Satisfying Our Needs, Gratifying Our Wants

E Favorite: Here's one of my responses in the Bishop Wright greed post from a while back. I notice you didn't appear in that thread but my response is the same message to your question.

GK Chesterton:
GK, GK, GK,

"The church's donation to the starving Christians of southern Sudan is due to??"

Answer: A failure of people to be image bearers of the creator God and to be good stewards of the world's resources.

I'm not sure I understand why the copy and paste exerpt from, "The Emptiness of Theology" by Richard Dawkins has found its way on this board.

Regardless, it doesn't make sense to pit science against theology as if they were opposed to one another. Does Dawkins believe the same is true if he would insert philosophy instead of theology?

As an example, it would be interesting to read about the dynamics of a beautiful sunset from a science book, but even if it can be explained from a scientific point of view, it doesn't explain why I would consider it a thing of beauty.

Is science non-greedy and theology greedy? (See present board topic.)

GK, GK, GK,

It was the Anglican Roman Catholic Church until 1534. It then became the Anglican Church of England founded by the greedy Henry VIII.

Anonymous/Concerned:

In case you don't read the full artilce on the history of the Church of England, here is another paragraph you may find helpful from the reference listed in my previous post.

"The name "Anglican" means "of England", but the Anglican church exists worldwide. It began in the sixth century in England, when Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to Britain to bring a more disciplined Apostolic succession to the Celtic Christians."

Here you go Concerned/Anonymous:

"There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before."

http://www.anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html

The Emptiness of Theology

by Richard Dawkins

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper The Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self replicating molecules. We know how the principal of self replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has conclusively been proved wrong.

Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria.
Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them; I have never heard any of them say anything of the smallest use; anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't effect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

"The Emptiness of Theology" by Richard Dawkins published in "Free Inquiry" Spring 1998.

JWS,

You had me right up until the agape business.

As you contend, Wright begs the question by invoking the "appropriatness" qualifier.

Great post, excluding the agape stuff.

GK, GK, GK,

What??? "Also, you don't know Anglican Church history very well, do you? Henry VIII may have broken away from the authority of the Pope but the Anglican Church has been around since the 6th century and some would say as early as the 3rd century. St. Augustine of Canterbury (not the more notable St. Augustine of Hippo) is the recognized "founder" of the Anglican Church. There...and I'm not even an Anglican!"

References please!!!

Some "op-eders":

from: wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_founder_of_the_Anglican_Church_and_when_was_it_started

"Who is the founder of the Anglican Church and when was it started?

Answer
Church of England was founded in 1534 when the Parliament of England declared that king Henry VIII was the head of church, not pope (Act of Supremacy). "

And The original Anglican Church pre-the greedy Henry VIII was part of the Roman Catholic conversion process of the Celts as per:

from anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html:

"The name "Anglican" means "of England", but the Anglican church exists worldwide. It began in the sixth century in England, when Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to Britain to bring a more disciplined Apostolic succession to the Celtic Christians. The Anglican Church evolved as part of the Roman church, but the Celtic influence was folded back into the Roman portion of the church in many ways, perhaps most notably by Charlemagne's tutor Aidan. The Anglican church was spread worldwide first by English colonization and then by English-speaking missionaries."

Bottom line: Anglicans were Roman Catholics until the Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy.

"So very odd that Bishop/Dr. Wright can write thousands of pages about the historic, crucified, "resurrected" Jesus yet still belong to a church whose founder executed two of his wives and also a Saint. Strange, so very strange!!!!!"

No Concerned. What would be strange is if Bishop Wright would reference Henry VIII in every single post, sermon, book, and publication which you seem to demand. It would be similar to the way you copy and paste a listing of religious leaders and their hallucinations regardless of the main topic.

Also, you don't know Anglican Church history very well, do you? Henry VIII may have broken away from the authority of the Pope but the Anglican Church has been around since the 6th century and some would say as early as the 3rd century. St. Augustine of Canterbury (not the more notable St. Augustine of Hippo) is the recognized "founder" of the Anglican Church. There...and I'm not even an Anglican!

GK, GK, GK,

Hmmm, I read said one paragraph commentary by said Episcopalian/Anglican Bishop Doctor and I see no specifics to the one of the greediest men who ever lived, Henry VIII, the founder of said church. So very odd that Bishop/Dr. Wright can write thousands of pages about the historic, crucified, "resurrected" Jesus yet still belong to a church whose founder executed two of his wives and also a Saint. Strange, so very strange!!!!!

