Most fundamentalist version of Christianity

IFX

Hi,
Can anybody tell what is the most / least fundamentalist version of Christianity in Dublin / Ireland?

Options include:
Presbyterianism, Church of Ireland, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist

By fundamentalist, I mean the participants believe:
1. The world was made in 7 days.
2. The veracity of the Gospels - they are 100% true.
3. The world is 11,000 or so years old
4. Evolution did not happen.

I appreciate Catholism was probably the most fundamentalist but it is probably reforming in that most people who go don't appear to listen or believe in everything said.

Comments please...

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

Hi,
Can anybody tell what is the most / least fundamentalist version of Christianity in Dublin / Ireland?

Options include:
Presbyterianism, Church of Ireland, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist

By fundamentalist, I mean the participants believe:
1. The world was made in 7 days.
2. The veracity of the Gospels - they are 100% true.
3. The world is 11,000 or so years old
4. Evolution did not happen.

I appreciate Catholism was probably the most fundamentalist but it is probably reforming in that most people who go don't appear to listen or believe in everything said.

Comments please...

Not being in Dublin, don't know.

But the world was created in 6 days. Seventh was a rest.

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not being in Dublin, don't know.

But the world was created in 6 days. Seventh was a rest.

Woops, forgot about the day of rest
BTW, you don't seriously believe that do you? What do you think of all the evidence consistent with 'The Big Bang'?

mountainyman

IFX wrote:

Hi,
Can anybody tell what is the most / least fundamentalist version of Christianity in Dublin / Ireland?

Options include:
Presbyterianism, Church of Ireland, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist

By fundamentalist, I mean the participants believe:
1. The world was made in 7 days.
2. The veracity of the Gospels - they are 100% true.
3. The world is 11,000 or so years old
4. Evolution did not happen.

I appreciate Catholism was probably the most fundamentalist but it is probably reforming in that most people who go don't appear to listen or believe in everything said.

Comments please...

Free Presbetyrianism I suspect, thogh they would say bible believing.
MM

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

Woops, forgot about the day of rest
BTW, you don't seriously believe that do you? What do you think of all the evidence consistent with 'The Big Bang'?

I do. Since you mention the Big Bang, every scientific website I went to basically said that the Big Bang is an unprovable theory.

But we wont discuss that topic here. It's been discussed on a nother thread.

In a nutshell, God exists, I have met Him. The New Testament talks about Adam and Eve as historical figures. When we get to Heaven we will find out how God did the whole works.I look forward to chatting with Him about it.

The question that we all have to aks is: how is my relationship with Christ?

Dades

IFX wrote:

I appreciate Catholism was probably the most fundamentalist but it is probably reforming in that most people who go don't appear to listen or believe in everything said.

Catholism may traditionally be oppressive on a society, but at least they don't still back that aberration in human understanding that is the 'young earth' belief.

See here for vatican opinion on science.

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

I do. Since you mention the Big Bang, every scientific website I went to basically said that the Big Bang is an unprovable theory.

But we wont discuss that topic here. It's been discussed on a nother thread.

In a nutshell, God exists, I have met Him. The New Testament talks about Adam and Eve as historical figures. When we get to Heaven we will find out how God did the whole works.I look forward to chatting with Him about it.

The question that we all have to aks is: how is my relationship with Christ?

You should read 'The Big Bang' by Simon Singh, plenty of evidence and explaination in that. A fascinating read, even if you belief God made the Big bang or there is no God.
'The Big Bang' theory was actually originally proposed by a Priest LeMaitre, and is accepted by a lot theologians. There is plenty of observational evidence for it for example:
Hubble's law, Cosmic microwave background radiation.
The question that we all have to ask is, how can we help common humanity or how can we help people starving to death, or how can be stop global warming? Why is a relationship with Christ important since:
1. It cannot be ascertained there is / was one?
2. Even if there is - it cannot be ascertained if he wants a relationship? Surely if he did want a relationship and he existed, he would show his face and voice clearly.
3. Why is a relationship with Christ (even if he exists) more important than people needlessly dieing in their millions of starvation?

I'll take this to a separate thread actually

Anyway back to the OP.
Who is are the most / least fundamentalist?

IFX

The Atheist wrote:

Catholism may traditionally be oppressive on a society, but at least they don't still back that aberration in human understanding that is the 'young earth' belief.

