Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 23:49:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 22:53:32 GMT
(We have a tiny masjid-mosque and it has an elevator that usually doesn't work. We don't have a/c and in summer it's really hot in there. We are looking to buy an old community centre or building or something to hold functions like Eid and other celebrations we have throughout the year instead of renting a rec centre. We are asked to tithe 2.5% of our income but it is voluntary. If we can't we have to do other things instead. If we don't fast for Ramadan we have to donate money or food or other supplies like diapers to a food bank for the equivalent of one meal a day for a week at a time. Our tithing money is spent towards our community, pays for our mortgage, water, food and emergency supplies and money for members. We don't even have an imam-spiritual leader and he would be employed by the BCMA and not us. Our monthly records are open for scrutiny and we can see where money is spent. There are lots of things I don't agree with in Islam so don't think I am thinking it's all sunshine and unicorns. We don't own any shopping malls and we definitely don't have any stained glass! Having an elevator that would work would be nice, though!)
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on May 20, 2015 22:56:08 GMT
The tens of thousands of dollars I and other former Mormons gave to the LDS church gives us a vested interest on how that church spends its money, even if we are no longer members. For me, that money is still a small part of everything the church has built or bought in the past thirty years - whether tithing to provide actual places of worship (which I have no problem with) and multi-million dollar temples, or tithing to build investment income, which is then used to build malls and buy up chunks of Florida. Unless the Mormon church wants to give all that money back to me, I won't stop calling it out on its extremely questionable priorities and spending habits.
|
|
|
Post by penny on May 20, 2015 23:15:30 GMT
It makes a bit more sense when you read that its not just for a church building but a complex that includes the church, adult education, youth education, facilities, etc... Seems more like a church with a university/college and church headquarters all together... People put money into causes they believe in, and some people believe more good will come from educating people to then go out and minister rather than spending money just on direct ministry... I have no idea how costs are usually divided but that though sounds logical to me...
The stained glass is beautiful...
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on May 20, 2015 23:31:49 GMT
so you're saying there's not anything in the new testament about what the church building should or should not look like, then?? if that's the case, what's your issue here? They didn't have church buildings in the NT. They met in homes because they functioned as a family, not an organization or institution. They sometimes rented a hall for a specific purpose and used it for a time, but they didn't need "houses of worship" because the purpose of getting together was not worship or meet with God, but to help one another. Julie
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on May 21, 2015 0:35:21 GMT
I am not accusing you of cherry picking. I am saying you shouldn't accuse others of cherry picking what the Bible teaches, when you do not know what it teaches. The things you are saying that the Bible teaches are not true. The Bible doesn't teach that Christians should tithe. This is simply not true. That is an concept of the old covenant and Christians are under the new covenant. So a Christian who doesn't believe in tithing is not "cherry picking" they believe what scripture teaches. Tithing is not a New Testament teaching. Believers are supposed to give cheerfully and generously as they are able to those who need. That is what the NT teaches. You can pick verses out of the Bible to prove just about anything. The Bible, just like any book, wasn't meant to be read and understood by picking phrases out of context. As a Christian I am not under the laws of the Old Testament. Julie So the ot is obsolete essentially? Then why use it at all? Because it is the beginning of the story. How would the NT make sense if you didn't start at the beginning? It is our history, it points us to Jesus. It shows us how religion is not the answer. It gives us the prophecies that are fulfilled in Jesus. We are not under the law given in the OT, but that doesn't mean the book is useless. Julie
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 21, 2015 5:27:26 GMT
So the ot is obsolete essentially? Then why use it at all? Because it is the beginning of the story. How would the NT make sense if you didn't start at the beginning? It is our history, it points us to Jesus. It shows us how religion is not the answer. It gives us the prophecies that are fulfilled in Jesus. We are not under the law given in the OT, but that doesn't mean the book is useless. Julie Then what's the issue that the mormon church has with gays then? Your posts don't make much sense.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on May 21, 2015 7:52:09 GMT
My only issue with this is that churches are running themselves as for-profit businesses and being taxed as not-for-profits. Personally, I think that any not-for-profit should have to show that income earned and expenses incurred have a direct relationship with the purely charitable work that they do in order to be considered tax-free. Any income or expenses not directly related to those charitable works should be treated the same as income/expense of any other for-profit business. When the bulk of a church's income is going towards infrastructure, it should call into question their designation as a charity. This is precisely my issue as well. Particularly with membership, those who give "freely" of their money should be demanding transparency. Just because someone at the top has said to you that they promise they are doing good with your money but refuse to show you how, doesn't mean they are. I missed your thread on the Clinton foundation... you did start one, didn't you? maybe I'll have time tomorrow to look for it.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on May 21, 2015 8:08:16 GMT
