# Religion---where's all the money go??



## tech/a (15 February 2009)

Last night at a dinner party and one of the topics which got a lot of attention was the Bush fires and Floods.

There was comment at the lack of financial support seen from religious bodies. Salvo's excepted.

One of the girls is employed by a church here and her job is to take care of donations. She contributed to the discussion saying how absolutely amazed she is on a weekly basis at the amounts of donations both anonymous and known amounting to many hundereds of 1000s. It basically never stops.

When quizzed as to what seems to happen to these millions over time the only thing she could see is that it was (in the vast majority) spent on church infrastructure and expansion. Investment particularly in property which was/is a high priority with Aged Care facilities being top of the agenda.

The general feeling was at this party that religion has become self serving, with no attempt to "Act like a charity" which after all thats how they are taxed.

You certainly hear of things like XYZ company donating its $$s and time to various needy situations large and small but I have to admit Ive NEVER heard of a Church or the like for running a worthy cause.

You hear and see wonderful foundations like the "Glen MC Grath foundation" 
really making a difference.
The only thing I have seen from a religion view point are self serving---join the faith--type advertorials.

Come to think of it I've never heard of *one* case where a church has stepped up to the plate.
With so many worth causes around you'd think they would have an agenda which went beyond their own expansion!


----------



## Trembling Hand (15 February 2009)

Yes, when given the chance of building something meaningful for "their" people like emergency accommodation, relive centre for disadvantaged etc or building a monsterously whopping great building on prime real estate to worship their humble god that gets minimum use they will choose the later!!

Hypocity on full display on every towns best hill!! Just look up


----------



## daisy (15 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> Last night at a dinner party and one of the topics which got a lot of attention was the Bush fires and Floods.
> 
> There was comment at the lack of financial support seen from religious bodies. Salvo's excepted.
> 
> ...




I'm fairly cynical about religions/churches but I always thought the salvos was slightly more philanthroic than the rest and did put money into their wooden boxes until I read that the bulk of donations were invested rather than disbursed to the people I thought my donations were going to.

Now I have a monthly direct debit arrangement with medicin sans frontier and that's it.


----------



## Sunder (15 February 2009)

To humble non-self aggrandising charitable works.

Youth off the streets (Catholic church) does not get a free truck fuel and food from the government. It comes from private donations. 

Anglicare (guess) does not provide food packages, utility bill relief, and clothing to people out of government money.

Centacare only gets partial funding from DOCS to counsel and place abused kids into foster homes.

I actually approached the question from the other side years ago when considering my poure religious vs pure charitable giving. If you strip out all the Christian and Christian based charities, you get left with a whole lot of "Special interest groups" (e.g. MS Society, Greenpeace etc), and all you have left is Unicef, Amnesty, and a handful of other groups. I think we noticed about 70% of charities are either still religious or religious founded. (Red cross falls into the latter category - founded as a Christian movement, became secular early on).

The thing is, religion promotes humility and has their funding from people who are willing and humble about their donations. On the other hand secular charities *must* use advertising and big name brands in order to attract volunteers and donations. Is it a wonder that you only hear of the work of non-religious charities?

Turn your question upside down. If religions are collecting all this money, why are ministers only paid $35-45k a year, and church buildings are still by and large fairly humble things (heritage listed ones excluded). Who is benefiting? Where is the money going if not to charitable works?


----------



## Macquack (15 February 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> Yes, when given the chance of building something meaningful for "their" people like emergency accommodation, relive centre for disadvantaged etc or building a monsterously whopping great building on prime real estate to worship their humble god that gets minimum use they will choose the later!!
> 
> Hypocity on full display on every towns best hill!! Just look up




They are no different to "clubs" (golf, sporting, workers etc). They have their members and their passions. At the end of the day, these "clubs" do what their members direct.

If you want to look for some self fulfilling shrines, look no further than your local club and their disciples (poker machine players).


----------



## Trembling Hand (15 February 2009)

Macquack said:


> They are no different to "clubs" (golf, sporting, workers etc). They have their members and their passions. At the end of the day, these "clubs" do what their members direct.
> 
> If you want to look for some self fulfilling shrines, look no further than your local club and their disciples (poker machine players).




LOL!! 

One is a business and not hiding it. The other is also business but hiding it behind judgement of others, lies and handing out of guilt to the masses.


