Is it important to praise a God?

[bankside]

Same thing -- ego and what is to them wealth.

Though really I'd rather none of it did end up in the collection plate unless their church follows the ancient tradition that 1/3 of what goes in the plate goes to the poor.

Only 66% overhead, eh?

Usually with that level of graft, a charity would wind up on a consumer affairs show exposé.

 

[PintlerMan]

Just jump'in in real fast, no you shouldn't praise a fairy tale. Psssss it's all a scam.

 

[Kulindahr]

Only 66% overhead, eh?

Usually with that level of graft, a charity would wind up on a consumer affairs show exposé.

The formula was 1/3 for the poor, 1/3 for running the church, and 1/3 for missionary and education work.

If every Christian denomination in the U.S. adhered to that, I'd be willing to bet we wouldn't need welfare programs. That formula was one reason Christianity grew so fast early on. Once it was abandoned, corruption flourished because the drop in care for the poor mostly went to prelates' palaces and such and/or was soaked up in staff and maintenance for massive edifices.

I knew a Foursquare church that discovered that ancient formula, discussed it, and adopted it. Within six months, their offerings actually increased over what they had been, because attendance nearly doubled -- enough that they bought an old YMCA and turned it into a church to hold the increase.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

I'm sure He's rolling around on the floor of His throne room with His hands to His ears because of all the times I've taken His Holy Name in vain.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sure He's rolling around on the floor of His throne room with His hands to His ears because of all the times I've taken His Holy Name in vain.

If you're referring to swearing, that's not really what "taking His name in vain" means.

To take someone's name is to be adopted into that family. One then is obligated to live up to the standards of that family so as to not dishonor the name. So to take a name in vain means to join a family without even trying to live up to the expectations that come with the name.

The ones who take His name in vain are thus first of all those who have taken His name, i.e. Jews and Christians. When they live lives that make having that name pointless, they have taken it in vain.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

If you're referring to swearing, that's not really what "taking His name in vain" means.

I'm sure I wont be held guiltless regardless.

 

[bankside]

The formula was 1/3 for the poor, 1/3 for running the church, and 1/3 for missionary and education work.

If every Christian denomination in the U.S. adhered to that, I'd be willing to bet we wouldn't need welfare programs. That formula was one reason Christianity grew so fast early on. Once it was abandoned, corruption flourished because the drop in care for the poor mostly went to prelates' palaces and such and/or was soaked up in staff and maintenance for massive edifices.

I knew a Foursquare church that discovered that ancient formula, discussed it, and adopted it. Within six months, their offerings actually increased over what they had been, because attendance nearly doubled -- enough that they bought an old YMCA and turned it into a church to hold the increase.

One third for those in need, one third for the hierarchy and the new stained glass in the executive boardroom, and one third for marketing and recruiting. Mhmm.

I don't think that compares favourably to other charities, including secular ones:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

 

[Kulindahr]

One third for those in need, one third for the hierarchy and the new stained glass in the executive boardroom, and one third for marketing and recruiting. Mhmm.

I don't think that compares favourably to other charities, including secular ones:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

You're not making the right comparison -- the measure should be what other religions did with revenues. Invariably, ALL of it went to support the hierarchy and their comfort and power.

It's almost seemed weird to me that early Christians spent money teaching people to read and write, yet later on clerics held a near-monopoly... thus giving us the term "clerical" as pertaining to office work.

BTW, during the period when the church adhered to that faithfully, there weren't any executive board rooms or fancy buildings -- they used homes and rented lecture halls.

Additionally, early on, the care of widows came from the church 1/3. I recall once reading the accounts for the church in Rome for a certain year (I've done some strange research), and being amazed at the hundreds upon hundreds of widows being fully supported. It was involved in a controversy that broke out over whether widows should remarry -- some came down on the "yes" side because it would boost the budget.... support of orphans came from that 1/3, too, though it also led to the formation of the world's first adoption agencies, because orphans placed in families didn't cost the church anything any longer.