Should not the church provide an example to its followers, though?

(October 23, 2016 at 9:10 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 23, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Um.... jesus?


Apparently the church isn't too sure about all that heaven shit.

One might argue that the church has a custodial duty toward the body of Christ as His vicar on earth.  With duty come responsibilities. Moreover the word here represented as 'perfect' is teleios, which means fully developed.  This saying applies to individuals who wish to be complete.  What it means for the church to be fully developed is not clear from this passage.  You're taking Jesus' advice to individual's and applying it to something that is not an individual.  What would it mean for the church to have "treasure in heaven?"  You've taken Jesus' advice to one thing and applied it to another.  It doesn't work that way.

Do recall that I think jesus is divine horseshit from the word go and the fucking church is the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the long sorry history of hypocrisy.

(October 23, 2016 at 9:58 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Should not the church provide an example to its followers, though?

It's worth looking at the preceding passage for context.

Quote:16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?”

Matthew 19:16-20

So Jesus answer is to how one is to obtain eternal life [in heaven]. This is the same concern that the church has for its members, the body of Christ. Is this responsibility most ably discharged by dispossessing itself of all its possessions? I don't think so. I think that just as a father and mother have a duty to maintain a household for the benefit of their children, the church has a duty to maintain its influence in this world because the eternal fate of many souls depends on it.

So we see that at its root, the church is exercising the same concern which motivated the advice to the man in Matthew. However, the best way to fulfill that concern differs for each. It is not a matter of providing a model for behavior, as both are motivated by the same concern. It's the practical ramifications of their respective responsibilities concerning the issue which are irreconcilably different. It makes no sense for the church to act as just another parishioner given its responsibilities.

(October 23, 2016 at 10:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(October 23, 2016 at 9:10 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: One might argue that the church has a custodial duty toward the body of Christ as His vicar on earth.  With duty come responsibilities. Moreover the word here represented as 'perfect' is teleios, which means fully developed.  This saying applies to individuals who wish to be complete.  What it means for the church to be fully developed is not clear from this passage.  You're taking Jesus' advice to individual's and applying it to something that is not an individual.  What would it mean for the church to have "treasure in heaven?"  You've taken Jesus' advice to one thing and applied it to another.  It doesn't work that way.

Do recall that I think jesus is divine horseshit from the word go and the fucking church is the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the long sorry history of hypocrisy.

Noted. As is the irrelevance of your complaint to the question of whether the church has a moral obligation to dispossess itself of its wealth.

Jorg, fair enough, thanks for the reply.

<chewing>

(October 23, 2016 at 10:19 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 23, 2016 at 10:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Do recall that I think jesus is divine horseshit from the word go and the fucking church is the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the long sorry history of hypocrisy.

Noted.  As is the irrelevance of your complaint to the question of whether the church has a moral obligation to dispossess itself of its wealth.

I submit that the motherfuckers should never have been GATHERING wealth.

(October 22, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Assume 1/3 of Catholics do not attend church; assume 1/3 of Catholics attend church only on special occasions, such as Easter; assume 1/3 of Catholics attend church regularly.  Therefore, 400 million Catholics regularly attend church.

Assume that for every 5 Catholics, there is 1 father, 1 mother, and 3 children.  Therefore there are (400 million)/5=80 million regular attendees who have the capacity to donate.  Assume that of the regular attendees who are able to donate, 1/3 donate nothing, 1/3 donate 1% regularly, and 1/3 donate 10% regularly.  Assume that the average Catholic household earns $9K after taxes annually (Google "average income worldwide" to see average income is $10K, so I put it at $9K after taxes).

This puts a low estimate of the Catholic Church's tax-free annual income at (80 million)(1/3)(0.01)($9K)+ (80 million)(1/3)(0.1)($9K)=$26.4 billion.  Is the Catholic Church providing $26.4 billion worth of services per year?

Item 1: ratio of declared Christians to church-goers = 9:1. ref; numerous studies.
So you're looking at a pool of ~ 100,000,000 regulars.
I doubt if many donate as much as 10% of income, tithing is a characteristically protestant thing, typically the weekly collection plate is an assortment of small change in the bottom of pockets, a few foreign coins and a couple of buttons. You'll only see bank notes on special occasions.
The real money spinners are hatches, matches and dispatches so you'd have to look at hire of a church for said functions.
There is also the various education services funded by governments that appear on the Dr side of the balance sheet.

From which you have to subtract all the lawyers fees and hush money payments to victims of pervert priests and enabling church officials!

(October 23, 2016 at 8:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't know how this proves that the church has no accountability.  It seems you're only complaining that they aren't as charitable as you think they should be.  Where do you get this obligation of the church to disburse its collective wealth from?  (Not saying that you can't justify it, but your logic seems a little thin.)

Exactly. I'm saying they're not held accountable to anyone for anything. That's why there is no obligation on their part. The world allows them to be accountable to no one.