White dress fine? Huh? [Archive] - The Wench.Org Forums

Selena

12-08-2006, 04:06 PM

I'm almost speechless on this one. Yet ANOTHER show of hypocrisy from these idiots pushing their beliefs on others! Gee-- what about the MEN? STUPID!

He obviously has no clue about the origins of the white wedding dress, does he. What a moron. Nevermind if someone is getting remarried--- because their spouse died, or any other reason! Geez!

*********

A Romanian priest has decreed that women will have to pay a 'white dress fine' if they are not virgins when they walk up the aisle to get married.

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=28560&in_page_id=2

Buxom Wench

12-08-2006, 04:12 PM

And what if the girl is not a virgin by force? Or a widow?

EGADS! This priest needs help....big time!

Pathos

12-08-2006, 04:26 PM

Yet ANOTHER show of hypocrisy from these idiots pushing their beliefs on others!
Well...as dumb as it is...if the people are choosing to go to that particular church...then he's not exactly pushing his beliefs on them is he?

Selena

12-08-2006, 04:50 PM

Well...as dumb as it is...if the people are choosing to go to that particular church...then he's not exactly pushing his beliefs on them is he?

Yes, he is.... the belief that the woman should be a virgin before getting married. And if they don't agree with said "rule" based on what he thinks should be the right thing, they get fined extra? Sure, they choose to go to that particular church... perhaps that's the only one around or close by people can go to. Do they really have a choice?

Emrld

12-08-2006, 05:14 PM

Only if they choose to wear a white dress are they fined. (at least that is what I read in the article) (doesn't look like he fines off white, champagne, or even hot pink for that matter)

From my understanding (learened from Catholic friends) in Catholic Church for the bride to wear white the tradition was that she was a pure innocent / virgin.

Off white was to be worn by widows / those already with children.

Also from the way the article reads - he is mentioning specific proof without bringing in a Dr. - like living together, staying the night, preggers, or already have children.

Pathos

12-08-2006, 05:37 PM

Yes, he is.... the belief that the woman should be a virgin before getting married. And if they don't agree with said "rule" based on what he thinks should be the right thing, they get fined extra? Sure, they choose to go to that particular church... perhaps that's the only one around or close by people can go to. Do they really have a choice?
If you choose to enter a particular institution for the purpose of utilizing the services of that institution then you need to accept whatever dogma that institution puts forth.

If you want to get married in a church...you're susceptible to the rules and ideals of that particular church.

I know how much you hate religion Selena but c'mon...now you're saying they can't preach their ideas even in their own damn church.

Katie O'Connell

12-08-2006, 05:49 PM

If you choose to enter a particular institution for the purpose of utilizing the services of that institution then you need to accept whatever dogma that institution puts forth.

If you want to get married in a church...you're susceptible to the rules and ideals of that particular church.

I know how much you hate religion Selena but c'mon...now you're saying they can't preach their ideas even in their own damn church.

Most of that congregation is probably in agreement with that idea already.

And I know of several churches in my area that will not even marry you in their edifice if you aren't a member of the congregation.

I have this idea that the Priest is trying to make back a little for what is lacking in the weekly collection plate. Maybe the Bingo nights are slow there?

But yes... it's his church... his flock. If they don't like it... there's probably another church right down the street who'd be willing to take their donations and 'care for their immortal souls.'

Peaches O Malley

12-08-2006, 06:00 PM

And I know of several churches in my area that will not even marry you in their edifice if you aren't a member of the congregation.

Yep, my ex and I almost didn't get married at the church we chose as we were not members and they had several "requirements". My FIL ended up marrying us so we got around it. Now that I think back...maybe that was an omen. :roll:*rotfl*

Gemdrite

12-08-2006, 08:02 PM

Yes, he is.... the belief that the woman should be a virgin before getting married. And if they don't agree with said "rule" based on what he thinks should be the right thing, they get fined extra? Sure, they choose to go to that particular church... perhaps that's the only one around or close by people can go to. Do they really have a choice?
There is always a choice. It may be a lesser of two evils kind of choice, but there is ALWAYS a choice. And if there is no other church....don't go to a church. A church is simply a place of worship where fellow believers can meet. It is not a neccessity.

