Church is a profitable business?

[Mr. Personality]

I could never find anywhere in the bible where it says we're supposed
to give money. I think some people back then gave money to some other
people but that doesn't mean we're supposed to do the exactly same thing.
One scripture i the old testament says 'You've robbed God of tithes' and that
scares people. I also think tithes were food, to be given to a storehouse, probably
to feed people. Not money.

But I'll finish this post later.


.

Like it or not, it takes money to run an organization like a religion/church. If people want to donate money, that's their business. I think you're working too much off the theory that anyone who donates does so out of fear. In fact, many do it out of love.

[fluffy]

It makes sense that members of a congregation offer support for something that benefits them, this is a sound principle, but there's something about "spiritual leaders" in thousand dollar suits and private jets that really delivers a message that carries nothing appealing unless excessive materialism is your thing.

[Mr. Personality]

It makes sense that members of a congregation offer support for something that benefits them, this is a sound principle, but there's something about "spiritual leaders" in thousand dollar suits and private jets that really delivers a message that carries nothing appealing unless excessive materialism is your thing.

I agree wholeheartedly. This is one of my big problems with religion, that being a business cloaked under "God"
With that said, I would guarantee the majority of people who donate money to the church do so out of their love for the church, not some fear that they will be banished to hell (though I would bet there are some of those too).

[Thinktank]

In the early 1990s I attended a small non-denominational church for
156 consecutive weeks. @ 70 miles round trip each Sunday, I calculated
I drove half way around planet earth in those three years for church. In the beginning,
I would have almost given my life for that church (in fact the bible even mentions
something about giving your life for your friends) but now I wouldn't give one cent to a church.

But if a guy is going to screw up his life with alcohol or some other stupid thing, I would
still tell him to go to church for a bit - to learn something. Too many people in this world are spiritually dead.
The only hting they learn, is what they learn from big corporations - to work and consume. Work and consume - and
entertainment. Being spiritually dead is not good.

but the thread is about money for the people who stand in front of a church and preach. I could stand
in front of a church and preach. All I would need to do is study the bible and memorize a lot of scriptures.
I drove half way around the earth to go to church, but when a problem arose, the pastor never drove 35 miles to come and talk with me. I felt like he was saying to me - don't let the door hit you on the rear on your way out. And for that reason
I won't give a cent to a church.

But you people should go to church. You might learn something.

[fluffy]

Along the same thought, I'd saying that if the church wants to maintain some level of economic sustainability they're going to have to update their product. A little more room for personal interpretation is needed. I got involved in an alcohol recovery program a few years back that is rooted pretty deeply in spiritual growth, but the catch-phrase in the group is "a God of my understanding". This allows the membership to develop a concept of God that they are comfortable with and still reap the spiritual benefits of religious teachings without all trappings of the particular religion. I can see churches that subscribe to a literal translation of the bible losing membership if that isn't already happening, as quite frankly, much of the bible's contents are in direct conflict with what we have come to accept as true in the eyes of scientific discovery. It's doubtful that a church that continues to fight the us-against-them fight with the scientific community is going to prosper in these times.

[sooperphreek]

i hope churches lose non-profit status....the land gets taxed....and the financial income that churches make are declared and taxed. and then the whole idea of church will be more in translation with what the bible means because it will be about people. and not about buildings and facilitating lazy parishioners. then i will see if like the poison song they "can give me somethin to believe in".

[fluffy]

Political hot potato. What you'd need is a politician who thinks he could get elected without any church-going voters behind him/her. Are there any around?

[Glacier]

Political hot potato. What you'd need is a politician who thinks he could get elected without any church-going voters behind him/her. Are there any around?

I think you're making three false assumptions here:

1) That all church-going voters agree with tax-exempt status.
2) That church-going voters vote based on one issue.
3) That all non-church-going voters would like to see the non-profit status removed.

[fluffy]

Political hot potato. What you'd need is a politician who thinks he could get elected without any church-going voters behind him/her. Are there any around?

