Leaving my feelings on mandatory tithing out of this... I say get bent. It’s fair game to excommunicate them from the church of they refuse to obey the rules of the church, assuming they even choose to stay in the church. But contract or no- the SECOND you charge 10% earnings as a condition of providing services you aren’t a non profit religious organization, you’re a business. There is no justification otherwise. NPO’s that sell a product do so at a determined rate which allows continued service and growth without... a profit. A flat percent as a mandatory fee is meaningless in accounting because your operating costs aren’t linked to the random income of your base. This is repugnant and stinks of greed. Could the church theoretically do a lot of good with that money? Sure. Should they be able to FORCE a person to pay it? No. Religion is about choices. We chose to be “good” or “bad.”
Would Jesus sue someone? Case closed. Jesus said you gotta choose. Jesus also said turn the other cheek and let them get their deserts in the afterlife.
2
deleted
· 4 years ago
It's perfectly unclear from the Bible text if Jesus would sue someone through today's court system.
He gave some direction on how to respond if you are the one being sued.
I suppose it’s all up to speculation, but I don’t peg the dude as the litigious type. I certainly could see the doctrine of “making whole” and justice applying- but there’s a certain pettiness in many court cases I just don’t think he’d be about. This one for example- I feel that it falls more under the umbrella of “Gods law.” Where if God determines this person was wrong- God would get the retribution. By and large Jesus didn’t really seem to like when governments and money and churches got wound up in each other. His message seemed to be to seek spiritual “bread” and enough physical “bread” to feed the body- but leave the rest to God to sort out.
2
deleted
· 4 years ago
It is all up to speculation.
That said, Jesus was rarely petty. I can't imagine him getting involved in this specific litigation at all.
Jesus didn't say much about the relationship between govts, money, and churches though.
He paid taxes and said, "Render into Caesar that which is Caesar's", and repeatedly referred to a Kingdom that was not of this world. He also said that it's harder for a rich man to get into His Kingdom than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.
His message was far less about institutions, and far more about individuals' relationships with God and others.
Yes. And I didn’t mean to imply he spoke of institutions beyond certain instances that illustrate a general respect towards both power on heaven and on earth. But stories from Jesus’s life such as the money changer, and other stories in the Bible not involving Jesus directly do give some idea if not a direct ruling on ideas of religious sanctity. So I don’t mean to imply Jesus would be against our legal system or gaining ready through it- just that in this case involving a pastor suing for the churches share of money gained gambling I don’t think he’d be happy.
Also, I think in general Jesus would see a pastor suing one of the flock as a failing of all parties. My guess is that Jesus wouldn’t be too happy with anyone here’s behavior and would likely have several teachable lessons.
@thatguyyouknow “She” is not a putdown. “Bitch” is a putdown. It’s dehumanizing (literally, it’s not a term for humans) and specifically gendered as a putdown for women. Stop using it.
I dont mean to bitch and moan about this, but I think you're taking this too personally.
1
deleted
· 4 years ago
@debbidownr
Honest question:
Should we referring to any humans by terms not originally meant for humans?
If I have a funny friend, should I still be allowed to say she's a riot? If my child takes after me, should I be allowed to say he's a chip off the ole block?
@unklethan If the term is derogatory to one gender, avoid it. It doesn’t have to do with characterizing people as you describe, it has to do with gendered name calling. It’s dismissive to only one particular group. Not good. Saying someone is ‘a riot’ (funny) or ‘a chip off the ole block’ (similar to a parent, almost always used for a son about their father, but not specifically gendered and also not derogatory in intent) is not dismissive. It’s not making someone non-human and part of a group that’s less than. I’m a woman. I’m proud to be a woman. I’m proud to be human. I don’t like gendered namecalling, which I know because I’ve had several chances to consider it. Thus, I have a specific response to it.
However, ethnic or any group namecalling is not cool either. Any shoving of someone into a box to be dismissed is an opportunity for them to be treated poorly and more especially to feel shut down or shut out! It’s not great. It’s not necessary. Don’t.
I’m very sorry if this use of language has offended you. I understand some people are more sensitive to certain things than others. I’m not trying to argue against your perspective or invalidate your opinions, but if I might offer my own perspective as a balancing point?
I do not see that particular word (omitted for respect to your preferences,) as a “gendered” insult. I myself do use that word, and know many who do, but not to refer specifically to women. In the usage I am familiar with the usage means one of weak constitution and or will. A person subservient to perceived authority, and or who violates the tenants of social honor for a peer group.