"Hmmm, Bishop/Dr. Wright does not mention one of history's greedist of persons, i.e. Henry VIII. I wonder why that is??

(Google "Henry VIII" greed) for a quick review of this greedy man."

If you read Bishop Wright's post, you will find the answer to your own question. Good luck.

Hmmm, Bishop/Dr. Wright does not mention one of history's greedist of persons, i.e. Henry VIII. I wonder why that is??

(Google "Henry VIII" greed) for a quick review of this greedy man.

Come on GK, we all know that Dr. Wright could never write an opinion like that.

We all know that christian organizations helping folks in the Sudan are really just "fronts". Their real goal is to kill all the puppies in Africa so Jesus will come back faster.

;)

thanks to both of you for playing along, I'm enjoying the laughs today.

GB

Greedy Ghostbuster,

If you hit your head a few more times, you might qualify for a medical cost deduction on Schedule A.

GB,

If it's any consolation, think of of how Dr. Wright's forehead must feel!

It's amazing how even a post on something that is non-controversial (ie. don't be greedy) can get twisted and distorted simply because the title, "Bishop" is in front of the name.

I'm waiting for the day when Dr. Wright has a commentary on how people shouldn't kill puppies.

How dare he!

Yesterday, I smacked my head into my keyboard multiple times after reading CCNL's last response to GK.

I guess I'll have to fill out about 1,000 forms and get a lawyer before I get my entitled disability and unemployment checks from the govt. Don't worry though, I'm covered...

My church is going to supply me with meals until I can recover. My neighbor is giving me a new keyboard to replace the one I smashed with my face. A family member is typing this message for me since I can't see straight.

;)

GB

CCNL writes

"Have you complained to your US Congressional delegation about wasting our money on rebuilding New Orleans?? Said money would be better spent on other projects like converting the area to a nature preserve or saving Sudan from the ravages of Muslim fanatics. And I bet you there is a lot of oil under New Orleans!!!!!"

The literacy levels in this country are at an all-time low as this from CCNL demonstrates. "Rebuilding New ORlans" is not occurring. Try to follow. What is occurring is land-grabbing by wealthy developers who are creating a simulacrum (see dictionary) for the rich.

RE: Flood insurance, etc. Many of the displaced had this insurance. Insurance is a scam. Watching former homeowners try and collect was painful. Louisiana, in general, New ORleans, in particular, are mismanaged and corrupt. HOWEVER, again and again, warnings were given to Congress about the danger; again and again, adequate funds to repair the damn were denied, this while your tax dollars went to some of the most ludicrous projects imaginable.

Pork Barrels. Write your representatives, or have someone do it for you.

GK, GK, GK,

And you did use Schedule A, Itemized Deductions??

Anonymous/Concerned Asks:

"And your letters to your "US Congresspersons" complaining about said residents and their lack of insurance have been sent???"

No, just my monetary donation which was given through UMCOR (United Methodist Committee on Relief)to assist in the relief efforts for all people regardless if they were insured or uninsured.

Your turn, Ghostbuster...

Ghostbuster, Ghostbuster, Ghostbuster,

Har, har!!

Our support of Sudan is part of our War on Terror and Aggression (vs.the greedy Muslim fanatics in the North in this case) but you knew that humanitarian aid is also part of fighting the War. Write your Congressperson if you disagree.

"Said disaster recovery costs should not be paid by non-affected citizens."

Non-affected citizens... like TAXPAYERS who don't live in New Orleans, California, or Sudan? So maybe the US shouldn't give Sudan any assistance after all...

Just say "uncle" and we'll let you off the hook

;) GB

GK, GK, GK,

Correct only to a minor degree since not having flood and huricane insurance coverage is inferred in the statement, "laying at the feet of the residents."

And your letters to your "US Congresspersons" complaining about said residents and their lack of insurance have been sent???

Concerned/Anonymous States:

"When people live in flood plains, hurricane zones, tornado "alleys" or near/on fault lines, they should be required to purchase the added insurance to cover the statistically probable natural disaster when it occurs. Said disaster recovery costs should not be paid by non-affected citizens."

That's not what you stated in your previous post. Here's what you stated:

"And the debacle in New Orleans can basically be laid at the feet of the residents who decided to live below sea level within shouting distance of the Gulf of Mexico!!!"