See here for vatican opinion on science.

Who are doing that?

Dades

IFX wrote:

Who are doing that?

How about this crowd?
http://www.creation.ie/
Domain registered to the "Dun Laoghaire Evangelical Church".

Anyhow, my point was that whatever else the Catholic Church is guilty of - it isn't really that which you listed as "fundamentalist".

robindch

> every scientific website I went to basically said that the Big Bang
> is an unprovable theory.

Er, Brian, that's the whole point of science -- NO theory is provable and NO theory can claim to be the "ultimate truth". We have said this in the creationist thread over and over and over and over and over again, but somehow, news of this just doesn't sink in.

Anyhow, just because something is not provable, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Neither does it mean that your own unprovable and competing theory happens to be right.

And as for the most "fundamentalist" people in Ireland? Difficult to tell really. A good start would be this group:

http://www.trinity.ie/

With most of the US-inspired fundamentalist checkboxes ticked: biblical literalists, creationists, child "outreach", christ-centered, mission statements, well-marketed and seemingly quite well-funded too.

IFX

The Atheist wrote:

How about this crowd?
http://www.creation.ie/
Domain registered to the "Dun Laoghaire Evangelical Church".

Anyhow, my point was that whatever else the Catholic Church is guilty of - it isn't really that which you listed as "fundamentalist".

I would agree with you on that. Most catholics I know, accept Science over Religion, but just like the idea of going to church etc and they would believe in a God and Jesus would be a good bloke.
Even most of the priest I've met say the same.

wolfsbane

mountainyman said:

Free Presbetyrianism I suspect, thogh they would say bible believing.

They have no problem about calling themselves 'fundamentalist'. But they would not fit #3 of IFX's definition:

By fundamentalist, I mean the participants believe:
1. The world was made in 7 days.
2. The veracity of the Gospels - they are 100% true.
3. The world is 11,000 or so years old
4. Evolution did not happen.

They would have various views on the age of the earth. I think most would hold to a Young Earth, but I know Ian Paisley holds to an Old Earth view.

I don't remember the details of his position, but it probably is the same as many Christian fundamentalists:
The Gap Theory, or ruin-reconstruction view. For an outline and criticism: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html

Talliesin

wolfsbane wrote:

They have no problem about calling themselves 'fundamentalist'. But they would not fit #3 of IFX's definition:

The problem is Mountainyman's definition is close to what the actual word means, and the IFX's isn't.

Fundamentalism means believing the Bible is the literal Word of God, and maintaining that it is the sole dependable source of information on God, Christ and what a Christian should do, and as such having it as the fundament (basis) of one's faith.

As such it takes the greater importance put on the study of scripture by the Reformed Churches to an even greater degree than some.

This clearly isn't what the OP is talking about when saying "I appreciate Catholism was probably the most fundamentalist" since Fundamentalism is built upon Reformation rejections of the Catholic Church.

Schuhart

Would Quakers be a candidate for least 'fundementalist'? They don't really do formal dogma.

wolfsbane

Talliesin said:

The problem is Mountainyman's definition is close to what the actual word means, and the IFX's isn't.

Fundamentalism means believing the Bible is the literal Word of God, and maintaining that it is the sole dependable source of information on God, Christ and what a Christian should do, and as such having it as the fundament (basis) of one's faith.

As such it takes the greater importance put on the study of scripture by the Reformed Churches to an even greater degree than some.

This clearly isn't what the OP is talking about when saying "I appreciate Catholism was probably the most fundamentalist" since Fundamentalism is built upon Reformation rejections of the Catholic Church.

Yes, there are several definitions of the word. It applies to any that hold to the basics of their faith. But it is the questioner who must specify the one he wants. IFX did that.

wolfsbane

Schuhart said:

Would Quakers be a candidate for least 'fundementalist'? They don't really do formal dogma.

Yes, they seem a bit fuzzy on things. But absence of a formal creed is no test, for some of the 'tightest' brethren I have met are in Churches without a written creed. But woe to the brother in their midst who utters a thought contrary to any 'i' or 't' of doctrine the assemble has traditionally held to!