----------



## Julia (15 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> When quizzed as to what seems to happen to these millions over time the only thing she could see is that it was (in the vast majority) spent on church infrastructure and expansion. Investment particularly in property which was/is a high priority with Aged Care facilities being top of the agenda.



Don't dismiss the aged care facilities as being unworthy recipients of donated money.   There is a deficit of nursing home places throughout the country and religious organisations are responsible for developing and running a substantial percentage of these.  Government funding is inadequate and many aged care establishments run at a loss.  Particularly in view of our ageing population, there is a great need for more funding for this industry.  If these funds come partly from donations then I would think that's a great use for the money.

Re the church having interests in other property, I don't see that the principle is any different from your own property interests, Tech.   If they can turn a profit on property that profit can be put to community use elsewhere.





> The general feeling was at this party that religion has become self serving, with no attempt to "Act like a charity" which after all thats how they are taxed.



I'm the last person to take the 'side' of religion in general, but in this case I absolutely disagree with this conclusion.   The Catholic Church, via St. Vinnies, the Salvos, Anglicare and many other less well known church organisations contribute hugely to community care.   There is a quite small church here "The Hervey Bay Christian Church" which runs a food bank offering food at massively discounted prices, and free if necessary.  They also assist with electricity, rent etc and offer free counselling (not religiously based) and a addiction assistance programme.





> You certainly hear of things like XYZ company donating its $$s and time to various needy situations large and small but I have to admit Ive NEVER heard of a Church or the like for running a worthy cause.



I'd say that's because you're just not mixing in the circles where this happens and it's unfair to conclude such community welfare doesn't exist on such a basis.






> You hear and see wonderful foundations like the "Glen MC Grath foundation"
> really making a difference.



This foundation has received huge media attention because of who Jane McGrath was and the work she did.
Many who do fantastic work in the community don't seek such a high profile.


----------



## ghotib (15 February 2009)

Fair suck of the sav Tech.  They gotta pay for all those gorgeous dresses somehow!!

<GDRVVVVF>

Aside from that, I agree that the institutional religions probably do more good works than are visible in many circles. But I also note that they get enormous tax concessions from all levels of government and they're very bad at acknowledging or accounting for them. Catholic World Youth Day cost NSW taxpayers a boatload and the church won't talk about the size of the boat. Registered religious groups don't pay council rates and they occupy some of the most highly-valued land in the country. A bit of transparency would be good, but I ain't holding my breath.

Ghoti


----------



## Sunder (15 February 2009)

ghotib said:


> A bit of transparency would be good, but I ain't holding my breath.
> Ghoti




I thought all charities who claimed charitable status had to publish annual reports, like publicly listed companies?

http://www.anglicare.asn.au/documents/AnglicareAnnualReport2007.pdf


----------



## ghotib (15 February 2009)

Thanks for posting this. 

It's a start. But:

(a)  Look at the size of the numbers. There's no way this is a comprehensive statement of the financial workings of Anglicare. 

(b) I can't see any reference to premises, either as assets or rent. I presume the Anglican church owns or pays for premises, but then that's rather the point isn't it.

(c) Public disclosure is voluntary because this is a report to members of an association. Note 1 to the financial statements: 



> Anglicare Australia is not a reporting entity in terms of Australian Accounting Standards since the Council believes it is unlikely that there are users who are unable to command the preparation of reports to satisfy their information needs.  This is therefore a special purpose ﬁnancial report that has been prepared to meet the requirements of the Associations Incorporation Act and applicable accounting standards.
> 
> Anglicare Australia has applied Accounting Standard AASB 1025 which amends the application of existing standards so that they apply only to entities that qualify as reporting entities. However, the ﬁnancial statements have been prepared in accordance with the disclosure requirements of the Regulations and applicable Statements of Accounting Concepts and Accounting Standards, with the exception of the following:
> 
> ...



I think there's a typo in the first paragraph, but I won't hold that against them. Indeed I don't hold anything against them. I think the problems probably lie much further back and higher up than the actual charitable organisations. Note the absence of Related Party Disclosures. 

Ghoti


----------



## Sunder (15 February 2009)

ghotib said:


> Thanks for posting this.
> 
> It's a start. But:
> 
> (a)  Look at the size of the numbers. There's no way this is a comprehensive statement of the financial workings of Anglicare.




