Posted on a Baptist Church sign:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

"Financial Security Seminar Thursday".

This struck me as odd (as does the sign, which is red neon and changes, telling time and temperature as well as times of 'classic' and 'casual' services)-do those of you who are Christians (or believers of other faiths) feel that a church is a place for this?

My thoughts were that Jesus said that one should give their wealth to the poor. And he said not to worry about what to eat or sleep or wear.

[Elidor]

1. Jesus didn't have a mortgage, now did he?

I'd like to see church signs with clocks counting down the time remaining until He returns.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. actually, usery was frowned upon by the early church

Don't know if it was based on scripture or not, but at one time, a Christian wouldn't be involved in lending money.

[Az]

3. Thats part of how Jews maintained a toe hold in society

They had no rules against usery and were able to lend people money. Its also the source of many of the myths of Jewish control of society.

[Ando]

9. a technical point

They could lend money, but usury (lending with interest) was strictly prohibited. They also canceled all outstanding debts after 7 years.

If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.

Exodus 22:25

If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.

Leviticus 25:35-37

Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest.

Deuteronomy 23:19

who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.

Psalm 15:5

[trotsky]

10. Some more details.

The Exodus & Leviticus passages only refer to collecting interest from the poor ("needy"). Deuteronomy prohibits taking interest from "your brother," but allows it from a stranger or foreigner.

Again we just see examples of the vagueness and multiple interpretations possible from the bible.

As far as the history of usury in Christianity goes, here's a good brief overview (http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/1998_usury.htm):

...the Roman Catholic Church had by the fourth century AD prohibited the taking of interest by the clergy; a rule which they extended in the fifth century to the laity. In the eighth century under Charlemagne, they pressed further and declared usury to be a general criminal offence. This anti-usury movement continued to gain momentum during the early Middle Ages and perhaps reached its zenith in 1311 when Pope Clement V made the ban on usury absolute and declared all secular legislation in its favour, null and void...

...The rise of Protestantism and its pro-capitalism influence is also associated with this change (McGrath, 1990), but it should be noted that both Luther and Calvin expressed some reservations about the practice of usury despite their belief that it could not be universally condemned. Calvin, for instance, enumerated seven crucial instances in which interest remained “sinful”, but these have been generally ignored and his stance taken as a wholesale sanctioning of interest (Birnie, 1952). As a result of all these influences, sometime around 1620, according to theologian Ruston, “usury passed from being an offence against public morality which a Christian government was expected to suppress to being a matter of private conscience (and) a new generation of Christian moralists redefined usury as excessive interest” (1993: 173-4).

[Ando]

11. what is vague?

By definition doesn't borrowing money make you "needy"? If you don't have the money to buy X and need to borrow in order to get it, you are needy. I don't agree with the concept of charging interest on a debt, there are some very successful Jewish lenders who thrive without engaging in the practice. Their default rates are much lower than traditional lenders. I don't think the Bible is vague on this issue, but you're more than welcome to disagree with me (I'm used to it :)).

[trotsky]

12. No, borrowing money does not make one "needy."

Someone who has enough money to finance a debt, but not make a large purchase, is not "needy." For instance, most of us who have mortgages could never pay cash for a house, yet we are able to borrow money to buy one and make the payments easily. (In fact, banks do their darndest to make sure we WILL make those payments before they hand over the money. In their own selfish way, they want to avoid making loans to the "needy.")

The bible is clearly vague, otherwise there would have not been disagreement between Judaism & Christianity early on, and within Christianity itself later. Hello?

[Ando]

13. The end of the line

I think we've reached the end of the line yet again. I just said that I don't think it's vague, you're allowed to think whatever you want. I'll even admit that my position is not a majority one in Christianity today. It seems pretty clear to me, usury is a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that we're supposed to cancel all debts after seven years.

[trotsky]

14. Well, OK.

I guess I just don't see how there could be such debate over it throughout Christian history without the bible being vague.

[Ando]

15. something to ponder

Is the Bible vague, or do people not like what they're reading?

[trotsky]

16. To start with, answer one question:

Which bible?

