The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Pope Benedict's recent mass in Paris, oh gimme a break.

1246

Posts

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    OK, let me give you an example. I have a picture I really like, it has some extremely positive memories attached to it, so that picture is very valuable to me. I also have a computer, which is really expensive and has no real emotional attachment to, but I still also value. Can you see how I value those two things in different ways? Can you see how this applies to relics?

    If you claimed to devote your life to improving the quality of life for others, as one of your highest goals and aspirations, you should definitely sell whatever you can, immediately move to another country, and improve other people's lives.

    You don't make that claim, so far as I know, so YOU are not being inconsistent.

    The catholic church does and also desires to hoard these items.

    Plus it's not like they'd be vanishing. They'd go into museums, sometimes just down the street, where millions more would be able to enjoy them. I understand the church rents the items out to museums but it still retains ownership of them instead of selling them and getting gobs of money which it could use for charitable purposes.

    Right, but the question is whether or not the "gobs of money" (and I suspect that you probably overestimate how much they'd bring in unless they sold, like, the entire Holy See) would make any practical difference in their ability to assist others. And since the Church does not (and cannot reasonably be expected to) offer direct financial aid in the same manner as nations, I very much doubt it would. Mission work is pretty cheap.

    There is no actual reason that trumps other people's health and survival to keep those items. The apologetics in this thread are strange to me. The catholic church used to be the single most powerful force in Europe. Now that it's not it still is hoarding the money and items it obtained through conquests and purges from that time period, as well as other relics that it seized from nobility.

    It is holding on to those items through sheer inertia.

    If they sold everything they had, how long do you think the income derived from those sales would last? And how much additional work would they be able to do? "It doesn't matter" is not a valid answer.

    They would be able to do X amount of additional work, with X being the money value of the relics they sold to museums.

    MikeMan on
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Ceno wrote: »
    Sending money wouldn't help. Because the people who would get the money are the people in the government, who keep it for themselves and tell the populace to go fuck themselves. And should any Christian (be it Catholic or otherwise) try to fly into the country to hand some poor guy a tenspot (whatever the hell good that would do), he'd likely be persecuted and killed.

    It should also be noted that many of these Muslim war-torn countries are war-torn because they keep using themselves to blow each other the fuck up.

    I am Catholic and while I can and do have issues with some of the statements made by the church, I do not think for a second that holding onto some 2000 year old relic is actively causing the starvation of anyone in Afghanistan or insert-country-here.

    So all charity is pointless. Good to know.

    With the amount of skipping over points you can't counter, and generalizing the shit out of other points, I'm convinced that you're just being a dick for the sake of it.
    Sending money to a country where the corrupt government is just going to steal it DOESN'T do any good. That's not to say no charity of any kind does any good.

    Then why did Ceno bring it up as a counter? Obviously the money should be spent well. No one disputed that.

    He basically said "Sending money wouldn't help because it doesn't get to the people." Well, some money DOES get to the people and, obviously, that's where they money should be sent.

    I'm not being a dick for the sake of being a dick, and I am not skipping over posts.
    You've skipped over every point involving how, to the Church, saving souls is seen as the most important task, and the only one they're actually mandated to do.
    They hold on to those items because they're important to their faith and hold religious significance. Not to mention, the money they'd get from selling them would be a one off, and likely not nearly as much as you seem to think.

    TubularLuggage on
  • CenoCeno pizza time Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Ceno wrote: »
    Sending money wouldn't help. Because the people who would get the money are the people in the government, who keep it for themselves and tell the populace to go fuck themselves. And should any Christian (be it Catholic or otherwise) try to fly into the country to hand some poor guy a tenspot (whatever the hell good that would do), he'd likely be persecuted and killed.

    It should also be noted that many of these Muslim war-torn countries are war-torn because they keep using themselves to blow each other the fuck up.

    I am Catholic and while I can and do have issues with some of the statements made by the church, I do not think for a second that holding onto some 2000 year old relic is actively causing the starvation of anyone in Afghanistan or insert-country-here.

    So all charity is pointless. Good to know.