Anglicare is an association, so each chapter is it's own entity, I believe, so each entity would have its own report.  That report is for the small head office in Sydney city, which coordinates the other entities - the ones that actually do the "on the grounds" work. 

More than that, I'm pretty fuzzy on, but I do remember some pretty tight reporting standards, when I was helping my church set up a deductible gift recipient status for a fund to pay for scripture teachers. 

Sorry I can't find more info.


----------



## Macquack (15 February 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> LOL!!
> 
> One is a business and not hiding it. The other is also business but hiding it behind judgement of others, lies and handing out of guilt to the masses.




Clubs and churches are both "not for profit" organisations.

Membership to either is optional.

Some donate via the plate, others donate via the slot.


----------



## freddy2 (15 February 2009)

Sunder said:


> Who is benefiting? Where is the money going if not to charitable works?




To pay off the victims of kiddie fiddling priests.


----------



## Julia (15 February 2009)

I'm a bit surprised to find myself defending the churches here, but aren't churches pretty much like any other private organisation?

So if their members want to donate money isn't it entirely up to the organisation what it does with these funds?

Isn't it like your golf club taking membership fees so they can spend it for the benefit of the golf club?  

Maybe I'm missing something here.

I do take the point, though, about their tax free status.


----------



## sails (15 February 2009)

I think it's a mistake to tar all religious people with one brush.  There is huge diversity between these organizations and even more between their people.

Problem is that all sorts of scammers and other less desirables con their way into positions of responsibility of religious organizations.  Church people are generally too trusting and naive and so it's usually fairly easy for these types of predators to get what they want - be it money, sex or power.  If caught, church people are usually forgiving and so they often get away with no more than an expulsion from the organization, but they simply go to another and start the process again.

I sometimes think there is a disproportionate number of undesirables who cleverly worm their way into religious environments and positions of power as opposed to secular environments and it is this type of person who causes so much bad publicity.  

The majority would be generally honest, good and caring people and should never be lumped into the same category as those who have selfish motives, and take advantage of the trust and forgiveness of others.


----------



## shaunQ (15 February 2009)

sails said:


> I think it's a mistake to tar all religious people with one brush.  There is huge diversity between these organizations and even more between their people.




I agree. I think there is good and bad across both Charity and Church - some take it seriously and are brilliant. Others 90% gets sucked to head office.

Many of the church "charities" are quite open about not being there to help the needy - simply about "saving" them.



> "The primary function of the society," said St Vincent de Paul's lawyers, "is to inculcate the Catholic faith in its members."






> World Vision is committed to the poor because we are Christian. We work with people of all cultures, faiths and genders to achieve transformation. Our mission is to be a Christian organisation that engages people to eliminate poverty and its causes.




So.. they _engage_ people to help... nothing about _actually _ helping.


----------



## darnsmall (15 February 2009)

shaunQ said:


> I agree. I think there is good and bad across both Charity and Church - some take it seriously and are brilliant. Others 90% gets sucked to head office.
> 
> Many of the church "charities" are quite open about not being there to help the needy - simply about "saving" them.
> 
> ...




agreed, there will be good and bad between both. COBRA is a great example of a charity group that is dirty as all hell and has nothing to do with religion. Religion hasn't dont any good charity; It's a broad generalisation that will get lots of input and support...not much substance


----------



## Macquack (15 February 2009)

sails said:


> I think it's a mistake to tar all religious people with one brush.




If you want to be the leader of the "free world" (USA) or the leader of Australia then you HAVE to be a christian.

If you are not a christian, the media will persecute you and you will have no chance what so ever.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (15 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> There was comment at the lack of financial support seen from religious bodies. *Salvo's excepted.*






> Come to think of it I've never heard of *one* case where a church has stepped up to the plate.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (15 February 2009)

I realise "religion" (Read: Christianity) bashing is a fashionable past-time but this thread takes the cake. For all you people on your pedestals knocking churches (and yes, some churches are easy targets to bash), go donate a week or two of *your* time in the front-lines with those who work aiding the marginalised (often volunteers)  and find out how just how involved those "hypocritical" churches and christians (and other religions) can be.

Ps. And reread Julia's post. Especially this comment: 



> "I'd say that's because you're just not mixing in the circles where this happens and it's unfair to conclude such community welfare doesn't exist on such a basis.'




