Should christians love money so much ?!

[wobbycarly]

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Christianity was largely borrowed from previous religions.

Isn't the catholic church one of the richest organisations in the world? It's no wonder the vatican is so insecure, there's a lot of money at stake. You can hardly blame the followers for wanting the same.

Previous religions being...? Or do you specifically mean certain "branches" of Christianity such as Catholicism or Protestantism?

There is a certain amount of Judaism in Christianity because Jesus was a Jew and came first to the Jewish people (God's chosen people), before his disciples (Peter and Paul, separately) went to preach to the Gentiles (non-Jews) after his death.

To what evidence do you refer?

(Wow, religion on an internet forum - you DO know how to stir things up! Wanna include politics?)

 

[gooram]

Let's not get off topic, I just wanted to point out that it was a pointless argument claiming which branch of christianity came first because alot of it was borrowed (or twisted) from beliefs held by pagans such as the Egyptians.

 

[Francesco]

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Christianity was largely borrowed from previous religions.

Isn't the catholic church one of the richest organisations in the world? It's no wonder the vatican is so insecure, there's a lot of money at stake. You can hardly blame the followers for wanting the same.

The Bible is a compendium about God's activities in the world from creation to prophecies about times yet to come. If 'non Christian' eyewitnesses write about early history since Adam, which may pass on to other religions that has parallel to the Biblical accounts then that is to be expected. Why does occurrence of parallel accounts evidence plagiarism when a simple explanation is available of oral accounts and documentation down the bloodline of the chosen people? The same events attested by authors of different backgrounds evidently without collaboration should be more credible, shouldn't it?

Any organisation that manage to exist in essentially the same form and possess land and property will be 'rich' due to inflation on the assets. In addition, the assets that have been handed down unmodified from generation to generation have scarcity value and prized as antiques. The Roman Catholic church happens to be exemplary of these situations. Members of the Roman Catholic church include monks and nuns who eschew worldly pursuits for a life of servitude, humility and poverty of whom the life of Mother Teresa is a modern example.

I am not a Roman Catholic but that does not mean I cannot recall their good works despite the weaknesses of some of its less faithful members.

 

[Token Funder]

The Bible is a compendium about God's activities in the world from creation to prophecies about times yet to come. If 'non Christian' eyewitnesses write about early history since Adam, which may pass on to other religions that has parallel to the Biblical accounts then that is to be expected. Why does occurrence of parallel accounts evidence plagiarism when a simple explanation is available of oral accounts and documentation down the bloodline of the chosen people? The same events attested by authors of different backgrounds evidently without collaboration should be more credible, shouldn't it?

Any organisation that manage to exist in essentially the same form and possess land and property will be 'rich' due to inflation on the assets. In addition, the assets that have been handed down unmodified from generation to generation have scarcity value and prized as antiques. The Roman Catholic church happens to be exemplary of these situations. Members of the Roman Catholic church include monks and nuns who eschew worldly pursuits for a life of servitude, humility and poverty of whom the life of Mother Teresa is a modern example.

I am not a Roman Catholic but that does not mean I cannot recall their good works despite the weaknesses of some of its less faithful members.

How old do you think the Universe is, Francesco?

 

[urban cowboy]

two quick points:

1) Christianity is not Catholicism and vice versa - there are many tenets of Christianity that have been adapted by the Catholic church and many things some branches of the Catholic believe that most protestant denominations do not attest to at all (hence the protestant reformation). At the risk of sounding like I'm having a shot at a few people (truly not, just trying to point out differences) A lot of the arguments bringing up the Catholic church do not apply to many other denominations...

2) re Christianity borrowing from other religions...really?? pretty sure Jesus Christ is unique and the given the OT Bible pre-dates a lot of other religions I suspect any similarities are mainly co-incidental... Christianity is the only "religion" that believes a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ - no other religion does that. All others involve good works or reincarnation or sacrifice of some sort etc. whilst the OT has sacrifice of clean animals as a core theme, the whole point of Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ as a replacement for sacrifice etc. etc.

there are many many parallel accounts that support the biblical record in the OT. Josephus is one off the top of my head, but even ancient roman and egyptian records support many of the recorded details throughout the bible.

food for thought...

 

[jaycee]

I was surprised the priest is still "helping out" in Perth.