    With the amount of skipping over points you can't counter, and generalizing the shit out of other points, I'm convinced that you're just being a dick for the sake of it.
    Sending money to a country where the corrupt government is just going to steal it DOESN'T do any good. That's not to say no charity of any kind does any good.

    Then why did Ceno bring it up as a counter? Obviously the money should be spent well. No one disputed that.

    He basically said "Sending money wouldn't help because it doesn't get to the people." Well, some money DOES get to the people and, obviously, that's where they money should be sent.

    I'm not being a dick for the sake of being a dick, and I am not skipping over posts.

    And the point that several others have made is that the church DOES send money and some of that money DOES get to the people, it's just not money that's made hawking relics on the black market. It's money earmarked "CHARITY".

    And the blanket statement that something like the U.S. government isn't an institution set up for the betterment of mankind sort of contradicts that whole Revolutionary War thing. All institutions have relics, however big or small. You have pictures, the U.S. government has documents, the Catholic church has other things. Things that aren't going to get sold because they're part of history.

    You can have a beef with that all you want. Just don't point the Finger of Fucking Doom at the Catholic Church.

    Ceno on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
    Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.
    You don't see the hypocrisy?

    Couscous on
  • CenoCeno pizza time Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I'm not saying the Catholic Church couldn't function with less, I'm saying everyone whips out Bible verses having to do with charity and giving up possessions when they want to criticize the Church, but they don't whip those verses out when the stock market isn't in a state of catastrophe.

    It's all about who you feel the most righteous in blaming. And that's different for everyone.

    Ceno on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
    Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.
    You don't see the hypocrisy?

    Mat 19:21 wasn't really an abjuration to live in absolute poverty and help others, it was Jesus slapping down a rich dude who did nothing for others and thought he was awesome because he followed the law. He was calling the rich man's bluff.

    Salvation122 on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    PARIS - 13 September 2008. Pope Benedict XVI condemned unbridled "pagan" passion for power, possessions and money as a modern-day plague Saturday as he led more than a quarter of a million Catholics in an outdoor Mass in Paris.

    He says as he roams around in his expensive customized car, his bling, and then returns to his giant god damn city state castle back in Italy.

    Love how the highest ranking Catholic in the world, who presides over a facet of Christianity that forced people to bribe them to rid themselves of guilt, can even remotely assume that "greed" is a pagan institution.

    The car is required, the bling is traditional, and Vatican City is not really all that big.:P

    St. Peters is pretty fucking huge duder

    Like, if you haven't been in it, you really have absolutely no sense of scale
    Oh, I know. I missed the word "castle", I thought he was just talking about how big Vatican City was. Yeah, St. Peter's is massive.

    It's honestly the most amazing building in the world. Never seen anything like it, and probably never will...

    DarkCrawler on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I want poor countries like Mexico and oh, America, to have more access to abortions and condoms. I'd rather be aborted than born into despair. I'm Catholic but I don't attend church, because I'm sick of their bullshit.

    I have a secular mom, who although is a hardass, is conservative in the literal sense, which is not all that bad. By that I mean "no drinking, partying, fucking around, and no hatin'.

    But I think Catholic churches vary between region and priest. The priest here in central florida is all "punish all the gay people punish all the gay people" using the word abomination a LOT. And I once took a trip to New York and the priest was very upbeat and pleasant.

    Oh, and the universe is 14 billion years old.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Seriously though, do you realize how much of a backlash there would be if a senior Vatrican or Catholic official even suggested that selling the (for example) Pieta was even remotely a good idea? Not only would he be strung up by the other Cardinals, Rome (and Italy at large) would kill him.

    Fencingsax on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    The Catholic church also has no vested interest in 'the betterment of mankind' as you propose it. All that they care about is saving souls. Past a certain point, air-bombing a nation with missionaries and Bibles ceases to be additionally effective. The Catholic church doesn't give a shit if people starve. They would be perfectly happy if people lived in mesmerizing agony, but they were able to save the soul regardless. They have no interest in ending that agony.

    Oboro on
    words
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
    Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.
    You don't see the hypocrisy?