[Ando]

17. it doesn't really matter

It's kind of like an OS, the kernel is always there, but each release has its share of bugs. There are lots of points of departure between various translations, but the themes are always the same and they're always present. All of the other stuff is a way to avoid talking about the core beliefs of Christianity. If you can focus on arguing about Cain's curse, Jesus' brothers, or the two deaths of Judas, you can safely avoid talking about any substantive issues.

[trotsky]

18. It matters crucially.

Protestants and Catholics killed each other in this country in the late 19th century over WHOSE version of the Ten Commandments would be posted in schools.

As you probably know, the Catholic bible has books that the Protestant does not. What additional information is conveyed in those books? Are you saying all of those books are irrelevant, or at least have nothing to do with "substantive" issues?

Here's a stumper for ya that was one of the key factors of the Reformation: Is man saved by faith or through works?

[Ando]

19. don't believe the hype!

It doesn't matter crucially, all of the conflicts you cite were a result of men trying to shoehorn their own theology into the Biblical text. Is man saved by faith or works? That's a loaded question, the Biblical answer is that he's saved by both, you can't have one without the other and have a genuine Christianity. Each side throws around the verses that support their position. Why didn't they come to the conclusion that seems clear to me, that both are correct? I have a lot of problems with religion, but most of those problems have nothing to do with Christianity, they have everything to do with man's theology.

[trotsky]

20. Why it matters:

You are very close to realizing perhaps the primary problem at the root of all religion: the dependence on religious relevation as *the* fundamental source of information. If a god bestows perfect knowledge of something to a flawed human being, how can that person effectively and clearly communicate the god's message using only limited means of human communication?

Spoken word gets corrupted. The "telephone game" is often brought up as an example. Written word is problematic. Typos. Language changing over the years. Languages dying out. Texts go missing or get destroyed. Texts altered or forged - and in that case, many times it was because early Christians felt doing so was JUSTIFIED in order to spread their religion. Why? Because of religious revelation, I have no doubt!

I don't know whether to be impressed or alarmed that you feel "all" conflicts between Christians have always been the result of humans misinterpreting text, and that YOUR interpretation is the only true one. Rather than acknowledge the real flaws in your holy book, you choose to gloss over them, or just ignore them. I don't think that's healthy for you, your faith, or any of the other followers of the Christian religion. In fact, your attitude is exactly why churches split from each other and form new sects. Each was NO DOUBT convinced that the other guys were the ones reading "their own theology" into the issue. Sad that you don't even see it.

[Ando]

22. no, I do see it

I think you chose to be alarmed rather than impressed. :) You are correct in pointing out the flaws involved with human inspiration. You are also correct in pointing out textual errors as a possible problem, yet I remind you that as a source document, all of the extant original manuscripts we have of the N.T. have great credentials as historic documents. The accuracy of the book is not really in question.

I will not gloss over anything in the Bible, I don't believe it to be a "flawed" book. You could probably point out some inaccuracies or inconsistencies, but I doubt those would have much of an effect on sound doctrine. give me some examples.

As for it being sad that I don't "see it", I believe I do see it and I trust that my faith is accurate and correct. Damn you blind faith!! And I'm not alone in that assertion, to get into all of the reasons why I think my faith is accurate would take way too long and I am supposed to be working today! :)

[trotsky]

23. Problems with NT texts

First off, none of the gospels were actually written by the men whose names they bear. We only have reasonable confidence that Paul's works are his own - and he never even met Jesus!

So as to their credentials as "historic documents" - well, they ARE a part of history. That much is given. But as to whether they are historical - i.e., contain true history - that's open to debate.

The proof of flaws in the bible that lead to doctrinal differences is literally ALL around you. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons, etc. ad nauseum. YOU have essentially declared that all denominations and sects have disagreed simply because they were reading their own (incorrect) theology into the bible.

But what you have completely failed to grasp is that even IF you are correct, it is STILL a flaw with the bible in that it ALLOWS for multiple interpretations. And this is because much of the bible is allegorical. A lot of what Jesus supposedly taught came in the form of parables. By their very nature, these literary tools require interpretation on the part of the reader/listener. In other words, the bible REQUIRES flawed human interpretation to be read.

I submit that this is a flaw in and of itself - regardless of your nitpicking over the actual contents.

