Christian Theology Thread

[St George of England]

Not been to church to in several years, and don't really believe any more, but I thought I'd vote anyway. I was born, and dedicated as, a baptist, although Baptism in the UK is much different to the American Baptists.

What I do not understand, and perhaps another poster could explain this to me, is why churches ask for donations when the Church of England is worth £4 billion on the stock market and the Catholic Church even more.

Firstly we were told to contribute 10% (will edit in scriptural passage when I find it), secondly because 90% of the time the Churches tend to spend the funds on good causes. EVERY major church (Catholic, Othordox, Anglican, and Major Protestant sects) has large sums of money they take in due to donations, etc. Most of the time they do spend it on just causes.

The church has to pay bills, just as anyone else. Priests and clergy need compensation and pay for the cost of living they endure since they are not working. Mission work, donations, etc. Just today I picked up a copy of the October Magnificat at my parish. The funds to buy that book were more then likely supplied by the Church.

Its little things that add up, if you look at the big picture. At any point in time I can go to my parish and get free clothes, shoes, food, shelter, bibles, etc, because the Church has money it receives from tithes and can do these things.

That doesn't explain why the British Home Mission (a Baptist denom in the UK) asked for £40,000 to repair a church when they confirmed they had around £2 million in the bank.

[Terraius]

Now although the Crucifixion efficiently represented the reform of the old Jewish law into the new Christian law, it does not mean we dont have to give. Tithing was a legal Israelite Law; although Jesus never specifically criticized it or spoke out against it, it is in sense old news, however reading above, it is our duty to pitch in to help the needy, and this is what the vast majority of allocations of funds do with nearly any church regardless of commune they belong to.

[Terraius]

That doesn't explain why the British Home Mission (a Baptist denom in the UK) asked for £40,000 to repair a church when they confirmed they had around £2 million in the bank.

Im not at liberty to speak on behalf of their Church. I dont know if the repairs costed 2.4 million and they needed the difference, or whatever.

Although my first guess is that the 2 million they had, they didnt want to spend completely on the repairs, so they could have enough money to pay for bills and clergy, etc. Im sure there is a reason behind it, but that doesnt mean they didnt have ill intentions. I simply cannot say as a non-member of that church or someone who hasnt looked into the case.

[St George of England]

Now although the Crucifixion efficiently represented the reform of the old Jewish law into the new Christian law, it does not mean we dont have to give. Tithing was a legal Israelite Law; although Jesus never specifically criticized it or spoke out against it, it is in sense old news, however reading above, it is our duty to pitch in to help the needy, and this is what the vast majority of allocations of funds do with nearly any church regardless of commune they belong to.

Indeed. Although it is the duty of everyone, regardless of faith, to pitch in. I, myself, have looked into joining the GSD church, although there isn't one near me.

[Yenke-Bin]

The church has to pay bills, just as anyone else. Priests and clergy need compensation and pay for the cost of living they endure since they are not working. Mission work, donations, etc. Just today I picked up a copy of the October Magnificat at my parish. The funds to buy that book were more then likely supplied by the Church.
.

Clergy should work though. Paul was pretty clear on this:

2 thessalonians 3:6Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, butwith toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselvesan example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command:If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

and Acts 18:1-4

1After this Paul[a] left Athens and went to Corinth. 2And he found a Jew named(A) Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife(B) Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, 3and(C) because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. 4And(D) he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.

He preached the Gospel, but at the same time made a living for himself.

We have a clergy who sit behind desks, reading books by other clergy, so they can in turn write their own books debating the aforementioned book writing clergy. Preachers are more than just Sunday morning professionals. They are to be a model to all Christians to be a missionary no matter where they work, live, or play.

I know when I start my own ministry, I will also have a job to pay for my living expenses. If the church decides to donate money to me, then perhaps I could use it as a charitable gift, or something.

[Yenke-Bin]

Now although the Crucifixion efficiently represented the reform of the old Jewish law into the new Christian law, it does not mean we dont have to give. Tithing was a legal Israelite Law; although Jesus never specifically criticized it or spoke out against it, it is in sense old news, however reading above, it is our duty to pitch in to help the needy, and this is what the vast majority of allocations of funds do with nearly any church regardless of commune they belong to.

Sorta right. We are to give out of desire and no compulsion.