Vixynne Rose

12-08-2006, 08:04 PM

I wonder if anyone's asked the good man o' the cloth what he'd charge for a marriage rite performed with all participants skyclad? ::whistle:: *rotfl*

Buxom Wench

12-08-2006, 09:01 PM

I'm just wondering why only the bride has to be a virgin...what about the groom?

Wait a minute....forget I asked. It's a double standard here, I'm sure. :augh:

Guinevere

12-08-2006, 10:48 PM

I'm just wondering why only the bride has to be a virgin...what about the groom?

Wait a minute....forget I asked. It's a double standard here, I'm sure. :augh:

Well, *technically*, both are supposed to be pure as the driven snow until after marriage. After that, it's all go.

The fact that there are no clothing-related rituals for a groom that are widely popularized makes it look like a double standard though. There's just more mysticism and superstition surrounding being a bride, I suppose. One might say that the role is held a little bit in awe.

Pathos

12-08-2006, 11:14 PM

There's just more mysticism and superstition surrounding being a bride, I suppose. One might say that the role is held a little bit in awe.
You're the ones who'll produce the heir.

Chances are the grooms' seed has already been spilled all over the county.

A pregnant wife assures some kind of immortality.

Hence the awe.

8-)

Perin

12-09-2006, 07:53 AM

A Romanian priest has decreed that women will have to pay a 'white dress fine' if they are not virgins when they walk up the aisle to get married.

Father Petrica Bratu, 37, from Valea Sarii in central Romania said he wanted to introduce the fine to uphold Christian traditions. The average salary in the eastern European country is only 100 pounds a month and the fine will be between ten and 60 pounds.

Father Bratu said: 'The fine depends on how intimate a couple have been before they get married. If they have just moved in together it will be around ten pounds but it goes up to 60 pounds if the bride is pregnant or already has a child.' Thus introducing the interesting concept of a sliding scale of virginity.

First, its in Romania. Second, its really being applied to both the man and the woman.

Gemdrite

12-10-2006, 12:38 AM

I'm just wondering why only the bride has to be a virgin...what about the groom?

Wait a minute....forget I asked. It's a double standard here, I'm sure. :augh:
Well, the bride would really be the only one you could somewhat prove...hence the bigger deal.

Jayde

12-10-2006, 03:42 PM

Gemdrite

12-10-2006, 06:00 PM

The part I get a kick out of (and this isn't on a religious aspect, but more of a financial, etc view)...

Isn't best to live with someone while engaged/seriously dating, than to live apart, get married, then discover they have just too many "personal" quirks that you didn't know about, that just aren't easy to deal with? I mean seriously a guy isn't gonna come out and say "Will you marry me?' have you say yes, then add "oh by the way...(add grossest quirk you have ever discovered after moving in)"

ok well usually..
From the flip side of that...if you didn't live with the person, and then get married, and move in together, and THEN find out about the quirks...it's a lot harder to separate, and so you learn to live with them. And 9 times out of 10, they won't be so much annoying as familiar. You are more inclined to try to work things out than to just break it off over some stupid quirk that could potentially be fixed. If you are living together and learn of a silly little quirk, it is much easier to just separate. And since everybody is going to have some stupid little quirk that annoys you, that could lead to a lot of good relationships breaking up over nit-picky things.

Selena

12-10-2006, 08:09 PM

From the flip side of that...if you didn't live with the person, and then get married, and move in together, and THEN find out about the quirks...it's a lot harder to separate, and so you learn to live with them. And 9 times out of 10, they won't be so much annoying as familiar. You are more inclined to try to work things out than to just break it off over some stupid quirk that could potentially be fixed. If you are living together and learn of a silly little quirk, it is much easier to just separate. And since everybody is going to have some stupid little quirk that annoys you, that could lead to a lot of good relationships breaking up over nit-picky things.

Err, I disagree with that. What if said "quirk" was some major sexual malfunction... or said quirk was drugs, illegal activities... ?

Silly quirks can be as minor as splashing water all over the mirror and leaving water marks (which mine does, or so I say), or as minor as being so inconsiderate as leaving a bag of open cheetos for a day or two at your sig other's computer aka being a slob.