Pps. And lest I be accused of starry-eyed bias, as a Christian, I don't know what makes me angrier - that some churches have distorted the teachings of Jesus into means to feather their own nests, or that the rather vast body of work done by many Christians and churches to aid those who can't help themselves gets dismissed out of hand by those who brush ALL churches into the same stereotyped caricature.


----------



## shaunQ (15 February 2009)

Ok. Some simple investigation by going to the major church web sites..



> Archdiocese of Sydney would donate $50,000 to a special appeal initiated by Archbishop Denis Hart of Melbourne to support the victims of the bushfires and to help in the reconstruction effort.






> Uniting Church in Victoria and Tasmania, the SHARE Victorian Bushfire Appeal has been set up to support victims and groups providing direct relief.






> The Uniting Church today released $50,000 from its National Disaster Fund to enable the church in Victoria to provide for immediate emergency relief






> The 17 churches, which together form the Melbourne City of Churches network, will unite informally this weekend to hold a special commemorative walk and service in the Fitzroy Gardens this Sunday 15 February 2009 to show solidarity in sorrow and support for the victims and survivors of the recent Victorian bushfires.






> Priest pleads guilty to embezzling $1.2m




Oh.. sorry, skip that last one.

And perhaps the others didn't put out a media release?


----------



## tech/a (15 February 2009)

> The Uniting Church today released $50,000 from its National Disaster Fund to enable the church in Victoria to provide for immediate emergency relief




Token efforts.

What a laugh. "released $50,000 from its National Disaster Fund"

We have 2 National disasters,so whats the fund for?
Release the LOT! 

Frankly they should be investing in a good GPS for GOD so he can get his directions right on where to let the heavens unfold.


----------



## shaunQ (15 February 2009)

ghotib said:


> But I also note that they get enormous tax concessions from all levels of government and they're very bad at acknowledging or accounting for them.




Including Sanitarium which is an absolute scam.


----------



## shaunQ (15 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> We have 2 National disasters,so whats the fund for?




Perhaps they're saving and investing for when the _big_ disaster comes on judgement day, when they'll be cashed up and ready.


----------



## tech/a (15 February 2009)

" A staunch Christian was clinging to the top of a tree during a flash flood.

A boat with 2 men on board approached.

"Quick jump in the water is rising at an alarming rate!"

No No God will save me rescue someone else.

Off they went.

Flood level rises and the guy climbs to the very top of the tree.

A chopper flies overhead with a rope dangling into the top of the tree.

"Hold on to the rope we will pull you aboard"

No No God will save me rescue someone else.

Off flies the chopper.

The water eventually rises and sweeps the man to his death.

In heaven he stands before GOD.

" God why did you for sake me??"

" Well First I sent you a boat--then a chopper-- what more did you need?"


----------



## MS+Tradesim (15 February 2009)

Keep going tech. You're inspiring so much respect.

Bigotry is bigotry - despite the topic.


----------



## shaunQ (15 February 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I don't know what makes me angrier - that some churches have distorted the teachings of Jesus into means to feather their own nests, or that the rather vast body of work done by many Christians and churches to aid those who can't help themselves gets dismissed out of hand by those who brush ALL churches into the same stereotyped caricature.




Well I think your anger should be addressed to the former, not the latter.


----------



## Solly (15 February 2009)

.....where's all the money go??

It goes to where ever the people that run the organisation want it to go to.
You give it ....they distribute .....


I have seen enormous wealth in religious organisations as well as seeing sizeable poverty.

I don't have an "imaginery friend" directing or influencing me in my life but I have no issue with others that do, as long as it doesn't directly impact on me in a negative manner or have the potential to cause me harm.

But my personal experience is that whenever I have interacted or been associated with religious organisations at some time there has been an approach or invitation to join with them and always there has been a request to assist them in a some financial manner.  I always politely say the easiest word in the English language to say   ......NO.

I will only give money to non religious, accountable, auditable organisations who I believe have transparent operational practices.....Unfortunately these are in the minority.


----------



## Julia (15 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> Token efforts.
> 
> What a laugh. "released $50,000 from its National Disaster Fund"
> 
> ...



Perhaps, Tech, you could address my contention that the churches are private organisations and are without obligation to offer funding to anyone other than their members.