The origin- a female dog, I see as being insulting to man or woman not because being compared to a female of any species would inherently be more demeaning, but in that being compared to a dog period. Similar to calling a person a “lap dog” except with a much stronger impact to the word.
That said- I acknowledge that the word itself does originate from a gendered place, it certainly has a history of being used more heavily against the female gender. I can’t argue as to wether there are or are not male equivalents etc. I must simply agree there is a history to the word which involves violence and disrespect towards women, and there is certainly a link to gender issues with it.
It’s problematic. I know it’s a word ingrained in my own vocabulary- not as a conscious gender slur, but for instance one of my stepmothers would refer to complaining as “b$&;hing” or b-ing and moaning and that stuck with me. I don’t think most people using the word in a “universal” sense are aware or have given much thought to its origins or its place in gender dynamics. I certainly have not meant any disrespect to women by calling my male friends that word.
But it seems that there is a link there, and we know that it at the very least upsets you to hear it. So with that in mind I got one will TRY to reduce or eliminate my use of this word- at the very least make a concerted effort in your presence to respect your feelings on the word. I’d hope others might too. If I slip up, please remind me, preferably gently, because for what it’s worth I would assure you that any slip on my part would be not out of ill intent or malice, but merely because one gets used to using a word and it just- comes out.
Either you get something is problematic or you don’t. Your refusal to think is definitely a YOU problem. You might have a “snowflake” issue, although I think that’s a little rough, since I see you as lazy instead of helplessly fragile. Nonetheless, your inability to think is not a cause for me to stop doing so. Deal with it.
I don’t think that’s really fair to say. So any of you know her personally? Know her life? She doesn’t like the word. She’s made a case she feels it is derogatory to women specifically. Disagreement is fine, that’s the basis of democracy. Debate on ideas is fine. Throwing around insults and personal attacks however doesn’t reinforce your position, it only speaks on personal character. It’s up to you if you want to consider her feelings and perhaps at least try to refrain from using the word in front of her. Admittedly the initial post came on a bit strong and I can understand being put off by that versus a more gentle notification of objection- but then again not everyone does “gentle” well or the same, and that could have been a best attempt at gentle.
But there’s no reason to get nasty about it. Especially when it’s a tag team of people against one just piling on. That’s not even a remotely fair fight. You disagree. Ok. Perhaps discuss the matter, or if you don’t feel inclined to do so- agree to disagree.
FYI: in general rules of FunSubstance you’ll find that amongst other things provoking or insulting users is a violation of the rules. Under comment rules you will also find that profanity, including the word being discussed here- is actually forbidden. Now, the mods tend to have a light touch, and by and large we all respect each other enough most of the time and are adult enough that we more or less all bend or break these rules a little in the name of good fun. In this particular case- I’d say plainly that even if you do not agree with her assessment, even if you do not feel it wrong to gang up on one person and pick on them about something they’ve said bothers them, that you could plainly see that what you are doing isn’t in good fun and is against the TOS. If you want to discuss the matter with Ms. Downer please do so civilly. I shouldn’t have to quote the TOS to y’all so that you’d know better than to pick on someone.
And: as a side note? If Ms. Downer were as accused sheltered and delicate, how would that make aggressively tormenting her better? If you want someone to get stronger do you slowly increase weight or drop a 500lb weight on them and say “catch it. That’ll make you stronger!” So if she were as delicate as accused that would only make this even more shameful, if she needs to “grow up” then you are in effect, tormenting a child no? Assuming you’re all at least teens, is that how you feel big? Go to the local preschool and make some kids cry? Come on man.
Oh please, I'm dogpiled on all the time on this site. And really, I do not care about her life story. Nobody has the power to dictate to others what they can or cannot say outside of their own home. No matter how offensive, dickish, rude, or otherwise unpleasant it is.
Been there, done that. Thrown in the deep end, overwhelmed by conflicting and nonsensical orders, physically and psychologically destroyed, built right up again, insulted and demeaned throughout, learning to drink from a goddamned fire hose, bullshitting with people I hated, kicked from the A-Teams selection course, on and on it goes. Unless someone literally drops a fucking anvil on you, there's no excuse for breaking. Nobody has the right to command people to keep them comfortable and happy.