It wasn't actually a "simple lie"; more like a complicated scam performed over many years.

You said it would be interesting, so I got excited.

I was let down upon reading it, what can I say ? It was nothing like reading Stephen King at all

I just read it again, I saw no reference to timeframes so sorry I didn't know that part of the story which you did, fair thing though that I didnt comment on it though hey ?

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

The issue, I think, is not about Christians getting wealthy, but about loving money. There are people who are prudent and good investors, who don't necessarily love money.

The Bible teaches that love of money is the root of evil. I believe this is because loving money causes many people to focus more and more on themselves to the exclusion of others in the world, which is not a positive thing. Christians are supposed to think of others, and help where they can. I know one Christian guy who is a partner in a Big 4 accounting firm, who gives many tens of thousands a year to help Christian charity and mission work.

Also, many Christian churches these days are very welcoming places, regardless of someone's background or quirks. In Australia, at least, modern churches often make a real effort to accept everyone who shows up. It's not surprising a few weirdos go to a place where they can be accepted like that. And some of these people make Christians a real target in the media.

Personally, I think Christianity is for real. If others don't want to believe, that's ok. It's not my job to convert you - just tell you about it if you're interested. And FWIW, I've gotten more out of being a Christian than I ever have from investing.

 

[Francesco]

How old do you think the Universe is, Francesco?

?
OK I will bite.

I don't think the Biblical account of creation in Genesis should be taken literally. Normally a story would be told broadly and should be appreciated as such.

With time warped at the beginning (caused by the 'big bang'?), it is conceivable that any notion of past time durations may not translate neatly to the time lapse that we know as 'a day and night'. However, check the progress of the account of creation. Void, then something out of nothing (big bang?), heavenly bodies, stars and planets, earth, land and water, living things, etc until man was created. Also, note the progress from void, immaterial to biological to rational to spiritual.

 

[AlmostBob]

?
OK I will bite.

I don't think the Biblical account of creation in Genesis should be taken literally. Normally a story would be told broadly and should be appreciated as such.

With time warped at the beginning (caused by the 'big bang'?), it is conceivable that any notion of past time durations may not translate neatly to the time lapse that we know as 'a day and night'. However, check the progress of the account of creation. Void, then something out of nothing (big bang?), heavenly bodies, stars and planets, earth, land and water, living things, etc until man was created. Also, note the progress from void, immaterial to biological to rational to spiritual.

if you allow a godhead to have 'all-cosmic power' the timespan could be the millenia / billenia involved, after all until the creation of intelligent life this godperson had no-one to talk to and was a little nutty. Some of the Old Testament references to destroy the world, demonstrate a touch of instability, in a GeorgeW kind of way
Perhaps there is God, and only since creation, and having someone to talk to, did it get sane enough to stop doing something as silly as create US again

Telling a story."What I did while you were lemurs" at show and tell, to a bunch of shepherds who were barely rational themselves
"Kill the Hittites"
could have required a little simplification of the whole genome thing,

ALL COSMIC POWER, itty bitty living space:: Genie
A big hello to all intelligent lifeforms out there, and to everyone else, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys:: Douglas Adams

 

[urban cowboy]

if you allow a godhead to have 'all-cosmic power' the timespan could be the millenia / billenia involved

or just a few thousand yearsif you take the biblical account literally.

Some of the Old Testament references to destroy the world, demonstrate a touch of instability

very subjective...it's called prophecy, and even a basic understanding of it would show many thing foretold in the OT have come true even in the last 100years or so. for example the recreation of the state of Isreal. Interestingly Australia rates a mention - it was 800 Australian Light Horsemen that liberated Jerusalem from centuries of Turkish rule...all foretold in scripture.

There are many guys around who explain this stuff well. a couple i can think of are Joel Rosenberg, Hal Lindsey and Chuck Missler


I beleivve there is a God, but think that it is sense of humour that brought him to create nut jobs like us!!

 

[gooram]

The Bible is a compendium about God's activities in the world from creation to prophecies about times yet to come. If 'non Christian' eyewitnesses write about early history since Adam, which may pass on to other religions that has parallel to the Biblical accounts then that is to be expected. Why does occurrence of parallel accounts evidence plagiarism when a simple explanation is available of oral accounts and documentation down the bloodline of the chosen people? The same events attested by authors of different backgrounds evidently without collaboration should be more credible, shouldn't it?

