The Christian Agenda Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

One wonders, though, what Jesus would make of the ostentation of the Vatican. Or, for that matter, of the conspicuous consumption of so many “Christians” in the United States.

[/quote]

It may step on a few R.C.'ers toes but I am with you on this one.

There is ostentation within Protestantism too but nothing on the scale of the Vatican and its satellites.[/quote]

God has never been against beautiful and opulent displays of worhipe space that was in his honor. As he gave very detailed instructions on how the ‘tent of meeting’ was to look with gold leafing and detailed craftmanship on the arc itself, etc. And then you have the temples, the first temple built by Solomon at God’s command was quite a place, importing cedars from Lebanon to make it.
I see no problem with beutiful places of worship.[/quote]

Different covenant.
[/quote]

This is going to turn into another Catholic vs Protestant bashing thread. Here we go.
[/quote]

Not if I have anything to do say about it!

/refuses to be baited

202

[quote]pushharder wrote:

The clearly atheist regimes (despite the Orthodox Church continuing to have a measurable influence as is your claim) of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao DID in fact murder more people than any other demographic in the history of the world. The numbers dwarf, absolutely dwarf, all the “religious wars” in history combined. This is indisputable. [/quote]

I am not disputing the death tolls of those regimes. My point is that you cannot prove that atheism was the cause of their brutality. “This is indisputable” or “it is clear” are not evidence, they are intellectual cop-outs from someone who cannot back up his claim. Hell, even if you could Stalin et al would be included in the “Killers in the name of religion” column instead of the “People who are vicious murderers because they have no religion” column. You yourself have argued quite well that atheism is a religion, no?

I am not atheist. We have been over this before.

[quote]Me:

And even if this were true, which it may or may not be, that is still not any evidence that atheism leads to violence, just that violent people have happened to be atheist.

[quote]Push:

“Just happened,” huh? Really? Good grief, I should face palm you for that steaming pile.[/quote] [/quote]

Why don’t you try articulating your disagreement with my statement in an intelligent manner rather then make the kind of passive aggressive statements that I would expect from a high school student.

[quote] Me:

Let us use this exact same type of logic on the Catholic Church (I am assuming that everyone agrees with me that killing someone for not believing the same as you is wrong):

[quote] Push:

…it is wrong and childish to blame every atheist for crimes committed because of some atheists…

Pat didn’t do that. Neither have I. [/quote][/quote]

Why don’t you let Pat answer for himself? As for what you do, I never claimed you did so why did you even respond to it? Since we are on the matter though, why then are you making such a big deal about the number of people killed under atheist regimes? Any unjust death by any regime no matter what should receive the same amount of outrage, especially since part of the reason why more people were killed under atheist regimes is that atheist regimes came into power during a time when, thanks to technology and a lot of other factors including population size it is much easier to kill a lot of people. Who know what would have happened in the Crusades if the Christians or Muslims or others had the kind of technology or number of targets available today.

[quote] Me:

…to claim that because an atheist does something it is automatically a tenet of atheism, as if to be an atheist you have to want to murder religious people.

[quote]Push:

No reasonable person claims this but the facts are the facts throughout history: militant religious folks of any stripe WITH POWER tend to murder other folks. Atheism IS a religion for all practical purposes. Get over the lame talking points that it’s not.[/quote][/quote]

I never claimed that it is not. But now the point becomes: Religions are responsible for the most murders in the world. So, how do we stop religions from murdering people?

Prove it.

203

Hold on, I am going to fix the quotes on my post.

204

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Plus, once someone in the world pushes the Catholic Church out of first place when it comes to helping the “widows and orphans” maybe we’ll consider getting rid of such epicenters of civilization and culture.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how does one measure these things? By total amount of charitable donations and offerings collected worldwide, or by amount actually spent on the aforesaid widows and orphans? Also, if the Church is in first place, who is in second, and by how much are they lagging behind?[/quote]

From the equation should be subtract government handouts?[/quote]

Nah, I’m just interested in a dollar amount of the total donations collected from parishioners worldwide, plus whatever percentage of the Vatican’s considerable tax-free income derived its worldwide real estate holdings and investments in the banking, insurance, chemical, steel, and construction industries. For the sake of argument, we’ll lump the Roman and Eastern Catholics together, and throw in the other Christian orthodoxies as well, even if they aren’t necessarily aligned with the Pope.

