churches, temples and groups ~ unfair and wrong?

[Amorphos]

yet another bash at religion i know, but i question some of this even as i would want it for myself.

1. what i mean is that churches/temples cost money, why can’t anyone pray anywhere e.g. in each others houses.

2. people pay into church funds to pay for the cost, when this could go to better uses. especially when resources [moneys etc] are limited.

3. i asked someone at work who belongs to a particular church, how he copes with paying a full one third of his income into it. he said that his church bought him his first house and he gets other benefits. i wondered if this was fair to those who don’t belong to a group as these people have greater buying power.

4. is it right to gather people and preach to them whatever the message? people tend to feel obliged to go to church as much as want to. i can understand discussion meditation and yoga, but what kind of mad person likes singing hymns?

should any religion hold such powerful position in our lives? what if we change our minds.

secondly temples, is it better to shut yourself off from the world or should monks participate in worldly affairs rather than living off the backs of followers? i say that when i would love to join a temple but cannot ~ well they don’t have universal temples yet eh. thus i question this even though i would like it for myself.

[Icefrisco]

Most religions allow people to pray at their own houses. Also, religious services in many religions are ways of encouraging people in communities to socialize.

[Valentin the II]

Most religions allow people to pray at their own houses. Also, religious services in many religions are ways of encouraging people in communities to socialize.

That mutch is true.
But they are also a good way to endctrinate young and impresionable minds to a certain faith (witch is bad). People not onely feal obliged to go to church, they also drag other people in there.

[Dayman]

Most religions allow people to pray at their own houses. Also, religious services in many religions are ways of encouraging people in communities to socialize.

Unless you're Catholic, it's a sin to miss Mass.

[Amorphos]

not much of a social event, mainly indoctrination. whats wrong with town halls, clubs and pubs etc?

the fact is that so much money goes to it when that could be used for other things.

not to mention that churches are power structures designed to intimidate. ever wondered what gargoyles are for?

[hellas1]

Hi Quetzal,

Originally, if your meaning to hone in on Judaism & Christianity, there were NO such "meeting places" like Temple or Church.

"Temple," in Judaism came out of the Synagogue system of the time of Ezra & Nehemiah. This was NOT Mosaic intent or Adamic intent.
"Church" in Christianity came from the first Church building sanctioned by Constantine. This was NOT Jesus's intent or the "Primitive or Early" christian community's intent either.

Synagogue means "Amassing/Adding of people" in Greek and "Ekklesia" which means "Called out people" is what the Bible calls the "Church" which is an Anglicized version of the German "Kirche."

In short, the God of both religions NEVER said, "Make a building where you talk about me all day" as an original intent.
Buildings came about AFTER the Human meets God, structure-free encounter.

hellas1-BTW, Good observation....You're Right!

[KingDesra]

Hi Quetzal,

Originally, if your meaning to hone in on Judaism & Christianity, there were NO such "meeting places" like Temple or Church.

"Temple," in Judaism came out of the Synagogue system of the time of Ezra & Nehemiah. This was NOT Mosaic intent or Adamic intent.
"Church" in Christianity came from the first Church building sanctioned by Constantine. This was NOT Jesus's intent or the "Primitive or Early" christian community's intent either.

Synagogue means "Amassing/Adding of people" in Greek and "Ekklesia" which means "Called out people" is what the Bible calls the "Church" which is an Anglicized version of the German "Kirche."

In short, the God of both religions NEVER said, "Make a building where you talk about me all day" as an original intent.
Buildings came about AFTER the Human meets God, structure-free encounter.

hellas1-BTW, Good observation....You're Right!

Very true, in christianity, the church is referred to all christians as a whole not a building. I haven't been to church in a long while myself but I fellowship with other christians so according to the bible that's church lol.

[Ms. Theodora]

yet another bash at religion i know, but i question some of this even as i would want it for myself.

1. what i mean is that churches/temples cost money, why can’t anyone pray anywhere e.g. in each others houses.

They don't. Most churches/temples are the few places open to anyone.
Protestantism was founded on the last phrase there.