Couple of things really struck me here. One: We regularly see posts on this forum from non-Christians stating that Christians have no right to "judge" anyone. The old "judge not that ye be not judged" text is quoted fairly regularly (even though the context is completely misused). But here we have many Peas quite happily judging Christians for spending THEIR money how they please. Interesting I think. Maybe even hypocritical.Two: While I am not a fan of huge amounts being spent on mega-churches, I still have to wonder if those of you who are saying God would NEVER approve of such spending have ever actually read the Bible! Because if you have you would be familiar with both the Wilderness Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple (and later Herod's Temple which is the temple Jesus taught in). Both the Wilderness Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple were built with EXACT directions from God--right down the the minute detail. Might want to check out cost of both of those. Makes a mere $93 million look puny. And remember--these temples were designed directly BY God, Himself. Moses (and later David and Solomon) followed blueprints laid down by God. I mean we're talking solid gold walls and fixtures, piles of jewels, etc. etc. Herod's temple which was considered far inferior to Solomon's was one of the wonders of the world in its magnificence and glory. One can only wonder what Solomon's temple looked like! And most certainly God must have approved of this as the Shekinah glory rested in the Most Holy Place until the day of Christ's crucifixion. Jesus, Himself, taught in that temple frequently! And there were plenty of poor people in Jerusalem during that time--yet Christ never said a single admonishing word about the temple being too expensive. Reading some of the comments here, I have been reminded of the horror of some of the disciples (Judas) when Mary poured the perfume on Jesus' feet. That perfume was worth more than a year's wages! And some of the disciples complained that many poor could have been fed for the cost of that perfume. Seems to me that Jesus completely disagreed with them. I don't think God disapproves of magnificent structures being built to honor Him. The hypocrisy is all on your end. Non-Christians are not the ones walking around claiming that they refrain from judging because "god" or their holy book tells them to.
As for god himself demanding, designing, and approving of the hideously wasteful and extravagant temples and monuments: but the non Christians (and a lot of those who use the Christian label but don't know what the Bible says) are the ones who say that. What you say the Bible says isn't necessarily true. Picking out 1 vs to make your point will most often NOT make your point. In many cases, we are to judge...
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on May 21, 2015 10:13:34 GMT
This is precisely my issue as well. Particularly with membership, those who give "freely" of their money should be demanding transparency. Just because someone at the top has said to you that they promise they are doing good with your money but refuse to show you how, doesn't mean they are. I missed your thread on the Clinton foundation... you did start one, didn't you? maybe I'll have time tomorrow to look for it.
Tu quoque - again.
|
|
|
Post by gar on May 21, 2015 10:28:11 GMT
I missed your thread on the Clinton foundation... you did start one, didn't you? maybe I'll have time tomorrow to look for it.
Tu quoque - again. Nothing new there then!!
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on May 21, 2015 12:36:39 GMT
Because it is the beginning of the story. How would the NT make sense if you didn't start at the beginning? It is our history, it points us to Jesus. It shows us how religion is not the answer. It gives us the prophecies that are fulfilled in Jesus. We are not under the law given in the OT, but that doesn't mean the book is useless. Julie Then what's the issue that the mormon church has with gays then? Your posts don't make much sense. How does it not make sense? We keep the OT because it shows the beginning of our story. We are not under the law any more, but the OT still has value...there is more to it than just the law. I am not a mormon. However, the New Testament does speak against homosexuality. You are mistaken thinking that it is only prohibited by the OT. I am not mormon or a part of any organized religion. I follow Jesus, I believe the Bible is true, but I do not believe institutional religion is what the New Testament teaches. I do not believe in tithing, because it is not a NT principle. I do not believe in institutional church, because it is not taught in the NT. I do not oppose gay marriage. Julie
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on May 21, 2015 12:59:14 GMT
Then what's the issue that the mormon church has with gays then? Your posts don't make much sense. How does it not make sense? We keep the OT because it shows the beginning of our story. We are not under the law any more, but the OT still has value...there is more to it than just the law. I am not a mormon. However, the New Testament does speak against homosexuality. You are mistaken thinking that it is only prohibited by the OT. I am not mormon or a part of any organized religion. I follow Jesus, I believe the Bible is true, but I do not believe institutional religion is what the New Testament teaches. I do not believe in tithing, because it is not a NT principle. I do not believe in institutional church, because it is not taught in the NT. I do not oppose gay marriage. Julie Jesus spoke of tithing in Matthew 23:23
|
|
|
Post by redayh on May 21, 2015 13:12:01 GMT
Ummmm....the Vatican, anyone? Because I'm *SURE* that cost a bit more than $173,000.