Silly quirks don't mix if you have an OCD clean freak and a slob living together... a slob who doesn't care about the space in which the two share, and the OCD person pays the mortgage.

Quirks aside, one should not have to be forced to settle into a marriage if they are unhappy... and can get out of it.

And just where do you get you 9 times out of 10 stats?

Selena

12-10-2006, 08:28 PM

If you choose to enter a particular institution for the purpose of utilizing the services of that institution then you need to accept whatever dogma that institution puts forth.

If you want to get married in a church...you're susceptible to the rules and ideals of that particular church.

I know how much you hate religion Selena but c'mon...now you're saying they can't preach their ideas even in their own damn church.

True, and I agree with you to a degree.

The way I read the story, is that this is a new rule. And not based on what necessarily what the church (because that's unknown at this point), but based on one man's opinion on what marriage should be. Not what it is, but what it should be.

And if this guy is the only one in town, I suppose the people wanting to get married are SOL-- talk about another way for the church to get more money out of their congregation.

Did some of these people really have a choice? Remember yall, Romania was a communist country until 1989.

Pathos

12-10-2006, 09:38 PM

Err, I disagree with that. What if said "quirk" was some major sexual malfunction... or said quirk was drugs, illegal activities... ??
Then it wouldn't be defined as a "quirk." In that case we'd talk about it as if it were something more important.

But if you're talking about quirks then you're talking about quirks.

And if this guy is the only one in town, I suppose the people wanting to get married are SOL
Are you serious? There's churches all over the place. Most with very similar dogma. And we're talking marriage here. You can do it over the internet.

And don't give me some excuse about how they're all backwards ass people who are being so victimized. Puh-lease. Their story is on the web.

They have options.

Gemdrite

12-11-2006, 12:49 AM

Silly quirks don't mix if you have an OCD clean freak and a slob living together... a slob who doesn't care about the space in which the two share, and the OCD person pays the mortgage.
You can't figure that out without moving in together? I mean, within a week of knowing each other, without even dating, my ex knew I was a slob, and I knew he was a neat freak. That was when we were still just friends.

Guinevere

12-11-2006, 02:47 AM

Luciana

12-11-2006, 12:41 PM

Are you serious? There's churches all over the place. Most with very similar dogma. And we're talking marriage here. You can do it over the internet.

And don't give me some excuse about how they're all backwards ass people who are being so victimized. Puh-lease. Their story is on the web.

They have options.

If we are talking about a small village then no .. you'll have only one church or maybe two but one will be Catholoc and one Greek Orthodox.

Margaret

12-11-2006, 01:06 PM

To quote my friend Larissa - who happens to be from a small town in Romania:

And Larissa did spake: "What a dumbass. Where they are from, it looks like that is the only church in town, but if they don't like it, they get married somewhere else.

Shannon and I also decided that if Larissa decided to get married within that church, her fine would be about $1000. Her response: "Vat! You call me a slut?! I'm a damn good one too!"

Did I mention, I love Larissa.

Dmitri

12-11-2006, 03:59 PM

A Romanian priest has decreed that women will have to pay a 'white dress fine' if they are not virgins when they walk up the aisle to get married.

Does anal count as virgin?

Selena

12-11-2006, 04:18 PM

Does anal count as virgin?

:moon: Good question, D!

Buxom Wench

12-11-2006, 04:44 PM

Or for that matter, oral?

You know someone had to ask.

Pathos

12-11-2006, 05:04 PM

Amazing how many unwanted pregnancies could be avoided if girls just stuck with those two.

:snicker:

daBaroness

12-11-2006, 06:02 PM

It's actually tradition to wear white only in the U.S. and some European countries. In other cultures - bright colors and native costume are worn. Methinks this guy has made up his own gospel. What an asshat!

On the swerve off the road into cohabitation before marriage in order to get to know someone. What the hell? To each their own. I don't know that you have to cohabitate with someone before marriage to really get to know them - that's what the engagement/betrothal period *used* to be for. I don't have to live with someone to know their quirks or see red flags. Nowdays it seems like couples meet and begin to cohabitate two weeks into their relationship. Then the guy (typically) gets comfortable with the situation and sees no reason to marry. Several years (and probably several kids) later - the gal starts threatening to leave if he doesn't agree to marriage. That's so completely bassakwards!

