[phoenix]

I post on that board from time to time.

I thought about posting there, but I figure I'd be kicked off pretty quick. Places like that, I tend to argue a lot.

Of course, you read some of my posts at the FFF.

[Sly Fox]

Its run by many of the folks from the old FFF. So there is some carryover. I primarily just post in a couple of the forums.

[kel varson]

I agree with you about christian rich people should give and help others out but again your initial posts clearly said that they should give and not spend.

Quote me you stinking troll.

[thesportscritic]

I agree with you about christian rich people should give and help others out but again your initial posts clearly said that they should give and not spend.

Quote me you stinking troll.

[Purple Haize]

Well that is a whole other thread. KEL your first posts seemed to be "anti rich" but you have since clarified that you have a problem with the "Prosperity Gospel" and that is a whole different ball of wax. I have no problem with a pastor driving a rolls royce. I DO have a problem with people saying that "rich" people should give away most of their wealth. Cases in point: 60 Minutes ran a GREAT story on the ineptitude of most Non Profit groups trying to help the poor. They looked at the Forbes 500 Top Givers and asked why they didn't give moer (BTW, they all gave HUGE amounts) EVERYONE of them said they have to be careful to spend the money on organizations that WORK and those are hard to find. Fortunately for evangelicals, several groups were noted as those most efficient with the use of their money.
So there is MORE to giving then just giving

[El Scorcho]

What if they're rich AND sexy? Is that a double whammy?

I'm still waiting on an answer to this.

[kel varson]

Well that is a whole other thread. KEL your first posts seemed to be "anti rich" but you have since clarified that you have a problem with the "Prosperity Gospel" and that is a whole different ball of wax. I have no problem with a pastor driving a rolls royce. I DO have a problem with people saying that "rich" people should give away most of their wealth. Cases in point: 60 Minutes ran a GREAT story on the ineptitude of most Non Profit groups trying to help the poor. They looked at the Forbes 500 Top Givers and asked why they didn't give moer (BTW, they all gave HUGE amounts) EVERYONE of them said they have to be careful to spend the money on organizations that WORK and those are hard to find. Fortunately for evangelicals, several groups were noted as those most efficient with the use of their money.
So there is MORE to giving then just giving

Yes, I know. I don't even think rich people should give away most of their money. Statistics show, and I heard this in a sermon a few months back so forgive me for not giving the source. People who make the most, give well less than 10 percent of their income to charitable causes. In fact, it was like 2 percent. Now, multi-millinionaire's and billionaire's can live of 10 percent of their income. I'm not saying they should, but they could--and live comfortably I might add. But that 's a big difference than what most are doing.

I realize many rich people don't give to organizations because they don't want the money to be squandered. However, you can find good charities. I will also add that I know a guy who is hired by a philanthropic organization to research where they should give their money. So I think that's a really poor excuse to "find organisations that work." Their are plenty of those.

[kel varson]

What if they're rich AND sexy? Is that a double whammy?

I'm still waiting on an answer to this.

Seinfeld: "Have you ever seen a handsome homeless."

The point: If you're sexy you can't help but be rich, so its okay.

[thesportscritic]

Well that is a whole other thread. KEL your first posts seemed to be "anti rich" but you have since clarified that you have a problem with the "Prosperity Gospel" and that is a whole different ball of wax. I have no problem with a pastor driving a rolls royce. I DO have a problem with people saying that "rich" people should give away most of their wealth. Cases in point: 60 Minutes ran a GREAT story on the ineptitude of most Non Profit groups trying to help the poor. They looked at the Forbes 500 Top Givers and asked why they didn't give moer (BTW, they all gave HUGE amounts) EVERYONE of them said they have to be careful to spend the money on organizations that WORK and those are hard to find. Fortunately for evangelicals, several groups were noted as those most efficient with the use of their money.
So there is MORE to giving then just giving

agreed!!!!!!!!!!!! to the 10th power

[Purple Haize]

KEL - That is an urban myth that the people with the most give the least. The fact that a friend of yours had to be hired to FIND well run philanthropic organizations is more proof of my point. If there were plenty that worked, as you posit, then you would not need someone like this. Also, you speak in broad generalities about "the rich". Who are the rich? These mythical "billionaires"? (Ted Turner, Gates, Nobel, Getty, Albright they were/are all billionaires nad have donated a great amount of their wealth to charity.
The most cogent point you made is the one you should have stuck with: It is not money, it is the heart.