    Mat 19:21 wasn't really an abjuration to live in absolute poverty and help others, it was Jesus slapping down a rich dude who did nothing for others and thought he was awesome because he followed the law. He was calling the rich man's bluff.

    God forbid you expect people to include context with their Bible quotes.

    Especially when they're using them for lol[strike]fundies[/strike]catholics.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    The Catholic church also has no vested interest in 'the betterment of mankind' as you propose it. All that they care about is saving souls. Past a certain point, air-bombing a nation with missionaries and Bibles ceases to be additionally effective. The Catholic church doesn't give a shit if people starve. They would be perfectly happy if people lived in mesmerizing agony, but they were able to save the soul regardless. They have no interest in ending that agony.
    While I understand your perspective and you deserve to be angry because the Church does treat a lot of people like shit, some of them do try to help.

    Fencingsax on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    The Catholic church also has no vested interest in 'the betterment of mankind' as you propose it. All that they care about is saving souls. Past a certain point, air-bombing a nation with missionaries and Bibles ceases to be additionally effective. The Catholic church doesn't give a shit if people starve. They would be perfectly happy if people lived in mesmerizing agony, but they were able to save the soul regardless. They have no interest in ending that agony.

    There are certainly elements of the Church that believe in that, but most are okay with relieving suffering. "I was hungry, and you fed me; naked and you clothed me," etc.

    Salvation122 on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    The Catholic church also has no vested interest in 'the betterment of mankind' as you propose it. All that they care about is saving souls. Past a certain point, air-bombing a nation with missionaries and Bibles ceases to be additionally effective. The Catholic church doesn't give a shit if people starve. They would be perfectly happy if people lived in mesmerizing agony, but they were able to save the soul regardless. They have no interest in ending that agony.
    While I understand your perspective and you deserve to be angry because the Church does treat a lot of people like shit, some of them do try to help.
    So?

    My point was that they have no prerogative, and thus MikeMan's logical argument fails.

    EDIT: I am getting the impression that anything I say can be rebutted by a Bible quote. This is a losing position. <.<

    Oboro on
    words
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    The Catholic church also has no vested interest in 'the betterment of mankind' as you propose it. All that they care about is saving souls. Past a certain point, air-bombing a nation with missionaries and Bibles ceases to be additionally effective. The Catholic church doesn't give a shit if people starve. They would be perfectly happy if people lived in mesmerizing agony, but they were able to save the soul regardless. They have no interest in ending that agony.
    While I understand your perspective and you deserve to be angry because the Church does treat a lot of people like shit, some of them do try to help.
    So?

    My point was that they have no prerogative, and thus MikeMan's logical argument fails.

    EDIT: I am getting the impression that anything I say can be rebutted by a Bible quote. This is a losing position. <.<
    The problem is that many Catholics do want to relieve suffering. Some may just want to save souls. So it's hard to make an argument in that direction. Whereas saying "Jesus Christ, the guy who sold the pieta would get at the very least a horse's head in his bed"

    Fencingsax on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    I don't care if some Catholics want to relieve suffering, all I care is if it's an explicit prerogative of the church. It's an implicit premise of MikeMan's argument. If someone can give me an explicit argument that the church, as an entity, -- and not just 'some' or 'many' adherents, thereby -- wants to relieve mortal suffering, then I cede the point.

    Oboro on
    words
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    So it's an explicit prerogative of the church to let poor people suffer? I must have missed THAT lesson....

    shryke on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Is that a false dichotomy? I'm not sure, but uh ... it might be an implicit prerogative of the church to not care about the suffering of the poor on the mortal Earth, yes. I'm driving at the fact I believe they're apathetic. Or at least, somewhere in the grey area.