I suspect that applies somewhat to our Quaker friends. I doubt if my 5-Point Calvinism would get much of a hearing.:D

irish_bob

i would say presbyterianism is thee most fundamentalist and catholicism the least
the reason i say that , i faith is defined by its followers and while the hierarchy in the catholic faith are strict authorotarians and have not budged on many issues like contraception , the laiety in catholicism i belive are quite relaxed about thier faith , while a majority of catholics in ireland still go to mass , they do so in the same way as they go to the pub or go to bingo once a week , catholics have a much less black and white view of the world than protestants
where as religous protestants tend to swallow thier faiths line hook line and sinker , be it in the bible belt in the usa or DUP voters in northern ireland
the differences between the 2 denominations are also political , religous catholics tend to be much less right wing than religous protestants
i realise that secular protestants in say the netherlands are much more liberal than catholics in ireland but i am speaking within the context of religous people of both denominations
while i regards presbyterians are especially fundamentalist, i belive in general most protestant denominations are more fundamentalist than thier catholic counterparts
you couldnt imagine a protestant version of father ted, i mean religous protestants take pride in having no sense of humour

Tim Robbins

irish_bob wrote:

i would say presbyterianism is thee most fundamentalist and catholicism the least
the reason i say that , i faith is defined by its followers and while the hierarchy in the catholic faith are strict authorotarians and have not budged on many issues like contraception , the laiety in catholicism i belive are quite relaxed about thier faith , while a majority of catholics in ireland still go to mass , they do so in the same way as they go to the pub or go to bingo once a week , catholics have a much less black and white view of the world than protestants
where as religous protestants tend to swallow thier faiths line hook line and sinker , be it in the bible belt in the usa or DUP voters in northern ireland
the differences between the 2 denominations are also political , religous catholics tend to be much less right wing than religous protestants
i realise that secular protestants in say the netherlands are much more liberal than catholics in ireland but i am speaking within the context of religous people of both denominations
while i regards presbyterians are especially fundamentalist, i belive in general most protestant denominations are more fundamentalist than thier catholic counterparts
you couldnt imagine a protestant version of father ted, i mean religous protestants take pride in having no sense of humour

Do you differentiate between presbyterianism and free presbyterianism?

irish_bob

probably not as free presbyterianism is a denomination set up by and led by the reverend ian paisley so you can work out for yourself how many free presbys thier are in the world , thier limeted mainly to ulster
presbyterians tend to be fairly rigid and strict folk in general
they also tend to be fairly hostile to catholics , i mean scotland probably has the highest percentage of presbyterians of any country and it is also probabley thee most anti catholic country in the world aswell
going there is like going to belfast only without the guns

Tim Robbins

irish_bob wrote:

probably not as free presbyterianism is a denomination set up by and led by the reverend ian paisley so you can work out for yourself how many free presbys thier are in the world , thier limeted mainly to ulster
presbyterians tend to be fairly rigid and strict folk in general
they also tend to be fairly hostile to catholics , i mean scotland probably has the highest percentage of presbyterians of any country and it is also probabley thee most anti catholic country in the world aswell
going there is like going to belfast only without the guns

Interesting. I am not sure about the % of free presbyterians to presbyterians but I would have thought there was some difference between their levels of fundamentalism free p being more fundamentalist. Have a look at this for example:
http://www.freepres.org/fpcarticles.asp?fpcarticles
If you think Scotland is the most anti Catholic country in the world where do you think is the most anti presbyterian or anti protestant?

wolfsbane

irish bob said:

i would say presbyterianism is thee most fundamentalist and catholicism the least
the reason i say that , i faith is defined by its followers and while the hierarchy in the catholic faith are strict authorotarians and have not budged on many issues like contraception , the laiety in catholicism i belive are quite relaxed about thier faith , while a majority of catholics in ireland still go to mass , they do so in the same way as they go to the pub or go to bingo once a week , catholics have a much less black and white view of the world than protestants
where as religous protestants tend to swallow thier faiths line hook line and sinker , be it in the bible belt in the usa or DUP voters in northern ireland

I see what you are getting at, but it is not that stark. Liberalism - the opposite of fundamentalism - is as big in Irish Presbtyerianism as the Evangelical (fundamentalist) wing. An outside of Ireland, liberalism is by far the bigger. Witness their ecumenical involvement worldwide.

the differences between the 2 denominations are also political , religous catholics tend to be much less right wing than religous protestants
i realise that secular protestants in say the netherlands are much more liberal than catholics in ireland but i am speaking within the context of religous people of both denominations

