Pro Sandy said:

---

Johnny Danger said:

---

Zobel said:

---

But you have clean water and food, you don't live in abject poverty. How much time did you spend helping others who aren't so well off with clean water and food?

How much charity should each person engage in? Is this social obligation based on a gradient? Or does it only kick in after a minimum income level, like income taxes? Who sets this?

---

10% of gross income.

---

The Widow didn't follow that teaching.

And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."

It's a good target, but we must remember we aren't under the law and that each is to give according to their heart.

I had a pastor once say that giving until it hurts isn't biblical, but Paul did say that God loves a cheerful giver. So put some money in the plate and if you are cheerful yet, give until you are.

---

Not to be deliberately contrarian, but it seems rather odd to follow up with the story of the widow and her two mites with that statement.

Pro Sandy said:

---

Johnny Danger said:

---

Zobel said:

---

But you have clean water and food, you don't live in abject poverty. How much time did you spend helping others who aren't so well off with clean water and food?

How much charity should each person engage in? Is this social obligation based on a gradient? Or does it only kick in after a minimum income level, like income taxes? Who sets this?

---

10% of gross income.

---

The Widow didn't follow that teaching.

And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."

It's a good target, but we must remember we aren't under the law and that each is to give according to their heart.

I had a pastor once say that giving until it hurts isn't biblical, but Paul did say that God loves a cheerful giver. So put some money in the plate and if you are cheerful yet, give until you are.

---

Yep. I believe tithing 10% is only found in the OT and since Israel was a theocracy, it was more like a tax to run the country than a charitable donation.

And before you yell at me for not advocating giving enough, we routinely give more. And not really planned, just moved by the Spirit and it happens.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

Johnny Danger said:

---

Zobel said:

---

But you have clean water and food, you don't live in abject poverty. How much time did you spend helping others who aren't so well off with clean water and food?

How much charity should each person engage in? Is this social obligation based on a gradient? Or does it only kick in after a minimum income level, like income taxes? Who sets this?

---

10% of gross income.

---

The Widow didn't follow that teaching.

And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."

It's a good target, but we must remember we aren't under the law and that each is to give according to their heart.

I had a pastor once say that giving until it hurts isn't biblical, but Paul did say that God loves a cheerful giver. So put some money in the plate and if you are cheerful yet, give until you are.

---

Not to be deliberately contrarian, but it seems rather odd to follow up with the story of the widow and her two mites with that statement.

---

The pastor said the comment as a joke.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

Johnny Danger said:

---

Zobel said:

---

But you have clean water and food, you don't live in abject poverty. How much time did you spend helping others who aren't so well off with clean water and food?

How much charity should each person engage in? Is this social obligation based on a gradient? Or does it only kick in after a minimum income level, like income taxes? Who sets this?

---

10% of gross income.

---

The Widow didn't follow that teaching.

And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."

It's a good target, but we must remember we aren't under the law and that each is to give according to their heart.

I had a pastor once say that giving until it hurts isn't biblical, but Paul did say that God loves a cheerful giver. So put some money in the plate and if you are cheerful yet, give until you are.

---

Not to be deliberately contrarian, but it seems rather odd to follow up with the story of the widow and her two mites with that statement.

---

I think the woman giving her last two coins is the most misunderstood passage in the Bible.

Agree. We just discussed that in our weekly Bible study group.

You need to go back to a few verses earlier in Mark 12:40 where Jesus says when talking about the teachers of the law "They devour widow's houses and for a show make lengthy prayers".

He was making a point that the widow only had the two mites to give due to this behavior.

Quote:

---

I think the woman giving her last two coins is the most misunderstood passage in the Bible.

---

Good video and I agree. Another commonly overlooked aspect of that story is that poor widows were given charity by the priesthood and the Temple to survive. It was part of the responsibility of the priesthood to take care of poor widows and orphans using Temple money. She was never in any danger of starvation, destitution, or homelessness. She was literally on Jewish welfare.

A beautiful aspect to this story is that woman donating her welfare back to the God and the Temple because she did not need it. She took the money was given, used it judiciously, and she was willing and able to give back what she didn't need. She was about to get another "welfare payment" and she didn't want these extra coins from the last "payment" on her conscience. She knew she was living off the tithes and donations of her fellow Jews and refused to keep a penny more than she needed. That's exactly the opposite of prosperity gospel ministers who wear fancy suits, drive luxury cars and buy private aircraft with the "tithes" and donations of their flock.

Hendrix said:

---

Good read.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/preachers-and-their-245000-sneakers-why-one-man-started-an-instagram-account-showing-churches-e2-80-99-wealth/ar-BB1ePOSD

Sorry on cell. Can't link it but I'm sure one of you can. This is a big point in why I think religion is a farce. They've been scamming for a couple thousand years. What's the Catholic Church going to do with all their wealth? Why don't they give it all to the poor and fight noble caused? Just doesn't make sense.