Luke 21: 1-4

1Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, 2 and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins.3 And he said, "Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. 4 For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

It would stand to reason that they would have to give, since they had plenty to spare. Hence an obligation. But the old woman, who by all means would have been right to keep her money to buy food, clothing, etc, gave out of her burning desire to please God. She gave more than those rich people ever could. God uses the spirits of people like that, over the physical possessions of the rich who feel obligated to give as some sort of duty.

[Terraius]

Clergy should work though. Paul was pretty clear on this:

Your taking it out of modern context. Back in those days, priesthood was considered a full time employment. Nowadays in modern secular society, Priests have to fend for themselves because the Government wont give them a paycheck.

He preached the Gospel, but at the same time made a living for himself.

Indeed he did.

We have a clergy who sit behind desks, reading books by other clergy, so they can in turn write their own books debating the aforementioned book writing clergy. Preachers are more than just Sunday morning professionals. They are to be a model to all Christians to be a missionary no matter where they work, live, or play.

Im confused, because our parish staff works 7 days a week performing masses, confessions, personal reconciliation/guidance, etc. I dont remember last time I was at the parish and Father James and the other pastors were not busy doing something.

Again, your taking the bible for literal context. Work had a different definition back in ancient times then it did now. Do you think Peter worked a part time job while he was the first Vicar? No, his job was to go out and make disciples of nations and 'Feed' Jesus's sheep, or, his people.

[Risottia]

Who's heard a good rabbi and a priest joke lately?

Dunno if it's old or new, but there's this joke about the rabbi, his son, the priest and his nephew...

A rabbi meets a priest, and they start talking about the rabbi's son and the priest's nephew.
The rabbi envisions a bright future for his son: he'll clear the MIT, then the London School of Economics with ease, he'll become the CEO of a major multinational, enter politics and become the first Jewish President of the US ever!
The priest also has high expectations about his nephew: he'll go for classical studies, but he also has a great vocation, so he'll become priest, too - and thanks to his intelligence, culture and kindness he'll rise to bishop, then cardinal, and he'll become the first American Pope ever!
But the rabbi asks: -Wonderful, but what about AFTER being Pope?
The priest, a bit shocked, replies: -What do you mean? You become Pope and that's it - there's nothing above being Pope! Do you expect him to become God?
-Nu, after all one of our lads managed exactly to do so...

[Terraius]

It would stand to reason that they would have to give, since they had plenty to spare. Hence an obligation. But the old woman, who by all means would have been right to keep her money to buy food, clothing, etc, gave out of her burning desire to please God. She gave more than those rich people ever could. God uses the spirits of people like that, over the physical possessions of the rich who feel obligated to give as some sort of duty.

I dont believe the Church obligates its lay people to contribute. They encourage it and ask it, but if you dont tithe your not excommunicated. Theres been times where I was unemployed and I did not tithe, and Jesus would have understood because I had not money to spare since I was unemployed.

You said you wanted to start your own ministry? Do you expect God to magically pay for your churches bills and living expenses of yourself? Your staff? Or you will work multiple very high paying jobs to make ends meet?

God spoke of tithing for this reason. You, again, are taking it out of context. You need to look at the deeper meaning of God's spoken word. Yes, give 10 percent to the church, but what was the reasoning behind the command? If you literally interpret scripture as-is then you are committing the same fouls as the Jewish community which Jesus criticized.

God knew that churches needed money to survive in the modern times. The government will not give a check to the clergy, nor will companies not expect them to pay for their utilities or land costs. God is all knowing, and to him time is but a perception as he wills it to be. Forseeing this he asked those to give freely, and in the OT, commanded tithes to the temples.

[Terraius]

Who's heard a good rabbi and a priest joke lately?

Dunno if it's old or new, but there's this joke about the rabbi, his son, the priest and his nephew...

A rabbi meets a priest, and they start talking about the rabbi's son and the priest's nephew.
The rabbi envisions a bright future for his son: he'll clear the MIT, then the London School of Economics with ease, he'll become the CEO of a major multinational, enter politics and become the first Jewish President of the US ever!
The priest also has high expectations about his nephew: he'll go for classical studies, but he also has a great vocation, so he'll become priest, too - and thanks to his intelligence, culture and kindness he'll rise to bishop, then cardinal, and he'll become the first American Pope ever!
But the rabbi asks: -Wonderful, but what about AFTER being Pope?
The priest, a bit shocked, replies: -What do you mean? You become Pope and that's it - there's nothing above being Pope! Do you expect him to become God?
-Nu, after all one of our lads managed exactly to do so...

