHING is valued, and in fact, culturally, one expects to pay more for better service, why would religion be excluded from this? I don't expect that it would. My skepticism arises from comments like "God wants them to be rich", as symmetric chaos suggested. And I can't help feeling slight resentment towards the numerous protestants that have turned up their nose at my church every chance they get, informing me that "we take care of our ministers...."

Originally posted by leonheartmm
seriously, i want people to discuss this. why is it that you wont find that many revernds below the poverty line? while youll find many who are among the richest people in their communities. here im referring more to evangelism/america. point out to me if im completely wrong in this assumption.

and if so, what does it say about the relegion?

It says you're not looking hard enough.

Religious leaders in highly religious countries will always manage to get money from idiots willing to believe the drivel that they put out. In more secular countries it's a lot harder, hence many churches here in the UK close down or join with others because the upkeep of building and even the very basics of running the church because unfeasible.

Originally posted by Quark_666
And I can't help feeling slight resentment towards the numerous protestants that have turned up their nose at my church every chance they get, informing me that "we take care of our ministers...."

Indeed. One of my favorite topics, as a missionary, was the "unpaid clergy". Almost all of them were utterly shocked to find out that they have to work "real" jobs. They usually asked where our money went for our tithing if we didn't pay our clergy. Obviously, it is maintenence, new buildings, massive charity, etc. Not having a paid clergy allows for a lot more of charity to occur.

Some people couldn't understand the concept of being a minister that didn't get paid. They tell me about how they go to school, get their ministry license, etc. They can't believe that a person can be a "minister" without getting an education for it. I always lol when someone brings up going to ministry school. As if you can decide to get a job as God's servant. Retarded. Why would one need to get a degree to be called to preach the word? If you're called, you're called. No reason to get a degree before preaching. The "new wine old bottles" comparison comes to mind.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's also the various huge Catholic charities . . .


But it's a "discussion" thread in the Religion section. Isn't that supposed to mean that everyone's post is a one-upper?

Oohhh, and then you did it back to me.

My mind has come to a great understanding.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some people couldn't understand the concept of being a minister that didn't get paid. They tell me about how they go to school, get their ministry license, etc. They can't believe that a person can be a "minister" without getting an education for it. I always lol when someone brings up going to ministry school. As if you can decide to get a job as God's servant. Retarded. Why would one need to get a degree to be called to preach the word? If you're called, you're called. No reason to get a degree before preaching. The "new wine old bottles" comparison comes to mind.

I think the idea is that seminary (heh) is where you learn lots of different readings of religious text. On the other hand minister's I've spoken to say that getting an degree in Divinity is a complete joke.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
But it's a "discussion" thread in the Religion section. Isn't that supposed to mean that everyone's post is a one-upper?

Oohhh, and then you did it back to me.

My mind has come to a great understanding.

I don't follow you but congratulations on enlightenment.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I don't expect that it would. My skepticism arises from comments like "God wants them to be rich", as symmetric chaos suggested. And I can't help feeling slight resentment towards the numerous protestants that have turned up their nose at my church every chance they get, informing me that "we take care of our ministers...."

the "god wants them to be rich" is a cop out, much like any other "god wants" statement, and I'm sure thats how sym was using it. Literally, god might want his preachers to be rich, or, these people get rich only because god has allowed for it.

The "we take care of our own", I don't see how that could possibly be offensive to you... That actually seems like a very good reason to pay the clergy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's also the various huge Catholic charities . . .

charities from an instituion which has enough money to pay the entire third world country debt collected almost entirely from contributions of the faithful that it didnt need and taxation of europe over the last two millinie. yeah, that sure makes em charitable, specially when they use it to support hitler or run campaigns in africa and the third world to destroy birth control....

Originally posted by leonheartmm
charities from an instituion which has enough money to pay the entire third world country debt collected almost entirely from contributions of the faithful that it didnt need and taxation of europe over the last two millinie. yeah, that sure makes em charitable, specially when they use it to support hitler or run campaigns in africa and the third world to destroy birth control....

So the fact that they could do more with their money and that they could fall mindlessly in line with your beliefs negates the existence of Catholic charities?

Also, how can they still be backing Hitler?

that comment wasnt meant just for the present.

and no, all they do with their money is buy influence, and damage the world.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
that comment wasnt meant just for the present.

and no, all they do with their money is buy influence, and damage the world.

Indeed what quicker way to destroy the world than give money to housing projects and fight poverty

^lol, sounds like israel. take a peninsula, give a settlement-with strings..... then take that back once people stop praising you for it. yea, vaticans really doing the world a favour by existing..