---

What do you think the Catholic Church's "wealth" consists of?

Stocks? Bonds? Gold? Cash? Precious Jewels?

I would suspect that the bulk of the Catholic Church's "wealth" consists of art, historical buildings, and real estate. What would you have them do? "Sell it and give it to the poor" (see Mark 14:5)

I would consider the Catholic Church as the caretaker for much of its "wealth" and not "owners". I would rather this "wealth" be owned by the Catholic Church so it can be enjoyed by all rather than in private hands available only to a select few.

Also, what do you consider as the "Catholic Church"? The Vatican and every Parish and Diocese throughout the world; every Catholic Hospital and University; every Catholic Social Service agency? In reality, every Diocese is independent, from a property ownership standpoint. There are countless separate, individual entities which make up the "Catholic" Church. There is no one organizational person or group who has control of all the "Catholic" wealth.

It makes for developing an emotional anti-Catholic, or class-based attack, but not very useful for actually making a positive improvement anywhere.

I've always considered the parable of the Widow's mite as just pointing out that the absolute value of what is given is less important than the sacrificial nature of it.

A strike against the arrogance of the wealthy and powerful of the time who were so smug about making sure everyone knew that they were giving large amounts to the Temple versus the unnamed poor who gave much less, but whose giving was much more difficult financially for them.

Can't speak for the other interpretations, but the welfare for widows and orphans during the Second Temple is both commanded in Scripture and a historical verifiable fact.

Deut 26:12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.

2 Maccabbees talks about the Temple fund for widows and orphans being raided by Heliodorus. So this commandment was still being followed around 100 BC.

Josephus talks about a Jewish riot that occurred after Pilate raided the Temple treasury to pay for an aqueduct, and the reaction seems to be a reflection of the situation that happened during the Maccabbean time.

I also agree with the spirit of the video though. Anytime a wealthy clergy demands money from the destitute they should be run out of town

This thread's about to go sideways. Didn't the Catholic Church have a cardinal or some such get in trouble for real estate deals in Malta or via offshore investment vehicles funneled through there?

They're just like the Mormon church, flush with wealth and investing it all over the world to increase returns. Some does make it back but I'd be surprised if your assessment of where their wealth is was actually true.

AstroAg17 said:

---

If your family was dying of starvation or preventable disease, would you still care who the caretaker is of an old building halfway across the globe? I don't think you would. The Bible has a verse to support every opinion, but what the church does is wrong. Lots of organizations (and individuals) do things that are wrong, but they aren't all held to the high standard that a church should be held to.

---

Mentioned this before on this thread I think, but the RCC is the largest charity organization in the world by dollar amount. It seems somewhat unfair to lay the suffering of the world at their doorstep when by one measure they are doing more about it than anyone else.

AstroAg17 said:

---

I don't care about absolute dollar amount, it's a bad metric when comparing organizations of different sizes. I didn't "lay the suffering of the world at their feet" either.

---

If you say so. You basically said that a random, unnamed individual somewere in the world dying of starvation or preventable disease is the fault of the RCC, and they should have sold property to prevent it.

Both by percentage and amount, Christian churches are the most giving organizations in the world. Seems a bit arrogant to come out attacking the most charitable people in the world for not being charitable enough. Christians being Christians, we'd probably agree that we could be doing more.

AstroAg17 said:

---

I don't care about absolute dollar amount, it's a bad metric when comparing organizations of different sizes. I didn't "lay the suffering of the world at their feet" either.

I agree with this:

Quote:

---

I've always considered the parable of the Widow's mite as just pointing out that the absolute value of what is given is less important than the sacrificial nature of it.

---

As an organization, the giving of the Church seems decidedly non-sacrificial. There are subsections of the church which are, of course.

---

Do you realize how many people give their entire lives -- not just cash or other donations, but their entire self, all they own and all they do.

AstroAg17 said:

---

That isn't what I said.

---

Then I apologize, because that is the way I interpreted that statement. I'm sorry for taking your post in a way that you did not mean.

I also think it takes a lot of gall to call on others to perform sacrificial giving. It's one thing for Jesus who gave his entire life to call on us to give more. Or the apostles. Or a particular devout and generous Christian. It's quite another thing to be called out by an agnostic on the internet who is statistically likely to be less charitable than the people being criticized. It sounds like you're telling people of a different religion that they aren't doing their own religion well enough.

Quote:

---

Both by percentage and amount, Christian churches are the most giving organizations in the world.

