Christianity, Homosexuality and Greed

Originally posted by Conrau K
This article is very informative:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1987/12/21/70001/index.htm
[quote]The Holy See's labor costs, excluding pensions, have soared from $40 million in 1984 to a projected $56 million this year. Under a 1985 agreement, clergy now get the same pay as their lay counterparts, though some must turn it over ...[text shortened]... priest is but I would imagine in Australia it would be around a few hundred dollars a week.

Honestly thats not a lot of money.




Manny

Originally posted by galveston75
What type of salaries do the different ones make in the church?

What kinda of money does the JW church or workers make?

Originally posted by menace71
What kinda of money does the JW church or workers make?

From Wikipedia: Jehovah's Witnesses
Deacons among Jehovah's Witnesses are referred to as ministerial servants, claiming it preferable to translate the descriptive Greek term used in the Bible rather than merely transliterate it as though it were a title. Appointed ministerial servants aid elders in congregational duties. Like the elders, they are adult baptized males and serve "voluntarily."
I'll get more stats for you later....But I believe Robbie has posted this info before.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Don't know if you can wrap your mind around this, but if all an organization need do is formalize their hypocrisy to not be hypocritical, then Jesus was wrong in calling the Pharisees "hypocrites". Perhaps you don't understand what He meant.

Well, possession of wealth is not the same as greed. Greed is a habit, that is, a repeated behavio er hear of a "greedy corporation"? What would you say is the "character" of the KKK?

Don't know if you can wrap your mind around this, but if all an organization need do is formalize their hypocrisy to not be hypocritical, then Jesus was wrong in calling the Pharisees "hypocrites". Perhaps you don't understand what He meant.

Actually, I can't wrap my head around it. I have no idea what it means to 'institutionalise hypocrisy' nor do I see any parallels with Jesus' rebuke of the pharisees. It seems plainly obvious that some sins have a more serious gravity than others and that churches would naturally focus on some sins over others on this basis. Of course, if those churches were to proclaim something sinful and then act contrary to that teaching, the accusation of hypocrisy would be completely warranted. I don't deny that some Christian churches do that and may neglect an obvious pastoral need to talk about greed but I think mainstream churches are not guilty of this.

From American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
"An excessive desire to [b]acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"[/b]

I believe that this lexical entry lacks clarity. I doubt that any native English speaker would agree that greed is strictly a desire. Many people desire property yet, out of a sense of moral asceticism, refuse to indulge it. I suspect many native English speakers would recognise behaviour as greedy, irrespective of whether there was a desire for wealth.

How naive. Organizations have a "character". Ever hear of a "greedy corporation"? What would you say is the "character" of the KKK?

It may be that we can read the character of an organisation in so far as we can read the character of its members. We may be able to note that the KKK members consistently hold bigoted views. But when you describe the Church as guilty or, in fact, a corporation, I do not see these as meaningful statements. What do you mean by the Catholic Church? It reminds me of an anecdote about a former archbishop of Dublin in the 60s who received a hostile question from a woman about the 'system'. All he responded was 'There is no system, only people.'

So when you describe the Catholic Church as guilty, what actually is the referent? Do you mean the Pope and cardinals? The clergy in general, the Catholic members worldwide? In the article I listed above in another post, there is a quote by a Jesuit who says that in Rome much of the wealth and property actually belongs to the Jesuit order, not the Vatican. So by Church, do you take religious orders as representative? It seems to me that you do not have any clear referent when you speak of the 'Church'.

Originally posted by menace71
What kinda of money does the JW church or workers make?

It is also a non profit organization and all that give there full time efforts to the preaching work from the President ( which there has to be for leagal resons ) all make a very small salery for expenses as well as housing for some. For the traveling Overseer's a vehicle and insurance, upkeep and fuel are provided also.
Check out wikipedia from more info if you want. Steve.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How come so many Christians lash out at homosexuals while ignoring greed? Some of the greediest people I've met were members of the Religious Right.

There are many Christians out there who are not living as Jesus Christ taught. I don't believe in lashing out at homosexuals and I'm also not greedy. I get paid $0 for what I do in the Church I chose to be a part of. I prefer it that way. It makes no sense to me to get paid for doing God's work. I would rather pay money myself to show faith, then get paid. Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Don't know if you can wrap your mind around this, but if all an organization need do is formalize their hypocrisy to not be hypocritical, then Jesus was wrong in calling the Pharisees "hypocrites". Perhaps you don't understand what He meant.