This is derailing, I suggest you stop. Go to F7 for joke spam please.

[St George of England]

Your taking it out of modern context. Back in those days, priesthood was considered a full time employment. Nowadays in modern secular society, Priests have to fend for themselves because the Government wont give them a paycheck.

and it would be unconstitutional to do so. Unless they gave all priests, regardless of religion, a paycheck.

Im confused, because our parish staff works 7 days a week performing masses, confessions, personal reconciliation/guidance, etc. I dont remember last time I was at the parish and Father James and the other pastors were not busy doing something.

Bah, catholics. Should be more like my own 'Pastor' who doesn't think you count if you're not over the age 50. The problems of living in a town full of old people, I suppose.

Again, your taking the bible for literal context. Work had a different definition back in ancient times then it did now. Do you think Peter worked a part time job while he was the first Vicar? No, his job was to go out and make disciples of nations and 'Feed' Jesus's sheep, or, his people.

Would've been funny in a way, tho. Working in a corner shop writing letters to the Corinthians, etc.

[Risottia]

"How to trap an atheist: Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he believes there is a cook." Another fine point

...carefully handmade in Failland.

[Terraius]

and it would be unconstitutional to do so. Unless they gave all priests, regardless of religion, a paycheck.

Yep

Bah, catholics. Should be more like my own 'Pastor' who doesn't think you count if you're not over the age 50. The problems of living in a town full of old people, I suppose.

I know the type, trust me. I was Methodist for 7 years and Baptist for 2 years, both very predominately older people.

Would've been funny in a way, tho. Working in a corner shop writing letters to the Corinthians, etc.

LOL Yes Indeed.

[The Irish Marchlands]

Stupidity is eternal.


That said I'm a staunch Roman Catholic and wouldn't change it for the world.

While we're on the topic of paganism a clear distinction must be made between neo-pagans and, well, pagans. There's plenty of 'pagan' religions out there that have survived the ravages of time and change, and these are to be respective for the ancient beliefs they are. Now neo-paganism on the other hand can go and get fucked. Not out of any sectarian hatred but out of the fact it is watered down, reprocessed bullshit that is more like a parody of the ancient beliefs they claim heritage from rather then any substantial spiritual norishment. The prime examples are Neo-druidism and wicca. Wicca has absolutely nothing to do with ancient wiccans, who were herbalists and poison makers wrongly accused of witchcraft, nothing religious about them as a group at all. While neo-druidism is so far removed from the ancient Celtic beliefs they claim inspiration from that they should not be associated with eachother at all. (although neo-druidism is gratifyingly older then wicca, but not by too much) I know an actual friend who held on to the ancient Irish belief system, in fact his family line did since 1500 years ago, he didnt call himself a druid, because a druid was the priest of the religion, not the practitioner or the believer, and what I learned from him puts to shame the tripe modern druids are putting forward in terms of depth and substance.

As you can tell i'm not one for much ecumenism. If you believe in something but it doesnt affect your life much, its not your religion, so you've no right to act like it is until you live up to it.

[Risottia]

You calling me a liar, kid? Better you don't.

For the most part Im not going to respond to your replies, because you either a) Twisted my words around in an attempt to show I was saying something I wasnt or b) threw out some sort of insult. Clam down, this
thread has been civil and lets keep it that way.

1.When you reply to people by quoting, common etiquette would ask to maintain the link to the post you're replying to.
2.Since you're claiming that I insulted you, please report to the mods those posts of mine where I did so.
3.Also, where did I "twist your words around etc"? Prove your allegations or be silent.

By the way, still: you said my argument about the RCC receiving a lot of funding from the Italian Republic was bogus and that I know it's bogus. This I would call as "calling me a liar".

[Risottia]

This is derailing, I suggest you stop. Go to F7 for joke spam please.

I assume you forgot a /notamod.

And by the way I'd say it's hardly "spam" as:
1.it is related to the general argument of the thread
2.it has been specifically requested by another poster
3.it as also been contained within a spoiler tag

[Terraius]

I agree, most Neo-[pre-Christian European Religion] are watered down and not really reminiscent of their predecessors.

As you can tell i'm not one for much ecumenism. If you believe in something but it doesnt affect your life much, its not your religion, so you've no right to act like it is until you live up to it.