[Ando]

24. here we go

First off, none of the gospels were actually written by the men whose names they bear. We only have reasonable confidence that Paul's works are his own - and he never even met Jesus!

Where is your evidence for this claim?

So as to their credentials as "historic documents" - well, they ARE a part of history. That much is given. But as to whether they are historical - i.e., contain true history - that's open to debate.

Yes it is. The bible stands up to historical scrutiny and cross-checking as well as or better than most historical books from the same time period. The Bible is open to debate just as much as Livy, Tacitus, Josephus, etc.

The proof of flaws in the bible that lead to doctrinal differences is literally ALL around you. Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons, etc. ad nauseum. YOU have essentially declared that all denominations and sects have disagreed simply because they were reading their own (incorrect) theology into the bible.

That is correct. With the exception of the Mormons, however, the core beliefs of the groups you cite are identical (virgin birth, divinity of Christ, death and resurrection, etc.) It's the small stuff that separates most of mainline Christianity. Of course we have our fringes too, but so does every group.

But what you have completely failed to grasp is that even IF you are correct, it is STILL a flaw with the bible in that it ALLOWS for multiple interpretations. And this is because much of the bible is allegorical. A lot of what Jesus supposedly taught came in the form of parables. By their very nature, these literary tools require interpretation on the part of the reader/listener. In other words, the bible REQUIRES flawed human interpretation to be read.

The Bible can be read with flawed human interpretation, or it can be read with perect divine illumination. The latter is where I stand. God's word is illuminated, not understood. This is not a flaw of the Bible, but rather a flaw in the reader. I am also not in the "sola scriptura" camp, I believe the Word of God takes many forms and is not confined to the Bible. I realize this will probably not satisfy you, but I'm just being honest about what I believe. The presence of different sects of Christianity says more about the fallen nature of man than the divine nature of God.

[trotsky]

25. Why is that my burden of proof?

Is it up to you to prove that Joseph Smith did *not* translate the golden plates?

No, of course not, the Mormon must prove it.

So why should (or even HOW could) I prove that the gospels were NOT written by the men whose names they bear? I hate to break this to you - but by insisting that they were, you are breaking from serious biblical scholarship.

I'll give you one tidbit, though. The most compelling reason to believe the gospels were written after Paul? Paul never mentions them. (Nor did any other 1st or early 2nd century Christian. We don't find mention of them until the late 2nd century.) Surely it would have bolstered his case if he could have. Now this is of course not conclusive evidence - after all, Paul could have believed like you and thought that all the gospels had just interpreted their experience with Jesus incorrectly and that only he was right. (That would certain fit with Paul's overall theological attitude, I'll grant!) But it is worth noting, and as I said, very compelling.

I still think you are dodging the entire issue of revelation, and having to extract "God's word" from a flawed human text. How does one know if they have achieved "divine illumination"? Wait, let me guess: because their interpretation agrees with yours, right?

[Ando]

26. where's the beef?

You're creating a disgreement where I'm an unwilling participant with that last post. Let's first look at the following two statements:

First off, none of the gospels were actually written by the men whose names they bear.

So why should (or even HOW could) I prove that the gospels were NOT written by the men whose names they bear?

? You make a definitive statement and then say you can't prove it? You sound like a theist! :)

I hate to break this to you - but by insisting that they were, you are breaking from serious biblical scholarship.

Where did I insist that they were? Most churches (including the Catholic Church) do not have official positions as to the authorship of the gospels. I don't claim to know for sure either.

I'll give you one tidbit, though. The most compelling reason to believe the gospels were written after Paul? Paul never mentions them. (Nor did any other 1st or early 2nd century Christian. We don't find mention of them until the late 2nd century.) Surely it would have bolstered his case if he could have. Now this is of course not conclusive evidence - after all, Paul could have believed like you and thought that all the gospels had just interpreted their experience with Jesus incorrectly and that only he was right. (That would certain fit with Paul's overall theological attitude, I'll grant!) But it is worth noting, and as I said, very compelling.

