For church goers only. How much do you give?

[BarbaraAnne]

I do not donate to religious causes. The demonination into which I was born has shown itself to be extraordinarily corrupt and unaccountable. If it were Megacorp, I would not work for it. For my charitable donations, I prefer to select good organizations that are doing work that will achieve the goals I care about, with a minimum of administrative overhead.

I had the same experience with donations to religious causes and like you, prefer to make my own choices about which organizations to support

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

i'm not a church goer, but apparently i do donate my property tax money to help pay to support all the town services used for free by the churches. can i write that off as charitable giving?

 

[youbet]

I think giving 10% of your gross or even your net income to any organized religion seems excessive, unless your seriously rich and money doesn't matter. Find some people living on the street with nothing and give the money to them instead. Eliminate the middle man.

I guess you could say that funding government welfare is similar...... you know, a middle man, but this time it's Uncle Sam.......

 

[jdw_fire]

In our reading of things, tithing was required in the Old Testament era, and that tithe was to be taken, originally to the Tabernacle, then later to the Temple.

Actually the first tithe was given before there was a Tabernacle or the Temple, in fact before there was an Israel. It was given by Abraham to Melchizedek and the was no Law requiring it.

Christ never called for tithing, nor did Paul, Peter, John, or the rest of the guys. And one would think if it was of such great importance in the New Testament era, somebody would have stated it as such!

Read Heb 7.

 

[donheff]

As far as I know, the requirement to tithe comes from the old testament. "Now consider how great this man was whom Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils" -

I wonder what the original word that has been translated as "spoils" meant. Spoils in today's parlance would not apply to income from work. It would apply to gains from war or the gains from political power (patronage). So the civil servants who got free sinecures would owe some of the proceeds to the church that gave it to them?

 

[ScaredtoQuit]

In our reading of things, tithing was required in the Old Testament era, and that tithe was to be taken, originally to the Tabernacle, then later to the Temple. The Temple was destroyed (and never rebuilt) in around or about 68 to 70 A.D. Therefore, there was no longer anywhere, according to the law of Moses, to "legally" take the tithe. So it was (is) no longer a Biblical requirement. Christ never called for tithing, nor did Paul, Peter, John, or the rest of the guys. And one would think if it was of such great importance in the New Testament era, somebody would have stated it as such!

That's an argument that makes sense. Maybe I should try it on my DW?

 

[bosco]

I think the way it works is that anything in the old testament would apply to any Judeo-Christian religion.

how about "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD"

it's in Deuterenomy 23:1 right before the description of where god sends down various plagues to punish those who spurn him. And he was a bit vindicitive (this was before the kindler gentler god of the testament--this one frequently exhibited the godly emotion of jealousy).

since I had a vasectomy, according to scripture, I can't go to church. Since I take all this very seriously, I haven't been near one in years

of course, I realize that my position has risks:

"The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed." (Deuteronomy 28:27)

yowser!!! these emerods are bad enough--can't wait for the "botch of Egypt"!!!!

oh yeah--I take that stuff seriously!!! I give to Doctors without Frontiers and Oxfam. Rather feed people than give them preperation H

 

[Sam]

Thank you all for participating.

Average percentage: 3.8%
Median percentage: 2.5%

The rather significant difference between Average and Median is caused by the generous large group of church goers donating 10 to 12.99% of their gross income.

What's wrong with the 7 to 9.99% range? Not a single vote there.

Mystery: Which Moderator adds the "I don't go to church or synagogue or anywhere else." ? It wasn't there when I created the poll.

 

[Nords]

Mystery: Which Moderator adds the "I don't go to church or synagogue or anywhere else." ? It wasn't there when I created the poll.

Sorry, that was me. I added it before I noticed the rules, but others had voted by the time I went back to change it.

I don't know if one has to be a moderator for the "Edit Poll" feature. There doesn't seem to be a way to lock or unlock a poll-editing feature. Does anyone else on the board see "Edit Poll" up there with the choices on other people's polls?

 

[Sam]

No problem. I'm pretty sure only moderators have that ability.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

I wonder what the original word that has been translated as "spoils" meant.

of course a literal translation could be what would have spoiled.

for six years of my childhood, every tuesday & thursday after public school and every sunday i was sent to hebrew school. every friday night and saturday morning i was in temple. if it wasn't for a whole lot of daydreaming, i never would have survived it.

but there were at least two stories i heard and always kept in mind. one was that when jewish people harvested their fields, they could only put into their carts what they could carry. any part of the harvest which fell back to the field on the way to their cart was left for the poor to freely gather. that translated into my life as leaving coins that fall from my pocket onto the ground. for surely the sweeper needs them more than i.

the other charitable tradition i recall is the jubilee, to return, every 50 years, what was bought or taken. land reverted back to original owners. servants are set free. to that end i'll be willing a good portion of my inheritance to help gay youth who have such a high rate of suicide due, i believe, to low self-esteem caused by teachings of the church.

while most take the jewish term tzedakah to mean charity, it actually refered to what is just and right rather than to what we think of today as charitable. it is less philanthropic and more obligatory. it is not unlike how i feel about lbym because i consider saving money as much a part of the expenses of life, not unlike paying my utility bill, rather than as a part of living below my means. because my means includes saving money. saving money is not simply a byproduct of sacrificing immediate gratification. just as helping others is nothing charitable. it is why you are here.

the shame of charity is that it is so easily corrupted. it is one of the reasons why my bar-mitzvah was my last time in temple and why i vehemently, in many--but not all--respects, oppose the church today. for instance, i am very thankful to the supreme court of florida for stopping baby bush in his tracks. that this antithetical robin hood had tried to steal from our public school system to offer as cash vouchers to religious education institutions slapped the face of charity.

for in true charity you do not take to give. you do not take my property tax money to pay for your services. you do not take my education money to pay for your preaching. true charity obligates you to give what you have, not to take what is mine. why? because we are all sovereign. all of us.