Also, am I the only one that kinda likes Joel Osteen. He doesn't take a salary from his church and he's all positive and lovey-dovey. And he's got great hair. What's not to like?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 23:49:12 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 13:13:10 GMT
M'eh. I find mega churches to be obscene regardless of which denomination it is. However, if the congregation raised the money themselves and are ok with it, more power to them.
I remember a line in the Bible that spoke of not building temples to worship. It said something about worshipping in the very spot that God created, ie outside. My memory of it is fuzzy as I don't worship period but the nessage of that verse stuck with me. I'm not going to find god or Jesus in a mega church. I'll find him among nature and that is where I'll give my time and thanks.
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on May 21, 2015 13:27:36 GMT
Jo, Jesus was speaking to Jews who were under the law. It was the death of Jesus that fulfilled the law and released us from its bondage.
I guess you got me on a technicality. Jesus was speaking about the tithe in the NT. My point is that it is not a principle taught in the NT for those under the New Covenant.
The tithe was meant to support a religious system. The followers of Jesus had no such religious system. They are instructed in the epistles to give generously as they are able to those who are in need.
Julie
|
|
|
Post by Merge on May 21, 2015 13:28:25 GMT
Ummmm....the Vatican, anyone? Because I'm *SURE* that cost a bit more than $173,000. Also, am I the only one that kinda likes Joel Osteen. He doesn't take a salary from his church and he's all positive and lovey-dovey. And he's got great hair. What's not to like? Well, let's see ... he somehow managed to purchase a large and valuable piece of property from the city of Houston for only 7.5 million dollars. His "church" is the former Compaq center, which, value of the infrastructure aside, sits on what has to be a very valuable piece of property inside the loop. And then because it's a "church," he doesn't pay taxes on it like any other tenant/owner would have done. So he's screwed over Houston residents and taxpayers there. Also, he may not need to pull a salary himself (because all the tax-free PR that comes from his "church" sells lots of books and keeps him in paid public speaking gigs), but I'd be very surprised if all the other people on the staff roster named "Osteen" aren't pulling nice salaries straight from the collection plate. Make no mistake, Osteen is running a very profitable family business tax-free and at the expense of the people of Houston.
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on May 21, 2015 13:36:37 GMT
M'eh. I find mega churches to be obscene regardless of which denomination it is. However, if the congregation raised the money themselves and are ok with it, more power to them. I remember a line in the Bible that spoke of not building temples to worship. It said something about worshipping in the very spot that God created, ie outside. My memory of it is fuzzy as I don't worship period but the nessage of that verse stuck with me. I'm not going to find god or Jesus in a mega church. I'll find him among nature and that is where I'll give my time and thanks. I believe the verse you are speaking of is John 4:21-24. It isn't about worshiping God in nature, it is about the idea that we no longer need to go to a specific place to worship. Jesus said "There will come a time when you will no longer worship on this mountain or in Jerusalem....the time is coming, indeed it is here now where true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. Worship is not about going to a specific place. It is not about a building or a service. It is not singing songs of praise and speaking the right words. It isn't saved for a specific time we set aside to shower God with admiration. Worship is how we conduct our lives, turning our hearts and minds toward God. Julie Julie
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on May 21, 2015 13:36:43 GMT
Good Ol Joel Osteen Financial Scandal Osteen stopped taking his $200,000 salary from the church in 2005. His net worth is estimated at $40 million, and he reportedly lives in a 17,000 square-foot Houston mansion valued at $10.5 million. The home has six bedrooms, six bathrooms, three elevators, five fireplaces, a guest house and pool house. Why does a religious pastor/preacher/head religious guy need a 17,000 square-foot house WTF!!!
|
|
scrappinghappy
Pearl Clutcher
“I’m late, I’m late for a very important date. No time to say “Hello.” Goodbye. I’m late...."
