CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[historian]

If there is a single piece of art in the Vatican that could be sold and the funds used to help someone in need, what would the Christian thing to do be?

Hey! I found Elizabeth Warren! Please don't take our guns when you win next fall!

I'm not thrilled with the RCC (I'm a Baptist, so I'm not thrilled with anything or anyone, TOTAL DEPRAVITY FTW!!!!), but the arguments you make are the same Bernie and Warren make. Investments are better for everyone. As Lex pointed out, there are prior Popes who were, for lack of a nicer term, ungodly. The building you showed in that picture was built by those Popes. Should it be torn down? You can't unring bells, but the RCC is acting more like a church now than they did back in, say 1500 (although I have disagreements with Frank, which can be addressed in the Christianity thread).

 

[BugI02]

So because it's an organization that's the owner of the wealth it's not to be criticized the same as an individual? I find both conflict with my reading of the bible.

Which do you think would most please God? Pointing out the flaws of others or correcting the flaws that almost certainly exist within yourself

Try (re)reading the first couple of chapters in Romans

 

[Jludo]

Let's say the Vatican liquidated everything of value this coming Sunday. The coffers balloon to billions and billions of dollars. Then every penny is apportioned to every parish in the world (by whatever formula you choose).

How long will that last? A generation? In some places, far less.

Then what? They've helped some people and the vatican is poor like Jesus was. Exactly how is this a bad thing? They're still getting their 10% fee from church members weekly, they just aren't sitting on billions in assets. Bibles aren't that expensive, can the church not survive without grand halls and ornate buildings or do you think the pomp is necessary to be a church of Christ?

 

[Jludo]

Hey! I found Elizabeth Warren! Please don't take our guns when you win next fall!

I'm not thrilled with the RCC (I'm a Baptist, so I'm not thrilled with anything or anyone, TOTAL DEPRAVITY FTW!!!!), but the arguments you make are the same Bernie and Warren make. Investments are better for everyone. As Lex pointed out, there are prior Popes who were, for lack of a nicer term, ungodly. The building you showed in that picture was built by those Popes. Should it be torn down? You can't unring bells, but the RCC is acting more like a church now than they did back in, say 1500 (although I have disagreements with Frank, which can be addressed in the Christianity thread).

I hadn't heard this take, so you think if Jesus was walking around the Vatican you could give him a copy of the wealth of nations and after he thumbed through it he'd be on the side of keeping expensive art in his church?

 

[T.Lex]

Then what? They've helped some people and the vatican is poor like Jesus was. Exactly how is this a bad thing? They're still getting their 10% fee from church members weekly, they just aren't sitting on billions in assets. Bibles aren't that expensive, can the church not survive without grand halls and ornate buildings or do you think the pomp is necessary to be a church of Christ?

Can it? Sure. It has survived many difficulties over the years, and acquired things that are now valuable. (Interestingly, at the time they were acquired, I suspect most of the items you are eyeing weren't worth very much.)

I think it worth re-raising the motive for some of these works: to give glory to God. He gives men talents to turn to his benefit. If a beautiful painting can bring someone closer to God, then it probably deserves to be in a church rather than a museum.

Again, what are you getting at. If the Vatican did what you propose, would you then open yourself up to God's word?

 

[Jludo]

But, you've singled out the Vatican. Is it simply the most convenient target for your scorn, for your judgment? Is the abundance of wealth held by the Vatican the source of your displeasure with all religion?

I'm just as willing to criticize any other I see hypocrisy in, this was just the one we seem to be running with. I'm not writing checks to joel olsteen on sunday mornings thinking about how hypocritical those catholics are.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not writing checks to joel olsteen on sunday mornings thinking about how hypocritical those catholics are.

I think the instant jetta and a few others read that, they will smile just as I did.

 

[BugI02]

I'm just as willing to criticize any other I see hypocrisy in, this was just the one we seem to running with. I'm not writing checks to joel olsteen on sunday mornings thinking about how hypocritical those catholics are.