Actually, I can't wrap my head around it. I have no idea what it means to 'institutionalise hypocrisy' nor e that you do not have any clear referent when you speak of the 'Church'.[/b]

I believe that this lexical entry lacks clarity. I doubt that any native English speaker would agree that greed is strictly a desire. Many people desire property yet, out of a sense of moral asceticism, refuse to indulge it. I suspect many native English speakers would recognise behaviour as greedy, irrespective of whether there was a desire for wealth.

You seem to have lost context of the reason for the dictionary definition:

"An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"

You had said:

Well, possession of wealth is not the same as greed. Greed is a habit, that is, a repeated behaviour of a person. Simply possessing wealth does not mean greed...

The point of showing the dictionary definition was to show you that "greed" can be about "acquiring or POSSESSING" wealth. Your comments about "desire" miss the point. What's more, you're also wrong about "greed" not being a desire. It is a desire, just like lust and gluttony. I suggest you research it yourself.

All this was in reference to this:

Aren't you the one who said, "Homosexuality, as the Church perceives it, is an intrinsic evil of mortal kind, whereas the possession of wealth is morally neutral"?

How do you reconcile this with "The Catholic Church has strongly decried greed"?

Enlarging the context, your statements above are irreconcilable. And the RCC's possession of untold wealth whilst "[decrying] greed" is hypocrisy.

It may be that we can read the character of an organisation in so far as we can read the character of its members...But when you describe the Church as guilty or, in fact, a corporation, I do not see these as meaningful statements. What do you mean by the Catholic Church?...So when you describe the Catholic Church as guilty, what actually is the referent?

The referent is the organization as a whole. Your insistence in keeping your naive stance is perplexing. Perhaps if you do a little research on "corporate culture" or "organizational culture" it'll help.

Actually, I can't wrap my head around it. I have no idea what it means to 'institutionalise hypocrisy' nor do I see any parallels with Jesus' rebuke of the pharisees...Of course, if those churches were to proclaim something sinful and then act contrary to that teaching, the accusation of hypocrisy would be completely warranted.

As I showed above, if both your statements about the RCC and "greed" are true, then they are guilty of that hypocrisy.

As to Jesus and the Pharisees, perhaps it'll help if you read up on what Jesus saw as hypocrisy.

For example:
"Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." He answered them, "And why do you transgress the Commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.' But you say, 'If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" (Matthew 15:1-9 RSV)

Clearly Jesus looked at hypocrisy not on the level of a given sin, but on the level of righteousness vs unrighteousness. Like the Pharisees, it seems the RCC have also formalized a legalistic framework of sins in order to hide behind.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I believe that this lexical entry lacks clarity. I doubt that any native English speaker would agree that greed is strictly a desire. Many people desire property yet, out of a sense of moral asceticism, refuse to indulge it. I suspect many native English speakers would recognise behaviour as greedy, irrespective of whether there was a desire for wealth.[/ ...[text shortened]... galistic framework of sins in order to hide behind.

Like the Pharisees, it seems the RCC have also formalized a legalistic framework of sins in order to hide behind.
Like the Pharisees, like the RCC, so have I.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I believe that this lexical entry lacks clarity. I doubt that any native English speaker would agree that greed is strictly a desire. Many people desire property yet, out of a sense of moral asceticism, refuse to indulge it. I suspect many native English speakers would recognise behaviour as greedy, irrespective of whether there was a desire for wealth galistic framework of sins in order to hide behind.[/b]

Enlarging the context, your statements above are irreconcilable. And the RCC's possession of untold wealth whilst "[decrying] greed" is hypocrisy.

The Vatican wealth is told. It was summarised in the article I cited. As I said, it is substantially less than the Archdiocese of New York and both of these are substantially less wealthy than major universities like Harvard.

The referent is the organization as a whole. Your insistence in keeping your naive stance is perplexing. Perhaps if you do a little research on "corporate culture" or "organizational culture" it'll help.

That hardly clarifies anything at all. Who is the RCC as a whole? The Pope, the Holy See and Vatican? The priests and religious? The Catholic laity? What does it mean to call the Catholic Church greedy?

Clearly Jesus looked at hypocrisy not on the level of a given sin, but on the level of righteousness vs unrighteousness. Like the Pharisees, it seems the RCC have also formalized a legalistic framework of sins in order to hide behind.

I don't think so. You clearly have no idea what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church, quite reasonably, recognises some sins as worse. Greed for, say, chocolate is not of the same moral gravity as, say, promiscuity. I don't see how differentiating the seriousness of particular sins could possibly violate Jesus' teachings against hypocrisy.