They don't receive tax payer dollars so I can't see why you should expect them to deliver money into the community other than at a level of their choosing.

It is the responsibility of governments to deliver assistance to anyone affected by national disasters.   As far as I can tell, this has been happening pretty well.

I understand representatives of the various churches have been out there amongst the fire victims, offering simply someone to talk to in an attempt to share the grief and sadness.  This means a lot to many people.

I've always been very clear about my opposition to organised religion, but at the same time anyone with a sense of objectivity would regard some of the comments on this thread as simply nasty in addition to being ill informed.


----------



## kotim (15 February 2009)

Here is some American stats about the Catholic church in America as an example, Sure there are always people who are going to rip people off etc etc, but people look at different ways to justify to themselves why they should bash religons of whatever persuasion, sure at times some of the members deserve 'bashing' but by and large the majority do good only.

If anyone disbelieves the stats then they are free to do their own research about whatever groups they want.


"The Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday, at cost to the Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars. Needless to say, that Catholic education at this time stands head and shoulders above every other form of education that we have in this country. And the cost is approximately 30% less. 

Catholic schools graduate 89% of students. Those graduates in turn go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%, and all at a cost to the Catholic Church. To the rest of the America it's free.

It costs Catholics at least 30% less to educate students compared to the costs that the public education system pays out for education that cannot compare. 

The Catholic Church thas 230 colleges and universities in the United States with an enrollment of 700,000 students.

The Catholic Church has a non profit hospital system of 637 hospitals which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people not just Catholics in the, United States today.

The Catholic Church clothes and feeds and houses 1 of 5 indigents in the United States, and no one asks them if they are a Catholic, a Protestant or a Jew; just "come, be fed, here's a sweater for you and a place to sleep at night" at a cost to the Church of 2.3 billion dollars a year. "


----------



## nunthewiser (15 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> " A staunch Christian was clinging to the top of a tree during a flash flood.
> 
> A boat with 2 men on board approached.
> 
> ...




amazing

LOL im actually stuck for words for once 

actually i lied

apart from the fact that this post is showing total intolerance to someones beliefs , it also shows a primary school sense of humour

hi tech


----------



## shaunQ (15 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> apart from the fact that this post is showing total intolerance to someones beliefs , it also shows a primary school sense of humour




I don't see the intolerance in it - the Christian was trying to do the right thing, God was trying to help. Maybe its making fun a little like an Irish joke but it was a "staunch" Christian, but I may not see the angle your coming from.

Did you hear the one where a Jew, Muslim and Christian were walking in the desert? - maybe later.


----------



## Macquack (15 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Perhaps, Tech, you could address my contention that the churches are private organisations and are without obligation to offer funding to anyone other than their members.
> 
> They don't receive tax payer dollars so I can't see why you should expect them to deliver money into the community other than at a level of their choosing.
> 
> ...




A very balanced, objective post.

Assuming many church going christians have already given directly to the disaster fund, why should their church give any more. That would be donating twice (two times more than some).


----------



## nth brisbanite (16 February 2009)

Some of these comments definitely are nasty, cowardly and ill informed.  I dare anyone to bash Muslims as much as you try to bash Christians.  Muslims wouldn't stand the type of nonsense that some of you are posting on this thread - you could pay with your life!!

I belong to a denomination who have been influential in sending 38 trained counsellors to Victoria to help the grieving.  We took up a special offering this morning (ie that is above the normal offering) for the bush fire victims.  I hear that every single congregation within our movement is going to do the same.  On top of that, our movement is going to release a huge amount of money from funds which were originally designated for other causes.

In our church, the accounts are audited by independant qualified accountants.  Every member gets a copy of the financial statements and can ask as many questions as they like at our annual meeting.  

How about getting some objective information before you make such biased, prejudiced comments!!  Yes, there are some shockers within the church but the vast majority of members are decent people who, with the help of Jesus, are living good lives.


----------



## mayk (16 February 2009)

How much money is needed? Where is all this money going? How is this money distributed? Can I physically help in anyway without relying on the middle man? 

Lastly, if I donate some money to a person in my individual capacity, do I have to get a receipt, to show the tax office?

Seems like a good thread to ask these questions.

P.S. My hats off to all the people who have donated, or helped, or felt, or even prayed for the victims of this national disaster.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 February 2009)

My kids go to a Catholic school.