Next, I would like to see the dollar amount that actually goes toward charitable activities, specifically the care, feeding, housing and education of widows and orphans.

Once we have that, I would like to see these numbers compares with the same numbers from all the various Protestant denominations and sects, from Muslim organizations. We will disregard donations to and activities by organizations like Medecins Sans Frontieres, which are not affiliated with any religious institution.

Question: do we lump the Mormons in with the Protestants or the Muslims? Let’s say Protestants. Are Anglicans and Episcopalians more Catholic or Protestant? Let’s say Protestant as well, just for laughs. After all, Henry the Eighth, who invented the Church of England, protested the Catholic Church pretty hard.

So now we have three groups, roughly equivalent in size, all of whom take in massive amounts of money, and all of whom help widows and orphans.

I’d want to see the total take from all sources: tithes, collection plates/baskets/bags, charity boxes, along with telephone/mail-in/Internet donations solicited or otherwise, along with deathbed bequests and tax-deductible lump-sum disbursements on the Protestant side, and worldwide collection of zakat (the 2.5 percent of net worth a Muslim must give (think of it as a faith-based charity tax), plus khums a fifth of annual income, generally collected among the Shi’a plus sadaqa, which is all other voluntary donations.

Admittedly, any comparison along these lines runs into a few difficulties. Do we count the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies a “Catholic charity”, a “Muslim charity” or both? It takes in donations from people of all faiths (even those amoral atheists), and helps widows and orphans, infidels and heretics alike. Another problem is that whereas the income and charitable activities of Team Catholic are relatively easy to quantify, inasmuch as it has a relatively organized structure, the other two groups are more fragmented and decentralized in nature. It’s kind of like trying to track the income and expenditures of the Italian and Russian Mafia with that of the Crips and Bloods on one hand, and the Aryan Brotherhood, Hell’s Angels and the Ku Klux Klan on the other. Not that I would ever compare religious organizations to criminal organizations, just illustrating the difficulties involved.

So that is my question. It is one thing to say that Team Catholic is Number One at the the helping widows and orphan game, but without hard numbers and a solid basis of comparison with Team Protestant and Team Muslim, this is a difficult claim to back up. How about it, Brother Chris? I seem to recall you saying something about scientific evidence and the burden of proof. :slight_smile:

205

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Plus, once someone in the world pushes the Catholic Church out of first place when it comes to helping the “widows and orphans” maybe we’ll consider getting rid of such epicenters of civilization and culture.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how does one measure these things? By total amount of charitable donations and offerings collected worldwide, or by amount actually spent on the aforesaid widows and orphans? Also, if the Church is in first place, who is in second, and by how much are they lagging behind?[/quote]

From the equation should be subtract government handouts?[/quote]

Nah, I’m just interested in a dollar amount of the total donations collected from parishioners worldwide, plus whatever percentage of the Vatican’s considerable tax-free income derived its worldwide real estate holdings and investments in the banking, insurance, chemical, steel, and construction industries. For the sake of argument, we’ll lump the Roman and Eastern Catholics together, and throw in the other Christian orthodoxies as well, even if they aren’t necessarily aligned with the Pope.

Next, I would like to see the dollar amount that actually goes toward charitable activities, specifically the care, feeding, housing and education of widows and orphans.

Once we have that, I would like to see these numbers compares with the same numbers from all the various Protestant denominations and sects, from Muslim organizations. We will disregard donations to and activities by organizations like Medecins Sans Frontieres, which are not affiliated with any religious institution.

Question: do we lump the Mormons in with the Protestants or the Muslims? Let’s say Protestants. Are Anglicans and Episcopalians more Catholic or Protestant? Let’s say Protestant as well, just for laughs. After all, Henry the Eighth, who invented the Church of England, protested the Catholic Church pretty hard.

So now we have three groups, roughly equivalent in size, all of whom take in massive amounts of money, and all of whom help widows and orphans.

I’d want to see the total take from all sources: tithes, collection plates/baskets/bags, charity boxes, along with telephone/mail-in/Internet donations solicited or otherwise, along with deathbed bequests and tax-deductible lump-sum disbursements on the Protestant side, and worldwide collection of zakat (the 2.5 percent of net worth a Muslim must give (think of it as a faith-based charity tax), plus khums a fifth of annual income, generally collected among the Shi’a plus sadaqa, which is all other voluntary donations.