[kel varson]

KEL - That is an urban myth that the people with the most give the least. The fact that a friend of yours had to be hired to FIND well run philanthropic organizations is more proof of my point. If there were plenty that worked, as you posit, then you would not need someone like this. Also, you speak in broad generalities about "the rich". Who are the rich? These mythical "billionaires"? (Ted Turner, Gates, Nobel, Getty, Albright they were/are all billionaires nad have donated a great amount of their wealth to charity.
The most cogent point you made is the one you should have stuck with: It is not money, it is the heart.

First: (With regard to the urban myth) I disagree, it's not a myth. See my citation below.

Second: The fact that my friend was hired....also proves my point that there are good organisations.

Thirdly: I'm not speaking in generalities, I'm citing statistics. Also, I know certain people give to charity, but you might take note that while they give alot of money away, it may in fact be a small percentage.

You have yet to make a cogent point.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page ... pdateID=52
One of the central teachings of many Protestant churches is that the Bible commands people to donate ten percent of the annual income to the church. The survey confirmed that the admonition is rarely followed. One out of every six born again Christians (16%) gave no money to his/her church during 1999. The proportion who tithed to their church was just 8%.

In general, the more money a person makes the less likely he/she is to tithe. While 8% of those making $20,000 or less gave at least 10% of their income to churches, that proportion dropped to 5% among those in the $20,000-$29,999 and $30,000-$39,999 categories; to 4% among those in the $40,000-$59,999 range, down to 2% for those in the $60,000-$74,999 niche; and to 1% for those making $75,000-$99,999. The level jumped a bit for those making $100,000 or more, as 5% of the most affluent group tithed in 1999.

[Ed Dantes]

KEL - That is an urban myth that the people with the most give the least. The fact that a friend of yours had to be hired to FIND well run philanthropic organizations is more proof of my point. If there were plenty that worked, as you posit, then you would not need someone like this. Also, you speak in broad generalities about "the rich". Who are the rich? These mythical "billionaires"? (Ted Turner, Gates, Nobel, Getty, Albright they were/are all billionaires nad have donated a great amount of their wealth to charity.
The most cogent point you made is the one you should have stuck with: It is not money, it is the heart.

First: (With regard to the urban myth) I disagree, it's not a myth. You have not cited this and neither have I, so I'll stick to what I said before.

Second: The fact that my friend was hired....also proves my point that there are good organisations.

Thirdly: I'm not speaking in generalities, I'm citing statistics. Also, I know certain people give to charity, but you might take note that while they give alot of money away, it may in fact be a small percentage.

You have yet to make a cogent point.

Do you want to know who the biggest donors are? It's not the rich or poor... It's the religious, or the conservatives:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

These are the people of all wealths -- from those churchgoes in Sioux City (as the article states), to the Art Williams (of the eponymous Williams Stadium at Liberty University.

As for statistics, here's one -- the wealthiest 7 percent of Americans make 50% of the country's charitable donations.


But the topic at hand is about pastors who live these lavish lifestyles, with million dollar homes and such. KEL argues that they would be more spiritual if they gave more of their money to charity. Let's take this to its logical extension -- At what point do you say "you know what, I'll keep this". Rich Mullins, the composer, for example, gave away all the money and lived off of what was calculated as the average American salary. But isn't that a little selfish? Isn't it true that the average poor person in America is better off than the average person in Europe (it is). So where do you draw the line?

[kel varson]

KEL - That is an urban myth that the people with the most give the least. The fact that a friend of yours had to be hired to FIND well run philanthropic organizations is more proof of my point. If there were plenty that worked, as you posit, then you would not need someone like this. Also, you speak in broad generalities about "the rich". Who are the rich? These mythical "billionaires"? (Ted Turner, Gates, Nobel, Getty, Albright they were/are all billionaires nad have donated a great amount of their wealth to charity.
The most cogent point you made is the one you should have stuck with: It is not money, it is the heart.

First: (With regard to the urban myth) I disagree, it's not a myth. You have not cited this and neither have I, so I'll stick to what I said before.

Second: The fact that my friend was hired....also proves my point that there are good organisations.

Thirdly: I'm not speaking in generalities, I'm citing statistics. Also, I know certain people give to charity, but you might take note that while they give alot of money away, it may in fact be a small percentage.

You have yet to make a cogent point.

Do you want to know who the biggest donors are? It's not the rich or poor... It's the religious, or the conservatives:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

These are the people of all wealths -- from those churchgoes in Sioux City (as the article states), to the Art Williams (of the eponymous Williams Stadium at Liberty University.

