| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2007 07:59:18 PM · #1 |
Or, how many homeless families could be given houses, how many women's shelters could be built, how many schools erected in Afghanistan, how many AIDS drugs could be distributed in Africa, how many breakfasts for needy schoolkids could be purchased, how many freshwater wells could be dug in Albania? How much suffering can 60,000,000 euros alleviate?
Story. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 08:06:41 PM · #2 |
Darwin had a point. Survival of the fittest. Let them starve.
Yeah, that sounds mean and most of the third world folks are suffering due to political nonsense and the greed of a few.
I happened to work with a lot of, umm, white trash...working welfare bums...people working the system - aka, cheating. I also know plenty of folks that get off their sorry asses and do what's necessary to succeed.
As to organized religion...it's man made. made by greed. I don't know a single organized religion that doesn't spend most of it's time raising money and working on perpetuating itself.
But then that's why we all have free will, right?
|
|
|
|
10/12/2007 08:11:49 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Darwin had a point. Survival of the fittest. Let them starve. |
Yeesh. Even kids born into economically disadvantaged homes due to no fault of their own? That's beyond harsh; it's kinda psychotic. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 08:36:58 PM · #4 |
| I suffer. 60 mil would end it, I assure you. Gimme. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 01:05:00 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Or, how many homeless families could be given houses, how many women's shelters could be built, how many schools erected in Afghanistan, how many AIDS drugs could be distributed in Africa, how many breakfasts for needy schoolkids could be purchased, how many freshwater wells could be dug in Albania? How much suffering can 60,000,000 euros alleviate?
Story. |
On the flip side: How many families that WERE in homes were able to KEEP their homes because of the wages earned by those who labored not only to build the church, but also to deliver the construction materials, or produce the materials, or are currently employed in servicing the church, or selling merchandise to those who visit the church? How many women did NOT suffer abuse and have to seek shelter because their companions were NOT unemployed during the building process? How many donations to international relief organizations were made by those who earned wages because of the church construction? How much of those donations went to purchase AIDS drugs? How many school kids got to eat breakfast at home because their parents were employed because of the church construction? How much suffering did that 60,000,000 euros alleviate?
If you and your family were among those who directly benefited because the church was built, would you still question the expenditure? |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 01:16:32 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by RonB:
If you and your family were among those who directly benefited because the church was built, would you still question the expenditure? |
If I were a TRUE Christian I might just do that.. as I seem to recall:
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth."
~ (1 John 3:17-18)
Then again, I can't say I am a TRUE Christian... :O)_
Ray |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 01:40:13 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I don't know a single organized religion that doesn't spend most of it's time raising money and working on perpetuating itself. |
All that money has to go somewhere, and most of it won't be for charity. In many communities and cities, churches are the grandest, most extravagant structures around (tax exempt, of course). Religious institutions have a very long history of lavish expenditures on architecture, sculpture and painting... and I hardly think it was for the benefit of the keeping artists and builders employed. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 02:01:26 PM · #8 |
| 60M euros, one of the largest churches in the world, and hundreds of thousands of pilgrim worshippers ... but not enough for the Pope to make a personal appearance. Perhaps if they had thrown a few of those 60M euros his way... |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 02:04:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Or, how many homeless families could be given houses, how many women's shelters could be built, how many schools erected in Afghanistan, how many AIDS drugs could be distributed in Africa, how many breakfasts for needy schoolkids could be purchased, how many freshwater wells could be dug in Albania? How much suffering can 60,000,000 euros alleviate?
Story. |
On the flip side: How many families that WERE in homes were able to KEEP their homes because of the wages earned by those who labored not only to build the church, but also to deliver the construction materials, or produce the materials, or are currently employed in servicing the church, or selling merchandise to those who visit the church? How many women did NOT suffer abuse and have to seek shelter because their companions were NOT unemployed during the building process? How many donations to international relief organizations were made by those who earned wages because of the church construction? How much of those donations went to purchase AIDS drugs? How many school kids got to eat breakfast at home because their parents were employed because of the church construction? How much suffering did that 60,000,000 euros alleviate?
If you and your family were among those who directly benefited because the church was built, would you still question the expenditure? |
Bogus argument. The church was built as an aggrandizement to itself, not as an act of charity for the community in which it stands. Unless I am shown proof positive otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that the process of building it went through the usual capitalist channels: contracts were given to the lowest bidder, huge firms benefited from its construction (for example, A. N. Tombazis & Assoc. did not design it out of the goodness of its heart, and certainly did not waive its fee), construction companies with regularly employed men and women set about putting it up, and so on. This is not a community effort aimed at easing the suffering of the masses through its very erection; this is another gargantuan building project whose construction lined the pockets of wealthy contractors and architects. Those who enter this church and view its awesome architecture of power will be doing nothing to further the goodness of mankind by "worshiping" here.
