Touche. I'm all for the Church selling off all their gold except for the minimum they need for ceremonial purposes (gold chalices are required for communion) and perhaps a modest stockpile to serve a purpose similar to a non-profit endowment in order to help fund the Church's operational expenses and charitable works.
There is a huge difference between what happens at the Vatican level vs. what happens at the local church level.
To be fair, a lot of that was stuff gathered over 2000 years or so and none of it belongs to the Pope himself.
That's not fair at all. Jesus says to get rid of all your possessions, and that being rich is evil. If the church needs money, they should sell all their gold and shit before passing around a collection plate.
No idea. I'm not enough of a Catholic historian/theologian to understand why gold is required. Apparently, typically, the chalices aren't purchased via Church funds but tend to be given as a gift to a newly ordained priest by his friends and/or family. However, gold plating is acceptable -- the chalice doesn't have to be made of solid gold, and it's significantly less expensive.
There is a huge difference between what happens at the Vatican level vs. what happens at the local church level.
While true, I have seen many local Catholic churches that can rival Mr. T in a gold battle.
I don't doubt that they may exist -- I just haven't seen these personally. Most of my experience has been with churches where the only things made of gold tended to be the chalices, although some gold paint/leaf decorating also tends to exist on other parts of the church like the tabernacle.
Until relatively recently, the eucharist had to be delivered with precious metal tongs directly onto the tongue of the recipient. Accepting it from or by hand was allowed later.
When I was young and in a catholic school, many of the old timers would kneel and stick their tongue out at the priest (rather than kneel with the particular hand configuration for receiving the host).
The magic doesn't work unless you do it right. Luckily, 3rd Ed removed some of the requirements.
Preists get paid about $25,000* a year. Considering everything they need is paid for, that's pretty good. I just read some more stuff that ,with allowances, puts that value at $~60,000 starting. Anyways, this is a stupid argument.
The magic doesn't work unless you do it right. Luckily, 3rd Ed removed some of the requirements.
Yeah but God prefers you to be able to show him how much you love him by the amount of money you give him.
Also, a good argument against "private sector can give to charity which helps the poor" is that that would be incredibly unbalanced. From my experience, churchy people would only help those who professed a desire to start thinking like them.. and I can imagine people would rather give to a charity to support kittens and puppies rather than one that educates poor former criminals.
Preists get paid about $25,000* a year. Considering everything they need is paid for, that's pretty good. I just read some more stuff that ,with allowances, puts that value at $~60,000 starting. Anyways, this is a stupid argument.
That's also not counting any gifts that his parish gives him, ie. anything from meals and drinks to cars. I don't know a whole lot about the RCC on that latter bit, but I know that in Protestant churches it was quite lucrative to be a pastor.
That's not fair at all. Jesus says to get rid of all your possessions, and that being rich is evil. If the church needs money, they should sell all their gold and shit before passing around a collection plate.
When I went to Italy, I went to a number of churches. There was a tiny hole-in-the-wall church in Rome that had REALLY FREAKING ELABORATE VENETIAN CHANDELIERS MADE WITH VENETIAN GLASS BY VENETIAN GLASSBLOWERS. Not only that, they had at least 20 of them in this tiny little church. Do you guys realize how expensive Venetian glass is?
That's not fair at all. Jesus says to get rid of all your possessions, and that being rich is evil. If the church needs money, they should sell all their gold and shit before passing around a collection plate.
When I went to Italy, I went to a number of churches. There was a tiny hole-in-the-wall church in Rome that had REALLY FREAKING ELABORATE VENETIAN CHANDELIERS MADE WITH VENETIAN GLASS BY VENETIAN GLASSBLOWERS. Not only that, they had at least 20 of them in this tiny little church. Do you guys realize how expensive Venetian glass is?
If it was donated to the church, I'm okay with that even if it's a bit of a ridiculous donation to make. If church funds actually paid for them, then yeah, there's a problem.
If it was donated to the church, I'm okay with that even if it's a bit of a ridiculous donation to make. If church funds actually paid for them, then yeah, there's a problem.
Even if it's donated it's still a problem. Sell that shit and give the money to the poor. That's what Jesus would do. To not do so is hypocrisy.
If it was donated to the church, I'm okay with that even if it's a bit of a ridiculous donation to make. If church funds actually paid for them, then yeah, there's a problem.
But if the church sold those and took the money and invested it in providing healthcare and education for people in third world countries, wouldn't that work out better? I mean, some decent hanging lights are like $50 or something and you can still have all your ceremony.
While reading manga earlier today, there was a panel that had a bunch of children that shouted "Welcome back!". My mind processed it a "ãŠã‹ãˆã‚Š!" (Okaeri), the more than likely original Japanese text.
Does this sort of thing happen to anyone else? I'm not a weeaboo. >___>
If it was donated to the church, I'm okay with that even if it's a bit of a ridiculous donation to make. If church funds actually paid for them, then yeah, there's a problem.
Even if it's donated it's still a problem. Sell that shit and give the money to the poor. That's what Jesus would do. To not do so is hypocrisy.
There was the story of the woman who anointed Jesus with very expensive perfume that could've been sold to feed the poor. However, Jesus did not have an issue with that particular incident. Of course, in this case, it was because he knew he was going to be killed and buried soon and the anointing is a SOP of burial rites in that era. This could be interpreted as Jesus being okay with not every penny going to the poor as long as it fulfills some sort of spiritual purpose.
That said, even if I was religious, I wouldn't be donating uber-expensive light fixtures to a church in lieu of donating to a church-sponsored charity. However, some people do get their jollies from that. *shrugs*
I didn't go to the services, I'm not a religious man, but afterwards I used to chill out with the mad old irish priest and we'd hang out, smoke our pipes, and just shoot the shit. I don't recall ever chatting to him about religion, except for maybe once.
