| 0 |
Subject: Ungenerous Christians
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [351091010] Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 11:14
Ron Sider with a review of a book study on the wide gap in Christian giving:
Many have lamented the meager giving of American Christians. Others have questioned the data on which this criticism was based or pointed out that American Christians give more than those in most other nations. Now we have a careful, scholarly analysis of how much—i.e., how little—American Christians give, plus a sophisticated sociological analysis of why.
...
Chapter 1 hits the reader like a ton of bricks, spelling out in detail what American Christians could accomplish if they would tithe. If just the "committed Christians" (defined as those who attend church at least a few times a month or profess to be "strong" or "very strong" Christians) would tithe, there would be an extra 46 billion dollars a year available for kingdom work
In my own church, I see the same small number of people doing a lot of work; giving of their time all the time (teaching the children, doing readings, coordinating fundraising for the bell tower, etc). I have the sense that these same relatively small number of people are also the ones who donate the most.
This book looks to be worth a look. |
| 1 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 11:33
|
Since many American Christians don't consider Mormons to be 'real' Christians, they probably won't look to the LDS Church as a role model.
They should.
My ex, with a 10 month old daughter and the father currently out of work, had her rent paid this month by the Church. Trust me, she is nowhere close to being Mormon, except whenever the Church can help her.
Many Christian welfare programs demand adherence to dogma as a prerequisite for charity. These decisions are left to the judgement of the presiding bishop in the LDS Church, but slackers are usually not turned away.
|
| 2 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 12:01
|
I was always under the impression that studies have consistently shown that the most "ungiving Americans" are liberal democrats.....unless we are talking about finding ways to spend other people's money.
|
| 3 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 12:37
|
I was always under the impression that studies have consistently shown that the most "ungiving Americans" are liberal democrats..
Perhaps you could link to one of these studies. I find it hard to imagine that a charity would qualify it's contributors with questioning where their political leanings lie.
Additionally, there are so many different types of organizations that receive donations, that in order to make determinations as to the political preference of the donors, all organizations must be considered.
I'm not religious, so I don't tithe. I'm not a liberal Democrat, but I'm sure a portion of my tax dollars go to social programs for the poor. Still, I throw a few dollars into the pot for the Salvation Army each holiday season.
The bulk of my contributions go to wildlife and conservation groups. I would imagine these organizations receive more from liberal leaning folks than conservatives, although some, like Ducks Unlimited, are heavily subsidised by hunters, who tend to be more conservative. I would suggest that parochial donations are likely to come more from conservatives.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 351091010
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 12:45
|
The book, as I understand it, studied churchgoers and their giving (or non-giving) habits. It wasn't comparative to non-churchgoers.
Essentially it studied the question of how well, in practice, does a church-going Christian follow tithing rules?
|
| 5 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:10
|
What does the Bible say about giving?
Matthew 6:3 - 6:4 "But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly."
I have always interpreted that passage to not take public credit for giving so I do not discuss mine in any detail, only that it exists.
|
| 6 | Richard
Dude
ID: 204252420
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:33
|
Interesting stuff, Perm Dude. It got me looking at my current giving.
I currently give:
28.3% to Income Tax (Fed + CA State)
6.2% to Social Security (I hope I see some of that coming back to me in the future)
3.3% to Healthcare (mostly Medicare)
So off the top I'm seeing almost 38% of my income disappear into the government. Of course, in my income bracket that will go up in the future if President-elect Barack Obama follows thru on his plan to raise taxes for the top 5% and cut taxes for the bottom 95%.
I'm giving 8.6% to my church and wish I could afford to up that but that's hard to do when so much is already taken away before I get it. Of course, if I work out the percentages on a net income basis, I'm giving almost 14% to my church.
I wonder what the tax burden was on those folks living in Old Testament times when the tithe was first established?
|
| 8 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:41
|
Richard, you make an excellent point.
I'll make a promise right now before God and everybody else that if the federal government stopped taking away my money that I would just take those funds (including SS and Medicare) and give it away to charities of my choosing. They'd probably use the money more efficiently anyway.
|
| 9 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:52
|
Most of my giving is one on one and completely appropriate to the situation. I normally don't think organizations can do the job efficiently and I KNOW the government can't. Obviously I am more interested in saving people for the longterm rather than a one and done.
|
| 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 351091010
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 13:57
|
OK, what happened to my post #7??
|
| 11 | Richard
Dude
ID: 204252420
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 14:02
|
#10 - Perm Dude, I didn't take it ;)
|
| 12 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 14:11
|
OK, what happened to my post #7??