So: instead of building this monument to belief, could the Catholic church not have directly alleviated the suffering of any one of those groups of people? |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 02:30:35 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Or, how many homeless families could be given houses, how many women's shelters could be built, how many schools erected in Afghanistan, how many AIDS drugs could be distributed in Africa, how many breakfasts for needy schoolkids could be purchased, how many freshwater wells could be dug in Albania? How much suffering can 60,000,000 euros alleviate?
Story. |
On the flip side: How many families that WERE in homes were able to KEEP their homes because of the wages earned by those who labored not only to build the church, but also to deliver the construction materials, or produce the materials, or are currently employed in servicing the church, or selling merchandise to those who visit the church? How many women did NOT suffer abuse and have to seek shelter because their companions were NOT unemployed during the building process? How many donations to international relief organizations were made by those who earned wages because of the church construction? How much of those donations went to purchase AIDS drugs? How many school kids got to eat breakfast at home because their parents were employed because of the church construction? How much suffering did that 60,000,000 euros alleviate?
If you and your family were among those who directly benefited because the church was built, would you still question the expenditure? |
Bogus argument. The church was built as an aggrandizement to itself, not as an act of charity for the community in which it stands. Unless I am shown proof positive otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that the process of building it went through the usual capitalist channels: contracts were given to the lowest bidder, huge firms benefited from its construction (for example, A. N. Tombazis & Assoc. did not design it out of the goodness of its heart, and certainly did not waive its fee), construction companies with regularly employed men and women set about putting it up, and so on. This is not a community effort aimed at easing the suffering of the masses through its very erection; this is another gargantuan building project whose construction lined the pockets of wealthy contractors and architects. Those who enter this church and view its awesome architecture of power will be doing nothing to further the goodness of mankind by "worshiping" here.
So: instead of building this monument to belief, could the Catholic church not have directly alleviated the suffering of any one of those groups of people? |
Perhaps the GOAL of the church was not in meeting the needs of laborers, or in any type of charity at all, but the RESULT was that they benefited nonetheless. By the same token, it is not your employer's GOAL to provide you with a job either, but the RESULT of your employer's GOAL is that you are employed, nonetheless. Would you, therefore, be willing to be terminated so that your ( former ) salary could be donated to feed the poor, shelter the abused, combat AIDS, etc.? If not, then it would appear that your argument is really not against the expenditure of money to non-charitable causes - rather it is a rant against the fact that the moneys were expended to build a CHURCH.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 02:46:36 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps the GOAL of the church was not in meeting the needs of laborers, or in any type of charity at all, but the RESULT was that they benefited nonetheless. By the same token, it is not your employer's GOAL to provide you with a job either, but the RESULT of your employer's GOAL is that you are employed, nonetheless. Would you, therefore, be willing to be terminated so that your ( former ) salary could be donated to feed the poor, shelter the abused, combat AIDS, etc.? If not, then it would appear that your argument is really not against the expenditure of money to non-charitable causes - rather it is a rant against the fact that the moneys were expended to build a CHURCH. |
Oh, absolutely, I don't deny that my rant is all about that. No question. Less churches, please. By the way, your line of reasoning is particularly hard to follow. Likely because it is not reasonable. Incidentally, I'm the employer; I'm not likely to terminate myself. Most arguments, I find, are based on assumptions that, when disabused, cause the whole thing to fall down like a house of cards. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:36:11 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps the GOAL of the church was not in meeting the needs of laborers, or in any type of charity at all, but the RESULT was that they benefited nonetheless. |
Indeed, if the church had installed solid gold toilets to showcase its greatness, the result may be that the plumbers who installed them stay employed, BUT... asking the plumber if he'd be willing to give up that job to feed the needy is a really bizarre way of justifying the expense. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:40:35 PM · #13 |
Maybe this church was/is way excessive.
Not all big churches are bad.
Some of my experience has shown that larger (not huge like this one, I don't know anything about that) churches and a more "motivated" church community can go hand-in-hand. And by "motivated" I mean they get more results in raising money for and doing events for the poor, etc.
I really think that it has a lot to do with the leadership and what they focus on and inspire the congregation to focus on. I was at a church where they were raising money to build a bigger church. BUT. It was all about, let's build a bigger building so that we can reach more people in the surrounding area, so we can have bigger outreach programs etc. AND, during the entire time I heard of the building campaign, I never saw a lack of focus on the other, non-building related things that the church was doing.
I've also been in churches that have small buildings, with lower overhead costs etc, and the people so darn focused on their own stuff that they can't focus on helping less fortunate people.