'the earth is the eternal's and all that it holds" ~~ psalms 24:1

"the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is mine" ~~leviticus 25:23

 

[kjpliny]

I guess you could say that funding government welfare is similar...... you know, a middle man, but this time it's Uncle Sam.......

Actually, it's worse...because you don't have a choice. In my opinion, we'd be better off if 98% of the government agencies disappeared tomorrow.

 

[MooreBonds]

What's wrong with the 7 to 9.99% range? Not a single vote there.

I just weighed in with a vote in the 7-9.99% range (before reading the thread). I've been accumulating my net worth over the years with relatively little donations up thru 2005...but started with contributions to a donor-advised fund last year, and will make another large contribution this year as well. If you add up my contributions from last year and this year, it will approximate 8% +/- of my total gross income of my entire life up to this point. In future years, will try for 3%-5% of gross, with my DAF growing in the account and being disbursed through the years. (that, and my current revocable trust calls for 85% of my entire net worth to be distributed to a variety of charities...mostly Catholic...so when I do pass on, it'll be a lot more than 7%-9%).

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[Enuff2Eat]

i was just wonder, giving money to church is act of kindness (volunteer behavior) or an obligation? can anyone loves jesus/god but don't have to give money to church?? and last, how many others religions out there requires the followers to give money.

enuff

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[Khan]

i was just wonder, giving money to church is act of kindness (volunteer behavior) or an obligation? can anyone loves jesus/god but don't have to give money to church?? and last, how many others religions out there requires the followers to give money.

enuff

Islam requires believers to give.

 

[km4hr]

The main stream churches; Baptist, Methodist, etc claim you haven't "given" anything until you reach 10%. Until you reach that level you're simply returning to the church what belongs to God already, or so they say. However the scriptural references seem a little indirect on the subject of giving and often targeted toward a specific group of people. I don't know for sure but I feel like the Roman gov't probably didn't spent much on charity as our gov't does today.

 

[Gumby]

[..

 

[retiringby50]

Average percentage: 3.8%
Median percentage: 2.5%

I'm looking for info regarding tithing, so I might be resurrecting some old threads. Seems like I am average at the 4% level.

 

[Milton]

If you're a Christian, its supposed to be 10% of your gross.

I always thought the minimum required was 18.97% of gross ...

 

[haha]

I think giving 10% of your gross or even your net income to any organized religion seems excessive, unless your seriously rich and money doesn't matter. Find some people living on the street with nothing and give the money to them instead. Eliminate the middle man.

I admit that I am not much of a church giver, but some churches anyway are very efficient providers of social service. And they are more consistent than most individuals acting on their own are likely to be.

Churches in my neighborhood operate soup kitchens, offer sleeping space to homeless people who can as a group police their own behavior, provide limited day care, collect clothes and either directly distribute them or give them to organizations such as Dress For Success that distribute clothes to needy women trying to get back into the job market.

Back when AIDS was a larger problem they gave countless hours and a fair amount of money to counseling, nutritional and social support to people suffering from this.

One thing a church does is leverage the efforts of a large group of people who actually are willing to perform direct service, under the organizing structure of a church. So it isn't like you give money to the church, they take their cut, and distribute the rest. They may even multiply the effectiveness of what you give, by providing a structure and sufficient funding and motivation for many church-member volunteers who perform directly helpful services for their various communities.

I think its OK to admit that one is cheap- the huge majority of the board members here are definitely cheap. But I can admit that I am cheap, know that a church would make more charitable use of my money than I will, and still elect to use most or even all of the money myself for my own selfish interests. No need to pretend that the church isn't doing its job, and doing it well. It comes down to tolerance for ambiguity.

Ha

 

[haha]

how about "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD"

Perhaps he could attend services, but recuse himself from participation in church singles activities?

Ha

 

[youbet]

I admit that I am not much of a church giver, but some churches anyway are very efficient providers of social service.

DW and I aren't very active with our church lately. But, when we were, I did like to do much of our charitable giving through them. The money always seemed to get leveraged with sweat equity. Some of our money went to the building fund. That provided the supplies and material used by volunteers to maintain the building and grounds and even to add a small addition we did ourselves. The additon was used for daycare with subsidized fees for low income folks. Because we had a building and grounds, there was a place to do car washes, bakes sales, rummage sales, etc. The building also provided a place for AA meetings, ESL classes, etc. We also had a relationship with an innner city church and would provide material, supplies, expertise and labor to maintain their building, which was then used for charitable endeavors in their neighborhood. Just a whole lot of leverage happening.............

One reason for our reduced involvement is that the national organization began demanding more and more involvement and authority in directing how our money was spent. It started to seem just like a typical large, national charity with little local vision as to how your money was being spent and with less use of volunteer sweat equity as leverage. Hopefully that isn't happening with all denominations.

Your milage will vary........

 

[youbet]

the huge majority of the board members here are definitely cheap.

Ha, you are the master of understatement!!