Depends on what one means by right wing. In the USA many practising Catholics are very anti-abortion. But I agree, most religious Protestants would not be the liberal, socialist sort. But is that not true of religious Catholics too?

while i regards presbyterians are especially fundamentalist, i belive in general most protestant denominations are more fundamentalist than thier catholic counterparts

Yes, most Protestants have no cultural pressures to go to Church if they no longer believe. My Catholic friends, until fairly recently, faced a lot of social stygma if they abandoned Mass. So we had mainly the more religiously committed Protestant in regular attendance, but many unbelieving Catholics still presenting as religious Catholics.

you couldnt imagine a protestant version of father ted, i mean religous protestants take pride in having no sense of humour

I don't know who you have met, but humour is a big part of nearly all the Evangelical folk I know. If you mean filthy humour, then you are correct.

irish_bob

its a valid question i suppose , i cant think of any country that has a reputation for anti presbyterianism
where as most people know about the catholic prejudice in scotland , its well documented , thats not to say that all scottish protestants are anti catholic
but thier is a history of sectarianism there and while some might say that ireland is somwhat anto protestant , the ira while thier campaign was cruel and barbaric , thier campaign was never defined by sectarianism , they simply wanted the british out and the brittish in the north just happend to be protestant, where as the unionists up north long before the troubles really began were an institutuionally anti catholic people
the connection with scotland being that the unionists people in the north are scotts who travelled across the water , scotland is the home country

irish_bob

Depends on what one means by right wing. In the USA many practising Catholics are very anti-abortion. But I agree, most religious Protestants would not be the liberal, socialist sort. But is that not true of religious Catholics too?

i disagree with you , religous protestants , especially in the usa tend to be strong believers in free market economics , low taxes for the rich and a disdain for the policy of universal health care
where as religous catholics like the pope , thier conservative on moral issues like abortion and sex in general but they are left wing on economic issues
the pope would not be a fan of the kind of economics preached by the republican party in the usa, the party that most protestants in the usa support
capitalism and protestanism have always been closely linked, in fact the christian right in the usa would have many belive that jesus was a big fan of tax cuts for the rich and to hell with the poor attitude
catholics are much more generous to charitys , i mean how many protestant missionaries have thier been compared to catholic missionaries over the centurys
protestants took the view that the best way to worship god was to work as hard as possible and seek wealth
this ethic is the dominant one in western culture and while tottally practical , for all its self rightousness , protestants tend to be very self rightous , its quite hypocritical

Tim Robbins

irish_bob wrote:

its a valid question i suppose , i cant think of any country that has a reputation for anti presbyterianism
where as most people know about the catholic prejudice in scotland , its well documented , thats not to say that all scottish protestants are anti catholic
but thier is a history of sectarianism there and while some might say that ireland is somwhat anto protestant , the ira while thier campaign was cruel and barbaric , thier campaign was never defined by sectarianism , they simply wanted the british out and the brittish in the north just happend to be protestant, where as the unionists up north long before the troubles really began were an institutuionally anti catholic people
the connection with scotland being that the unionists people in the north are scotts who travelled across the water , scotland is the home country

A slightly biased cursory analysis if you don't mind me saying.

Do you know the penal laws, Presbyterians were treated as second class citizens as well? Catholics were actually 3rd class. Church of Ireland or Anglican being 1st class.
The Presyterians had to pay taxes to Church of Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_laws#In_Irish_history,

Also do you know the Pope supported William of Orange in the Battle of the Boyne not the Catholics?

Excuse the aside from the OP, which I hope we can revert to now.

irish_bob

Do you know the penal laws, Presbyterians were treated as second class citizens as well? Catholics were actually 3rd class. Church of Ireland or Anglican being 1st class.
The Presyterians had to pay taxes to Church of Ireland

true but that is long long ago and im not sure what relevance it has to the debate really
another example i neglected to mention in my previous post of how religous protestants tend to be much more right wing then religous catholics
in the usa all the white supremacist groups are exclusivley protestant
blacks are enemy number one closely followed by jews and catholics
presbyterians are almost entirely white where as catholics , well south america is the continent with the largest number of catholics and most people there are not white
i might seem to be harking on about scotlanb a bit but i had a horrendous experience at the hands of a bigoted scott when i was over seas about 10 yrs ago
my crime was being catholic