When we have events (like to get new carpet for our school, the old carpet was 20 years old and very worn) we always donate 10% to charities.

We recently had a BBQ and raised $6,000 for the fires. Not bad for a small school.

St Vincent de Paul is contributing heaps like the Salvos but keep a lower profile, go and visit a store and ask them.

I think a few of you should get your facts straight and your hate redirected.


----------



## aleckara (16 February 2009)

Try going to a church sometime if you think their money isn't accounted for.

I know the local church of mine shows their books (actually it presents it every year for the congregation to see in an annual report style format) - how much it receives in donations (most small local churches receive about $80000-90000 a year - of course this fluctuates widely on the community they are servicing). Expenditures on maintenance of the local buildings (churches, halls, community group rooms), charity, and the priesthood buildings take up most of the money.

I think that if people want to support these things with their own money then fair enough. Just because they don't give everything away doesn't mean that they are "bad" institutions. Their members have certain beliefs and they are willing to pay to keep their beliefs alive - just like you are and just like everyone does.


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 February 2009)

For thous that are believers can some of you run me through your thinking on one of the problems I have with the Christian religion.

The MASSIVE collection of wealth for the sake of collecting it. The huge "investment" in church buildings for the sole reason of making their religion grand. I just cannot reconcile the teachings of a humble god/ caring religion with the disgraceful waste of community resources and money. With gold lined alters and some of the most extravagant and grand buildings yet at the same time the most under used and non-productive building made since the pyramids. These things take money, resources & labour out of their communities while the communities they were built in go without. And they continue to suck $$ from the people that they are meant to serve for centuries. How many millions could of been feed and housed in the 2000 years of wasteful church building? Is that what YOUR god wanted?? Paganistic churches??

We go nuts when a pollie refurbishes their digs but thank god when something like this is built  Whats the diff??


----------



## pilots (16 February 2009)

Yes go to Europe and see the paintings in side some of the Church's worth millions of dollars, and people out side begging.


----------



## tech/a (16 February 2009)

Love it.

Just question anything to do with Religion and it only takes a second to find emotive words like---Hate--Pay with your life---appearing.

I'm with T/H.
Flick on the TV and see the likes of Benny Hinn---

Or some of the posters here would have you Pay with your life because you don't follow their view or dare question their representatives of their God.

Religion and Politics gets em everytime.


----------



## nomore4s (16 February 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Pps. And lest I be accused of starry-eyed bias, as a Christian, I don't know what makes me angrier - that some churches have distorted the teachings of Jesus into means to feather their own nests, or that the rather vast body of work done by many Christians and churches to aid those who can't help themselves gets dismissed out of hand by those who brush ALL churches into the same stereotyped caricature.






shaunQ said:


> Well I think your anger should be addressed to the former, not the latter.




Maybe it's the fault of the former for the latter.

My view is that while I personally believe all religion is nothing but a con there are religious groups that do alot of charitable work and put the money collected to good use but there is also the other side of the coin too, groups that waste copious amounts of money.
Like anything else humans get involved in - no matter what the original intentions are, greed eventually gets involved and unfortunately this has happened to alot of churches imo, some of them for centuries.

You can't tar all religious groups with the same brush but it only takes a few bad apples to cast doubts over the whole lot, unfortunately this is human nature.


----------



## jonojpsg (16 February 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I realise "religion" (Read: Christianity) bashing is a fashionable past-time but this thread takes the cake. For all you people on your pedestals knocking churches (and yes, some churches are easy targets to bash), go donate a week or two of *your* time in the front-lines with those who work aiding the marginalised (often volunteers)  and find out how just how involved those "hypocritical" churches and christians (and other religions) can be.
> 
> Ps. And reread Julia's post. Especially this comment:
> 
> ...




Hear hear!


----------



## MS+Tradesim (16 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> Or some of the posters here would have you Pay with your life because you don't follow their view or dare question their representatives of their God.




Talk about emotive words. 

I, for one, am not defending expensive buildings or wasted money.

But you and TH and several others in this thread have shown yourselves to be *incapable* of thinking objectively about Christians, preferring instead your own brand of emotionalism by lumping all Christians and churches into the same mold.


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 February 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Talk about emotive words.
> 
> I, for one, am not defending expensive buildings or wasted money.
> 
> But you and TH and several others in this thread have shown yourselves to be *incapable* of thinking objectively about Christians,




Rubbish!!