If a person really REALLY wants marriage and children - he/she would be smart to wait to cohabitate and procreate until after the marriage and way after getting to know the other person. Given enough time and rope - the bad choices (male and female) will ultimately hang themselves (so to speak). It's a lesson I learned way too late. And it's one I didn't used to believe in - I've definitely done a 180 degree on it!

I'm not setting it in stone by any means - but I do believe that at least for a majority of women - who want the husband, children and white picket fence - the old traditions still work best. What I do believe should be written in stone is that a couple should NEVER bring a child into their relationship until they're 100% agreed upon the commitment they've made to one another and to that child should their relationship go south. And a child should never be cursed with the burden of "fixing" a shaky relationship.

Selena

12-12-2006, 10:27 AM

You can't figure that out without moving in together? I mean, within a week of knowing each other, without even dating, my ex knew I was a slob, and I knew he was a neat freak. That was when we were still just friends.

Yup. And I'd bet that your ex knew all of your quirks and habits... and you knew all of his, too. Uh-huh.

If you did, you're a better woman and I.

I've been with my guy almost 3 years now. We don't "live" together... yet, but we spend plenty of time at each other's places. And he still doesn't know all of my quirks, and I still don't know his.

There's a specific kind of familiarity when you live with someone. And if you don't know that, Gem, you need to find that out on your own.

But to give you some credit, Gem... you are only 21. In reality, you were still in diapers when I was already living with a stranger at the dorms in college. You'll figure it out someday, what I'm trying to tell you.

DoñaNina

12-12-2006, 10:45 AM

Amazing how many unwanted pregnancies could be avoided if girls just stuck with those two.

:snicker:

QFT... (quoted for truth)

Gemdrite

12-12-2006, 11:29 AM

Yup. And I'd bet that your ex knew all of your quirks and habits... and you knew all of his, too. Uh-huh.

If you did, you're a better woman and I.

I've been with my guy almost 3 years now. We don't "live" together... yet, but we spend plenty of time at each other's places. And he still doesn't know all of my quirks, and I still don't know his.

There's a specific kind of familiarity when you live with someone. And if you don't know that, Gem, you need to find that out on your own.

But to give you some credit, Gem... you are only 21. In reality, you were still in diapers when I was already living with a stranger at the dorms in college. You'll figure it out someday, what I'm trying to tell you.
Ya know, if there is one thing I am sick of at these forums, it's the constant "You can't know cause you are only....(insert some age here.)" Guess what. It isn't always about age. No, you can't know every quirk. I never said you could, if you would actually read what I wrote. What I said was, if you can't figure out a very obvious conflict such as someone being a slob and the other having OCD without living together, that's a problem. No, you aren't going to know everything about a person without living together. You aren't going to know everything about a person if you DO live together. The point of my post, since you so very obviously missed it, is that if you live together with someone before marriage, it is very easy to simply split up over some stupid silly quirk, whereas if you are married FIRST, you might *actually* try to work it out. Maybe some people look at it as a chance to save money. I think if the two people who are married are really responsible enough for a marriage, and love each other, then they don't NEED to move in together first. Because no matter what silly little quirks they have, you LOVE the person as a whole, and the silly quirks can be figured out.

Maybe I am an idealist, but it's better than being constantly annoyed.

Selena

12-12-2006, 11:41 AM

Ya know, if there is one thing I am sick of at these forums, it's the constant "You can't know cause you are only....(insert some age here.)" Guess what. It isn't always about age.

I'm sorry you feel this way. It's not these forums, Gem... this is the way it is all around you. Such is life, and you do learn more as you age. At the age of 38, I have probably lived more experiences than you. And at the age of 21, I thought I knew all about life. Was I oh so wrong. There are other people on this forum who are older than both of us... and have a wealth of life experiences you and I have yet to discover.