Tim Robbins

irish_bob wrote:

i might seem to be harking on about scotlanb a bit but i had a horrendous experience at the hands of a bigoted scott when i was over seas about 10 yrs ago
my crime was being catholic

That's awful.
My theory is that biggotry is part of the human condition and no group is immune from it.
I went to a community school, fairly liberal compare to Christian brothers and I remember there was a protestant there who was bullied because of that. It was an anomoly as in general the school was reasonably liberal and secular but it wasn't completely immune from biggotry.
Another time I went to a Celtic match in Scotland and stopped off at a pub on the way, I was shocked how sectarian it was.
I think there's tons of anecdotal evidence of biggotry going in all directions, I don't know of any subsection that are immune from it.

wolfsbane

irish bob said:

i disagree with you , religous protestants , especially in the usa tend to be strong believers in free market economics , low taxes for the rich and a disdain for the policy of universal health care
where as religous catholics like the pope , thier conservative on moral issues like abortion and sex in general but they are left wing on economic issues
the pope would not be a fan of the kind of economics preached by the republican party in the usa, the party that most protestants in the usa support

Yes, I'm sure you are right about the USA. I was thinking more worldwide and not just modern times. The Roman Catholic Church was historically a great supporter of the rich against the poor. The various right-wing dictatorships in Europe and South America witness to that even in recent times.

I know many Evangelicals have distrusted the Democratic Party for its support of abortion and the antagonism of many of its leaders to Christianity, but many are realising that the Republican Party is run by the same sort of plutocrats, albetit paying lip-service to religion.

capitalism and protestanism have always been closely linked, in fact the christian right in the usa would have many belive that jesus was a big fan of tax cuts for the rich and to hell with the poor attitude

Indded many do - but for many it is more a reaction against the anti-religious oppression they have seen in the outworking of Socialism. Such Protestants are mistaken to trust in the free-market, for it is just as oppressive, being run by the rich. Neither Socialism nor Captitalism have an antidote to human wickedness and corruption. Both systems can bring much good when they are operated by good men, and the reverse likewise.

catholics are much more generous to charitys , i mean how many protestant missionaries have thier been compared to catholic missionaries over the centurys

I would think the relative levels of giving by religious Protestants would at least match that of Catholics. Evangelicals in particular are expected to give a tenth of their income to the work of God, which includes helping the poor. Many give more.

The number of missionaries helping the poor would to some extent depend on the relative numbers of the church membership. Catholicism is vast. But I know many charitable works begun by Evangelicals - like Barnados - and most missionaries run practical helps to the needy as well as preaching the gospel. There are a big number of Protestant missions.

protestants took the view that the best way to worship god was to work as hard as possible and seek wealth

The Protestant work ethic condemns laziness. Whether one is so successful as to become rich or merely feed oneself is not an issue. Indeed, the pursuit of wealth is specifically condemned in the Bible.

this ethic is the dominant one in western culture and while tottally practical

The pursit of riches seems to be the ethic - a very unChristian one.

protestants tend to be very self rightous

There are indeed many such. Totally at variance with the doctrines they profess to believe.

its quite hypocritical

Indeed it is.

wolfsbane

irish bob said:

in the usa all the white supremacist groups are exclusivley protestant
blacks are enemy number one closely followed by jews and catholics
presbyterians are almost entirely white where as catholics

I'm not sure religion is the main factor. I mean, I have heard some aweful stuff from Yankee Catholics about the Blacks and Jews. And from Blacks about Whites and Jews. Doubtless the Jews have something to say about Gentiles and Blacks - and Arabs!

I think Tim's theory is correct. We are all prone to favour our own group and look down on the rest.

Here's an example that startled me a couple of years ago: I was dining with several Black friends (not Christians) from Africa. I enquired about where exactly they lived and they explained it was in this area of their country, not the other. They went on to explain how superior their part was, being peopled by dark brown-skinned types rather than the coal-black types of the coast! Racism is just endemic in our nature.

i had a horrendous experience at the hands of a bigoted scott when i was over seas about 10 yrs ago
my crime was being catholic

Yes, deplorable. As Tim points out, all sides are guilty of such petty discrimination. I'm pretty certain that those who gave you the trouble never darken a church door, however. In modern times in the British Isles, most of the antagonism is based on ethnic/tribal conflicts, not religious beliefs. That was true of our conflict here in Northern Ireland, for both sides. Protestant/Catholic was just a handy label to roughly determine where one's national identity lay. Where the exceptions occurred - a Protestant who was pro-United Ireland, a Catholic who was pro-Union - there was ready acceptance by their religious opposites.