I think Obama took your post and redistributed it to the poor.
|
| 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 351091010
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 14:14
|
So you're saying that those writing more than 250K words/year get their posts redistributed to the lurkers, wk?
:)
|
| 14 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 14:14
|
Nah, Robbinhood and his merry men are tossing it over the heads of the poor until they weary of the sport and keep it for themselves.
|
| 15 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 14:53
|
I'm confused with Richard's post. I was under the impression that tithes were tax deductible up to 10% against gross income.
I say this because a tax guy I used one year who was rather loose with the rules had me paying 10% income to the Mormon Church as a deduction. He said that filing in Utah, that deduction never sends up a red flag, so he uses it for all his Utah customers, whether they tithe or not.
All my current contributions are 100% tax deductible, so I'm confused with
I'm giving 8.6% to my church and wish I could afford to up that but that's hard to do when so much is already taken away before I get it. Of course, if I work out the percentages on a net income basis, I'm giving almost 14% to my church.
That 8.6% should be subtracted as a deduction from your gross income.
Is it because I itemize my deductions? Can't you take that deduction whether you itemize or not?
|
| 16 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:04
|
PV:
I am thinking of when there have been comparisions of the charitable contributions of members of congress as they are required to disclose their tax returns.
I believe that most recently the tax return of Joe Biden showing less than $1,000 of charitable giving.
On thing to keep in mind is the term tithe literally means "tenth".
The tithe was to be given to the church which at that time was also the government.
At the time the tithe was implemented Isreal was a theocracy.
In addition to the tithe the Jewish people were also required to give to the poor.
However, in most cases the poor still had to work for what they were "given".
It was Jewish custom for a farmer to leave the corners of their fields unharvested and allow the poor to come in and harvest what they needed.
Interesting that 10% is enough for God but not enough for the US government.
There was also no such thing as a graduated tax...everyone no matter how rich or poor paid the same tithe.
|
| 17 | Richard
Dude
ID: 204252420
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:05
|
#15 - Sorry about the confusion, Pancho Villa.
Yes indeed my contributions are tax deductible. In spite of that nice benefit, I'm still sending ~28% of my gross income to the government via Federal and State Income tax.
For simplicity of calculations (and without devulging my tax returns line-by-line) I simply looked at a recent paystub and divided everything taken out by my gross income. This is a close approxiamtion of what I send to the government but it does under estimate the total bite the government takes. As it turns out I get the added joy each April of writing a check to both Feds and State since my withholdings don't cover my entire income tax bill.
|
| 18 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:11
|
I'm confused with Richard's post. I was under the impression that tithes were tax deductible up to 10% against gross income.
I say this because a tax guy I used one year who was rather loose with the rules had me paying 10% income to the Mormon Church as a deduction. He said that filing in Utah, that deduction never sends up a red flag, so he uses it for all his Utah customers, whether they tithe or not.
All my current contributions are 100% tax deductible, so I'm confused with
I'm giving 8.6% to my church and wish I could afford to up that but that's hard to do when so much is already taken away before I get it. Of course, if I work out the percentages on a net income basis, I'm giving almost 14% to my church.
That 8.6% should be subtracted as a deduction from your gross income.
Is it because I itemize my deductions? Can't you take that deduction whether you itemize or not?
Just because something doesnt send up a red flag does not make it legal.
Taking a deduction for contributions you didnt make is outright tax fraud and a crime.
Taxpayers are allowed to deduct 100% of their cash contibutions up to a limit of 50% of their income.
There are some other limits that are applied to how much you can claim when it comes to appreciated property but in general for most people you can deduct all of their chartitable contributions.
|
| 19 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:18
|
my withholdings don't cover my entire income tax bill.
Is that because you claim more dependents on your W-2 form than on your actual return?
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I've rarely been in a position where I have had withholding, but can't you adjust the amount withheld by number of dependents claimed, and do it legally?
Let's say you want more withholding taken so you get a fat refund check. In that case, you don't even have to claim yourself as a dependent, you just put zero in the box.
Obviously, when you file your return the correct amount of dependents must be right, but I think you can manipulate the amount of withholding with your W-2.
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 4810261014
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:27
|
You can also ask your employer to withhold more money.
|
| 21 | Richard
Dude
ID: 204252420
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:27
|
#19 - PV, I prefer to write a check each April rather than get a refund check. I look at refund checks as money I lent to the government for them to use interest free for most of the year. In the ideal world things would balance out (taxes due equal to taxes withheld) come April 15th but that's a pretty tough balance to achieve. I rather owe a little tax on April 15th than get a refund check.