Admittedly, any comparison along these lines runs into a few difficulties. Do we count the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies a “Catholic charity”, a “Muslim charity” or both? It takes in donations from people of all faiths (even those amoral atheists), and helps widows and orphans, infidels and heretics alike. Another problem is that whereas the income and charitable activities of Team Catholic are relatively easy to quantify, inasmuch as it has a relatively organized structure, the other two groups are more fragmented and decentralized in nature. It’s kind of like trying to track the income and expenditures of the Italian and Russian Mafia with that of the Crips and Bloods on one hand, and the Aryan Brotherhood, Hell’s Angels and the Ku Klux Klan on the other. Not that I would ever compare religious organizations to criminal organizations, just illustrating the difficulties involved.

So that is my question. It is one thing to say that Team Catholic is Number One at the the helping widows and orphan game, but without hard numbers and a solid basis of comparison with Team Protestant and Team Muslim, this is a difficult claim to back up. How about it, Brother Chris? I seem to recall you saying something about scientific evidence and the burden of proof. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Let us know.

206

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Plus, once someone in the world pushes the Catholic Church out of first place when it comes to helping the “widows and orphans” maybe we’ll consider getting rid of such epicenters of civilization and culture.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how does one measure these things? By total amount of charitable donations and offerings collected worldwide, or by amount actually spent on the aforesaid widows and orphans? Also, if the Church is in first place, who is in second, and by how much are they lagging behind?[/quote]

From the equation should be subtract government handouts?[/quote]

Nah, I’m just interested in a dollar amount of the total donations collected from parishioners worldwide, plus whatever percentage of the Vatican’s considerable tax-free income derived its worldwide real estate holdings and investments in the banking, insurance, chemical, steel, and construction industries. For the sake of argument, we’ll lump the Roman and Eastern Catholics together, and throw in the other Christian orthodoxies as well, even if they aren’t necessarily aligned with the Pope.

Next, I would like to see the dollar amount that actually goes toward charitable activities, specifically the care, feeding, housing and education of widows and orphans.

Once we have that, I would like to see these numbers compares with the same numbers from all the various Protestant denominations and sects, from Muslim organizations. We will disregard donations to and activities by organizations like Medecins Sans Frontieres, which are not affiliated with any religious institution.

Question: do we lump the Mormons in with the Protestants or the Muslims? Let’s say Protestants. Are Anglicans and Episcopalians more Catholic or Protestant? Let’s say Protestant as well, just for laughs. After all, Henry the Eighth, who invented the Church of England, protested the Catholic Church pretty hard.

So now we have three groups, roughly equivalent in size, all of whom take in massive amounts of money, and all of whom help widows and orphans.

I’d want to see the total take from all sources: tithes, collection plates/baskets/bags, charity boxes, along with telephone/mail-in/Internet donations solicited or otherwise, along with deathbed bequests and tax-deductible lump-sum disbursements on the Protestant side, and worldwide collection of zakat (the 2.5 percent of net worth a Muslim must give (think of it as a faith-based charity tax), plus khums a fifth of annual income, generally collected among the Shi’a plus sadaqa, which is all other voluntary donations.

Admittedly, any comparison along these lines runs into a few difficulties. Do we count the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies a “Catholic charity”, a “Muslim charity” or both? It takes in donations from people of all faiths (even those amoral atheists), and helps widows and orphans, infidels and heretics alike. Another problem is that whereas the income and charitable activities of Team Catholic are relatively easy to quantify, inasmuch as it has a relatively organized structure, the other two groups are more fragmented and decentralized in nature. It’s kind of like trying to track the income and expenditures of the Italian and Russian Mafia with that of the Crips and Bloods on one hand, and the Aryan Brotherhood, Hell’s Angels and the Ku Klux Klan on the other. Not that I would ever compare religious organizations to criminal organizations, just illustrating the difficulties involved.

So that is my question. It is one thing to say that Team Catholic is Number One at the the helping widows and orphan game, but without hard numbers and a solid basis of comparison with Team Protestant and Team Muslim, this is a difficult claim to back up. How about it, Brother Chris? I seem to recall you saying something about scientific evidence and the burden of proof. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Let us know.[/quote]

I am eager to know also. This would be a daunting undertaking.

207

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

This is going to turn into another Catholic vs Protestant bashing thread. Here we go.
[/quote]

Not if I have anything to do say about it!