As for statistics, here's one -- the wealthiest 7 percent of Americans make 50% of the country's charitable donations.


But the topic at hand is about pastors who live these lavish lifestyles, with million dollar homes and such. KEL argues that they would be more spiritual if they gave more of their money to charity. Let's take this to its logical extension -- At what point do you say "you know what, I'll keep this". Rich Mullins, the composer, for example, gave away all the money and lived off of what was calculated as the average American salary. But isn't that a little selfish? Isn't it true that the average poor person in America is better off than the average person in Europe (it is). So where do you draw the line?

I just cited some of the same stats you did. Anyway, I mentioned earlier that all Americans are indeed rich. I can't draw the line, only God can. Giving is just a reflection of a persons heart. "where your treasure is..."

Above I cited the statistics. Rich people give less in terms of percentage, not total income---obviously. I think the Bible story of the widow's mite is a timeless truth. Who really gave more?

[Ed Dantes]

First: (With regard to the urban myth) I disagree, it's not a myth. You have not cited this and neither have I, so I'll stick to what I said before.

Second: The fact that my friend was hired....also proves my point that there are good organisations.

Thirdly: I'm not speaking in generalities, I'm citing statistics. Also, I know certain people give to charity, but you might take note that while they give alot of money away, it may in fact be a small percentage.

You have yet to make a cogent point.

Do you want to know who the biggest donors are? It's not the rich or poor... It's the religious, or the conservatives:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

These are the people of all wealths -- from those churchgoes in Sioux City (as the article states), to the Art Williams (of the eponymous Williams Stadium at Liberty University.

As for statistics, here's one -- the wealthiest 7 percent of Americans make 50% of the country's charitable donations.


But the topic at hand is about pastors who live these lavish lifestyles, with million dollar homes and such. KEL argues that they would be more spiritual if they gave more of their money to charity. Let's take this to its logical extension -- At what point do you say "you know what, I'll keep this". Rich Mullins, the composer, for example, gave away all the money and lived off of what was calculated as the average American salary. But isn't that a little selfish? Isn't it true that the average poor person in America is better off than the average person in Europe (it is). So where do you draw the line?

I just cited some of the same stats you did. Anyway, I mentioned earlier that all Americans are indeed rich. I can't draw the line, only God can. Giving is just a reflection of a persons heart. "where your treasure is..."

Above I cited the statistics. Rich people give less in terms of percentage, not total income---obviously. I think the Bible story of the widow's mite is a timeless truth. Who really gave more?

You say the "where your treasure is...". So, who's to say that driving around in a Rolls is a particular pastor's treasure? It sounds like your animosity towards someone with such an ostentatious vehicle is more of a reflection of what's in your heart than a pastor's. Falwell had a nice little mansion and big car, and I wouldn't say that I felt he was being greedy because he had nice things.

[Purple Haize]

JO and his wife have given their whole lives to to "The Ministry" so that seems like they have already given a lot.
As for your giving, you make a good point, but is it the RIGHT point. You already say that people don't give a lot on the whole. ALthough the USA is the most charitable country in the world and in history. (Look at individual giving not Govt giving) You do bring up that "statistically" the "rich" don't give as much. You even bring the Widow's Mite story in for good measure. But the question is not "Who gave more" necessarily. It is HOW did they give. She gave, in private and with a willing heart. Nothing gradiose. THAT is the attitude of giving that can be taken away. If you look at your church, wherever you attend, there is a REASON that there are still sermons on tithing and giving, because on the whole we don't give what we should. Soooooo, is that the fault of the rich? Or is it a "you" problem. I say it is a "you" problem. Funny note: My pastor says, and from my back ground I know it is true, the people who complain the most give the least, be it time or money. He said based on the amounts of my complaints, I must give mILLIONS!!!

[kel varson]

Do you want to know who the biggest donors are? It's not the rich or poor... It's the religious, or the conservatives:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

These are the people of all wealths -- from those churchgoes in Sioux City (as the article states), to the Art Williams (of the eponymous Williams Stadium at Liberty University.

As for statistics, here's one -- the wealthiest 7 percent of Americans make 50% of the country's charitable donations.


But the topic at hand is about pastors who live these lavish lifestyles, with million dollar homes and such. KEL argues that they would be more spiritual if they gave more of their money to charity. Let's take this to its logical extension -- At what point do you say "you know what, I'll keep this". Rich Mullins, the composer, for example, gave away all the money and lived off of what was calculated as the average American salary. But isn't that a little selfish? Isn't it true that the average poor person in America is better off than the average person in Europe (it is). So where do you draw the line?