    Oboro on
    words
  • captainzmancaptainzman Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    I don't care if some Catholics want to relieve suffering, all I care is if it's an explicit prerogative of the church. It's an implicit premise of MikeMan's argument. If someone can give me an explicit argument that the church, as an entity, -- and not just 'some' or 'many' adherents, thereby -- wants to relieve mortal suffering, then I cede the point.


    the ministry of charity is one of the thee main parts of the Church's mission, according to Pope Benedict XVI. The other two are to proclaim the word of God and celebrate the sacraments

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

    captainzman on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    I don't care if some Catholics want to relieve suffering, all I care is if it's an explicit prerogative of the church. It's an implicit premise of MikeMan's argument. If someone can give me an explicit argument that the church, as an entity, -- and not just 'some' or 'many' adherents, thereby -- wants to relieve mortal suffering, then I cede the point.


    the ministry of charity is one of the thee main parts of the Church's mission, according to Pope Benedict XVI. The other two are to proclaim the word of God and celebrate the sacraments

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
    Good enough for me!

    Then, my next question is, does possession of the artifacts by the Church contribute more to either of those missions than it would/could to the ministry of charity? :)

    Oboro on
    words
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    I don't care if some Catholics want to relieve suffering, all I care is if it's an explicit prerogative of the church. It's an implicit premise of MikeMan's argument. If someone can give me an explicit argument that the church, as an entity, -- and not just 'some' or 'many' adherents, thereby -- wants to relieve mortal suffering, then I cede the point.


    the ministry of charity is one of the thee main parts of the Church's mission, according to Pope Benedict XVI. The other two are to proclaim the word of God and celebrate the sacraments

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
    Good enough for me!

    Then, my next question is, does possession of the artifacts by the Church contribute more to either of those missions than it would/could to the ministry of charity? :)

    Wait, are we balancing this like a fucking checkbook now?

    As someone said, why doesn't the US sell The Constitution then? It could sure use the money..

    shryke on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    I don't care if some Catholics want to relieve suffering, all I care is if it's an explicit prerogative of the church. It's an implicit premise of MikeMan's argument. If someone can give me an explicit argument that the church, as an entity, -- and not just 'some' or 'many' adherents, thereby -- wants to relieve mortal suffering, then I cede the point.


    the ministry of charity is one of the thee main parts of the Church's mission, according to Pope Benedict XVI. The other two are to proclaim the word of God and celebrate the sacraments

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
    Good enough for me!

    Then, my next question is, does possession of the artifacts by the Church contribute more to either of those missions than it would/could to the ministry of charity? :)

    And I contend that it doesn't. And I have yet to be convinced otherwise, though I'm open to the possibility.

    MikeMan on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    I don't care if some Catholics want to relieve suffering, all I care is if it's an explicit prerogative of the church. It's an implicit premise of MikeMan's argument. If someone can give me an explicit argument that the church, as an entity, -- and not just 'some' or 'many' adherents, thereby -- wants to relieve mortal suffering, then I cede the point.


    the ministry of charity is one of the thee main parts of the Church's mission, according to Pope Benedict XVI. The other two are to proclaim the word of God and celebrate the sacraments

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
    Good enough for me!

    Then, my next question is, does possession of the artifacts by the Church contribute more to either of those missions than it would/could to the ministry of charity? :)

    Wait, are we balancing this like a fucking checkbook now?

    As someone said, why doesn't the U sell The Constitution then? It could sure use the money..
    I'm just discussing MikeMan's utilitarian argument on the basis of its utilitarian value. Discussing it requires adopting that mindset, doesn't it?

    It's the most interesting bit of conversation in this thread. <.<

    Oboro on
    words
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    I don't care if some Catholics want to relieve suffering, all I care is if it's an explicit prerogative of the church. It's an implicit premise of MikeMan's argument. If someone can give me an explicit argument that the church, as an entity, -- and not just 'some' or 'many' adherents, thereby -- wants to relieve mortal suffering, then I cede the point.


    the ministry of charity is one of the thee main parts of the Church's mission, according to Pope Benedict XVI. The other two are to proclaim the word of God and celebrate the sacraments

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
    Good enough for me!

    Then, my next question is, does possession of the artifacts by the Church contribute more to either of those missions than it would/could to the ministry of charity? :)

    Wait, are we balancing this like a fucking checkbook now?

    As someone said, why doesn't the US sell The Constitution then? It could sure use the money..

    Holy shit, you can't be this stupid.