So I guess I want to put it out there that, while the church in question might be excessive, that doesn't reflect on every church, and it doesn't mean that the church can't take care of itself AND others at the same time. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:45:41 PM · #14 |
Or it would be a down payment on this one, built at a reported cost of $240 million USD
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:47:51 PM · #15 |
To add my own take on the analogy..
Let's say I was a mother and had a decent job. I want to make monthly donations to, let's say Habitat for Humanity.
I'm going to make entirely certain that my children have enough to eat before I send money to Habitat for Humanity.
Now, I wouldn't feel right making sure that my children had everything that they desired, all the latest gadgets etc, before I sent money to Habitat for Humanity.
So... I wouldn't build the most lavish church before helping others (similar to the church we're talking about). But I would make sure that my church had what it needed (my argument that not all big churches are bad).
Also, if I donate to Habitat for Humanity, any outsider not knowing my motivations could say that I was doing it selfishly to get a tax write-off. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:49:48 PM · #16 |
| To answer the OP directly. €60m would feed 60 million poor people. Based on one cheeseburger from the McDonalds Eurosaver menu. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:52:49 PM · #17 |
Sometimes people like to meet together in large groups.
That includes Christians.
Christians believe that meeting with other Christians is a good thing. (It's specifically in the Bible. Just like how we should help poor people is in the Bible.) Some people are happy in a smaller congregation, but some people aren't.
A lot of times being able to be in a larger group really does show a return on the investment. For example, some people who like larger groups would get really discouraged in a smaller group, and not be as motivated to help others as they normally would be. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:58:16 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...then it would appear that your argument is really not against the expenditure of money to non-charitable causes - rather it is a rant against the fact that the moneys were expended to build a CHURCH. |
When one cannot proffer substantive argument, attack the individual... it tends to deflect from the true target and confuse the masses.
Considering that you are one who is always clamoring for facts when anyone dares question your points of view, I am amazed at the penury of empirical data to subtantiate your point of view in this instance.
Circular arguments... always with the circular arguments.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:59:35 PM · #19 |
As far as I can see from the image and the article, there's nothing lavish about that church except its size. And they NEED something big there, it's a HUGE Christian destination with tens of thousands of people congregating in the area during holy times. I don't see what the fuss is about. 60 million Euros isn't a particularly impressive amount to spend on a building that size.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 04:03:31 PM · #20 |
On a side note, perhaps the Church might have considered saving a few dollars to pay for other pressing matters like that described in this item: Nun's Ousted to Raise Funds
Ray |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 04:06:25 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by klstover:
A lot of times being able to be in a larger group really does show a return on the investment. For example, some people who like larger groups would get really discouraged in a smaller group, and not be as motivated to help others as they normally would be. |
It doesn't take 60 million euros to create a larger place to meet other Christians. If that were the goal, then a corrugated sheet metal warehouse would serve the purpose just fine. Why should bigger outreach programs require soaring ceilings, imported marble, carved wood, gold leaf surfaces and velvet robes? |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 04:09:28 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
As to organized religion...it's man made. made by greed. I don't know a single organized religion that doesn't spend most of it's time raising money and working on perpetuating itself.
But then that's why we all have free will, right? |
Christianity does not.
Before you jump off the deep end, I'm talking Christianity as taught by Christ -- from the Bible. It's not about greed or founded on greed or raising money for itself.
Sadly many churches today have forgotten this.
But Christians have not.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 04:13:23 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by klstover:
A lot of times being able to be in a larger group really does show a return on the investment. For example, some people who like larger groups would get really discouraged in a smaller group, and not be as motivated to help others as they normally would be. |
It doesn't take 60 million euros to create a larger place to meet other Christians. If that were the goal, then a corrugated sheet metal warehouse would serve the purpose just fine. Why should bigger outreach programs require soaring ceilings, imported marble, carved wood, gold leaf surfaces and velvet robes? |
Well, like I said, I am not trying to defend excessively lavish churches.
A sheet metal warehouse would be just as good for group meeting purposes, yes. But not as conducive to an attitude of worship, and because we believe that churches are God's houses, we want them to reflect His beauty. Of course, that can be accomplished by donated resources and/or resources that are more modest just as well as (or better than!) expensive ones.
edit for grammar
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 16:19:57. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 04:14:46 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As far as I can see from the image and the article, there's nothing lavish about that church except its size. And they NEED something big there, it's a HUGE Christian destination with tens of thousands of people congregating in the area during holy times. |
That's a good point too - and from what I understand of real estate (I could be wrong) a larger building will have less overhead costs than an equivalent area of multiple smaller ones. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 04:16:35 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
I'm talking Christianity as taught by Christ -- from the Bible. It's not about greed or founded on greed or raising money for itself.
Sadly many churches today have forgotten this. |
I agree.. it has been forgotten by some.
I think that the forgottenness is largely independent of church size, but I do want people to know I'm not defending any and everything that goes on in the church today. |
|
