And individual members are taken aside if the amount they've contributed isn't up to snuff?
Conservatives refuse to be energy efficient
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
And individual members are taken aside if the amount they've contributed isn't up to snuff?
Well we could argue whether churches are good or bad for society but I dont really care about that point.
My point was simply that it is different in my opinion to count those charities because it is self serving but I think it is great if you donate to something you feel is great. I personally donate a large chunk of money to things you probably dont think are all that great, like gay rights, so I guess there is lots of sides to this.
Self serving or not, if in the end it's able to lessen someone else's suffering and make this world a happier, more peaceful place, I would consider that to be a charitable endeavor.
No, they just simply update you on whether or not we're meeting the budget.
If they don't meet budget, then I guess they'll re-assess everything. If it's determined that the pastor team isn't doing a very good job, and people are turning away, then I suspect they'll just get voted out the next term by the senior board.
Last week our senior pastor said it himself, he's not under a contract. If he's not doing a good job of ministering, he could be let go at any given time.
In the olden day though, priests are the only ones who brings messages from God and the congregation do not have access. Nowadays we believe that by accepting Christ, we can pray to God at any time.
So the role of the church has changed somewhat, from a place you go to Worship & Confess your Sins, to what it is nowadays, more of a place of gathering to celebrate and learn more about the love of God.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Yes, you are encouraged to schedule a meeting with the bishop. The meeting is not mandatory. I went for several years without paying tithing or meeting with the bishop. Not once was I asked to come into his office over it (actually two bishops during that time). Never was my membership at issue. Could I go to the temple during that period? No. But I don't see that as denying me a right because I wasn't paying tithing. Temple attendance, to Latter-Day Saints, represents a commitment to the teachings of the church and a promise to live the gospel of Jesus Christ to the best of our ability. Even as a full tithe-payer, there have been many periods in my life when I didn't feel like I was living in accord with Christ's teachings and therefore did not enter the temple. IMO, it's as much an attitude as one's actions. As to Broncster's remark, "I know lots of people who pay their tithing not because they want to or like where it goes but because they are required to to maintain their temple recommend and feel like it is helping them get into heaven," I would respond that if this is the attitude of those people, then they are missing the mark. The phrase. "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me" comes to mind, although it is not my place to really judge one's intent. Far better for them to be paying a tithe than spending their money on drugs, partying, etc.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
I think it's great you contribute to charities you feel are important, whether that be gay rights, cancer prevention, animal shelters, etc. I don't think donating to religious causes is self-serving. We donate to the causes we feel are important. Should we not "count" a cancer survivor's contributions to the Leukemia Society because he/she is hoping that money will help find a cure? Is that self-serving? I'm sure a lot of gay people contribute to organizations which promote gay rights. Would that not be self-serving? In all cases, these donations are made by people who believe their charity will make the world a better place. And I think that's the same philosophy one has when making a donation to a religious cause.
yep, and with good reason. Not a good thing to patronize stupidity if you want a quality bulb.
A brain is a sad thing to waste. Think of something worth saying, and come back, OK?
The Chinese today are the profligate conspicuous consumers of the globe.
I would suspect that an environmental label generally signals an inferior product.
Reminds me vaguely of the studies which show that liberals are more apt to purchase a product with any perceived environmental benefit, even if said product is inferior or more expensive, so long as they get visible credit for it (for example, Prius purchases as a percentage of similar hybrid purchases being much more popular in SF/Seattle because it's visibly hybrid, solar panels being installed on the shady side of the house just because it's the front (public facing) side of the house...)
Also similar to a study that Yoplait(?) did on yogurts marked as "low fat" -- same yogurt, same packaging, only the label was different. Customers preferred the non-low fat label. Not sure if the study broke the results down by BMI.
One Brow, did you buy access to that report? Curious about the exact methodology.
No, I don't have access to it.
It's interesting how adding that phrase seems to reduce the perceived quality for some posters (not just you).
I'll freely admit that I immediately assume a trade-off in quality if something is packaged to appeal to the energy-conscious. But that's where I'm curious about the methodology. Were users presented the products with different labels, or were they actually told "look, clown...these are the exact same thing". I'm happy to save the pandas if it doesn't cost me anything. I'm sure there are some who would still buy the inefficient product simply out of hate for the environment -- or more likely, environmentalISTs.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I've also heard that conservatives hate babies and don't believe in Santa.