Did not know you were a vampire

 

[Jludo]

I think it worth re-raising the motive for some of these works: to give glory to God. He gives men talents to turn to his benefit. If a beautiful painting can bring someone closer to God, then it probably deserves to be in a church rather than a museum.

In your reading of Christs life do you think he'd agree with this take? That there should be expensive works of art around to give him glory? especially where the capital tied up in said art could be used elsewhere?

 

[Jludo]

Again, what are you getting at. If the Vatican did what you propose, would you then open yourself up to God's word?

I was open to Gods word for nearly 20 years, If the Vatican did what I proposed I'd have more respect for the Catholic church. Not that that's worth anything.

 

[T.Lex]

In your reading of Christs life do you think he'd agree with this take? That there should be expensive works of art around to give him glory? especially where the capital tied up in said art could be used elsewhere?

Yes. And I think I've explained why. Any of the "shepherd" references will probably work. Also, this past Sunday included the gospel with the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector. The problem was not wealth itself - both were men of means. The issue was humility. Do you find the Vatican leaders lacking in humility?

Hey jludo, in re-reading my posts, I want to emphasize that I'm not angry or upset at all about this discussion. Probably a bit defensive, but not in a callous way.

I'm filtering your posts through some of your earlier ones about your own state of belief. And, in turn, that reminds me of a story from Hurricane Katrina. It goes something like this:
A guy's neighborhood was flooding and he was holding on for dear life. A group with an extra seat on a boat passed by and offered it to him. He declined, saying, "God will save me!" Awhile later, with the flood waters rising higher, a coast guard boat came by and offered to pick him up. He again declined, saying, "God will save me!" Finally, a navy helicopter hovered over him trying to save him. He waved it away, saying, "God will save me!" Well, he drowned. And upon arrival in heaven, asked God why He hadn't save him. God replied, "I sent you 2 boats and helicopter!"

Lets say God, moved to call you to Himself, inspired Pope Francis to sell an invaluable piece of art with which to fund the poorest parishes in the world. Would that change your view of God at all?

(Between you, me, and the fencepost, I wouldn't be surprised if Pope Francis does something like that before his term ends.)

 

[Jludo]

Lets say God, moved to call you to Himself, inspired Pope Francis to sell an invaluable piece of art with which to fund the poorest parishes in the world. Would that change your view of God at all?

(Between you, me, and the fencepost, I wouldn't be surprised if Pope Francis does something like that before his term ends.)

If Pope Francis did sell it all would he be correct in doing so or is what the Church doing now correct?
My view of God wouldn't be changed, my view of the Catholic church as being more in touch with God would change. and of course there would be some poor folks out there in the world who are slightly better off than they were before.

 

[T.Lex]

If Pope Francis did sell it all would he be correct in doing so or is what the Church doing now correct?

Yes.

I believe that, if Pope Francis made a move in that direction, it would be an act inspired by God (or even directed by Him). And, in that event, Pope Francis would not have had that option, if prior popes had not safeguarded the collection.

Here's a blog post that I found interesting:
https://catholicherald.co.uk/commen...ney-to-the-poor-the-answer-is-an-emphatic-no/

It somewhat reveals the competing positions, even within the Catholic congregation.

My view of God wouldn't be changed, my view of the Catholic church as being more in touch with God would change. and of course there would be some poor folks out there in the world who are slightly better off than they were before.

Well, then I guess the discussion is effectively over. You are more than welcome to continue criticizing, but if your view of the RCC would change, but your view of God would not, then this whole exercise is not as appealing to me.

 

[rvb]

All of your defense has been of the catholic church as an organization. All of that could operate out of a business park building. My criticism is with the Vatican.

If there is a single piece of art in the Vatican that could be sold and the funds used to help someone in need, what would the Christian thing to do be?