BrianCalgary

irish_bob wrote:

Depends on what one means by right wing. In the USA many practising Catholics are very anti-abortion. But I agree, most religious Protestants would not be the liberal, socialist sort. But is that not true of religious Catholics too?

i disagree with you , religous protestants , especially in the usa tend to be strong believers in free market economics , low taxes for the rich and a disdain for the policy of universal health care
where as religous catholics like the pope , thier conservative on moral issues like abortion and sex in general but they are left wing on economic issues

To speak from a Canadian perspective. We do not look upon ourselves as Catholic or protestant. I do not protest against anything, in choosing my church as I am a follower of Christ. Many of my Catholic friends are very conservative and right wing, I think it is because of the affluent neighbourhood in which I live.

irish_bob wrote:

the pope would not be a fan of the kind of economics preached by the republican party in the usa, the party that most protestants in the usa support
capitalism and protestanism have always been closely linked, in fact the christian right in the usa would have many belive that jesus was a big fan of tax cuts for the rich and to hell with the poor attitude

I disagree with you here. The Christian in North America is concerned with the poor and understands that in order for the poor's situatuation to be elevated, wealth has to be created and this is done best through the free-market. To wolfsbanes point, it is what you do with it that counts. Tax cuts lead to economic wealth. Look at Alberta for an example of that, we have too much money in this province now.

irish_bob wrote:

catholics are much more generous to charitys , i mean how many protestant missionaries have thier been compared to catholic missionaries over the centurys

Not necessarily, I see far more individual Cristians givng money to causes that help the poor overall, be they RC, Alliance, Baptist, evangelical free, etc. than I see secularists, muslims, etc.

irish_bob wrote:

protestants took the view that the best way to worship god was to work as hard as possible and seek wealth
this ethic is the dominant one in western culture and while tottally practical , for all its self rightousness , protestants tend to be very self rightous , its quite hypocritical

The best way to worship God is to work as though you are working for Him. To use the gifts He has given you to be an example of Him in your society. Some are going to be given the gift of making money, I don't have that particular gift. Those that can make money should go out and do that, while giving to those with other gifts so that they may do their job.

I can't travel to Guatemala to do God's work without the financial support of others. I can't go and help a church planter in Italy without financial support of others.

The problem lies with greed, It is my money and I will do with it as I please attitude is very hypocritical, as opposed to asking God, what should I do with my money?

irish_bob

The problem lies with greed, It is my money and I will do with it as I please attitude is very hypocritical, as opposed to asking God, what should I do with my money?

i once aksed god what i should do with my money
3 weeks later he sent me a letter in the mail along with an advertisement for a kick ass holiday or as some might call it vacation in new york

BrianCalgary

irish_bob wrote:

The problem lies with greed, It is my money and I will do with it as I please attitude is very hypocritical, as opposed to asking God, what should I do with my money?

i once aksed god what i should do with my money
3 weeks later he sent me a letter in the mail along with an advertisement for a kick ass holiday or as some might call it vacation in new york

Is that holiday in keeping with what God would want you to do? IMO the letter didn't come from God, probably a bit of Junk mail.:)

robindch

> I see far more individual Cristians givng money to causes that help the poor
> overall, be they RC, Alliance, Baptist, evangelical free, etc. than I see
> secularists, muslims, etc.

That's hardly surprising, since you work (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) for a christian organization. I'm not sure of the value of the religious economy in Canada or here in Ireland, but in the USA, it's reckoned to be between sixty and ninety BILLION dollars per year -- that's around twice the military budget of China. Based upon a short trawl though Charity Navigator's reasonably reliable statistics for how religious organizations spend their cash, I would imagine that around ten percent of the overall figure might be going to helping the poor with the aim of propagating or sustaining the religion, and ten percent of that (one percent overall, say roughly €500 million) goes to helping the poor without the aim of propagating or sustaining the religion. I'm happy to be corrected on any of the above estimates if somebody can produce some good, solid economic stats.

For the sake of comparison, The secular Bill Gates Foundation gave around €1,000 million to worthy projects in 2005 (see here). While in Muslim states, the payment of Zakat (alms tax) is one of the five Pillars of Islam and is an obligatory religious contribution which varies around 2.5% of income and which amounts to so much that many states have government departments allocated to spending it (the Saudi one is here).