But we are getting a little of topic here with this continued discussion about my specific situation.
btw - I also forgot to factor in my sales tax, which in California is fairly substantial, in the total amount I send to the government each each year. Maybe I should just scale back my work effort and get on the other side of the redistribution of wealth equation.
|
| 22 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:31
|
I claim the exact # of dependents in my house every year and it still doesn't work. I can understand owing because of dividend or capital gains since I don't make tax payments throughout the year, but if it weren't for the itemized deductions I would be up s#it creek without a paddle.
|
| 23 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:32
|
Just because something doesnt send up a red flag does not make it legal.
Taking a deduction for contributions you didnt make is outright tax fraud and a crime.
Well, I knew that, the only reason I mentioned it was it was the only time it had ever come up for me(religious contributions).
I'm fairly certain that guy is in prison.
|
| 24 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:34
|
Obama's new simplified tax plan:
Line 1: How much did you make?_____________
Line 2: Send it in.__________________
|
| 25 | G
ID: 369542914
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:39
|
Weykool,
Thanks for the info on the book. I just assisted my church on a stewardship series that kicked off in Nov.
Here are some things that jumped out to me.
1) As Christians, Jesus asks us to give first to God and then to live off what is left. Many of us choose to live of what we have earned and then give the leftovers to God.
2) The reason for this is we justify if we only had more we could give more. See the posts above blaming the governement for giving levels as one example. The reality is those of us in America are incredibly rich. 1 billion people in this world live off of $1 per day and another 2 billion live off of $2 per day. Did you realize that if you personally make more than $1500 per year you are richer than 75% of the worlds 6+ billion people! To see how your income compares to everyone else in the world go to: www.globalrichlist.com.
There is no reason why those of us in America can't give more generously. Besides, I have yet to see that person finally say "ah, I am now rich so I can give more". There always seems to be the need to get to the next level before we can.
Some quotes we used:
"Your bank and credit card statements are theological documents. They tell who and what you worship.”
“The world asks; ”What does a person own?” God asks, “How is the person using what they have been given?”
In closing, I personally don't believe tithing is the answer for todays Christian. Tithing is an Old Testament bench mark. Instead, think this scripture says it best:
2 Corinthians 9:6-7
“........Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
If we asked ourselves how we should best respond to God's blessings, the answer may be 5% this year or it may be 15%. Ideally tho, i think we need to be growing in our generosity each year becoming more dependent on God to provide for us and less on our own.
|
| 26 | Razor
ID: 181051618
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:42
|
Maybe I should just scale back my work effort and get on the other side of the redistribution of wealth equation.
Well, if you find away to make $75,000 go farther than $200,000+, then I would do it.
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 4810261014
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:42
|
#21: Well, if your business makes more than 250K year you will probably see a rise. Less than $200K and you'll see a drop, including tax credits for additional hires, etc.
Between $250K and $200K and you'll see a slight drop depending upon what you do.
Nevertheless, nearly all Americans take the standard deduction on their federal return, mostly because they don't need to itemize. Perhaps if more did, we'd see a rise in church giving? I don't know that there is a wealth of people out there who would give more if the tax benefits were more obvious to them.
|
| 28 | Richard
Dude
ID: 204252420
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:49
|
#26 - LOL, Razor. That's why I'm still getting up early each morning and heading off to work. I can't figure out to make less go further.
|
| 29 | Razor
ID: 181051618
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 15:58
|
Well, that's the point. More income is always better.
|
| 30 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 16:11
|
Why does God need money? I've always wondered that. Why give to a church specifically?
Jesus wasn't a big fan of the establishment back in the day. Why give money to the descendents of the people even Jesus Christ Himself could not stand?
Give it straight to those in need. That's what I say.
I'm not condemning the concept of passing the basket around during service. I can understand that churches have heating bills too. I'm talking specifically about tithing.
|
| 31 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 16:13
|
Boxman - You'd make a lousy Mormon(but then so would I ;)
|
| 32 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 16:16
|
It appears that PD's post 7 was inadvertently deleted when he posted it at almost the
same instant that another post was being edited. That's rare, but it has happened before on occasion.
I'll repost it here:
from Perm Dude
There are a few in my church who use the basket only for giving, and tend to give only cash. A few months ago, however, our church started a program of automatic giving, where the amount we specified is taken right out of our bank account automatically, which makes it really easy for us (and saves us from fumbling around for a pen to write the check in the pew).