Posts: 4,306
Jun 26, 2014 19:30:06 GMT
|
Post by scrappinghappy on May 21, 2015 13:41:58 GMT
To me it's like a modern day cathedral. The annual budget for the Gaudi cathedral in Spain started in 1886! is currently eighteen million Euros per year and won't be completed for at least another 10-12 years. No one has a clue as to the total construction costs for that building.
|
|
|
Post by redayh on May 21, 2015 13:58:43 GMT
Ummmm....the Vatican, anyone? Because I'm *SURE* that cost a bit more than $173,000. Also, am I the only one that kinda likes Joel Osteen. He doesn't take a salary from his church and he's all positive and lovey-dovey. And he's got great hair. What's not to like? Well, let's see ... he somehow managed to purchase a large and valuable piece of property from the city of Houston for only 7.5 million dollars. His "church" is the former Compaq center, which, value of the infrastructure aside, sits on what has to be a very valuable piece of property inside the loop. And then because it's a "church," he doesn't pay taxes on it like any other tenant/owner would have done. So he's screwed over Houston residents and taxpayers there. Also, he may not need to pull a salary himself (because all the tax-free PR that comes from his "church" sells lots of books and keeps him in paid public speaking gigs), but I'd be very surprised if all the other people on the staff roster named "Osteen" aren't pulling nice salaries straight from the collection plate. Make no mistake, Osteen is running a very profitable family business tax-free and at the expense of the people of Houston. I don't disagree that he is living the prosperity he preaches, but how is this his "fault?" The laws regarding tax-exempt orgs are not of Joel Osteen's doing. Every church in Houston is operating at the expense of the people of Houston, technically. I don't attend his church, but I guess I don't get all the criticism against him individually either (not coming from you specifically mergeleft, I'm speaking in general terms.) People have the option to not attend, or donate to "his" church or buy his books. Clearly, since he's so successful, people feel like they are getting some value from what he does.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on May 21, 2015 15:00:39 GMT
Well, let's see ... he somehow managed to purchase a large and valuable piece of property from the city of Houston for only 7.5 million dollars. His "church" is the former Compaq center, which, value of the infrastructure aside, sits on what has to be a very valuable piece of property inside the loop. And then because it's a "church," he doesn't pay taxes on it like any other tenant/owner would have done. So he's screwed over Houston residents and taxpayers there. Also, he may not need to pull a salary himself (because all the tax-free PR that comes from his "church" sells lots of books and keeps him in paid public speaking gigs), but I'd be very surprised if all the other people on the staff roster named "Osteen" aren't pulling nice salaries straight from the collection plate. Make no mistake, Osteen is running a very profitable family business tax-free and at the expense of the people of Houston. I don't disagree that he is living the prosperity he preaches, but how is this his "fault?" The laws regarding tax-exempt orgs are not of Joel Osteen's doing. Every church in Houston is operating at the expense of the people of Houston, technically. I don't attend his church, but I guess I don't get all the criticism against him individually either (not coming from you specifically mergeleft, I'm speaking in general terms.) People have the option to not attend, or donate to "his" church or buy his books. Clearly, since he's so successful, people feel like they are getting some value from what he does. Not every church gets to buy a large and expensive piece of prime real estate from the city at a bargain-basement price, thus depriving the city of the money lost if it had been sold at fair market value. I have no idea how that deal came about, but I would be surprised if the city council members who voted in favor of the sale at that price didn't receive some kind of kickback. For the record, I am opposed to churches operating tax-free regardless of who owns them. Lots of people are taken in by con men; the fact that people choose to give their money to those people doesn't make them any less sleazy.