Also very compelling is the fact that none of the gospels or Acts mentions the destruction of the Temple and sacking of Jerusalem (AD 70), Nero's persecution of the Christians (AD 64), The death of Paul (AD 64), or the death of Peter (AD 65). This is a good argument for them being written prior to these events. If that is the case, then there is no issue with the gospels and Acts being written either by Apostles or direct contemporaries of Apostles. It is worth noting, and as I said, very compelling.

I still think you are dodging the entire issue of revelation, and having to extract "God's word" from a flawed human text. How does one know if they have achieved "divine illumination"? Wait, let me guess: because their interpretation agrees with yours, right?

Thinly veiled cynicism aside :), we're arguing about esoteric things here. My contention is that mainline Christianity has a core set of beliefs that define "Christianity". Everything else is theological window dressing. How is my belief that I am correct different from your belief that you are correct?

[trotsky]

27. Actually you've got that backwards.

Put yourself in the position of a mid-2nd century Christian who needs to create historical texts to support the religion. Are you going to mention events that have transpired since the time those texts were supposed to have been written? Of course not. BUT... you would certainly see value in writing into those texts a "prophecy" that certain events would happen, yes?

This is at least as valid a possibility as your theory, and much more valid in terms of what we see throughout history. Early believers wanting to shore up support and manufacturing things - relics, texts, etc. to do so. Christianity is no different. Some early Christian leaders are on record as saying that a little forgery in order to spread the word of God is perfectly acceptable. ("Ends justify the means" thinking.)

Regardless, it is still the burden of proof of the believer to conclusively demonstrate his claims.

My contention is that mainline Christianity has a core set of beliefs that define "Christianity". Everything else is theological window dressing.

Oh, like the concept of hell? Is that part of the core set of beliefs, or not?

[Az]

29. It is important to remember

That few things in history have undergone the need to be beleived as religion and particularly Christian belief has undergone. This creates a unique filter that not only may block any relevant information that would refute the belief, but may even lend itself to editting and creating evidence to prop up the belief. Its the law of supply and demand. There is a tremendous demand for evidence and connection to Jesus. The market cannot long ignore such a demand.

[trotsky]

30. Quotes from Paul himself:

Deceit and trickery are perfectly acceptable to spread the word.

1 Corinthians 9:19-20 - Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

2 Corinthians 12:16 - Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. the fundamental source of information

to quote you:

You are very close to realizing perhaps the primary problem at the root of all religion: the dependence on religious relevation as *the* fundamental source of information.

The fundamental source of information for a mystic is his/her own personal experience. Of course, mysticism isn't a religion, but a way of viewing life. :)

[Igel]

36. Jesus didn't have a family that he had to

support or to provide a future for.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. The audience at the seminar when they tell them that their tax exempt

status is going to be renewed....

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. He said not to worry, but He never said "Don't bother to try to

take care of yourself" either.

Perhaps this class is aimed at folks who are scrambling to make ends meet? Maybe they will lecture on the dangers of credit cards?

Hard to say just based on the sign, really.

---------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/liberalchristians.htm

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. I don't think so

It is about 'creating wealth', so I think it is aimed at showing people how to make big bux.

Realize that I have a problem with churches or other religious institutions using their space for secular things like this. I got tired of going to a church where the men in Sunday School were basically making business deals or laughingly making anti-Semetic remarks ('them Jews like to make money off anything-including the death of their own kid'-this was in response to my mentioning I'd read "When Bad Things Happen To Good People"), and left and never returned. My feeling is that church should be a haven from the secular, where people come to find out more about their relationship with God and how to put it in action via good works.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Is it clear whether the church is sponsoring it or just renting space?

A church that I lived near in Portland was embarrassed to discover that the "seminar on European history" it had rented space to was actually a lecture by a Holocaust denier.

They quickly told the "seminar" organizers to find another venue.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. This I'm not sure of

I just know the program is designed to "Build Wealth". I know that there was a scam artist going around talking to churches and bilking people out of money a while back, and I was wondering if this was another scam or not.