2. people pay into church funds to pay for the cost, when this could go to better uses. especially when resources [moneys etc] are limited.

The most successful charities as far as money received to services given are religious. Well known.

3. i asked someone at work who belongs to a particular church, how he copes with paying a full one third of his income into it. he said that his church bought him his first house and he gets other benefits. i wondered if this was fair to those who don’t belong to a group as these people have greater buying power.

Which Church. I would love a house. A third. What sort of crazy evangelical snake charming backyard does he belong to?

4. is it right to gather people and preach to them whatever the message? people tend to feel obliged to go to church as much as want to. i can understand discussion meditation and yoga, but what kind of mad person likes singing hymns?

Yes, its called teaching. Ever been to a rock concert?

should any religion hold such powerful position in our lives? what if we change our minds.

Then you do.

secondly temples, is it better to shut yourself off from the world or should monks participate in worldly affairs rather than living off the backs of followers?

I would suggest learning how hard monks work. Especially today. Monks are low paid migrant workers without the pay. Monks don't have followers. They have other monks.

i say that when i would love to join a temple but cannot ~ well they don’t have universal temples yet eh. thus i question this even though i would like it for myself.

They do have universal temples. Check out the Unitarians. The temple of science is fairly universal. Question everything, especially the "myself".

[Amorphos]

hellas1

hmm yes, i think the early church was better and cheaper. money denotes power and that is what i object to ~ especially as concerns modern evangelicals and the like.to a degree you wouldn’t have all these crazy cults if they couldnt take ones money.

ms theodora

The most successful charities as far as money received to services given are religious. Well known.

why not donate straight to charities and cut out the middleman? oneupmanship as much as being nice when religion is involved.

Which Church. I would love a house. A third. What sort of crazy evangelical snake charming backyard does he belong to?

can’t remember i’ll ask when i see him next. but many people pay a portion of their income to their church whatever its size. whatever the case and the variables are, we can say that resources could be put to better use.

Yes, its called teaching. Ever been to a rock concert?

is it teaching when the content is at best only partially true and even then is warped. rock is a very bad contrast.

I would suggest learning how hard monks work. Especially today. Monks are low paid migrant workers without the pay. Monks don’t have followers. They have other monks.

so monks build and pay for great temples, their maintenance supplies etc. the point is more that society could do with pacifying minds and their wisdom, rather than being shut away. secondly i think you learn more from interacting with the general populous.

They do have universal temples. Check out the Unitarians. The temple of science is fairly universal. Question everything, especially the “myself”.

bah, that is not universalism, i had that debate with some followers of baha’i who say they are universal ~ they lost.

[Ms. Theodora]

ms theodora
why not donate straight to charities and cut out the middleman? oneupmanship as much as being nice when religion is involved.

The charities are religiously based, they are a still charities. Give your money to the Red Cross if you want. Then watch it drive by in a new mercedes.

can’t remember i’ll ask when i see him next. but many people pay a portion of their income to their church whatever its size. whatever the case and the variables are, we can say that resources could be put to better use.

Like cable TV, or McDonalds, or political campaigns.

is it teaching when the content is at best only partially true and even then is warped. rock is a very bad contrast.

All contexts are only partially true and most are warped in more ways than one. The rock concert was a poor contrast.

so monks build and pay for great temples

Only in the East.

the point is more that society could do with pacifying minds and their wisdom

Monks have played a great role in Western Society. Without Monks, there would have been no knowledge to end the dark ages and we would have be Muslim.

secondly i think you learn more from interacting with the general populous.

A life of contemplation is hard while interacting with the general populace,

bah, that is not universalism, i had that debate with some followers of baha’i who say they are universal ~ they lost.

So many desert religions. Universalism is more myth than Christianity.

[Amorphos]

ms theo

The charities are religiously based, they are a still charities. Give your money to the Red Cross if you want. Then watch it drive by in a new mercedes.

ok but this thread is not about charities and i dont know much about them goddamit .

Like cable TV, or McDonalds, or political campaigns.

yes [nice one!] but then they get something real in return lols. hmm don’t know about macs i think their burgers are an illusion.