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on May 21, 2015 16:45:44 GMT
I don't disagree that he is living the prosperity he preaches, but how is this his "fault?" The laws regarding tax-exempt orgs are not of Joel Osteen's doing. Every church in Houston is operating at the expense of the people of Houston, technically. I don't attend his church, but I guess I don't get all the criticism against him individually either (not coming from you specifically mergeleft, I'm speaking in general terms.) People have the option to not attend, or donate to "his" church or buy his books. Clearly, since he's so successful, people feel like they are getting some value from what he does. Not every church gets to buy a large and expensive piece of prime real estate from the city at a bargain-basement price, thus depriving the city of the money lost if it had been sold at fair market value. I have no idea how that deal came about, but I would be surprised if the city council members who voted in favor of the sale at that price didn't receive some kind of kickback. For the record, I am opposed to churches operating tax-free regardless of who owns them. Lots of people are taken in by con men; the fact that people choose to give their money to those people doesn't make them any less sleazy. Merge, I'm not an Osteen supporter but he might have been the ONLY proposed buyer at the time the City of Houston budget was desperate for cash. Only certain businesses can put an arena to use, even with modifications. And razIng, starting over, creates a greater lead time for purchaser - factored into a negotiation if someone only wants the site. Maintaining a piece of property is extremely expensive over time, selling might have been smart, not criminal, choice for the city.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on May 21, 2015 17:15:11 GMT
I missed your thread on the Clinton foundation... you did start one, didn't you? maybe I'll have time tomorrow to look for it.
Tu quoque - again. what? you didn't post one on it? shocking...
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on May 21, 2015 17:48:48 GMT
what? you didn't post one on it? shocking... Yeah, not really - because I'm Canadian I haven't even heard of the issues surrounding the Clinton Foundation. Didn't even know that there was a Clinton Foundation.
I've got an idea - why don't you start a post about it, I'll read up on the issue and then I'll post an unrelated comment on it about how churches spend too much money on infrastructure?
|
|
|
Post by greenlegume on May 21, 2015 17:55:19 GMT
Jo, Jesus was speaking to Jews who were under the law. It was the death of Jesus that fulfilled the law and released us from its bondage. I guess you got me on a technicality. Jesus was speaking about the tithe in the NT. My point is that it is not a principle taught in the NT for those under the New Covenant. The tithe was meant to support a religious system. The followers of Jesus had no such religious system. They are instructed in the epistles to give generously as they are able to those who are in need.
Julie Which seems to make a good case for megachurches not only being unnecessary, but pretty much going against the teachings of Jesus. Like so many have said all along, a lot of good for the needy could have been done with 93 million, or even 45 million if the church in the OP had scaled back a bit. Not to mention the Catholics, the Mormons, the church of the Osteen, and so many others.
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on May 21, 2015 18:47:21 GMT
I think I have a two part answer to that question, presuming it is not rhetorical. On the one hand, of course I have opinions about groups to which I do not belong. The Republican party, PETA, and Westboro Church are all groups to which I do not belong but about which I have opinions. I have opinions about lots of things. On the other hand, there is a level of investment that I lack in those groups that gives me less standing to suggest how they ought to do things. I can't vote in the Republican primary, but I can vote in my church election. I have more legitimate standing in the one than the other. How does this explain so many churches trying to ban gay marriage? They're not gay, so why do they get a say on what gays do? Honestly, I don't really have an answer for this question. I fully understand and accept that same-sex marriage is incompatible with many people's worldview and don't oppose religious organizations choosing not to perform gay weddings. But I don't think it's appropriate that religious groups oppose the private dealings of people who aren't even a part of those groups. To come at it from another direction, I'm a Christian but I'm not a Catholic and I think I have no right to expect the Catholics to change their theology regarding contraceptives but I also think the Catholic Church has no right to expect non-Catholic women to change their use of contraceptives to suit the church's theology.
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on May 21, 2015 19:26:34 GMT
Jo, Jesus was speaking to Jews who were under the law. It was the death of Jesus that fulfilled the law and released us from its bondage. I guess you got me on a technicality. Jesus was speaking about the tithe in the NT. My point is that it is not a principle taught in the NT for those under the New Covenant. The tithe was meant to support a religious system. The followers of Jesus had no such religious system. They are instructed in the epistles to give generously as they are able to those who are in need.