BrianCalgary

That is a wonderful website on the Charity Navigators. In Canada every charity has to fill out a T3010 form stating the organisations goals, revenue and expenses. We have a certain target to hit on our expenses side that match with our stated goals or we lose our status.

The government has gotten serious as there have apparently been outfits that spend 70-90% on administration. I think 15% is the max that should be spent on admin and fundraising. If you are doing a good job, people will contribute.

It's a complaint I have with the North American church, we have so much yet we give so little. We have those at our church that complain if they don't get two vacations in the warmer climes every year, such hardship I guess, but try squeezing a nickle out of them to help someone who is heading south to help the less fortunate?

In having said that though I trust that there are many many Christians who contribute loads yet keep it secret as Christ commanded. Rick Warren (The Purpose Driven Life) as an example contributes 90% of his income to ministry. I also trust that many other wealthy Christians are doing their bit adequately as well. We will all have to answer God for what we did with what He gave us.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

That is a wonderful website on the Charity Navigators. In Canada every charity has to fill out a T3010 form stating the organisations goals, revenue and expenses. We have a certain target to hit on our expenses side that match with our stated goals or we lose our status.

The government has gotten serious as there have apparently been outfits that spend 70-90% on administration. I think 15% is the max that should be spent on admin and fundraising. If you are doing a good job, people will contribute.

It's a complaint I have with the North American church, we have so much yet we give so little. We have those at our church that complain if they don't get two vacations in the warmer climes every year, such hardship I guess, but try squeezing a nickle out of them to help someone who is heading south to help the less fortunate?

In having said that though I trust that there are many many Christians who contribute loads yet keep it secret as Christ commanded. Rick Warren (The Purpose Driven Life) as an example contributes 90% of his income to ministry. I also trust that many other wealthy Christians are doing their bit adequately as well. We will all have to answer God for what we did with what He gave us.

Is it charity if someone is collecting money to spread Scientology / Islam / Hinduism?
Or do you think it is only charity if the money goes to spreading Christianity?
What about the different versions of Christianity? Do you draw the line at the mormons or the Catholics for spreading their version instead of yours?
Just curious.
Cheers

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Is it charity if someone is collecting money to spread Scientology / Islam / Hinduism?

Yep

Tim Robbins wrote:

Or do you think it is only charity if the money goes to spreading Christianity?

Nope

Tim Robbins wrote:

What about the different versions of Christianity? Do you draw the line at the mormons or the Catholics for spreading their version instead of yours?
Just curious.
Cheers

Nope. (Mormoms are not Christian.)

And to confirm Robins comment, I do work for a Christian Evangelical organization that has charitable status.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

(Mormoms are not Christian.)

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon,
"Mormons are not Protestants and do not consider themselves part of any larger branch of Christianity, but do consider themselves Christians".

So what's the disagreement, you don't accept their version of Christianity and they don't accept yours?
Or is Wikipedia just lieing again:rolleyes:

robindch

> wealth has to be created and this is done best through the free-market.

The *regulated* free-market. Unregulated free-markets produce kleptocracies like Nigeria and Russia.

> In having said that though I trust that there are many many Christians who
> contribute loads yet keep it secret as Christ commanded. Rick Warren (The
> Purpose Driven Life) as an example contributes 90% of his income to ministry.

Are there any links which back up this claim? All I can find is this extremely supportive article on CNN which says that Warren's Saddleback Church has a turnover of $30 million and that he's involved with (controls?) another $39 million dollar organization too. More info would be useful!

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon,
"Mormons are not Protestants and do not consider themselves part of any larger branch of Christianity, but do consider themselves Christians".

So what's the disagreement, you don't accept their version of Christianity and they don't accept yours?
Or is Wikipedia just lieing again:rolleyes:

Mormons do consider themselves Christian. But they are not. They do not accept Jesus Christ as God incarnate. Since they do not know who Christ is, they can not possibly be worshipping Him, but a facsimile of Him.

I live in a city absolutely full of Mormons, I know quite a few, and they are not Christian.

The wikipedia article looks alright at first glance. Since you mention it, none of my college friends can cite wikipedia as a source and none of my teacher friends accept it as a citation on any research papers.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> wealth has to be created and this is done best through the free-market.