I am not being emotive about anything!! I simply do not understand how so many resources can be wasted on non-productive things by the *leaders* of christianity while they preach modesty, the need to be humble and charitable.

I see it as hypocrisy. From my understanding the bible tries to preach one thing why those in charge practise something entirely different. I have not bashed what they do do as far as stuff on the ground. Just cannot for the life of me see how they can justify the cost to their community of such extravagant buildings and what they fill them with. What has that got to do with "their teachings".


----------



## MS+Tradesim (16 February 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> Rubbish!!
> 
> I am not being emotive about anything!! I simply do not understand how so many resources can be wasted on non-productive things by the *leaders* of christianity while they preach modesty, the need to be humble and charitable.
> 
> I see it as hypocrisy. From my understanding the bible tries to preach one thing why those in charge practise something entirely different. I have not bashed what they do do as far as stuff on the ground. Just cannot for the life of me see how they can justify to cost to their community of such extravagant buildings and what they fill them with. What has that got to do with "their teachings".




I agree 100% that it is hypocritical for SOME churches to teach one thing and then proceed to do another. No argument. 

But you are being emotive.

You speak of "one of the problems I have with the Christian religion" then proceed to paint ALL Christians and churches with the same brush as though all stand within the broad caricature. You may not perceive that is what you are doing, but it *is* via universalist language. You do not modify your claim by saying some/many. 

That lacks objectivity and reduces your *valid* core criticism to an irrelevant caricature.


----------



## sails (16 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> ...Flick on the TV and see the likes of Benny Hinn--- .




Personally, I find him an embarrassment and seems to be more of a showman than much else.  Some are swept off their feet by him, but each to their own.  Generally, the likes of the Hour of Power aired very early Sun mornings is more within my comfort level.  I accept that everyone has their own ideas and fully respect that fact.




> " A staunch Christian was clinging to the top of a tree during a flash flood.
> 
> A boat with 2 men on board approached.
> 
> ...




This is just so true - I like it


----------



## sails (16 February 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> Rubbish!!
> 
> I am not being emotive about anything!! I simply do not understand how so many resources can be wasted on non-productive things by the *leaders* of christianity while they preach modesty, the need to be humble and charitable.
> 
> I see it as hypocrisy. From my understanding the bible tries to preach one thing why those in charge practise something entirely different. I have not bashed what they do do as far as stuff on the ground. Just cannot for the life of me see how they can justify the cost to their community of such extravagant buildings and what they fill them with. What has that got to do with "their teachings".




Well said, TH.  I agree there is a lot of hypocrisy especially when bad apples get into positions of authority.

Personally, I believe there are also good people who are far from being hypocrites, but as someone said earlier, a few bad apples gives the whole batch a bad name.


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 February 2009)

LOL

Fair enough. But it still stands then. Why don't all the good people on the bottom of the pile stand up to the few on the top wasting their positions, opportunity and resources?? Why is it fine for the pope to preach to me about values when he lives in the Vatican with all its opulence and pillaged wealth from far afield and from the poor bugger on the street?? Why has he still a voice when he and all around him live the ultimate double standard?

When the big man comes down to save us all from our suffering hope I'm around to see what happens to the pope in his gold stitched Santa outfit before I'm marched off to hell.


----------



## sails (16 February 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> LOL
> 
> Fair enough. But it still stands then. Why don't all the good people on the bottom of the pile stand up to the few on the top wasting their positions, opportunity and resources?? Why is it fine for the pope to preach to me about values when he lives in the Vatican with all its opulence and pillaged wealth from far afield and from the poor bugger on the street?? Why has he still a voice when he and all around him live the ultimate double standard?
> 
> When the big man comes down to save us all from our suffering hope I'm around to see what happens to the pope in his gold stitched Santa outfit before I'm marched off to hell.




I don't have all the answers either.  Maybe because better natured people are not forceful enough.  Perhaps they are more peace loving and so move elsewhere if they don't agree.  

I'm not a Catholic, so don't know the answers.  Personally, I agree about the double standards issue you raised.  No one has to be a catholic if they don't like it.   One can always vote with their feet.  

Some churches don't have a building at all - meet in rented halls, etc so again, there is huge extremes and diversity between organizations and their people. 