Ghostbuster, Ghostbuster, Ghostbuster,

When people live in flood plains, hurricane zones, tornado "alleys" or near/on fault lines, they should be required to purchase the added insurance to cover the statistically probable natural disaster when it occurs. Said disaster recovery costs should not be paid by non-affected citizens.

GK, GK, GK,

Ooops sorry about forgetting to add my "calling card" to my last post.

Have you complained to your US Congressional delegation about wasting our money on rebuilding New Orleans?? Said money would be better spent on other projects like converting the area to a nature preserve or saving Sudan from the ravages of Muslim fanatics. And I bet you there is a lot of oil under New Orleans!!!!!

Dear Anonymous,

"Hmmm, $855 million for Sudan in only one year and that does not cut it???"

Obviously not.

"And the debacle in New Orleans can basically be laid at the feet of the residents who decided to live below sea level within shouting distance of the Gulf of Mexico!!! Putting more of anyones money into this area is not wise. New Orleans should be turned into a nature preserve/National Park."

Sorry, but when people suffer, my faith reminds me again and again that it's not a choice on whether to respond or not.

On to another thread...

Great point about the debacle in New Orleans GK.

CCNL,
So when a massive earthquake hits San Francisco or LA and the local, state and federal governments are overwhelmed and/or totally screw up the relief efforts… we’ll blame the residents themselves for choosing to live on a fault line.

Let me clue you in on something CCNL, when your family is personally slammed by a natural/manmade disaster any personal bias you have quickly fades. You don’t really care if your basic survival needs (water, food and shelter) are being met by a church, a government or a flying circus. You are just grateful for the help.

GK, GK, GK,

Hmmm, $855 million for Sudan in only one year and that does not cut it???

And the debacle in New Orleans can basically be laid at the feet of the residents who decided to live below sea level within shouting distance of the Gulf of Mexico!!! Putting more of anyones money into this area is not wise. New Orleans should be turned into a nature preserve/National Park.

"And my compliments on paying your US taxes some of which is going to support the Sudanese. (about $855 million in 2006)."

No compliments needed until the suffering and poverty ends in the Sudan.

I admire your belief that our government can solve the problems of the world without any help from faith communities. I guess the person I talked to tonight who recently went on a church mission trip to New Orleans shouldn't have gone afterall since the government did such a wonderful job with the relief efforts.

By the way, earlier this week, I read an article by a Bishop of a Protestant denomination in Alabama who is challenging the churches in his region to respond to the plea of Alabama's state government to have churches take the lead in helping former prisoners reenter society. It seems that churches are better equipped and more efficient to carry out this task.

No disrespect to you or to our government, but the secularist agenda just doesn't cut it.

GK, GK, GK,

And my compliments on paying your US taxes some of which is going to support the Sudanese. (about $855 million in 2006).

GK, GK, GK,

"The church's donation to the starving Christians of southern Sudan is due to??"

Answer: A failure of people to be image bearers of the creator God and to be good stewards of the world's resources.

P.S. One GK will do since the other two do not make your argument sound any better.

GK, GK, GK,

The church's donation to the starving Christians of southern Sudan is due to??

That's right, the greed for oil of the Sudanese Muslims in the north again adding credence to the greed found in the founders and foundations of religion, in this case Islam.

"No one is safe until the koran is deflawed !!!"

Some examples of where our taxes are going.

usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/countries/sudan/docs/update_oct06.pdf

Darfur

Humanitarian assistance:
$108.3 million
Food*:
$347.0 million
Conflict resolution:
$11.6 million
Darfur Total:
$466.9 million

Other Sudan 45%
Humanitarian assistance: $82.2 million Food*: $156.0 million Economic recovery: $16.2 million Infrastructure: $78.7 million Health: $18.0 million Education: $10.2 million Governance and peace: $27.1 million
Other Sudan Total: $388.4 million
Countrywide Total: $855.3 million

"You are correct by noting some examples of charities and charitable people. The USA taxpayer however completely overwhelms these examples of charity so do we really need these "chariteers" and charities drumming up new converts???"

I pay taxes and give to charities. So following this logic I should stop giving to charities and just pay extra taxes. Perhaps the incredibly efficient, all-wise, all-knowing, all-benevolent federal government can better distribute my money than I can.

If charities ran themselves like the US Federal Government, they would all go broke.

Concerned states:

"You are correct by noting some examples of charities and charitable people. The USA taxpayer however completely overwhelms these examples of charity so do we really need these "chariteers" and charities drumming up new converts???"