My mom used to actually give 10% of her paycheck to our church (like the bible says to).
I just made the connection... Church is why I never got that Barbie Jeep I always wanted! (╯‵Ô′)╯彡┻â”Â┻
I like the muslim way of giving back to the community, where you give 2.5% of your wealth to charity more than the Christian one. Two reasons, mainly: 1) it's WEALTH not INCOME. This is a significant difference, and I think that class is determined more by wealth than income. 2) It is to charity, not back to the religion. You can give that money to your local Mosque, or you can give it to Child's Play or Doctors Without Borders or Make A Wish Foundation (also known as the Take Sick Kids To Disneyworld Foundation). It's very clearly about helping, and not about the church's capital gain.
Question for people who know religion better than I do or know where to best look this stuff up. Where do they get these numbers from?(I think the 10% is a fairly standard number) My recollection for Judaic law at least is that the Tanakh pretty much just says corners of the fields and anything dropped while harvesting should left for the poor to recover. Beyond that my understanding is that there aren't any specific guidelines for charity. Is it all in the commentary?
While reading manga earlier today, there was a panel that had a bunch of children that shouted "Welcome back!". My mind processed it a "ãŠã‹ãˆり!" (Okaeri), the more than likely original Japanese text.
Does this sort of thing happen to anyone else? I'm not a weeaboo. >___>
I occasionally do that. Or rather, I try to figure out what text I would have put there instead. Usually that only happens when a translation strikes me particularly bad. For example, yesterday I read this totally crappy statement in an inner thought that no person speaking english would ever make: "As for ability, I'm at the top; but I still don't want to lose!" How about "I'm better than you, and I am going to keep it that way!" It just really annoys me when people just put the japanese word for word into english, rather than write a sentence that conveys the same thing as if the person was speaking or thinking in english to begin with.
It just really annoys me when people just put the japanese word for word into english, rather than write a sentence that conveys the same thing as if the person was speaking or thinking in english to begin with.
I know a lot of people who hate GG subs because they do just this. It's actually part of the reason people call them a troll subs group.
Where do they get these numbers from?(I think the 10% is a fairly standard number)
To my understanding, it's based on Hebraic law, not religious text. These guys say there were multiple tithes that would have put the temple tax at about 23.3 percent, not 10.
It just really annoys me when people just put the japanese word for word into english, rather than write a sentence that conveys the same thing as if the person was speaking or thinking in english to begin with.
I know a lot of people who hate GG subs because they do just this. It's actually part of the reason people call them a troll subs group.
That's one of the reasons I like them (and they tend to do shows I want to watch). Strict translations is never going to be as good as the source material.
That's one of the reasons I like them (and they tend to do shows I want to watch). Strict translations is never going to be as good as the source material.
Sorry, but that is stupid. If you want to enjoy the original source material, learn japanese and read it in the original language. That is the reason why I watch movies in english. However, in translation, you are supposed to make the material make sense in the language you are translating into. Look at the sentence I gave as an example. That is not english. Nobody speaking english on a decent level speaks like that. That is not proper english grammar. That is japanese, with english words replacing the japanese words. It is not fucking english!
That's one of the reasons I like them (and they tend to do shows I want to watch). Strict translations is never going to be as good as the source material.
Sorry, but that is stupid. If you want to enjoy the original source material, learn japanese and read it in the original language. That is the reason why I watch movies in english. However, in translation, you are supposed to make the material make sense in the language you are translating into. Look at the sentence I gave as an example. That is not english. Nobody speaking english on a decent level speaks like that. That is not proper english grammar. That is japanese, with english words replacing the japanese words. It is not fucking english!
What you're describing about is translation. Localization is taking that and making it intelligible. There's no reason you can't watch something with subs that make sense.
EDIT: Also, I think we're in agreement that direct translation is stupid and things should be localized. And I read what Neito said backwards. I had a stupid.
Comments
There is a huge difference between what happens at the Vatican level vs. what happens at the local church level.
When I was young and in a catholic school, many of the old timers would kneel and stick their tongue out at the priest (rather than kneel with the particular hand configuration for receiving the host).
The magic doesn't work unless you do it right. Luckily, 3rd Ed removed some of the requirements.
Source: http://www.albanyvocations.org/faqlifeofpriest.html
Also, a good argument against "private sector can give to charity which helps the poor" is that that would be incredibly unbalanced. From my experience, churchy people would only help those who professed a desire to start thinking like them.. and I can imagine people would rather give to a charity to support kittens and puppies rather than one that educates poor former criminals.
Does this sort of thing happen to anyone else? I'm not a weeaboo. >___>
That said, even if I was religious, I wouldn't be donating uber-expensive light fixtures to a church in lieu of donating to a church-sponsored charity. However, some people do get their jollies from that. *shrugs*
I didn't go to the services, I'm not a religious man, but afterwards I used to chill out with the mad old irish priest and we'd hang out, smoke our pipes, and just shoot the shit. I don't recall ever chatting to him about religion, except for maybe once.
I just made the connection... Church is why I never got that Barbie Jeep I always wanted! (╯‵Д′)╯彡┻â”â”»
For example, yesterday I read this totally crappy statement in an inner thought that no person speaking english would ever make: "As for ability, I'm at the top; but I still don't want to lose!"
How about "I'm better than you, and I am going to keep it that way!"
It just really annoys me when people just put the japanese word for word into english, rather than write a sentence that conveys the same thing as if the person was speaking or thinking in english to begin with.
See Woolseyisms.
EDIT: Also, I think we're in agreement that direct translation is stupid and things should be localized. And I read what Neito said backwards. I had a stupid.