No, you can't know every quirk. I never said you could, if you would actually read what I wrote. What I said was, if you can't figure out a very obvious conflict such as someone being a slob and the other having OCD without living together, that's a problem. No, you aren't going to know everything about a person without living together. You aren't going to know everything about a person if you DO live together. The point of my post, since you so very obviously missed it, is that if you live together with someone before marriage, it is very easy to simply split up over some stupid silly quirk, whereas if you are married FIRST, you might *actually* try to work it out. Maybe some people look at it as a chance to save money.I think if the two people who are married are really responsible enough for a marriage, and love each other, then they don't NEED to move in together first. Because no matter what silly little quirks they have, you LOVE the person as a whole, and the silly quirks can be figured out.

And this is why the divorce rate is so high.

Maybe I am an idealist, but it's better than being constantly annoyed.

And I'm a realist. Explains a lot as to why we don't see eye to eye on a lot of things.

Buxom Wench

12-12-2006, 11:48 AM

OK, I'm gonna chime in here and let you know some things.

I lived with Himself for almost 3 years BEFORE we got married. We both felt married and didn't see the need for the "paper". The reason we made it "legal", so it would be easier for him to adopt my 2 daughters from my previous marriage.

We just had our 19th wedding anniversary 1 week ago today. There are quirks of his that didn't show up or evolve until the last 10 years. I'm sure I do that things that piss him right off. Yeah, we've learned to deal with most of them. Some....I want to thwap him upside the head with a cast-iron skillet sometimes. I'm sure he feels the same way.

One advantage we have; he travels for work so we don't have to "put up" with those annoying quirks. But let me tell you, after about a week of him being home, I sometimes look at him and say, "Isn't is about time for another trip?"

Like Selena, I'm a realist. I know that no relationship is perfect and those that say their's is, is either lying to the world or at the very least, themselves.

Just my $.02

DoñaNina

12-12-2006, 11:56 AM

Everybody is different. What works for some may not work for everyone. My parents didn't live together before they got married, and they've been together for 32 years.

Emrld

12-12-2006, 12:01 PM

Ummm - correct it isn't just these forums. It is people on these forums and in the world who feel that age entitles them to having some form of superior knowledge.
We have some members on this site who are in the higher numbers and it is very rare for them to pat someone on the head and say you are too young to understand. It is a sepcific few that tend to have that attitude. All of us on here have had very different life experiances. It is the combination of those experiances that make us who we are . . .what we think . . .what we believe. Not how many years have been spent on this planet.

Another good point that needs to be made. Read someones entire post and figure out what their point is. If you arent' sure, feel free to ask them questions either in the blog or more politely using private message. Just picking out portions of a post over the point the person is making - typically doesn't reflect well.

Pathos

12-12-2006, 12:08 PM

Buxom Wench

12-12-2006, 12:11 PM

No matter how old you are it's annoying to hear the line "You're too young to understand." Sometimes the person saying it may be correct but sometimes they're just full of themselves.

I just turned 40 but all my relationships to this point have been extremely brief (read whatever you want into that) so the truth is...a 21 year old may in fact have tons more experience and wisdom about relationships than I do.

I would never assume otherwise just because I'm older.

On that same line of thinking, I had experiences BEFORE I was legal (18, 21, take your pick).

There are things from my earlier life that have definitely affected the way I see, do, react to things.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Age is just a number. It's what you do with it that matters.

Veldrina Vladescu

12-12-2006, 01:37 PM

I have this idea that the Priest is trying to make back a little for what is lacking in the weekly collection plate. Maybe the Bingo nights are slow there?

But yes... it's his church... his flock. If they don't like it... there's probably another church right down the street who'd be willing to take their donations and 'care for their immortal souls.'

If money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so bad?
thiiiiiink about it......

DoñaNina

12-12-2006, 01:47 PM

If money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so bad?
thiiiiiink about it......

'cuz it sucks to be in a church with no heating during winter. :ow: My church is dirt poor. It's always freezing in there.

Pathos

12-12-2006, 01:48 PM

If money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so bad?
thiiiiiink about it......
I think that was always a secular idiom.

The church has always been fond of money.

8-)

Selena

12-12-2006, 01:52 PM

I think that was always a secular idiom.

The church has always been fond of money.

8-)

Reminds me of a George Carlin line-- something along the lines of:

If God is so all knowing and perfect, why is he so bad with money? It seems god always needs more money! He just doesn't handle money well.