/refuses to be baited[/quote]

And for the record, I wasn’t really referring to Jesus’ opinion of St. Peter’s Cathedral and Protestant mega churches, but rather the opulence in which the princes, dukes, and barons of the Church surrounded themselves on one hand, and the fabulous mansions and conspicuous consumption of their Protestant counterparts. My guess is tht he might say something like, “is it not written, my house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves!”

209

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Hey, I’m not going on a Catholic bashing spree but I disagree. When one looks at the New Testament one doesn’t see God asking for “gifts” like the ones you described.[/quote]

No, but we see that people did give him gifts. Oil on the feet, colt to ride on, tomb to bury him, &c. God doesn’t demand it, we agree. However, love of God compels man to do things that don’t make sense.

210

Push, I will have a response for you sometime tomorrow. It is almost 9 here and I have some things to take care of before bed.

215

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Actual Islam is the fastest growing Christian heresy, even faster than the health and prosperity movement. [/quote]

Worldwide, yes. Although it looks as though the Latter Day Saints (a religion with more in common with Islam than with any other Christian sect/denomination/heresy) are gaining ground at a faster rate in the United States. [/quote]

Something about being Catholic, I will take my last breath as I continue to be the most patriotic patriot I can be, but I do not just look at the American landscape. So, yes American numbers are important because I care about the US, but I find world wide numbers more interesting. I want to take over the world, not just America.

By sharing the truth, wherever, by the faithful.

Lol.

I’m about non-violence.

[quote]And as for telling one heretic from another in the melee, I wouldn’t sweat it. Your battle cry can be neca eos omnes, diabolus suos agnoscet!
[/quote]

Jumping ahead of ourselves.

216

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Plus, once someone in the world pushes the Catholic Church out of first place when it comes to helping the “widows and orphans” maybe we’ll consider getting rid of such epicenters of civilization and culture.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how does one measure these things? By total amount of charitable donations and offerings collected worldwide, or by amount actually spent on the aforesaid widows and orphans? Also, if the Church is in first place, who is in second, and by how much are they lagging behind?[/quote]

It’s hard to calculate total. It ultimately doesn’t matter because that is not the goal of the Catholic Church. The Goal of the Catholic Church is to save the world by the blood of Christ.

But, people have a tendency to say that the Catholic Church is greedy because of xyz, while ignoring our charitable works. $ wise, Red Cross is above us (I don’t pay too much attention). However, if you add in man hours I’m not sure anyone would be able to compete when your organization makes up 1/4 of the world and we’ve been doing this for going on 2000 years.

217

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Actually, you cant really call Islam a Christian anything because they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I agree with your overriding point.
[/quote]

That’s why we call it Christian Heresy, Islam is a reborn Arianism.

218

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Hey, I’m not going on a Catholic bashing spree but I disagree. When one looks at the New Testament one doesn’t see God asking for “gifts” like the ones you described.[/quote]

No, but we see that people did give him gifts. Oil on the feet, colt to ride on, tomb to bury him, &c. God doesn’t demand it, we agree. However, love of God compels man to do things that don’t make sense. [/quote]

Yep, “Oil on the feet, colt to ride on, tomb to bury him, etc.”

Those things are the very antithesis of opulent.[/quote]

I don’t know. The perfumed oil cost 300 denari (expensive), and to give away your colt when that is likely the key to your of livelihood, and a tomb (something reserved for only the well off) are opulence.

220

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Hey, I’m not going on a Catholic bashing spree but I disagree. When one looks at the New Testament one doesn’t see God asking for “gifts” like the ones you described.[/quote]

No, but we see that people did give him gifts. Oil on the feet, colt to ride on, tomb to bury him, &c. God doesn’t demand it, we agree. However, love of God compels man to do things that don’t make sense. [/quote]

Yep, “Oil on the feet, colt to ride on, tomb to bury him, etc.”

Those things are the very antithesis of opulent.[/quote]

I don’t know. The perfumed oil cost 300 denari (expensive), and to give away your colt when that is likely the key to your of livelihood, and a tomb (something reserved for only the well off) are opulence. [/quote]

Okey doke.

You realize some perfume, a colt and a tomb however relatively expensive in its day is not comparable to the extravagance we’re talking about? C’mon Chris, you know what I mean.
[/quote]

The colt was probably returned, and the tomb could of been reused. Not up to snuff on the reusing of tombs for Jewish Law, but I would have used it if it was mine.