Challenge: Name an institution that has donated more humantarian aid for the sick and poor than the

But how does giving humanitarian aid to the sick and poor justify bigotry and persecution of homosexuals?

(And to answer the question - I haven't the faintest idea how much aid the "Christian Church" donates, or how it compares to other institutions. Why don't you give us some references?)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 2 2006, 02:34 AM) [snapback]248438[/snapback]</div>

Isn't it more of a bribe, than a humanitarian aid?
To quote Mother Teresa:†It is not my place to feed the poor, It is my place to lead them to Godâ€.

 

Name an institution that has burned or tortured more people to death. Name an institution that has inspired more wars.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 2 2006, 02:34 AM) [snapback]248438[/snapback]</div>

1. Well, How much has the Christian Church given?

2. Please define "the Christian Church."

Since we're not looking to offend anyone here we have to know which "Christian Church" you're talking about. I ask because I have an Evangelical Baptist friend who doesn't consider me a Christian because I'm a Catholic. And those Episcopals with the gay bishop....he says they're not Christians either. So I'm just looking to clarify which side of this discussion their humanitarian aid to the sick and poor goes.

 

The Republican Party!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ May 2 2006, 10:52 AM) [snapback]248535[/snapback]</div>

that tells you something about the person who started this thread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ May 2 2006, 12:13 PM) [snapback]248578[/snapback]</div>

Sorry Tony, you're right (as always), I take it back

 

The Masons, who believe that charity is not charity if the bestowed knows where it comes from.
Buddhists, who feed the poor every single day, and whose version of the commandments list charity as the first.
The United States Governement and Bill gates come to mind as well, if you mean by yearly charitable donations and not over the centuries.

Dave

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jim1eye @ May 2 2006, 09:55 AM) [snapback]248513[/snapback]</div>

There is certainly a lot of finger-pointing within the various groups who consider themselves to be "Christian" about who is not really a Christian. Personally, I would go further and say that with some tiny exceptions, pretty much the whole lot of so-called Christians are not really "Christians" exactly, they would probably be better described as Christianists, or perhaps Paulists. By about a hundred years after the death of Jesus there was between very little and nothing of his original movement left, and the Council of Nicea put the nail's in true Christianity's coffin. Most of those frail remnants that did remain of true Christianity were tortured to death as heretics by those who claimed to be motivated by their love for Jesus, the "Prince of Peace." However, there are a still few surviving groups today that I might still qualify as true Christians, the Quakers, the Amish, perhaps some Unitarian Universalists, and most likely a few others--but they are an extreme minority.

On the question of charity, it's amazing how while Christ says one thing:

...virtually all of his so-called followers do the exact opposite. For example even this thread could be said to be a (failed) attempt to blow trumpets about how very charitable Christians like the tread-starter are. It's really mind-blowing just how nice person-backwards most "Christians" have it. The vast majority of Christians completely dismiss the rest of the Sermon On The Mount too, one of the very best descriptions of what true Christianity is (or should be) all about. In fact, if you go to the knowledge repository Wikipedia , the majority of the page is spent describing all the ways that different Christian faiths have found to try to get out of it or dismiss it as idealism or exaggeration or as something not to be taken literally (and this information was largely collected there by the so-called Christians thelselves!).

 

never has such overwhelming intolerance been observed as when reliable sources are misquoted and taken out of context and fed to an uninformed public to justify things that may or may not exist.



name one thing that has inspired more hatred for others than religious conflict.
[edit: should have used the word "organization" instead of "thing"...]

 

Food? Water? Land? Sex? Money?
.
_H*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 1 2006, 11:34 PM) [snapback]248438[/snapback]</div>

I fixed your challenge so it would make a little more sense; I assume you didn't deliberately intend to make your challenge sectarian.

Others are quite correct that your challenge is missing quantifiable bases of comparison: $ per year, # of people helped per year, # of units of housing provided per year, etc. Until such numbers are brought forward there aren't any grounds for debate or argument.

But, meanwhile, ORBIS and MEDICINS SANS FRONTIERS (Doctors Without Borders) are two outstanding secular charitable institutions that are my personal favorites of all time. I haven't got any numbers for them either, but the market value of the medical care they provide is likely to be in the hundreds of millions of $ per year.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL is another excellent institution that churches would do well to emulate, as poverty is not the ONLY oppressive force at work on the planet. That brings up the ACLU here in the US, an organization that, sadly, does more unthanked good for us all than most of us will ever realize.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of smaller organizations around the planet doing what they can to make live livable. In 1999 we met a small privately funded group, non-religious, in Bhutan where they were helping the country build a clean drinking water infrastructure.

None of the organizations I've named requires its beneficiaries to "believe in god" or other irrelevant nonsense in order to receive the benefits offered. The only requirement is that you need the care provided.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

I feel that this whole thread is based on hypocrisy. Organized religion has offered up more bigotry, violence, and death over the centuries than any other "institution" out there.

It's like the church is paying for it's own sins by buying a starving child a sandwich. Perhaps later that starving child will feel so grateful that it will join the church in return...only to be later molested by a priest/pastor/deacon/volunteer. Then the child grows up in the footsteps of their attacker to become one themselves--they might even join the church to "spread the good word".

Maybe Grandma and Grandpa leave the church feeling wonderful when they plunked down that twenty in the collection plate so that little Namba in Africa can get a free bible to learn about Jesus...on the drive home, they shoot out acidic comments about the n****r on the street corner asking for money.

It goes on and on...I was raised in a very religous family and only through self-education have I come to learn that religion is just a communion wafer short of a tax dodge. Don't believe me? Visit the Vatican sometime to see how "poor" they are there. Religion was created by man to serve man, but only the men they deem are worthy. Melt down some of those "relics" and you'd be able to end world hunger.

Can we move on to actual revelant subjects now?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BellBoy @ May 2 2006, 02:55 PM) [snapback]248682[/snapback]</div>

Organized religion has also been the biggest force by far in the history of civilization. It has done a lot of good and a lot of bad. Often both (probably the bad, more often) have been done in the name of the Christian church to justify an individual's personal ambitions, not because the church, and certainly not because Christianity has recommended that action. That being said, the Catholic and other denominations have stood by and let terrible injustices prevail when clearly they should have stepped in and stopped it.

So have they done more good than ill when it comes to humanitarian aid? Seems kinda like asking if you'll make money by buying a hybrid compared to a non-hybrid. That's a potential side-benefit, but it's not really the point. The point of the church is to save souls. Helping your fellow man is a calling to true Christians, but sometimes it's more of a bribe to get people close enough to be able to convert them.

But I am also surprised by the anger many posters here have expressed towards Christianity in general. I think a lot of it has to do with the religious right that backed George Bush's candidacy. Prius owners tend to be environmentally aware, open to new things (like new types of cars), and knowledgable on the oil policy, alternate energy and alternate vehicles. All of which George Bush has really failed at, so we need to lash out at somebody. Religion, being an extension of the neo-con religious right, seems to become the whipping boy.

Those are my thoughts.

nerfer