That's not the exact phrase, but yall get the point.

Emrld

12-12-2006, 01:52 PM

Vel - ya know I adore you. And in that you and I will not always see things the same way. So I would like to respectfully agree to disagree on the church money issue.

One (not all not the only but a really big reason) why churches want money - to function and provide for its congregation in this day and age money is necessary.
Taxes on the land, building to hold services/ offices/ daycare etc, utilities, hymnals, musicians, staff has to have a salary to provide for their families.

Let alone programs and services that they provide to the community - not just members. (example: the church I go to has a resume writing program. They assist people in the community, - single parents, people wanting better for them selves in the work place, women in shelters trying to get away from an abusive situation - open to anyone who would like the assistance no matter what race, creed, or religious background/ preferance.)

Selena

12-12-2006, 01:57 PM

One (not all not the only but a really big reason) why churches want money - to function and provide for its congregation in this day and age money is necessary.
Taxes on the land, building to hold services/ offices/ daycare etc, utilities, hymnals, musicians, staff has to have a salary to provide for their families.

Let alone programs and services that they provide to the community - not just members. (example: the church I go to has a resume writing program. They assist people in the community, - single parents, people wanting better for them selves in the work place, women in shelters trying to get away from an abusive situation - open to anyone who would like the assistance no matter what race, creed, or religious background/ preferance.)

... and megachurches with their live bands and musicians, big lighting and audio techies, big screen tv's, Internet services, tv programming....

Sorry, but they do!

DoñaNina

12-12-2006, 01:58 PM

... and megachurches with their live bands and musicians, big lighting and audio techies, big screen tv's, Internet services, tv programming....

Sorry, but they do!

I'm not a fan of stadium churches.. the big screen TVs kinda.. take away from the experience, for me.. I dunno why, I kinda like the look and feel of a church that's impoverished. Makes me feel less corrupt.

Pathos

12-12-2006, 01:59 PM

So I would like to respectfully agree to disagree on the church money issue.
Well...they make more money than they need to cover overhead.

Ever been to the Vatican? It's an opulent palace that makes Buckingham look like low-income housing.

8-)

DoñaNina

12-12-2006, 01:59 PM

Well...they make more money than they need to cover overhead.

Ever been to the Vatican? It's an opulent palace that make Buckingham look like low-income housing.

8-)

Yeah but the Vatican doesn't pay for it's little churches world-wide. It -should-, but it doesn't.

Veldrina Vladescu

12-12-2006, 02:01 PM

Vel - ya know I adore you. And in that you and I will not always see things the same way. So I would like to respectfully agree to disagree on the church money issue.

yay love!

One (not all not the only but a really big reason) why churches want money - to function and provide for its congregation in this day and age money is necessary.
Taxes on the land, building to hold services/ offices/ daycare etc, utilities, hymnals, musicians, staff has to have a salary to provide for their families.

ok...but a lot of those things don't get taxed, & priests are tax exempt, but i know what yer sayin

Let alone programs and services that they provide to the community - not just members. (example: the church I go to has a resume writing program. They assist people in the community, - single parents, people wanting better for them selves in the work place, women in shelters trying to get away from an abusive situation - open to anyone who would like the assistance no matter what race, creed, or religious background/ preferance.)

cool church! I like when they actually DO something, practice what they preach. Too many don't. And i think the joke is more pointed towards the a-holes like the Falwells & Oral (who names their kid ORAL???)Roberts & the Bakers , all their ilk, with the "Jesus wants u to send me $10,000 right now!" Oh yeah? I just spoke to him the other day & he told me what a fucktard you are, so shut up! (I also have a pin that says "Jesus would slap the shit out of you"...) ;D

Emrld

12-12-2006, 02:08 PM

I agree . . .I personally do not care for those that claim in the name of religion you need to send me money.
I do not have a problem with churches that are able and willing to show any member of their congregation or those that wish to be the church budget.
The big mega stadium church doesn't fullfill the spot in me that whatever a person choses to practice (or not) takes care of.
If there wasn't a market, need, or want for such a creature I doubt it would exist. However their are people that works for. Different things for different people. (I just won't give them my money - those that want to have that type of service can give them money)

Lady Sarah

12-12-2006, 02:09 PM

... and megachurches with their live bands and musicians, big lighting and audio techies, big screen tv's, Internet services, tv programming....