Most people in our church use envelopes and get statements (and, without having read the book referenced above, I'm guessing this is similar across other churches). This makes it easy to tell that the vast majority of giving is being made by a small percentage of churchgoers.
If the more generous people gave anonymously it might be more difficult to track the numbers, but it isn't.
I dunno--I guess I'm anxious to read the book to find out more of what the prescription is.
|
| 33 | G
ID: 369542914
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 16:24
|
God doesn't need money.
God did establish the church tho and did so for specific reasons related to his kingdom. In order for the church to exist there are some basic needs that must be met including staff, building, bills etc.
In addition, hopefully you are seeing how the church you are giving to is reaching out to the community it is serving through the programs it offers (staff and supplies), missionaries, special projects like Katrina, Feed My Starving Children, Operation Christmas Child, on site food shelves (like my church has), are just a few examples. Again, hopefully you can trust your church of choice to be good stewards and that you can see real results of their efforts.
That said, I certainly think you give as God has called you to give to any number of numerous organizations that have proven their value to serving the needy in addition to your local church if you have one.
|
| 34 | G
ID: 369542914
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 16:29
|
Perm,
To add to your post #7 that is now #32, I can tell you that administratively, the more people who would choose to give electronically the better it is for the church. As you said many churches have for years and years and years used the envelope system but that takes a lot of time and effort to track each week. With younger generations it is easier to get them to give electronically but for many in the older generations, they prefer not to.
I think boxman would appreciate a reduction in adminstrative time so that more of the generosity can be used where it is needed instead of for adminstrative purposes.
|
| 35 | Perm Dude
ID: 4810261014
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 17:12
|
Thanks, Guru. It was up there originally, then gone!
|
| 36 | WiddleAvi
ID: 323531619
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 17:16
|
G - re: post 25 - When comparing what other people live on per day you are not taking into account cost of living. $50,000 in Ohio goes alot further then $50,000 in NY or CA
|
| 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 4810261014
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 17:31
|
That's certainly true, Widdle (salaries are higher in those high cost areas too). But none of it really excuses those who say the church is important to them to give 1-2% or less, as many apparently do.
From the review:
A small minority of American Christians give most of the total donated. Twenty percent of all Christians give 86.4 percent of the total. The most generous five percent give well over half (59.6 percent) of all contributions. But higher-income American Christians give less as a percentage of household income than poorer American Christians. In the course of the 20th century, as our personal disposable income quadrupled, the percentage donated by American Christians actually declined.
That's just pathetic. As a Christian it is embarrasing.
|
| 38 | G
ID: 369542914
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 17:43
|
WiddleAvi,
I think if you make $50,000 a year, I don't care if you live in Ohio, NY or CA, you are "rich" compared to the 3 billion people in the world who live on $730 a year or less.
|
| 39 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 17:54
|
Maybe I should just scale back my work effort and get on the other side of the redistribution of wealth equation. - Richard
This is known as 'going John Gault' and it's the thing to do.
|
| 40 | Richard
ID: 370462115
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 18:16
|
#39 - I didn't know there was a label for it -> Going John Gault
|
| 41 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 19:26
|
Ironic that in a thread with Christian prominently in the tile, John Gault is conjured. John Gault, the brainchild of famous atheist Ayn Rand.
|
| 42 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 20:00
|
Yeah, she was purdy selfish too.
However slaving away for the corrupt and inefficient government isn't unselfish, it's stupid.
|
| 43 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 20:02
|
And in short order compulsory. The morlocks' sirens are starting their spin.
|
| 44 | Perm Dude
ID: 4810261014
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 20:07
|
Is that why so many Christians are stingy?
|
| 45 | Building 7
ID: 1103028
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 20:15
|
I heard Americans are the most charitable people in the world.
|
| 46 | Perm Dude
ID: 4810261014
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 20:36
|
Maybe--it sounds like it might be a lot of self-congratulatory hooey, though.
And in any case, Americans aren't giving very much compared to what they say they believe they should.
That book is on order. Will let you know if there is anything more juicy in it.
|
| 47 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 20:55
|
Interesting I'd see this thread, just having talked to my sister in Germany today, where her town is getting ready to celebrate Martinmass tommorrow.