Overwhelms? Then why is the state government of Alabama calling on churches to provide programs to help prisoners reenter society after their release? Answer: The gov't can't afford it!

I also find it interesting that you assume that the Sudanese money was used to "drum up new converts." The 1 million was used to plant crops in Sudan for a starving population.

"You are correct by noting some examples of charities and charitable people.

The USA taxpayer however completely overwhelms these examples of charity so do we really need these "chariteers" and charities drumming up new converts???"

I am failing to see to the point of this part of the discussion. The behavior of a religious leader, as I've stated, has no bearing on the truth-value of his or her overall claims.

GK, GK, GK,

You are correct by noting some examples of charities and charitable people.

The USA taxpayer however completely overwhelms these examples of charity so do we really need these "chariteers" and charities drumming up new converts???

Concern States: "Hmmm, greed?? Everyone knows the definition so let us look for early examples in an interesting domain, the founders and foundations of religions...The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. "

Wow. You conveniently left out religious people like Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc.

You also left out the church up the street from me which recently gave 1 million dollars to the Sudanese relief. How did they do such a thing? The members spent as much Christmas money on the Sudanese relief as they did on their own families and loved ones. You must have missed the editorial on this in the NY Times. The point of the editorial was how amazing this was in a culture that is materialistic and greedy.

What was your point again, Concerned?

Sincerely,

GK

Concern States: "Hmmm, greed?? Everyone knows the definition so let us look for early examples in an interesting domain, the founders and foundations of religions...The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. "

Wow. You conveniently left out religious people like Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc.

You also left out the church up the street from me which recently gave 1 million dollars to the Sudanese relief. How did they do such a thing? The members spent as much Christmas money on the Sudanese relief as they did on their own families and loved ones. You must have missed the editorial on this in the NT Times. The point of the editorial was how amazing this was in a culture that is materialistic and greedy.

Concerned: You need to get out more.

Sincerely,

GK

Bishop Wright, your point seems to be that greed is not an absolute. But I still feel like I am left hanging by your saying that it is a matter of 'appropriateness'. What does that mean? It seems to me that you are portraying greed to be a completely relative term. 'Maturity and wisdom' are not quantifiable in any but a relative and culturally dependent sense.

How about this definition instead: Greed is the type of desire and resulting action that occurs in the absence of Agape love.

Sure does seem to be a lot easier and very much in line with human nature to look at the shortcomings of others rather than looking at our own shortcomings, as a matter of fact, I believe my Brother, Jesus, said the same thing but in different words, "The beam in one's eye rather than the speck in your brother's eye".

Jesus is not only my Brother but He is also humanity's Brother.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"For starters, their preaching against greed would be false."

It may be hypocritical, but that certainly doesn't entail falsity in what's being said. For instance, a murderer can go on proclaiming how murder is morally wrong and should not be done, all the while continuing to murder people himself or herself. This would not, however, entail that what he or she said about murder was incorrect, merely that he or she was not acting upon it.

But certainly murder and greed are not the only things that religious leaders, contemporary and ancient, discourse on. Again, my original point remains. Even if they were or are greedy, or murderous for that matter, it does not follow that what they have to say about God, god, the gods, or the non-existence thereof. The behavior of such persons is truth-functionally irrelevant to such propositions.

DML,

For starters, their preaching against greed would be false. Contemporary examples of this are the "propheteering/profiteering/greedy" TV evangelists.

"Everyone knows the definition so let us look for early examples in an interesting domain, the founders and foundations of religions."

Suppose for the sake of argument that the founders of the major religions were all quite greedy. What follows from that? It certainly wouldn't follow that what any of them had to say was false.

Hmmm, greed?? Everyone knows the definition so let us look for early examples in an interesting domain, the founders and foundations of religions.

In Islam, we have the greed-lust driven, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

In Christianity (including Mormonism), the "historic" founder was the simple preacher man, long-dead Jewish fellow, Jesus. Not much greed there but one can make a case for the following steps for the start of greed in the said religion:

Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed.

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Judaism - Because the foundations are so mythical, it is impossible to be historical about greed in said religion. The historical King Herod and his off-springs were with the assistance of Rome, however, were a very greedy bunch.

Hinduism and Buddhism- A Google search will take you to many instances of greed in the leadership of said religions even though like other religions greed is a major sin and disorder.