Monks have played a great role in Western Society. Without Monks, there would have been no knowledge to end the dark ages and we would have be Muslim.

or druidry would still be predominant in western europe. without christianity i don’t think islam would exist.

A life of contemplation is hard while interacting with the general populace,

good point to my good point, hmm

Universalism is more myth than Christianity

it shouldnt be ~ i done a universalism challenge thread somewhere, but that is my take on it. however i do think universal philosophy should not have any myth etc.

one more point; in my village there is a church, the village could not support more!!! why not just have universal temples if anything [then watch everyone kill each other lols]

[Ms. Theodora]

or druidry would still be predominant in western europe. without christianity i don’t think islam would exist.

I was not speaking in the what if, as you are. I was pointing out that monks are the reason knowledge was retaining in the dark ages, showing you that monasteries are very important as back up plans for when times of great trouble strike. They are like libraries, but use religion because few are willing to give their lives to a library.

one more point; in my village there is a church, the village could not support more!!! why not just have universal temples if anything [then watch everyone kill each other lols]

Why not eat worms? The world does not agree, maybe someday in a universal body politic your dream will be possible. Even then, I doubt it. Religion is too essential to nature, and ever changing as such.

[Zenith Darksea]

secondly temples, is it better to shut yourself off from the world or should monks participate in worldly affairs rather than living off the backs of followers?

I find this a very strange assertion indeed. In all the Orthodox monasteries that I've visited, the monks and nuns grow their own food, make their own clothes, paint their own icons, build their own buildings and they generally run significant social/medical/educational services for nearby towns and villages. They produce icons, incense, clothes etc. and sell them (at very low prices) so that they can buy whatever other goods they need to survive. And you accuse them of living off other people's backs?

"Church" in Christianity came from the first Church building sanctioned by Constantine. This was NOT Jesus's intent or the "Primitive or Early" christian community's intent either.

That is spurious Protestant-inspired pseudo-history. It has no grounding in reality. If you look at archaeological records you will see clear examples of church buildings with virtually the same layout as modern Orthodox churches that date to well before the time of Constantine. This myth that Constantine invented modern Christianity really must be dispelled.

[Feliks]

I think it comes down to freedom, and some of your arguments strike me as limiting.

Churches are private organizations, they are entitled to fund raise, organize, and supply services. Private individuals are free to join these private organizations, and pay money in to receive a benefit.

2. people pay into church funds to pay for the cost, when this could go to better uses. especially when resources [moneys etc] are limited.

Are you suggesting that we all pool all of our worldly possessions and have the government redistribute everything so that it would maximize a communal good? Eh... You can try, but I'd rather have people decide where to spend their own money themselves.

3. i asked someone at work who belongs to a particular church, how he copes with paying a full one third of his income into it. he said that his church bought him his first house and he gets other benefits. i wondered if this was fair to those who don’t belong to a group as these people have greater buying power.

It's fair, he paid for it, one way or another. Why should someone who didn't pay into a system reap benefit from it? I have no problem with corporations, private pooling of resources, what have you.

No one objects to any of these activities, as long as it's not a religious organization that's doing them.

There are gaps between what a government does to better society and that what it can do while maintaining liberty. Private organizations, the efforts of citizens, must fill in those gaps. Does it really matter what guise they are under?

[Amorphos]

'religious monopoly' ~ thought i would keep saying that one. philosophy and truth should not belong to any group y'know.

zeneth

I find this a very strange assertion indeed. In all the Orthodox monasteries that I’ve visited, the monks and nuns grow their own food, make their own clothes, paint their own icons, build their own buildings and they generally run significant social/medical/educational services for nearby towns and villages. They produce icons, incense, clothes etc. and sell them (at very low prices) so that they can buy whatever other goods they need to survive. And you accuse them of living off other people’s backs?

true, ok so i am wrong in some cases, so what are collection boxes for? ...and who pays the wages of vicars etc?

even if self providing we still have a religious monopoly!