I think you're making three false assumptions here:

1) That all church-going voters agree with tax-exempt status.
2) That church-going voters vote based on one issue.
3) That all non-church-going voters would like to see the non-profit status removed.

Not really, I just don't think you'd be able to find a politician who would be willing to put an obviously controversial plank like that into their platform. Same as you don't see many jumping on the pot legalization bandwagon, it's just not in their fence-sitting, please-everyone nature.

[OREZ]

Political hot potato. What you'd need is a politician who thinks he could get elected without any church-going voters behind him/her. Are there any around?

I think you're making three false assumptions here:

1) That all church-going voters agree with tax-exempt status.
2) That church-going voters vote based on one issue.
3) That all non-church-going voters would like to see the non-profit status removed.

Not really, I just don't think you'd be able to find a politician who would be willing to put an obviously controversial plank like that into their platform. Same as you don't see many jumping on the pot legalization bandwagon, it's just not in their fence-sitting, please-everyone nature.

I agree, it's not likely that we'll find many politicians who would be willing to take the chance. However, I'd love to see religious organizations lose their tax exemption. I don't believe it will happen though, in fact, I believe that we'll see religion and politics in bed together more and more as time goes on. (just a hunch)

[Glacier]

There are always two drivers at play when political change is in the air.

1) How much public opposition is there?
2) Is there enough political will to overcome this opposition?

It is fair to say that public opposition would be strong, but not as strong as it was when the laws around capital punishment and abortion were changed. ie. Less than 20% of the population goes to church which is lower than the number of people who wanted to keep the old abortion and capital punishment laws. Therefore, one can deduce (I think) that people don't really care that strongly about changing tax exempt statuses for churches - or at least that's what politicians think.

[fluffy]

One has to consider the fervor of the religious fanatic, and their ability to inspire a whirlwind of emotional controversy, not a storm many politicians are willing to step into.

[kgcayenne]

I, although being a Christian, do not oppose the revocation of tax-exempt status of religious organizations. It is the government’s jurisdiction to grant or revoke taxes on its people, religious or not. Therefore, as long as the government is allowing the provision, then that’s the way it is. Should they, however opt to revoke tax-exempt status, it’s my belief that Christians at least are in no position to protest, granted any taxation scheme must be across the board, not just singling out one or two. After all, it was Jesus who admonished Christians to “…pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar…” (the account is found in Mark 12:14-17), so if a government changes the tax structure to include religious organizations to pay taxes, then so be it.

In most cases, I actually believe that religious organizations SHOULD be paying taxes. Many churches: rent out space in their buildings; run daycares; charge fees for services like weddings and funerals; and many also engage in real estate transactions and monetary investments. All those things can and do produce revenue, which the rest of us would be paying tax on were it us conducting such business. This is another case where Jesus’ actions and words are being ignored in relation to the account of his overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple (Matthew 21:12-13). I understand this to mean that any sort of business activity should not be conducted in or about church property, let alone be purported by said church.

[Glacier]

That's a well reasoned response, kgcayenne. What you say makes sense to me. My only divergence of opinion rests with the Matthew interpretation. My understanding of this passage is that Jesus kicked the money changers out of the temple (at least in part) because they were cheating (ie the priests would reject the animals people brought to sacrifice and force the people to buy their own "blemish-free" animals).

I was about to reply to fluffy with with a question as to why politicians were willing to jump into the controversial domains of gay marriage, abortion, and capital punishment, but then it hit me - this has practically nothing to do with religion and everything to do with money. Taking away tax-breaks or raising taxes (H * ahem* S *ahem* T) creates a fire of controversy that few politicians want to touch even when they are the right things to do.

[Thinktank]

Luke 6:38
King James Version (KJV)


38Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.


It's right there written in the bible. People think if they give tithes, they will get lots
of money in return. That's the deal. I know of one family that was in church, that got
lots of money. I don't know how much tithes they give, because that's a secret, but I do
know I bought some equipment from them, - and now I totally believe 25% of all church people
should never be trusted - becuase that equipment I bought - total garbage. It was the same as
flushing $8,000 down the drain.



.