Any organisation that manage to exist in essentially the same form and possess land and property will be 'rich' due to inflation on the assets. In addition, the assets that have been handed down unmodified from generation to generation have scarcity value and prized as antiques. The Roman Catholic church happens to be exemplary of these situations. Members of the Roman Catholic church include monks and nuns who eschew worldly pursuits for a life of servitude, humility and poverty of whom the life of Mother Teresa is a modern example.

I am not a Roman Catholic but that does not mean I cannot recall their good works despite the weaknesses of some of its less faithful members.

You don't think it hypocritical for an organisation that promotes goodwill and helping others to have so much money when there are so many opportunities for them to help people with it?

Help from the Church is conditional, become one of us and we will help you. This I don't understand, why is it necessary to share the same beliefs to receive help? My guess is, like a similar example above, the church's money is provided by their followers. There are plenty of secular NGOs who need money for which people are willing to donate. The world will survive and continue to have moral standards without this fantasy that we're all doing it as part of some grand scheme, or as a way to get oursleves a nice comfortable afterlife, which of course is the most selfish reason of all for doing "good" things. Perhaps you might argue that this little white lie is neccessary to keep the rabble in order?

 

[urban cowboy]

You don't think it hypocritical for an organisation that promotes goodwill and helping others to have so much money when there are so many opportunities for them to help people with it?

which organisation are we talking about?? again, "the church" is not just the catholics... there are many denominations and most don't have any real funds at all - certainly not like the "high churches" anyway.

but yes I agree it is highly hypocritical in your given scenario...but you can't blame God for the stupidity of men.

Help from the Church is conditional, become one of us and we will help you. This I don't understand, why is it necessary to share the same beliefs to receive help?

with this you are correct in some ways - there should not be a "club" that you need to belong to to get help...but then, again there are many other christian bodies/churches/groups that do operate without asking for anything in return or requiring membership of the church etc etc etc.

The world will survive and continue to have moral standards without this fantasy that we're all doing it as part of some grand scheme, or as a way to get oursleves a nice comfortable afterlife, which of course is the most selfish reason of all for doing "good" things. Perhaps you might argue that this little white lie is neccessary to keep the rabble in order?

the moral standards came from Christianity in the first place...moral decay and the decline in family values comes from society that will not accept biblical standards. No Christian is perfect, I am the first to state that, but there is a perfection in the moral standard of the bible that is not found anywhere else. There is no white lie here and no conspiracy - True Christianity is believing in Jesus Christ and the bible as the infallible word of God. All the works and good deeds are BECAUSE of ones faith and assurance of salvation, not to obtain it. There is nothing that a person can do to earn salvation/eternal life or whatever phrase is fashionable...It is a subtle difference, but an important one. Any Christian who tells you that you need to do good works to get into heaven has missed the point completely.

hope that made sense.
UC

 

[gooram]

the moral standards came from Christianity in the first place...moral decay and the decline in family values comes from society that will not accept biblical standards.

What bollocks. So before christianity there was no sense of right and wrong?
That's awfully narrow minded of you. Where do you think some of the moral principles of the bible came from? And don't say God.

 

[Francesco]

if you allow a godhead to have 'all-cosmic power' the timespan could be the millenia / billenia involved, after all until the creation of intelligent life this godperson had no-one to talk to and was a little nutty. Some of the Old Testament references to destroy the world, demonstrate a touch of instability, in a GeorgeW kind of way
Perhaps there is God, and only since creation, and having someone to talk to, did it get sane enough to stop doing something as silly as create US again

Telling a story."What I did while you were lemurs" at show and tell, to a bunch of shepherds who were barely rational themselves
"Kill the Hittites"
could have required a little simplification of the whole genome thing,

ALL COSMIC POWER, itty bitty living space:: Genie
A big hello to all intelligent lifeforms out there, and to everyone else, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys:: Douglas Adams

???
I would be happy to have a dialogue if you pm me. Peace.

 

[Simon]

?
OK I will bite.

I don't think the Biblical account of creation in Genesis should be taken literally. Normally a story would be told broadly and should be appreciated as such.