Julie Which seems to make a good case for megachurches not only being unnecessary, but pretty much going against the teachings of Jesus. Like so many have said all along, a lot of good for the needy could have been done with 93 million, or even 45 million if the church in the OP had scaled back a bit. Not to mention the Catholics, the Mormons, the church of the Osteen, and so many others. Yes, I would agree with you. I think pretty much all church buildings are superfluous. If you think I am arguing in favor of the mega-churches, you are mistaken. Julie
|
|
|
Post by greenlegume on May 21, 2015 21:02:13 GMT
Which seems to make a good case for megachurches not only being unnecessary, but pretty much going against the teachings of Jesus. Like so many have said all along, a lot of good for the needy could have been done with 93 million, or even 45 million if the church in the OP had scaled back a bit. Not to mention the Catholics, the Mormons, the church of the Osteen, and so many others. Yes, I would agree with you. I think pretty much all church buildings are superfluous. If you think I am arguing in favor of the mega-churches, you are mistaken. Julie No, Julie, I didn't think that you were arguing in favor of megachurches at all You're actually one of the very, very few Christians I've heard acknowledge that there seems to be no biblical basis for megachurches at all.
|
|
|
Post by greenlegume on May 21, 2015 21:12:02 GMT
How does this explain so many churches trying to ban gay marriage? They're not gay, so why do they get a say on what gays do? Honestly, I don't really have an answer for this question. I fully understand and accept that same-sex marriage is incompatible with many people's worldview and don't oppose religious organizations choosing not to perform gay weddings. But I don't think it's appropriate that religious groups oppose the private dealings of people who aren't even a part of those groups. To come at it from another direction, I'm a Christian but I'm not a Catholic and I think I have no right to expect the Catholics to change their theology regarding contraceptives but I also think the Catholic Church has no right to expect non-Catholic women to change their use of contraceptives to suit the church's theology. Well, then, we agree on some pretty major points. I don't have any problem with any church not performing gay weddings. But I have a huge problem with them trying to prevent all gay marriages. Same with birth control, and many other issues. But I still absolutely think it's hypocritical for any Christian to cherry-pick what parts of their religion's teachings they're going to believe and live by, much less try to claim any kind of moral high ground based on their completely fluid and picked-over religious views. And I still disagree with your assertion that because I'm not a Mormon, Catholic, or another Christian denomination, that I have less of a right to an opinion on the things those churches do. As long as they're coasting by tax-free, and/or trying to legislate their beliefs into law, then I have every right to an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on May 21, 2015 21:53:24 GMT
Honestly, I don't really have an answer for this question. I fully understand and accept that same-sex marriage is incompatible with many people's worldview and don't oppose religious organizations choosing not to perform gay weddings. But I don't think it's appropriate that religious groups oppose the private dealings of people who aren't even a part of those groups. To come at it from another direction, I'm a Christian but I'm not a Catholic and I think I have no right to expect the Catholics to change their theology regarding contraceptives but I also think the Catholic Church has no right to expect non-Catholic women to change their use of contraceptives to suit the church's theology. Well, then, we agree on some pretty major points. I don't have any problem with any church not performing gay weddings. But I have a huge problem with them trying to prevent all gay marriages. Same with birth control, and many other issues. But I still absolutely think it's hypocritical for any Christian to cherry-pick what parts of their religion's teachings they're going to believe and live by, much less try to claim any kind of moral high ground based on their completely fluid and picked-over religious views. And I still disagree with your assertion that because I'm not a Mormon, Catholic, or another Christian denomination, that I have less of a right to an opinion on the things those churches do. As long as they're coasting by tax-free, and/or trying to legislate their beliefs into law, then I have every right to an opinion. I agree that you have every right to an opinion. It's just that there are a variety of decisions neither of us get to participate in because we aren't part of the groups in question. Including - to bring this one full circle - the building project of a church we aren't at all involved with. Like I said upthread, my church will embark on a building project in the foreseeable future. The reality just is that the number of people whose opinions won't be taken into account is larger than the number that will. There are internal and external stakeholders like the school leadership and specific community members whose needs are met by the building itself - those are the folks on the building committee. I am sure many people have many opinions on many things. That's fine. But I don't expect people who have no stake in the whole thing to have influence on the design or construction of the building. That is really what I'm getting at. Some decisions get made pretty democratically and some decisions get made by a subset of the stakeholders. The design of a church building is for the most part the latter. It's not because people shouldn't have an opinion - it's because there are only so many opinions that can be taken into account. I can already say from experience that everybody has an opinion about our new building - it's logically and logistically impossible to accommodate everything.
|
|