---

By amount maybe. By percentage fat chance. Many Actual charities have rates not far from 100% effective

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the woman giving her last two coins is the most misunderstood passage in the Bible.

---

Good video and I agree. Another commonly overlooked aspect of that story is that poor widows were given charity by the priesthood and the Temple to survive. It was part of the responsibility of the priesthood to take care of poor widows and orphans using Temple money. She was never in any danger of starvation, destitution, or homelessness. She was literally on Jewish welfare.

A beautiful aspect to this story is that woman donating her welfare back to the God and the Temple because she did not need it. She took the money was given, used it judiciously, and she was willing and able to give back what she didn't need. She was about to get another "welfare payment" and she didn't want these extra coins from the last "payment" on her conscience. She knew she was living off the tithes and donations of her fellow Jews and refused to keep a penny more than she needed. That's exactly the opposite of prosperity gospel ministers who wear fancy suits, drive luxury cars and buy private aircraft with the "tithes" and donations of their flock.

---

That strikes me as a misinterpretation.

She is singularly recognized by Jesus as giving everything she had out of her poverty.

Now you're claiming she is in fact not giving out of poverty but is rather giving out of abundance because her needs are met, which is incongruous with the condition of poverty.

That does not make sense at all, even with the added historical context.

Quote:

---

By amount maybe. By percentage fat chance. Many Actual charities have rates not far from 100% effective

---

I don't consider charities as giving organizations. They are distributors. They distribute the resources given to them.

Actually I don't see anything wrong with this. Poor giving by churches is simply grift if you ask me. You don't have to go full televangelist for it to be wrong.

Jeff bezos provides a transactional service. I want stuff, I pay, he brings it to my door. End of transaction.

Churches request money under the pretext that it will be used for good works. There is an obligation in that transaction.

I guess if you consider taking ancient welfare as having abundance, then it would cause problems for you. Just saying, this is not a starving woman wondering where her next meal and shelter are coming from.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

By amount maybe. By percentage fat chance. Many Actual charities have rates not far from 100% effective

---

I don't consider charities as giving organizations. They are distributors. They distribute the resources given to them.

---

Which is far more similar to a churches role in charity than that of a traditional business offering a service making a donation out of their profits.

And that's perfectly fair. It's a secondary mission and they are up front about that. Just how "secondary" is acceptable is a matter of interpretation sure, but let's not pretend it's hard to find examples that fall so short we virtually all agree it's grift

Aggrad08 said:

---

And that's perfectly fair. It's a secondary mission and they are up front about that. Just how "secondary" is acceptable is a matter of interpretation sure, but let's not pretend it's hard to find examples that fall so short we virtually all agree it's grift

---

Agreed

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I guess if you consider taking ancient welfare as having abundance, then it would cause problems for you. Just saying, this is not a starving woman wondering where her next meal and shelter are coming from.

---

If her needs are met, then I'm not sure how you can argue she is giving out of her poverty. If her needs are met then she is giving out of a surplus.

It's quite simple: She's either giving all she has out of poverty, or she isn't.

I don't agree. If I get $500 per month in welfare, share a house with one person, and buy only basic staples, then I am poor. If I then went and got another roommate, changed to eating only beans and rice, and give $100 dollars of that back, then I'm still poor and I'm giving out of my poverty. Now if she had her dream house, plenty of food, a good car and a retirement plan and gave to the church out of her leftover money, then she would be giving out of her wealth.

Interpreting this story as a poor women giving to the church and being willing to starve to death doesn't make any sense from a historical, Jewish or even early Christian perspective. We know the Temple supported poor Jewish widows, and we know Christians did the same. Paul talks about it in 1 Timothy. Judaism since the Talmud caps charity at 20 or 25%, because giving more than that means you will probably need welfare yourself. No Christian church prior to the 20th century ever called on its people to give their last penny and then go live a life of destitution.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I guess if you consider taking ancient welfare as having abundance, then it would cause problems for you. Just saying, this is not a starving woman wondering where her next meal and shelter are coming from.

---

If her needs are met, then I'm not sure how you can argue she is giving out of her poverty. If her needs are met then she is giving out of a surplus.

It's quite simple: She's either giving all she has out of poverty, or she isn't.

---

If she has to skip a meal, or put off buying what she needs to make a repair on her home or clothes, etc...

"Needs met" is a very subjective measure. That is the same type of attitude that Socialism thrives on "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". The thing is, who determines "need"?

Some people may feel their "needs" aren't met because their iPhone is a year out-of-date. Others may feel their needs are met as long as they have at least one meal a day and a place to sleep comfortably.

That's the thing, "needs" are subjective.

edit to add: No one ever said she was giving "all she has"

?

"she, out of her poverty, did cast in all the livelihood that she had."