    MikeMan on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    I don't care if some Catholics want to relieve suffering, all I care is if it's an explicit prerogative of the church. It's an implicit premise of MikeMan's argument. If someone can give me an explicit argument that the church, as an entity, -- and not just 'some' or 'many' adherents, thereby -- wants to relieve mortal suffering, then I cede the point.


    the ministry of charity is one of the thee main parts of the Church's mission, according to Pope Benedict XVI. The other two are to proclaim the word of God and celebrate the sacraments

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
    Good enough for me!

    Then, my next question is, does possession of the artifacts by the Church contribute more to either of those missions than it would/could to the ministry of charity? :)

    Wait, are we balancing this like a fucking checkbook now?

    As someone said, why doesn't the US sell The Constitution then? It could sure use the money..

    Holy shit, you can't be this stupid.

    You can apparently. Objects have value beyond their monetary worth.

    shryke on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    My argument has two main prongs. People are disputing both of those prongs but in a muddled and confused way.

    Prong 1: The catholic church has as one of its main goals charity; that is, uplifting people from suffering and poverty.

    Prong 2: The hoarding and/or possession of the relics and artifacts of the catholic church is an impediment to the furthering of Prong 1, as is any expenditure unnecessary to the enacting of the other prongs.

    Prong 3: The benefits obtained by the possession of the relics and artifacts by the church as opposed to by community-owned museums does not outweigh the suffering of those in poverty who might otherwise be helped, even a relatively little amount, by said money.
    The Pope wrote:
    20. Love of neighbour, grounded in the love of God, is first and foremost a responsibility for each individual member of the faithful, but it is also a responsibility for the entire ecclesial community at every level: from the local community to the particular Church and to the Church universal in its entirety. As a community, the Church must practise love. Love thus needs to be organized if it is to be an ordered service to the community. The awareness of this responsibility has had a constitutive relevance in the Church from the beginning: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44-5). In these words, Saint Luke provides a kind of definition of the Church, whose constitutive elements include fidelity to the “teaching of the Apostles”, “communion” (koinonia), “the breaking of the bread” and “prayer” (cf. Acts 2:42). The element of “communion” (koinonia) is not initially defined, but appears concretely in the verses quoted above: it consists in the fact that believers hold all things in common and that among them, there is no longer any distinction between rich and poor (cf. also Acts 4:32-37). As the Church grew, this radical form of material communion could not in fact be preserved. But its essential core remained: within the community of believers there can never be room for a poverty that denies anyone what is needed for a dignified life.

    I dispute the Church's claim that its material possessions are a necessary part of its faith. I think the telling part of the Pope's message is that an essential core of the church is charity. Neither Charity, nor Sacrament, nor Love is less important than the others. All are main components of the church.

    MikeMan on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    You can apparently. Objects have value beyond their monetary worth.

    If every soul is a sacred creation by God, in a way that the works of art the church seized centuries ago are not, it stands to reason saving a life is more important than the 'heritage' provided by said item. It is pure greed, nothing less.

    MikeMan on
  • DagrabbitDagrabbit Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Many Catholic charitable causes (non-missionary anyway) provide assistance regardless of religious faith and you don't have to jump through hoops to get them. For example: http://www.svdpusa.org/ It's basically a Catholic thrift store that anyone can come to and get cheap clothing etc.

    It's more fun to treat the Catholic Church as a big bogeyman, and they certainly have flaws (such as the Africa business), but their charity work is pretty great.

    Dagrabbit on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Mike, you're aware that the Church makes money off of tickets to the Vatican Museum and such, right?

    Fencingsax on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Prong 2: The hoarding and/or possession of the relics and artifacts of the catholic church is an impediment to the furthering of Prong 1, as is any expenditure unnecessary to the enacting of the other prongs.

    How so? You have to actually prove your arguments you know.

    shryke on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Prong 2: The hoarding and/or possession of the relics and artifacts of the catholic church is an impediment to the furthering of Prong 1, as is any expenditure unnecessary to the enacting of the other prongs.
    How so? You have to actually prove your arguments you know.
    especially since they charge admission.