I just cited some of the same stats you did. Anyway, I mentioned earlier that all Americans are indeed rich. I can't draw the line, only God can. Giving is just a reflection of a persons heart. "where your treasure is..."

Above I cited the statistics. Rich people give less in terms of percentage, not total income---obviously. I think the Bible story of the widow's mite is a timeless truth. Who really gave more?

You say the "where your treasure is...". So, who's to say that driving around in a Rolls is a particular pastor's treasure? It sounds like your animosity towards someone with such an ostentatious vehicle is more of a reflection of what's in your heart than a pastor's. Falwell had a nice little mansion and big car, and I wouldn't say that I felt he was being greedy because he had nice things.

I think a "pastor should live modestly." I think a Rolls and other things are symbols that send the wrong message and in my opinion will hurt the cause of Christ. I never had a problem with Falwell. First, You can't even compare a Suburban to a Rolls Royce. That's a joke. As far as his home is concerned, wasn't it a family home. And Falwell came from a wealthy family to begin with. Falwell was not flashy, "look at me" kind of person. We all know that.

[El Scorcho]

Falwell had a nice little mansion and big car...

Both of which were gifts to him. TRBC bought the home for him and his family always bought his vehicles for him. He would have kept driving his old vehicles if his family didn't upgrade his. As far as his house goes, I believe they lived in a normal ranch style home for a long time before the current home was purchased for them.

[thesportscritic]

I think a "pastor should live modestly." I think a Rolls and other things are symbols that send the wrong message and in my opinion will hurt the cause of Christ. I never had a problem with Falwell. First, You can't even compare a Suburban to a Rolls Royce. That's a joke. As far as his home is concerned, wasn't it a family home. And Falwell came from a wealthy family to begin with. Falwell was not flashy, "look at me" kind of person. We all know that.

how is a pastor having a rolls royce sending a wrong message? that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. So its ok for anybody else but the pastor to have a rolls royce but its not ok for a pastor to have one. that is just plain dumb to me.

[Fumblerooskies]

Some folks are turned off by all that. I attended a church where the pastor's house was a CASTLE (seriously)...

...personally...that was a bit too much for me.

[thesportscritic]

it looks like you are in the same boat with Kel

[thesportscritic]

its their property and stuff so why are you so concerned on what things a pastor has? that is his business as long as his heart is not on going after things. I see no problem with them having stuff and having fun with it.

[kel varson]

its their property and stuff so why are you so concerned on what things a pastor has? that is his business as long as his heart is not on going after things. I see no problem with them having stuff and having fun with it.

I don't care if its dumb. That's just how people are, not just me. People make judgements on people from appearance, like it or not. A pastor is in a different position because what he represents. Its even more important for him to guard his reputation.

I can tell you right now, I go to a middle-class church and if the pastor started driving a new Ferrari or Porsche people would be upset. I think it would just give people another excuse to not be generous with their money.

People shouldn't be trying to "keep up" with the pastor.

[Fumblerooskies]

its their property and stuff so why are you so concerned on what things a pastor has? that is his business as long as his heart is not on going after things. I see no problem with them having stuff and having fun with it.

I do see your point, Critic...it's just "me". The church itself, made me feel that the services were all about THEM...and not personal salvation. I was turned off by the whole thing. Expensive looking artifacts all over the church buildings, as well. I couldn't help by thinking how the money could have been better spent. Again...that's just my perception.

[thesportscritic]

its their property and stuff so why are you so concerned on what things a pastor has? that is his business as long as his heart is not on going after things. I see no problem with them having stuff and having fun with it.

I don't care if its dumb. That's just how people are, not just me. People make judgements on people from appearance, like it or not. A pastor is in a different position because what he represents. Its even more important for him to guard his reputation.

I can tell you right now, I go to a middle-class church and if the pastor started driving a new Ferrari or Porsche people would be upset. I think it would just give people another excuse to not be generous with their money.

People shouldn't be trying to "keep up" with the pastor.

yeah. but again its their business what they drive. and you still haven't told me why you care so much about a pastor stuff? its his business as to what he has. and pretty much it is YOU who feels that a pastor shouldn't have nice things.

[FlameDad]

I would respectfully disagree.
A pastor is a servant/leader.
In my opinion when you look at a pastor you should see a servant, a reflection of Jesus Christ first.
At best an ostentatious lifestyle would cause others to stumble....