Sorry, but they do!

I have to agree with Selena on this one - I know of at least two in Arlington alone that are so friggin big, one had to go to Fort Worth just to purchase the property alone - stadium seating, state of the art audio systems the whole works. The church now sits on like 10 acres of land - most of which is undeveloped and fenced in by DONATED wrought iron fencing (in and of itself is easily worth several thousands of $$, if not 100's of thousands of dollars. I know for a fact that THIS particular church auditions you to join the congregation and if you do join, you sign a contract as to how much you're going to tithe in a month. if you don't tithe that much, you're sent a bill in the mail. if you don't pay it, I'm sure they sic the legal staff on you. My brother and his wife submitted an application to join the congregation - took the council of deacons 6 months to get back to them and even then they weren't entitled to the full priveledges of a church member. They could attend worship, but they couldn't send their kids to sunday school, etc. Made me sick to even think about it - then it pissed me off.

The other one hasn't moved, but they've taken up the parking space normally used for neighboring businesses, they rent the big coachman buses to bring in the faithful. They are one of the oldest IIRC and they just recently built a youth center that's almost as big one of the multiplex theaters here in town. They have standing room only at each of the three services on Sunday. I can tolerate them better than the previous mentioned church, but only because they haven't usurped the properies around them aside from parking.

Veldrina Vladescu

12-12-2006, 02:12 PM

I agree . . .I personally do not care for those that claim in the name of religion you need to send me money.
I do not have a problem with churches that are able and willing to show any member of their congregation or those that wish to be the church budget.
(I just won't give them my money - those that want to have that type of service can give them money)

There's a decent-sized church near where i work that always seems to have something going on. They have a thrift shop, do bake sales & raffles, etc. I've also seen them take in the homeless & take stuff from the shop to clothe them. I don't have much $, but I'm sure they're wondering who keeps leaving them donations of clothes, sheets, & stuff for the shop so early in the morning on their steps :) (shhhhh!)

Emrld

12-12-2006, 02:13 PM

Another point on some of the mega churches.

I know a person that VOLUNTEERS his time to run A/V on Sundays. - Not everyone participating on Sunday morning takes a paycheck.

My Brother -in-law gets paid a really small amount of money to drum during another churches Sunday Service . . .it isn't much but every little bit helps when you have 3 small children.

Some churches have memebers that are high enough up in a company that they are able to donate the big screen TV

There is no standard answer as to what is right. People are different - and are going to see things differently - that includes what they chose to practice.

DoñaNina

12-12-2006, 02:26 PM

My Brother -in-law gets paid a really small amount of money to drum during another churches Sunday Service . . .it isn't much but every little bit helps when you have 3 small children.

I used to know a really nice lady who was the mom of my best friend in high school. Lady was dirt broke, and got paid a pittance to play piano for our church, just because every little bit helped. What did the asses in our choir do? Demand she be fired because they liked to be in charge. >< Ugh. Egotystical bastards.

Veldrina Vladescu

12-12-2006, 02:27 PM

I used to know a really nice lady who was the mom of my best friend in high school. Lady was dirt broke, and got paid a pittance to play piano for our church, just because every little bit helped. What did the asses in our choir do? Demand she be fired because they liked to be in charge. >< Ugh. Egotystical bastards.

refer to my "practice what u preach" bit...I like Jesus, but man do i hate most of his followers....

Pathos

12-12-2006, 02:35 PM

Yeah but the Vatican doesn't pay for it's little churches world-wide. It -should-, but it doesn't.
They don't have to. The money just keeps rolling in.

DoñaNina

12-12-2006, 02:42 PM

They don't have to. The money just keeps rolling in.

What money? My church could hardly afford to stay open a few years ago.

Gemdrite

12-12-2006, 06:58 PM

If money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so bad?
thiiiiiink about it......
Just for clarification and a little bit of trivia...

Someone said they thought it was secular. Actually, the quote is in the bible, but is very very often misquoted as what Vel said above. The actual quote, as found in 1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV version for any who care) is "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."

Just a little tidbit!