In Germany members of the church are compelled to tithe by means of a chirch tax that comes right out of their check, FWIW.
|
| 48 | jedman
Dude
ID: 315192219
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 20:56
|
I have a good friend who is a CPA and he has told me in the past
that his clients that are most generous with their charitable
contributions seem to have less problems both financially and in
their family life. No scientific data, just his observations after many
years of tax practice. It wasn't the actual dollar amount, but the
percentage of their taxable income that made the difference.
|
| 49 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 22:23
|
You keep looking for that 'New Man' PD. In all the wrong places.Historian Richard Pipes describes how many Marxists at the turn of the Twentieth Century believed in the coming of the "new man" without vices; in essence a new superior species, albeit one caused by socio-economic changes, not genetics. In order to reach this stage, Pipes argues, it was necessary to completely destroy the existing institutions that had formed the current wretched humans and that this would in turn make it possible to dispense with the state. Pipes argues that such thinking inevitably leads to a devaluation of the importance placed on the lives and rights of current human beings. This is where Catholics are looking these days, PD?
Even the Russians gave up that dream.
But liberals keep trying. Hugo Chavez trying to create the 'new man'.It's all part of Chavez's efforts to encourage Venezuelans to adopt the psyche of the "New Man," a socialist revolutionary with a monk-like purity of purpose. Chavez often cites the life of Cuba's iconic hero Ernesto "Che" Guevara as an ideal example — and complains that many Venezuelans' values are not up to par. ...
Other Chavez edicts for Venezuelans:
* Don't douse food with too much hot sauce. Apparently, the New Man has a wimpy tongue.
* Respect speed limits. The New Man does the double-nickel.
* Eat low-cholesterol foods. (Is Mike Bloomberg a New Man?)
* No Barbie dolls for Venezuelan girls. Also, no boob jobs for teenagers.
So what can New Men do for enjoyment? Soon, they can give up their beer and bratwurst for Hugo Chavez' All-Time Hits, a number of songs sung spontaneously which one of his aides compiled from his speeches.
|
| 50 | Perm Dude
ID: 4810261014
Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 00:24
|
Is it simply that you lack discipline or self-control that prevents you from staying on-topic, Baldwin?
|
| 51 | Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Tue, Nov 11, 2008, 05:38
|
PD
I think the topic of whether 'the right kind of' socialism or true christianity produces the genuinely generous and benevolent person is the topic and frankly I'm amazed at your choice so far.
|
| 52 | Boldwin
ID: 1810312617
Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 01:24
|
Futility...
"dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good" - T.S.Elliot
|
| 53 | Perm Dude
ID: 53100309
Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 10:03
|
Couldn't find a non anti-semite to make your point, Baldwin? Nice. Quoting TS Eliot in a thread about stinginess.
|
| 54 | Boldwin
ID: 1810312617
Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 19:44
|
A) It is a magnificently perfect insight.
B) I do not know whether T.S.Elliot is an anti-semite and I cannot imagine how that would make that description of utopianism any less perfect.
C) Is your grasp of reality so tenuous that you dare not listen to or credit anyone who does not agree with you in every last thing?
|
| 55 | Perm Dude
ID: 2110493017
Sun, Nov 30, 2008, 19:53
|
I often quote people who I disagree with when they have good insights. I think it's damn ironic that you cite TS Eliot in a thread about being stingy.
I think you have Marxism on the brain, BTW. You really need to get it out of your system. Somewhere else, preferably. You crap all over every thread with this stuff.
|
| 56 | Boldwin
ID: 1810312617
Mon, Dec 01, 2008, 02:27
|
You expect a political forum without the conservative side represented and then you want to pose as posterboy for an inclusive new age of politics.
PD
|
| 57 | tree on the treo
ID: 3510493023
Mon, Dec 01, 2008, 06:59
|
baldwin...never mind the fact I think those on the even remotely moderate conservative side would hardly consider you their representative, PDs point is that you come into every thread and condemn marxism - if the thread were about juggling seals, you find a way to attempt to include marxism.
personally, I just look at this whole board like a bar, and you're that drunk guy asleep in the corner who periodically lifts his head up and says something wacky...even if its a LOT more than periodically...
|
| 58 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Thu, Jan 31, 2013, 14:30
|
Pastor who tried to stiff waitress gets her fired for publicizing the effort.
It is hard to rebut the arguments of athiests when my religion is represented by dickwads like this.
|
| 59 | Tree
ID: 130583112
Thu, Jan 31, 2013, 15:10
|
mind-blowing.
how does that woman call herself a Christian? what a POS.
|
| 60 | Frick
ID: 2193319
Thu, Jan 31, 2013, 15:44
|
The people who claim to be the most Christian, are typically the least Christian in my experience. Kind of like the senators who try and pass all kinds of homophobic legislation who then get caught in a public bus bathroom with another guy. Thou doth protest to much.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: Ungenerous Christians
|