With time warped at the beginning (caused by the 'big bang'?), it is conceivable that any notion of past time durations may not translate neatly to the time lapse that we know as 'a day and night'. However, check the progress of the account of creation. Void, then something out of nothing (big bang?), heavenly bodies, stars and planets, earth, land and water, living things, etc until man was created. Also, note the progress from void, immaterial to biological to rational to spiritual.

Is a shame the American fundamentalists don't share your POV. They take the Bible very literally.

 

[yo yo ma]

You said it would be interesting, so I got excited.

I thought it was interesting... You can make your own decision.

I was let down upon reading it, what can I say ? It was nothing like reading Stephen King at all

I could think of nothing worse than having to read a Stephen King novel. I would not call that interesting, but each to his/her own...

I just read it again, I saw no reference to timeframes so sorry I didn't know that part of the story which you did, fair thing though that I didnt comment on it though hey ?

Sorry, you lost me?

 

[gooram]

Is a shame the American fundamentalists don't share your POV. They take the Bible very literally.

That's the point init. Which parts should be taken literally and which parts shouldn't? And there was a time when all christians took everything in the bible quite literally but this is changing, it's now a metaphor. Well the bits that can't possibly be true are now a metaphor.
So who is right, the fundamentalists or the moderates? When are you not a christian anymore? Is the bible just a work of fiction with some good lessons to take from it, like many other books?

 

[Francesco]

You don't think it hypocritical for an organisation that promotes goodwill and helping others to have so much money when there are so many opportunities for them to help people with it?

Help from the Church is conditional, become one of us and we will help you. This I don't understand, why is it necessary to share the same beliefs to receive help? My guess is, like a similar example above, the church's money is provided by their followers. There are plenty of secular NGOs who need money for which people are willing to donate. The world will survive and continue to have moral standards without this fantasy that we're all doing it as part of some grand scheme, or as a way to get oursleves a nice comfortable afterlife, which of course is the most selfish reason of all for doing "good" things. Perhaps you might argue that this little white lie is neccessary to keep the rabble in order?

A 'rich' organisation is perceived as a hypocrite even when it "promotes goodwill and helping others" because it has "so much money". I believe Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are promoting goodwill and helping others, yet they are still the richest men in the world. This organisation is probably asset rich and cash poor. Besides, most assets held by this very old religious organisation are heritage listed and are managed in trust for the community or country in which it is located. The Roman Catholic ownership of assets is tenuous in some countries, notably communist or Islamic regimes, where they were expropriated or nationalised.

Why is it necessary to share belief to receive help? Mostly help given by any christian organisation is unconditional. If in some situations there is an impression that help is conditional on membership, then some logical principles are operating. Charity begins at home? Efficient allocation of scarce resource to meet overwhelming demand requires prioritisation? Who gets fed first, the son or the stranger? If one cannot show love to the son whom you can see, can one show love to the stranger whom you cannot see and won't this act be considered warped to the world?

I do not understand the need for casting aspersions on the generous deeds of charitable people. This is a glass half full or half empty situation.

 

[Aaron Sice]

love the bible - such an entertaining read.

i especially enjoy the 4 seperate and wildly different accounts of the resurrection, considering neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John witnessed them.

Gospel of Matthew was written as late as 100AD.

Mark, around 70AD

Luke, no earlier than 70AD

and John, dear deluded John, with his twin angels and blinding light anywhere from 50-100AD as he mentions nothing of the sacking of Solomon's Temple.

so, true eye witnesses they cannot be, which means they were NOT witness to the miracle of Christ, which means their Gospels have no right to form doctrine.

the Gospel of James, Thomas, Mary - THESE are true eyewitness gospels.

such a shame that even christians cannot agree on their own faith and heritage of their faith. guess it truly goes to show just how "interpreted" everything really is, and how little true fact supports the faith.

 

[Francesco]

That's the point init. Which parts should be taken literally and which parts shouldn't? And there was a time when all christians took everything in the bible quite literally but this is changing, it's now a metaphor. Well the bits that can't possibly be true are now a metaphor.
So who is right, the fundamentalists or the moderates? When are you not a christian anymore? Is the bible just a work of fiction with some good lessons to take from it, like many other books?

You can read about what Christianity is. A good primer is John Stott, 'Basic Christianity' or any of the four gospels in the New Testament. But if you have any queries, pm me and I will try to be of some assistance.

Peace