These arguments are made by tight fisted, selfish, stingy people who would rather spend their money to buy luxuries for themselves, their family and friends. The underlying theme is always, "they're out to get my money and I'm not going to let them have it!" A person so wrapped up in the greed for material possessions can't understand the idea of the divine entity that blessed them with all those good things. So there is no gratefulness in their heart toward God, so they'd rather be stingy and hoard everything and keep it all to themeselves. But then these people will die, and someone else will come and take what they once owned, spending it freely, and treating it in whatever fashion they wish. But, in their perspective, "who cares? Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." If religion is such a money making, exploitative operation, then why are none of my pastors wealthy? Why do they have to take second jobs to pay for expenses? Why does the office of a protestant pastor pay less than even a school teacher?
"Religion is what keeps the poor people from killing the rich people."
Yes, but a relationship with Jesus will make the rich give to the poor, and the poor forgive the rich.
"Jesus is no better than any other religious figure. He used religion to live `high on the hog,' exploiting people for their money."
Jesus wasn't born beautiful or rich because he came for the common people. The sinful people, the people who needed a messiah. Physically attractive, wealthy temple leaders would not have listened to Jesus anyway. The temple of that era was stuck on human based traditions, which Jesus frequently challenged. The Old Testament prophecied a humble messiah, not a movie star. Jesus washed people's feet, healed people, but didn't even own a house. He hung out with fishermen and tax collectors, who were pretty low on the `food chain.' He preached to people who were more open and receptive to him.
"The Judeo-Christian religion is self-serving propaganda that lived on beyond the authors' time to infect later generations with its self-deluding destructive consequences."
Jesus got no benefit from his `propaganda.' He gained no money, and ended up being crucified. He washed people's feet, he touched lepers, and he went around healing people, for no profit whatsoever. While some cult leaders say, "Give me money, set me up like a king," Jesus humbled himself. He didn't ride in to Jerusalem on a fancy white horse, he came riding on a dirty old mule.
"Missionaries `mish' only because they are paid."
Clearly, you do not inhabit the same world the rest of us do. A missionary goes into the field expecting nothing but to save a few souls in service to God. The missionary field is thankless. In fact, missionaries often have to work to earn their own keep, living off only paltry supplies sent in by their churches. Very little, if anything is given to them as a financial reward. Churches really don't put that much money in missionary budgets. I know because I've studied about them. I'd like to be a missionary. The money goes to clothing and food, and possibly the cheapest of shelters. Missionaries don't get fancy cars or gold watches or anything good. They have to earn their keep in the society they preach to. In one of those little tribes in Africa, a missionary has to build a shelter and farm the land. Their weekly or a monthly care package may have some clothes, bibles and food in it, but that's it. It's anything but a lavish lifestyle.
"I consider cult - slave asceticism proof of a weak will."
And I consider greedy hoarding of wealth, when you know life is temporary, is proof of selfishness and foolishness.
"Darned rare is the church that doesn't say you have to belong to be `saved', or doesn't pass the collection plate! How about the Catholic Indulgences, candle concessions, and Jesus cards?"
Churches that say that you have to belong to their church in order to be saved are called `cults.' They are not denominations, i.e. part of Christianity. Even if you expanded your definition to include denominations rather than individual churches, I'd still disagree with you. I believe that most people who call Jesus their savior will be saved, no matter if they're Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian or whatever. Furthermore, the act of passing the collection plate is not manipulation. What is manipulative are all those sermons about tithing. Indulgences and Jesus cards and candle concessions are Catholic things. Protestant churches don't do that sort of thing. The salvation of Christ is a free gift. You don't need to pay money for it, or buy anything to receive it. I, for one, put money in the offering plate at my church, or buy things for Harvesters, or give to the Salvation Army, out of thankfulness to God, not out of a need to fill the pastor's quota or because he gave a sermon about tithing. I'm just trying to give money back to God instead of hoarding his blessings. If Christianity were so manipulative, they wouldn't allow us to have bibles to check their work against. A cult, a non-Christian organization doesn't allow that liberty. A leader in a cult can say, `if you don't put money in the offering plate, you're going to go to hell.' But if a guy says that in a regular church, I can take out my bible, look up a verse and say, `you're preaching a message contrary to what Christ preached.' And if the guy has any sense, he'll say, `oops, I'm sorry,' and quickly revise what he's arguing to suit the biblical evidence.