[More Than A Feeling]

21. Some thoughts on this based on an experience I had.

Last year, when I went to open a credit card at my bank, the banker who helped me was a Republican from Dallas, who wanted to talk politics once he found out that that was my major. We came to talking about the poor. He said he was a Christian, but that he did not want to give money to the poor. He said that he would much rather give his time for things like lecturing on how to manage money (an odd incongruity. Do the poor have any money to manage? He probably meant charities) His reasoning was that his money could be stolen, but what he did with his time was his own choice.

perhaps this is being run by someone similar to this man, and this is his/her way of honoring their faith.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. That has to be one of the most convoluted excuses for selfishness

that I've seen in a long time.

[shawn703]

31. The whole Gospel of Wealth is a distortion

I think some preachers started spreading this message so they could appeal to the millionaires who might be put off by a Savior who encouraged rich men to give up all they had. And when you think about it, preachers can live more comfortably off the tithes of millionaires than they can the tithes of the poor.

[Proud liberal Kat]

33. I have actually been thinking of writing to my local Baptist church...

I live in RI, so am taken aback when I blatantly see Conservative Right ideology. This church is on my route to work and has a billboard where they put a different saying on each side every week. I didn't pay it much mind until this past fall. I have seen 5 different saying either totally and overtly against gay marriage or obviously saying such: overtly"Marriage=One Man + One Woman" and less overtly "How does a moral wrong equal a civil right?" The day after the election the sign read on both sides "When the Righteous prevail the Nation exalts!". So anyways maybe I can sue them for the heart attack from my raised blood pressure LOL.

But seriously the reason I am thinking of writing is never once in the last 5-6 months I have been paying very close attention have I seen something about taking care of the poor or sick nor about how blessed the peacemakers are. There are sometimes appropriate and uplifting (to Christians I assume) sayings about God and or Jesus. But nothing about the poor or peace which from my memory of being raised Catholic was pretty front and center to Jesus. I don't want to argue with or blast them about gay marriage or being happy that Bush won as vehemently as I disagree, but I do want to point out to them the way they are reinforcing the views of us Northern liberals about Christian Rightists. How they seem to leave out some pretty important teachings of their Savior in deference to partisan politics and how that I think the letter is fair as since the sign is obviously for my edification that I thought conversation was a good thing.

If I right the letter from a place of respect, do you think it would be a good worthwhile thing? If so, any suggestions? If not, why not?
Kathy

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. I think it is a great idea

I'd phrase it something like, "I read your billboards on the way to work, and it puzzles me that you don't quote Jesus directly, or emphasize more his teachings about helping the poor, being non judgemental, etc, etc." You could even give suggested quotes you'd like to see.

I don't see how they could be offended by this, and it might make them realize that they need to change their message.

[shrike]

35. May have been a service to parishioners

Churches tend to have their share of elderly members and (honest) financial seminars can be useful to such folks.

Many community groups rent space in the local church. AA groups meet in church, grief support groups. Arts and crafts classes are held in church basements -- sometimes it's just a good place to hold a meeting or an event.

[boomboom]

37. We are to be good stewards

Of the land, of our money, of our gifts from God. Many, many people deal with financial issues in this life. Financial security is far different than financial prosperity. Financial responsibility is a good thing. One thing these types of church seminars teach is the age old "love of money is the root of all evil" You don't have to be greedy to desire being able to support yourself in this life. I suggest you either attend the seminar, or let it go.

[midlandsdawg]

38. Actually I find it quite refreshing

The thing that I have a problem with at churches is they tend not to really delve into complex problems like sex and money. That is why I liked my old church in Athens, very liberal (not politically, faily apolitical, but in the way they talked about things) more like teaching than preaching. Motto was spiritual guidance for daily life and we talked about things that were daily like everyday work, finances, sex (not just bad, but sex between married folks and I don't mean faithfulness, but actually the greatness of sex) Ironically, i would rather, dems and pubs give time rather than money. In my experience when I give time, usually my money follows, but not vice-versa. Thing of it this way, if everyone game time feeding, clothing, etc... the poor, destitute, down trodden etc... we wouldn't need folks to write just checks. IMO, money makes you relieve guilt much of the time, time makes you feel like you did something, plus if done with the right attitude, helps more. In my time of bad I didn't really care about the turkey dinner, i would have taken just bread and water along with a person to just talk to, and I don't mean about my situation, but about sports, or the weather or anything like that.