Why does "omnipotent" beings need money from not so potent beings?

[mordant]

I think we can ask more broadly, if the church is god's representative on earth, and leaving aside for the sake of argument why god 100% relies on and therefore effectively needs humans or human organizations to act on his behalf, what would we expect to see? It isn't just an issue of money, after all.

I would expect the church to be effective in its mission of bringing supposed "good news" to "all mankind". I would expect that, particularly after 2,000 years, the vast majority of humans would have gladly received this good news. On the other hand, what we actually see is that by the broadest possible definition of "received the good news" (cultural or self-identified Christians), only about a third of the world population is Christian. Apparently god is more willing than he states, that any should perish -- and not that urgently interested that all should come to repentance, or that all shall be reconciled to himself. Even looking at it broadly, charitably and patiently, most of the world is in darkness, despite two millennia of efforts. And this is strangely untroubling to Christians.

I would expect the church to speak with one voice. Yet by some counts there are not just hundreds but thousands of denominations -- ranging from Appalachian snake-handling cults to "high church" outfits like the Episcopalians and Catholics. While some of this reflects normal human diversity and preferences, these denominations are enough at odds with each other that membership in any one is not accepted by most others, and there are deep divides about important issues such as predestination, free will, and doctrines relating to eternal destiny. And as Ireland's "troubles" point out, sometimes deeply divided enough to cause actual warfare and killings and such.

I would expect the church to have some compelling value propositions that people would literally line up around the block to "get them some of that". Yet many churches that do not resort to very secular marketing techniques (think: megachurches) are sleepy little backwaters that barely eek out an existence. What does the church actually offer? Well you have to be spiritually minded to appreciate it I guess -- as if people are demanding riches and license for debauchery from the church. If the church had actual protection, enlightenment, comfort, wisdom and healing on offer -- real answers to the human condition that do not require rationalization and equivocation -- and if it was really welcoming, inclusive and helpful, it would not lack for members, money and influence and would not need to whine about being persecuted just because someone questions their doctrines.

So it goes way further than god needing people's money to sustain his church; he doesn't even have their enthusiasm or loyalty, in any game-changing, human-condition-improving way. The church ends up being 2,000 years of "meh", if you ask me.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

but for the christian in rebellion sin is not a joke he is tormented by it 24/7. but for the true atheist or non christian religious this is not so.

This is the kind of nonsense that ticks off atheists and non-Christians.

What makes you think that everyone but Christians are all sociopaths? Do you think no one but you and your ilk have a conscience? Seriously?

You ought to be ashamed of yourself - and whoever taught you to malign everyone by essentially accusing them of sociopathy needs a good, swift kick to the head.

Get away from whoever that is.

And don't walk ... run.

You're being fed garbage.

[Hyker]

Originally Posted by Shirina

This is the kind of nonsense that ticks off atheists and non-Christians. <snip>

Hello Shirina.

I don't disagree with your assertion that is fallicious to assume that only the "god-fearing" have moral values.

That said, I wish to point out to you that the person you are responding to is unlikely to reacall his (or her) post, as it was written over five years ago. Our friend Floorist seems to have stumbled onto something of a zombie thread.

Thanks.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Hyker

Hello Shirina.

I don't disagree with your assertion that is fallicious to assume that only the "god-fearing" have moral values.

That said, I wish to point out to you that the person you are responding to is unlikely to reacall his (or her) post, as it was written over five years ago. Our friend Floorist seems to have stumbled onto something of a zombie thread.

Thanks.

Oh crap ... damn, and I usually look at post dates, too, because a lot of these zombie threads have been resurfacing lately.

Ah well, thanks for letting me know.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by mordant

I think we can ask more broadly, if the church is god's representative on earth, and leaving aside for the sake of argument why god 100% relies on and therefore effectively needs humans or human organizations to act on his behalf, what would we expect to see? It isn't just an issue of money, after all.

I would expect the church to be effective in its mission of bringing supposed "good news" to "all mankind". I would expect that, particularly after 2,000 years, the vast majority of humans would have gladly received this good news. On the other hand, what we actually see is that by the broadest possible definition of "received the good news" (cultural or self-identified Christians), only about a third of the world population is Christian. Apparently god is more willing than he states, that any should perish -- and not that urgently interested that all should come to repentance, or that all shall be reconciled to himself. Even looking at it broadly, charitably and patiently, most of the world is in darkness, despite two millennia of efforts. And this is strangely untroubling to Christians.

I would expect the church to speak with one voice. Yet by some counts there are not just hundreds but thousands of denominations -- ranging from Appalachian snake-handling cults to "high church" outfits like the Episcopalians and Catholics. While some of this reflects normal human diversity and preferences, these denominations are enough at odds with each other that membership in any one is not accepted by most others, and there are deep divides about important issues such as predestination, free will, and doctrines relating to eternal destiny. And as Ireland's "troubles" point out, sometimes deeply divided enough to cause actual warfare and killings and such.

I would expect the church to have some compelling value propositions that people would literally line up around the block to "get them some of that". Yet many churches that do not resort to very secular marketing techniques (think: megachurches) are sleepy little backwaters that barely eek out an existence. What does the church actually offer? Well you have to be spiritually minded to appreciate it I guess -- as if people are demanding riches and license for debauchery from the church. If the church had actual protection, enlightenment, comfort, wisdom and healing on offer -- real answers to the human condition that do not require rationalization and equivocation -- and if it was really welcoming, inclusive and helpful, it would not lack for members, money and influence and would not need to whine about being persecuted just because someone questions their doctrines.

So it goes way further than god needing people's money to sustain his church; he doesn't even have their enthusiasm or loyalty, in any game-changing, human-condition-improving way. The church ends up being 2,000 years of "meh", if you ask me.

Funny that you mentioned that you would think the church should speak with one voice. I was just thinking today that atheists have more unity than Christians.

I know it's an old thread, but as far as giving, just watch "Christian" TV. Giving is like the lotto or a casino, only better. If you want to be rich and blessed, you just send your money to the people on TV. You may even get a blessing cloth or some anointing oil sent back to you. Anointing oil is very good, it can attract the supernatural power of God, cause demons to flee and prevent your eggs from sticking to the pan.

[WisdomTooth 359]

Originally Posted by effie g-tad

because the former need not even speak proper english...

People make mistakes ,but they should at least begin the thread, with good spelling and English ;

'do' not 'does' .