"Basically, churches say if you dont fork over, you aren't a steward, you arent a giving person, your spirituality won't grow, and you won't get closer to God."
And you wonder why God never makes an appearance to you. You're too tight fisted to care about anyone else's needs.
"A monetary pledge at church is too often equated to discipleship with Jesus."
Jesus taught the renunciation of material wealth. For example, there is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. While I can't really speak against tithing, Christ taught us to go beyond that - one rich ruler was told to sell all he had and give to the poor. Christ's disciples already gave up quite a bit to the poor.
"What happened to plain honesty? Is it really necessary to lie to parishioners to convince them to pay the bills?"
Clearly, your understanding of `lies' and `truth' are built on the foundation of your pocketbook.
"(Concerning a Lutheran church's memo) So...Money is not just a practical necessity for the basics - oh no - by signing up for a percentage, money buys enlightenment and God's favor! Perhaps one is supposed to make a cold calculat...no, I mean a spiritual connection between percentage and the number of steps upwards toward enlightenment. Nice to know the good old idea of Indulgences is still floating around."
No need to make a hasty generalization. Nowhere in this memoir does it say anything about `attaining enlightenment' or your strange idea of `calculating percentages required for salvation.' But it does say, since we have so richly been blessed with money and other things from God, that we should give some in return. But I guess that doesn't make sense to someone who loves money more than God. Even if that was the case, that's not my motivation for giving to charity or the church. I believe God gave me everything I have, and so I give him what I have in return. I put 10% of my income in the plate every Sunday. I know it's going to charity because I saw at least a hundred times that amount designated for charity. And we have a food pantry and a barrel for the Grandview Assitance Program(for charity). That's where I want my money to go. Charity. It's a biblical mandate instead of a Catholic one. Charity is not making a fancy church, it's putting food in the stomachs of people who can't afford to eat.
"Later (in the memo), readers are asked `what percentage God has called upon them to give'- implying that skimpers are ungodly!"
Another hasty generalization. Nowhere in the article does it even come close to arguing that `skimpers are ungodly.'
"To me, (the memo) reads like something so inverted and crass that Madison Ave's `finest' would have difficulty producing its equal. Obviously churches (and missionaries, if the church has them) need money for upkeep and salaries, but this thing says that paying a big percentage of the `light bill' will make one's spiritual light brighter too-"
Yes, the light bill isn't important. Congregation members could possibly worship by candle light or whatever, or outside where there's sunlight, if it gets warmer...but in the winter, in the dark, we wouldn't be able to read the hymns very well. And God likes people singing to Him. True, we could still do without it. But giving to the poor `makes your spiritual light brighter.' However, one thing I must say about church offering. There's a bible verse that says you shouldn't prevent an ox from eating some of the grain it treads on. Back in the old days, when they needed oxen to grind grain, it was unwise to let them starve in the presence of food.
"I know (memo) is supposed to be read by the faithful, with an un-critical eye and an open wallet, but I think it is silver-tongued rubbish (or, if I believed in spirits, Gods and Devils), inspired by something worse."
Well, perhaps the person who wrote it was a little misguided, but everyone slips up occassionally. As long as the author continues following Christ, that issue should be ironed out.
"I'll continue to think (memo) actually illustrates the greedy corruption in organized religion."
Organized religion, perhaps. But not the religion itself. But it's easy to pick on the faults of others when you yourself have a similar flaw, tightwad.