The gods want to kick me out for violating their rules? Fair enough, I'm just another guest here, that's their right.
I didn’t mean to trigger you -and I certainly cant be the only person who would be upset of you were kicked off the boards. My point wasn’t that anyone should be. My point was that in almost every possible way- y’all are in the wrong. You have the right to say what you want- but the point that seemed to be missed is that there is basic respect- and there is literally a degree of respect dictated in the rules- and y’all aren’t showing Downer that respect. You don’t agree with what she says- that’s fine. Debate her. Don’t insult her.
As for how you’ve been treated- 1. Being treaty poorly by others doesn’t justify us to treat others poorly as well. 2. You’re in the military. You literally agreed, signed certain rights away. You have given away your right to trial by jury and several others as part of your service. Downer did not waive any rights or agree to be harassed. The TOS she agreed to and ALL OF YOU agree to by being here says quite the opposite. That this behavior is inappropriate.
Now- you mention no one can tell you what to say- but the “God’s” can also kick you out. Both are true. You and say anything but that doesn’t mean there are no strings attached to that. TOS aren’t a law. They are an agreement. On YOUR HONOR. Being here, interacting with others, with your word that you’ll abide the terms set forth without needing a baby sitter to keep you to that word. So here we are. You decide who you want to be. If you want to honor the TOS that you agreed to follow by being here, or if your word only extends as far as someone’s ability to make you follow it.
I get where you’re coming from. I don’t like the idea of being told I can’t say this or that either, and I dislike being made to feel bad about how I express myself. But we can lash out, or we can take a breath and say “hey, maybe we all don’t agree, but...” Its up to you. No one is going to make you be honorable. You are or you aren’t. No one will make you be a gentleman. You are or you aren’t.
The difference is being asked versus being told. I have no interest in being a gentleman in general, particularly not to those who presume to tell me what to do when they have no authority and especially no right. Especially concerning just how exactly one is to insult another.
"Please don't use that word if I'm on the thread". Okay, I will try.
"Don't use words I don't like. Arbitrary year".
What the fuck did you just fucking say to me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare... I think you get it.
Just dropping in to say this: I do not feel targeted. If I did, I would say so. Words are the only thing we have to bridge the vast and dark chasm surrounding each of us.
(I am annoyed about a putdown I think people should realize somewhere between age 14 - 27 is deliberately exclusionary/dismissive and stop using. That’s it.)
I don’t want and wouldn’t suggest anyone have privileges on this site revoked or censured based on this. It’s not fair to hold that threat over someone. It didn’t occur to me someone might feel that. I’m sorry if you did.
I do think y’all were lazy in your previous thinking and now are being lazy in your response to being called on it. But! That assumes you are NOT evil, bad or mean. You’re upset because you see yourself as a good person. That’s lovely. Same.
In response to a belief that I need to politely and gently request better thinking: no. If I were making a request to ‘be nice’, yes, I would have been much more gentle. (Cont)
But it’s consistent with my intellectual philosophy that I do not believe calling out shortfalls in thinking requires me to hope you accept what I say. It’s not incumbent on me to say it *just right* and with enough emotional pleading. If it’s a true point, take it and move on. I cannot be responsible for saying just the right thing to help you see things. I can only be responsible for seeing the world as clearly as possible and speaking for that.
In responses, I haven’t argued about whether my thinking is correct in this case. I haven’t and won’t argue here about anyone continuing with thinking I consider lazy.
I argue for my thoughts because I think they are accurate and life-giving. I didn’t feel attacked initially. I don’t feel attacked now. I feel exactly what I said: I believe anyone who thinks through or reads about how using this word is problematic will logically stop using it. From my perspective, this is work you should already have done. (Cont)
It’s an affirmation of your humanity, not an attack on it. I apologize if someone felt threatened as if they might have to leave. That didn’t occur to me as a feeling someone might have.
That doesn’t change my point, and doesn’t make me responsible for or responsive to your reaction. Still, I did want to stop by to say any threat against access you may have felt was entirely unintentional.
@debbidownr- thank you. It just didn’t seem right to me. Again- I’m all for disagreement. This goes to @famousone and the others too- my whole point wasn’t to invalidate their feelings on the matter, it was that you can have your feelings and still be civil. I myself have issues when I feel “told what to do” by people. But- those types of feelings that cause anger and resentment come from less than healthy places. We can dislike not being told what to do and voice our opinions without resorting to taunting and name calling. I also wasn’t implying or threatening people with the rules. I am sorry if it came off that way. I was just illustrating that in every way not just morally but literally black and white on paper- the responses to your request were not right. Thank you debbidownr for another eloquent post.