    Fencingsax on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Mike, you're aware that the Church makes money off of tickets to the Vatican Museum and such, right?

    I don't see how the money they make comes close to what museums would pay for those things, but as for that I must confess ignorance.

    MikeMan on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Mike, you're aware that the Church makes money off of tickets to the Vatican Museum and such, right?

    I don't see how the money they make comes close to what museums would pay for those things, but as for that I must confess ignorance.
    But they will be making money until the end of time, whereas selling them would just be a one time thing with enormous negative backlash. Also, I imagine thousands of people pay a week, if not a day.

    Fencingsax on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Prong 2: The hoarding and/or possession of the relics and artifacts of the catholic church is an impediment to the furthering of Prong 1, as is any expenditure unnecessary to the enacting of the other prongs.
    How so? You have to actually prove your arguments you know.

    Have you read the thread? I'm not going to hold your hand.

    MikeMan on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Mike, you're aware that the Church makes money off of tickets to the Vatican Museum and such, right?

    I don't see how the money they make comes close to what museums would pay for those things, but as for that I must confess ignorance.
    But they will be making money until the end of time, whereas selling them would just be a one time thing with enormous negative backlash. Also, I imagine thousands of people pay a week, if not a day.

    MikeMan would apparently kill the Goose to get all the Golden Eggs at once.

    shryke on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Mike, you're aware that the Church makes money off of tickets to the Vatican Museum and such, right?

    I don't see how the money they make comes close to what museums would pay for those things, but as for that I must confess ignorance.
    But they will be making money until the end of time, whereas selling them would just be a one time thing with enormous negative backlash. Also, I imagine thousands of people pay a week, if not a day.

    See, this is actually the first argument in this thread that has actually raised a valid counterpoint. Thank you, sir.

    MikeMan on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Mike, you're aware that the Church makes money off of tickets to the Vatican Museum and such, right?

    I don't see how the money they make comes close to what museums would pay for those things, but as for that I must confess ignorance.
    But they will be making money until the end of time, whereas selling them would just be a one time thing with enormous negative backlash. Also, I imagine thousands of people pay a week, if not a day.

    MikeMan would apparently kill the Goose to get all the Golden Eggs at once.

    I would, huh? That's weird... Coulda sworn I never said that...

    MikeMan on
  • DagrabbitDagrabbit Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The existence of and ability to see (they go on tour to various Catholic churches) relics help Catholics feel connected to God and the saints. It gives them strength to feel connected to the Churches past, and the old relics and buildings help them achieve this. They are important to Catholics and help them fullfill the spirtual aspect of the Church's mission.

    They also have a huge charitable organization, which helps them fullfill that part of their mission.

    Disagreeing with the relative priorities of these two missions does not make the church hypocritical. They responsibilities to both the needy and their followers. They are not just a charitble organization. Their behavior is consistent with their goals. It's only inconsistent when you misconstrue the Church's purpose.

    Dagrabbit on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Mike, you're aware that the Church makes money off of tickets to the Vatican Museum and such, right?

    I don't see how the money they make comes close to what museums would pay for those things, but as for that I must confess ignorance.
    But they will be making money until the end of time, whereas selling them would just be a one time thing with enormous negative backlash. Also, I imagine thousands of people pay a week, if not a day.

    See, this is actually the first argument in this thread that has actually raised a valid counterpoint. Thank you, sir.

    Yu want to sell off relics that, as both FencingSax and at least one other person like 2 pages ago already pointed out, make money being rented to museums and on ticket sales and such.

    Beyond that, these relics have value beyond their monetary worth, as I've already mentioned.

    These aren't complex arguments. But I guess you need your hand held.

    shryke on
  • hesthefastesthesthefastest Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    So basically, you've basically been paying no attention to the Catholic Church since... ever? Also, what the fuck does his statement have to do abut government?

    Really.
    vaticancity21hm1.jpg
    The hypocrisy isn't exactly new.

    To be fair, most of the money for stuff like that sprung alot of souls out of purgatory.

    hesthefastest on
Sign In or Register to comment.