I certainly don't agree with everything that's dished up in the name of religion, however, have attempted not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## jonojpsg (16 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> Love it.
> 
> Just question anything to do with Religion and it only takes a second to find emotive words like---Hate--Pay with your life---appearing.
> 
> ...




OK tech, how much money did you give to the fire appeal?  How much do you give to charity each year?  As a percentage remember, because it's not how much you give but how much it counts to you what you give.

Then if you get over ten percent of your income let me know


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 February 2009)

Jono thats not the argument.

They(not all) take saying its to do gods work but then use it to do exactly the opposite. Can't remember seeing anywhere in the bible about building monstrous places of worship filled with treasures and silk batman capes??

actually now I think about they do do gods work. They are very good at judging people :


----------



## Sakk (16 February 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> LOL
> 
> Fair enough. But it still stands then. Why don't all the good people on the bottom of the pile stand up to the few on the top wasting their positions, opportunity and resources?? Why is it fine for the pope to preach to me about values when he lives in the Vatican with all its opulence and pillaged wealth from far afield and from the poor bugger on the street?? Why has he still a voice when he and all around him live the ultimate double standard?
> 
> When the big man comes down to save us all from our suffering hope I'm around to see what happens to the pope in his gold stitched Santa outfit before I'm marched off to hell.




LOL.   I'm with ya all the way


----------



## Julia (16 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Perhaps, Tech, you could address my contention that the churches are private organisations and are without obligation to offer funding to anyone other than their members.
> 
> They don't receive tax payer dollars so I can't see why you should expect them to deliver money into the community other than at a level of their choosing.
> 
> ...






tech/a said:


> Love it.
> 
> Just question anything to do with Religion and it only takes a second to find emotive words like---Hate--Pay with your life---appearing.



You may have missed my post above Tech.  I'd really appreciate your response.
Thank you.




> I'm with T/H.
> Flick on the TV and see the likes of Benny Hinn---



So on the basis of an aberration like Hinn who is clearly all about personal greed, you ridicule all the people who do make a genuine effort within their communities.   I'd have given you credit for more sense than that.



> Or some of the posters here would have you Pay with your life because you don't follow their view or dare question their representatives of their God.



This seems somewhat of an overstatement!

To TH:  I think most people would empathise with your feelings about the obscene displays of wealth in the, umm, head office of the Catholic Church.
I could forgive even that if the Pope and his cabal would stop their stupid vetoing of the use of condoms just for one thing.  And I cringed at the way Sydney was turned on its head so the World Youth Day thing could happen.

But all that's a separate issue from the original point of this thread.


----------



## tcoates (16 February 2009)

To Tech/A and TH (and others with similar viewpoints),

From the original post (Tech/A) wondering about the giving of the church to the fires and floods - You would make it seem that people in church therefore did not give any monies to the fire victims (via red cross or ???). You seem to forget the church is made of the people, and it is the people that give. Just because you do not see it (compared with the McGrath foundation) does not mean the people in the church do not care or are not helping.

On Sunday (just past) at our local church, there was a retiring collection in case you did not donate via the red cross or wanted to donate more.

Rather than cast aspersions about the church, why don't you actually go to some local church as ask them what they do with "all the money" they get. You might get a surprise as to what they do "with it all".

Tim 

Since you could not be bothered the google the answer, try here

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080803232615AA10OA6

(It is a good answer)


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 February 2009)

Sorry Tim it is you who have it ar$e about. I never said the church doesn't give and certainly didn't say the people that make up the church don't give as individuals or as a group.

What I did say is that I find it abhorrent that as an ORGANISATION they preach humbleness and giving and always talk from a background of superior morals while they DO NOT PRACTISE IT.

That they believe they have the right to preach about what is right/wrong yet they sit in silk Santa clause dress surrounded by gold goblets and art pillaged from the far flung parts of the world and seem to be able to fool themselves that "this is the word of god".

Come on!!

I find it somewhat bemusing that it cannot be explained why such infrastructure, which is beyond the biggest multi-national companies, is needed to preach what a simple carpenter was able to supposedly do with nothing other than words. Is it not questioned because those that are part of the religion like the superiority of being part of such infrastructure?? Like someone likes working at head office, walking into a grand marbled foyer makes you feel good? Removes you from the beggar in the street?


----------