I wasn’t meaning you were being threatening just that on second reading they might be reacting to me as if this was something they were mindful of, because they don’t know where it’s coming from and might think there’s more (so push back hard).No stress, as you say, and you rock!
Nope. Mormon bishops (like a pastor) don't accept tithes on gambled income.
Outside of the gambling issue, the repercussions for not paying tithes will never be litigious. At least, you'll get some formal church discipline, won't be allowed to speak over the pulpit, teach Sunday school, lead church groups in prayer, etc. At most, and only in the case that you are receiving church-sponsored aid (money, food, rent), you may be cut off from that. But it's usually hard to get a Mormon bishop to that point, unless you're an arrogant freeloader.
Source: I am a Mormon and have been in local leadership and clerical positions.
Mormon as well, I just couldn’t find the story and have been encouraged (not in a negative way) to donate scholarships or grants as it is “technically” considered income. Luckily you have been in church leadership positions because I have no clue how you guys decide what to pay tithes on. It seems very case-by-case.
1
deleted
· 4 years ago
@anha_rockitship
As long as you can, with a clean conscience, answer "Yes" to the question, "Are you a full tithe payer", you're totally in the clear.
He gave some direction on how to respond if you are the one being sued.
That said, Jesus was rarely petty. I can't imagine him getting involved in this specific litigation at all.
Jesus didn't say much about the relationship between govts, money, and churches though.
He paid taxes and said, "Render into Caesar that which is Caesar's", and repeatedly referred to a Kingdom that was not of this world. He also said that it's harder for a rich man to get into His Kingdom than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.
His message was far less about institutions, and far more about individuals' relationships with God and others.
Honest question:
Should we referring to any humans by terms not originally meant for humans?
If I have a funny friend, should I still be allowed to say she's a riot? If my child takes after me, should I be allowed to say he's a chip off the ole block?
However, ethnic or any group namecalling is not cool either. Any shoving of someone into a box to be dismissed is an opportunity for them to be treated poorly and more especially to feel shut down or shut out! It’s not great. It’s not necessary. Don’t.
The gods want to kick me out for violating their rules? Fair enough, I'm just another guest here, that's their right.
"Please don't use that word if I'm on the thread". Okay, I will try.
"Don't use words I don't like. Arbitrary year".
What the fuck did you just fucking say to me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare... I think you get it.
(I am annoyed about a putdown I think people should realize somewhere between age 14 - 27 is deliberately exclusionary/dismissive and stop using. That’s it.)
I don’t want and wouldn’t suggest anyone have privileges on this site revoked or censured based on this. It’s not fair to hold that threat over someone. It didn’t occur to me someone might feel that. I’m sorry if you did.
I do think y’all were lazy in your previous thinking and now are being lazy in your response to being called on it. But! That assumes you are NOT evil, bad or mean. You’re upset because you see yourself as a good person. That’s lovely. Same.
In response to a belief that I need to politely and gently request better thinking: no. If I were making a request to ‘be nice’, yes, I would have been much more gentle. (Cont)
In responses, I haven’t argued about whether my thinking is correct in this case. I haven’t and won’t argue here about anyone continuing with thinking I consider lazy.
I argue for my thoughts because I think they are accurate and life-giving. I didn’t feel attacked initially. I don’t feel attacked now. I feel exactly what I said: I believe anyone who thinks through or reads about how using this word is problematic will logically stop using it. From my perspective, this is work you should already have done. (Cont)
That doesn’t change my point, and doesn’t make me responsible for or responsive to your reaction. Still, I did want to stop by to say any threat against access you may have felt was entirely unintentional.
Outside of the gambling issue, the repercussions for not paying tithes will never be litigious. At least, you'll get some formal church discipline, won't be allowed to speak over the pulpit, teach Sunday school, lead church groups in prayer, etc. At most, and only in the case that you are receiving church-sponsored aid (money, food, rent), you may be cut off from that. But it's usually hard to get a Mormon bishop to that point, unless you're an arrogant freeloader.
Source: I am a Mormon and have been in local leadership and clerical positions.
As long as you can, with a clean conscience, answer "Yes" to the question, "Are you a full tithe payer", you're totally in the clear.