Bringing glory to God through ornate decoration is not repulsive to God. He commanded the use precious metals and fine linen for his 45-foot tall "tent in the desert." But yet, of course we are to take care of the poor. It's more difficult to be reverent in an office park suite; that creates a barrier between God and I. Is that sacrifice for funding for the poor worth it if it does not help bring people to God? The difficult part, for us mere mortals, is finding that balance.

The disciples had similar concerns once.....

Matthew 26
6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9 “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you,[a] but you will not always have me.

 

[Jludo]

Well, then I guess the discussion is effectively over. You are more than welcome to continue criticizing, but if your view of the RCC would change, but your view of God would not, then this whole exercise is not as appealing to me.

Are you trying to sell God or the Catholic church here? I supposed if the two are synonymous you don't make a distinction and defense of the catholic church is inherently a defense of God and vice versa.

 

[JettaKnight]

Clearly I think it's hypocritical, is this saying you agree?
It seems obvious to me and I've no skin in the game so I have no problem pointing it out, yet it seems if one is a part of the organization they feel they need to defend/justify every part of it.
Can't just say 'clearly selling a few billion of the church's art holdings and giving to the needy would make Jesus more proud of a church supposedly made in his image'

Yes, I think it is bit hypocritical. There's tons of hypocrisy everywhere - in and out of the church.

But then again, if those painting were sold and given to the needy, wouldn't they just be doing that to gain favor in the eyes of atheists?


And yes, I think you've got a lot of skin in the game. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making so many posts pointing out your observations of Christianity's flaws. You're pointing out how you're right (that organized religion is a sham), just like us.

 

[T.Lex]

Are you trying to sell God or the Catholic church here? I supposed if the two are synonymous you don't make a distinction and defense of the catholic church is inherently a defense of God and vice versa.

This is Gen Religion, so I'm actually balancing a bit of both. You brought up the Vatican, which means I'm a bit compelled to respond to that part of it.

But, as you note, my question to you was about God - not even the "Catholic" one. And yeah, as a Catholic, I do think that a defense of my faith tradition is a defense of God generally.

Perhaps more importantly, in this thread, I'm more interested in how your criticisms that are specific to Catholicism are obstacles to a more general belief in God.

Frankly, if you were Hindu or Shinto, this conversation would have a different context.

I am more than happy to discuss Catholicism specifically (probably better in the Christianity thread), but once we've both presented our positions on a topic like the Riches of the Vatican, there probably isn't much more to be gained. The proverbial dead horse and all that.

 

[Jludo]

Bringing glory to God through ornate decoration is not repulsive to God. He commanded the use precious metals and fine linen for his 45-foot tall "tent in the desert." But yet, of course we are to take care of the poor. It's more difficult to be reverent in an office park suite; that creates a barrier between God and I. Is that sacrifice for funding for the poor worth it if it does not help bring people to God? The difficult part, for us mere mortals, is finding that balance.

The disciples had similar concerns once.....

Matthew 26
6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9 “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you,[a] but you will not always have me.

I get the feeling though that if say Paul had amassed a fortune in art and real estate Jesus would not have had the same response as he did defending a women anointing him before his death. But that's just my reading of the scripture.

 

[JettaKnight]

I guess it'd be a lot easier if I simply followed a religion that set out extensive and details rules which I must obey.


Unfortunately, my oven doesn't have a Sabbath Mode, so I'll have to work hard to focus on what is in my heart and what it desires.

 

[rvb]

I get the feeling though that if say Paul had amassed a fortune in art and real estate Jesus would not have had the same response as he did defending a women anointing him before his death. But that's just my reading of the scripture.

I get the feeling it comes down to motive.
Love of money? or Love of God?
Putting your vast fortunes on display? or Worshiping God?

So can the church have nice things? Or should it help the poor?

Best answer I can come up with:

ps. not Catholic. Not necessarily defending the Vatican. But I don't take issue w/ how they use their funds, either.

At my local (protestant) church level, we struggle with questions like "Do we keep funding the missionaries we currently support, or get the roof fixed?"

-rvb