The *regulated* free-market. Unregulated free-markets produce kleptocracies like Nigeria and Russia.!

We had a lively discussion one night as to what system og government would God approve. I was on the right wing side and a very good friend was on the socialist side. Both of us devout Christians.

robindch wrote:

[> In having said that though I trust that there are many many Christians who
> contribute loads yet keep it secret as Christ commanded. Rick Warren (The
> Purpose Driven Life) as an example contributes 90% of his income to ministry.

Are there any links which back up this claim? All I can find is this extremely supportive article on CNN which says that Warren's Saddleback Church has a turnover of $30 million and that he's involved with (controls?) another $39 million dollar organization too. More info would be useful!

Willow Creek is a church in the Chicago area that hosts a leadership conference every year. it is beamed by satellite across North America. I have attended a few. this past year my wife went and Rick Warren as one of the speakers revealed it in his talk.

irish_bob

We had a lively discussion one night as to what system og government would God approve. I was on the right wing side and a very good friend was on the socialist side. Both of us devout Christians

while some christians would claim that jesus would be on the right wing side
those are neo christians or as i like to call them fox news christians
those who belive that donald trump getting a tax hike is just as cruel as betsy a working mother in the projects having to work 3 jobs to make ends meet

if you are someone who belived in telling the truth and i mean the truth about jesus , then you will know that jesus was clearly of the left politically
jesus preached all the time about the rich giving what they didnt need to the poor
he invited the wrath of the rich pharisees for theese beliefs
in case im not being frank enough , jesus was a socilist
that is not to say that capitalists are wrong and socilist are right
i am talking within the context of the topic you raised
and i am telling you that jesus based on his teachings was a socilists
of course if your a neo christian or fox news christian , you might belive that jesus were he alive today would approove of wal-mart
this was actually a headline on fox news one night , i kid you not

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

Mormons do consider themselves Christian. But they are not. They do not accept Jesus Christ as God incarnate. Since they do not know who Christ is, they can not possibly be worshipping Him, but a facsimile of Him.
I live in a city absolutely full of Mormons, I know quite a few, and they are not Christian.
The wikipedia article looks alright at first glance. Since you mention it, none of my college friends can cite wikipedia as a source and none of my teacher friends accept it as a citation on any research papers.

Ok, surely the Oxford Dictionary is accepted by your college friends.
Here's what is says for Christian:
"noun a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity"
Christianity:
"the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ."
Mormon:
" a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a religion founded in the US in 1830 by Joseph Smith Jr."

I think according to that Mormon's are Christians and you are just adding on your own subjective caveats because you do not accept it.

Can your opinion be citated in a college paper? BTW you should include in the Charter that just because you consider yourself Christian doesn't mean you are as you have implied in that post above.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ok, surely the Oxford Dictionary is accepted by your college friends.
Here's what is says for Christian:
"noun a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity"
Christianity:
"the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ.".

Right.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Mormon:
" a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a religion founded in the US in 1830 by Joseph Smith Jr."..

Right again. You're on a roll.:)

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think according to that Mormon's are Christians and you are just adding on your own subjective caveats because you do not accept it..

Whoops. Mormons do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. they follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Jesus taught that He is God. Mormons do not accept that, so they are therefore by definition, not Christian.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Can your opinion be citated in a college paper?.

1)Which opinion?
2) Why does it need a college paper?

Tim Robbins wrote:

BTW you should include in the Charter that just because you consider yourself Christian doesn't mean you are as you have implied in that post above.

Why should that be in the charter? This board is here to allow people to discuss Christianity and issues from a Christian perspective. You have done a great job of supplying us with the definition of a Christian quite nicely. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do not fit that description.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why should that be in the charter? This board is here to allow people to discuss Christianity and issues from a Christian perspective. You have done a great job of supplying us with the definition of a Christian quite nicely. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do not fit that description.

From www.mormon.org

http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-55-16,00.html

Question:
Are you Christians?

Answer:

"We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ."

"We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior...the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God. He is our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life."

"Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ. He is the center of our faith and the head of our Church. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement."

Also on the same website:

http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html

Question:
Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?

Answer:

"There are many who say that Latter-day Saints believe in a 'different Jesus' than do other Christians and that we are therefore not 'Christian.' . . . We believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him."

Sounds like the Christians according to the Oxford dictionary but not according to you.