Originally posted by inimalist
the "god wants them to be rich" is a cop out, much like any other "god wants" statement, and I'm sure thats how sym was using it. Literally, god might want his preachers to be rich, or, these people get rich only because god has allowed for it.

The "we take care of our own", I don't see how that could possibly be offensive to you... That actually seems like a very good reason to pay the clergy. oh....you're right I suppose

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Indeed what quicker way to destroy the world than give money to housing projects and fight poverty

In the UK the second biggest land owner after the MOD is the Church of England, which it turns out is making a substantial amount of money from said owned land.

Wonder where all those millions are going.

1. Not to the poor....because if they did there would be no poor.

2. Not building homeless shelters...or there would be no homeless.

3. Not curing the sick...or there would be no sick.

4. Not feeding the hungry...or there would be no hungry.

The poor, the homeless, the sick and the hungry. If all these problems were iradicated there would be less need for the support (crutch) that is religion. Talk about keeping your audience rooted to its seat.

And I thought being a religious icon was a calling not a job. Do callings have scaled pay structures?

Originally posted by Beliver
In the UK the second biggest land owner after the MOD is the Church of England, which it turns out is making a substantial amount of money from said owned land.

Wonder where all those millions are going.

1. Not to the poor....because if they did there would be no poor.

2. Not building homeless shelters...or there would be no homeless.

3. Not curing the sick...or there would be no sick.

4. Not feeding the hungry...or there would be no hungry.

The poor, the homeless, the sick and the hungry. If all these problems were iradicated there would be less need for the support (crutch) that is religion. Talk about keeping your audience rooted to its seat.

And I thought being a religious icon was a calling not a job. Do callings have scaled pay structures?

how much of the money that you make off of the land that you own do you donate to the poor and homeless?

also, do you honestly think that poverty, homelessness, sickness and hunger are either a) problems that could be solved by throwing more money at it or b) the sole responsibility of the church to solve?

Originally posted by inimalist
how much of the money that you make off of the land that you own do you donate to the poor and homeless?

also, do you honestly think that poverty, homelessness, sickness and hunger are either a) problems that could be solved by throwing more money at it or b) the sole responsibility of the church to solve?

I didnt realise the CoE was a profit making organisation.

And if not to cure the ills of mankind what else are they there for?

Money might not be the answer but it can go along way to finding and funding the answer.

Originally posted by Beliver
I didnt realise the CoE was a profit making organisation.

they supply what there is demand for

Originally posted by Beliver
And if not to cure the ills of mankind what else are they there for?

I don't know, I tend to let people and organizations define themselves rather than making expectations of others based on my own beliefs

Originally posted by Beliver
Money might not be the answer but it can go along way to finding and funding the answer.

so, then you admit that, even if the CoE gave 100% of its money to those issues, they would still exist?

Originally posted by inimalist
they supply what there is demand for



I don't know, I tend to let people and organizations define themselves rather than making expectations of others based on my own beliefs



so, then you admit that, even if the CoE gave 100% of its money to those issues, they would still exist?

So what came first the faith or the follower?

What is better for the world a faith based organisation horde money like there is no tomorrow yet preaching about the evils of money and wealth...

or...

A faith based organisation working to further mankind through kindess and selfless acts?

Lets face it the Vatican City is the biggest tax haven in the known world. What does that say about religion and money? It has its own private army FFS! How much does that cost to run a year? How many nurses or homeless shelters would that buy?

No, even if the CoE gave a billion pounds to good cause it wouldn't SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS...but it would go along way TO SOLVE SOME AND MAKE SOME LESS OF A PROBLEM.

"I don't know, I tend to let people and organizations define themselves by their actions rather than listening to what they say the want me to belive their are doing!"

Originally posted by Beliver
So what came first the faith or the follower?

What is better for the world a faith based organisation horde money like there is no tomorrow yet preaching about the evils of money and wealth...

or...

A faith based organisation working to further mankind through kindess and selfless acts?

Lets face it the Vatican City is the biggest tax haven in the known world. What does that say about religion and money? It has its own private army FFS! How much does that cost to run a year? How many nurses or homeless shelters would that buy?

No, even if the CoE gave a billion pounds to good cause it wouldn't SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS...but it would go along way TO SOLVE SOME AND MAKE SOME LESS OF A PROBLEM.

"I don't know, I tend to let people and organizations define themselves by their actions rather than listening to what they say the want me to belive their are doing!"

while the catholic church may leave a bitter taste in your mouth, they still have the basic human liberty of being able to spend their funds as they see fit, and given you are not the pope or God's representative upon earth, they really need not answer to you.

Also, unless you fall into a very small minority of people, the catholic church likely much pays more in absolute and relative terms for charity and all above mentioned issues than you do, so it is unlikely you even have the moral ground to criticize them from on this issue.