Im a ecumenist to the point where I believe in unity between the faithful, and by faithful I dont mean label Christians or Christians by name only.

In Revelations, God's promise of the coming of his great Kingdom, it is fortold that there will be no denominations and we will all be brought under one roof against the armies of the damned and the wicked, so, eventually, we will end up united.

[St George of England]

This is derailing, I suggest you stop. Go to F7 for joke spam please.

I assume you forgot a /notamod.

I assumes you're simple minded if you can't distinguish between mods and non-mods. As it is, I shall misquote a passage from the OSRS, to the best of my memory:

The OP has the right to ask posters to remove themselves from their thread.

I suggest you do so.

[Kyr Shorn]

I agree, most Neo-[pre-Christian European Religion] are watered down and not really reminiscent of their predecessors.

As you can tell i'm not one for much ecumenism. If you believe in something but it doesnt affect your life much, its not your religion, so you've no right to act like it is until you live up to it.

Im a ecumenist to the point where I believe in unity between the faithful, and by faithful I dont mean label Christians or Christians by name only.

In Revelations, God's promise of the coming of his great Kingdom, it is fortold that there will be no denominations and we will all be brought under one roof against the armies of the damned and the wicked, so, eventually, we will end up united.

Except for those who will be burning in Hell, as per the beliefs of pretty much every single Christian sect out there, all of which are convinced that they and they alone are "the one true Church".

[Terraius]

1.When you reply to people by quoting, common etiquette would ask to maintain the link to the post you're replying to.
2.Since you're claiming that I insulted you, please report to the mods those posts of mine where I did so.
3.Also, where did I "twist your words around etc"? Prove your allegations or be silent.

By the way, still: you said my argument about the RCC receiving a lot of funding from the Italian Republic was bogus and that I know it's bogus. This I would call as "calling me a liar".

'You calling me a liar, kid? Better you don't.' was, to me, implying a combative tone. I shall remain silent, because the context of your posting is still confrontational and challenging. Im not here to prove my religion, but explain it or discuss it with those who are inquired about it. You dont seem content on discussing it but rather challenging it, and I dont want either of us to get warns or in trouble, so again, I will not be replying to you.

[The Irish Marchlands]

I agree, most Neo-[pre-Christian European Religion] are watered down and not really reminiscent of their predecessors.



Im a ecumenist to the point where I believe in unity between the faithful, and by faithful I dont mean label Christians or Christians by name only.

In Revelations, God's promise of the coming of his great Kingdom, it is fortold that there will be no denominations and we will all be brought under one roof against the armies of the damned and the wicked, so, eventually, we will end up united.

Except for those who will be burning in Hell, as per the beliefs of pretty much every single Christian sect out there, all of which are convinced that they and they alone are "the one true Church".

Yes.

[Terraius]

I assume you forgot a /notamod.

I assumes you're simple minded if you can't distinguish between mods and non-mods. As it is, I shall misquote a passage from the OSRS, to the best of my memory:

The OP has the right to ask posters to remove themselves from their thread.

I suggest you do so.

Im not the OP, but thank you for clearing that part up. Disclaimer: I am not nor am I claiming to be a mod or hold modly authority.

And by the way I'd say it's hardly "spam" as:
1.it is related to the general argument of the thread
2.it has been specifically requested by another poster
3.it as also been contained within a spoiler tag

It is not spam, I agree. Its offtopic and not contributing to the thread, just like this side discussion we are having now which shouldnt be going on.

Except for those who will be burning in Hell, as per the beliefs of pretty much every single Christian sect out there, all of which are convinced that they and they alone are "the one true Church".

That is not the belief of the RCC, you are wrong. Just because you are not in communion of Rome does not mean you are destined to burn. Dont be silly.

[Kyr Shorn]

Except for those who will be burning in Hell, as per the beliefs of pretty much every single Christian sect out there, all of which are convinced that they and they alone are "the one true Church".

Yes.

A good thing that Christianity, in any of it's 20,000 versions, is not true then.

[The Irish Marchlands]

Yes.

A good thing that Christianity, in any of it's 20,000 versions, is not true then.

Hahahahahahahahahaha, Oh God, he thinks he's clever...

[Terraius]

Yes.

A good thing that Christianity, in any of it's 20,000 versions, is not true then.

'Not true' is a very harsh statement. The Big Bang Theory is just a Theory and not fact, so I guess its not true that the universe exists.