That is spurious Protestant-inspired pseudo-history. It has no grounding in reality. If you look at archaeological records you will see clear examples of church buildings with virtually the same layout as modern Orthodox churches that date to well before the time of Constantine. This myth that Constantine invented modern Christianity really must be dispelled.

interesting, thanks for the info.

feliks

No one objects to any of these activities, as long as it’s not a religious organization that’s doing them.

indeed, nor do i! thats the point, when religious groups do stuff it is at least partly to religious ends i.e. forms of subtle and overt indoctrination. if someone donates to or helps a charity it is good, when religion is involved i am suspicious ~ even if the people involved don’t have an agenda, someone will. secondly we may look to what is going on in the background, i have met many religious types who like to think themselves above others because in simplistic terms they are good [i.e. better]. at worst they demonise others, in a real life example i was at a christian meeting and stonehenge was described as satanic and virtually everyone [of other religions etc] were some how missing the light - so to say. i laughed when a dude training to be a priest didn’t know what 'duality' was, te he.

[Feliks]

i have met many religious types who like to think themselves above others because in simplistic terms they are good [i.e. better]. at worst they demonise others, in a real life example i was at a christian meeting and stonehenge was described as satanic and virtually everyone [of other religions etc] were some how missing the light - so to say.

We must know some of the same people...

[Zenith Darksea]

true, ok so i am wrong in some cases, so what are collection boxes for? ...and who pays the wages of vicars etc?

even if self providing we still have a religious monopoly!

I can only speak for my church, of course. The collection plate funds go to the upkeep of the church building. The priest's wage is set by the parish council (made up of an elected body of lay members of the parish) and paid for out of the parish funds (to which parish members pay a subscription fee). I don't think there's any more proper way of doing things than that.

[Amorphos]

lols

The collection plate funds go to the upkeep of the church building.

a cost that could be spent elsewhere, perhaps we could say that it is worthy as people need faith. however it would only be fair if the church was universal as i see it.

The priest’s wage is set by the parish council (made up of an elected body of lay members of the parish)
(to which parish members pay a subscription fee).

so we all pay for it, even athiests! democracy is no excuse as we don’t have any choice because all the parties would continue this.

the only proper way would be for only the members of the church to pay for it all. in my village the church would survive, some day it may not ~ ah, progress!

[Zenith Darksea]

a cost that could be spent elsewhere, perhaps we could say that it is worthy as people need faith. however it would only be fair if the church was universal as i see it.

We Orthodox Christians are not happy with the idea of dismantling the basic elements of our liturgical life just to fulfil a non-believer's idea of what proper charity is.

so we all pay for it, even athiests!

Only if you choose to be on the parish council. But I don't think that many atheists do choose to be. Are you sure you haven't got the wrong end of the stick? The only people who pay are the members of the church.

[Amorphos]

We Orthodox Christians are not happy with the idea of dismantling the basic elements of our liturgical life just to fulfil a non-believer’s idea of what proper charity is.

ok, as concerns charity. good answer.

Are you sure you haven’t got the wrong end of the stick?

probably , i wondered at the cost of it all, i didn’t think it was met purely by followers. in any case one of the complaints was that the costs could go elsewhere, this may not be so relevant now but in times of need it would be. the way i see things is that a nation has a wallet to which most or all our moneys go in some way or another, so it would be better for all if it was not wasted at the least on a religious monopoly.

earl

Charities need a center of operation. Churches do large amounts of charity work, surely it makes sense to have a center of operation. Also Churches have social functions that require structure. People don’t simply go to Church to hear a preacher. Churches have a variety of functions.

all of this does not need a ‘religious’ centre. i wouldn’t mind so much if it werent one particular religion and denomination thereof.

Most protestants believe in tithing, which is 10% of income.

that would kill my budget, most people i know are on the line between paying their mortgage and not or thereabouts, this is what inflation and interest rates are all about ~ we cannot spend too much and hence have too much money or inflation goes up etc. to have 10% of income spare means you belong to a privileged group to some degree, not to mention what that could do for others less fortunate in the world.

Of course its right to gather people and preach to them, this occurs to a much larger scale than merely religous. What about conventions?

i would think it better to gather people and debate or give info on a variety of subjects and most importantly, not from a religious slant!