Should Churches Pay Taxes?

[captivewear]

Simple question. Do you think churches should pay taxes?

[saysmydoctor]

Simple answer: yes.

[apoemtothedead]

Obv.

[caveBEAR]

If they want to open their mouths and wallets towards political and social issues, then yes. If they want to feed the homeless and STFU, then no.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Yes Yes Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh God, Yes!!

[bNz719]

Yes. I don't see why they should be exempt.

[DeviateRogue]

Yes.

[S7ranburgLar]

no.
you people seriously want the church to hand over a portion of its collection plate money for taxes?
people are so quick to shit all over religion...

[cwhit412]

They're no different than any other business.

[apoemtothedead]

no.
you people seriously want the church to hand over a portion of its collection plate money for taxes?
people are so quick to shit all over religion...
Because the collection plate is the only way a church gets money. :rolleyes:

[Troggy]

Because the collection plate is the only way a church gets money. :rolleyes:

Some churches are a lot more like businesses than others.

[J.C.]

It's what Jesus would've wanted.

[DeviateRogue]

Some churches are a lot more like businesses than others.

This, I can't stand the mega-churches.

[germypill]

I don't think so, because church-goers are already paying taxes to the government as well as giving money to the church. It would be like taxing the people more, the church would just be a middle man. But what do I know, I'm high as balls right now.

[S7ranburgLar]

Because the collection plate is the only way a church gets money. :rolleyes:

i'm giving an example of what a church's money is primarily used for: helping people.
the catholic church is one of the largest charity bodies in the world (if not the largest, i don't have numbers so i couldn't say).

[Chris92]

If they want to open their mouths and wallets towards political and social issues, then yes. If they want to feed the homeless and STFU, then no.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.

It's what Jesus would've wanted.
Probably so. Some passage about "give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's" comes to mind. I think that referred to the taxes imposed by the Roman Empire upon Jews.

[WTG]

No, especially if it is a Church that uses the money to help the less fortunate. You don't tax donations to any organization, why would you tax donations to a Church?

[S7ranburgLar]

They're no different than any other business.

a church isn't a business.

[samsara]

no.
you people seriously want the church to hand over a portion of its collection plate money for taxes?
people are so quick to shit all over religion...

I agree with you. But most people will find some "facts" and blah blah blah fake blah their opinion is the only correct one blah

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

no.
you people seriously want the church to hand over a portion of its collection plate money for taxes?
people are so quick to shit all over religion...

Do you have any idea the amount of profit any given religion can accumulate?

L. Ron Hubbard put it best: "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

[DeviateRogue]

a church isn't a business.

See Mega-churches. And tell me how they aren't using a business infrastructure.

[PirateSkater182]

a church isn't a business.

Pretty much is, except you're paying to be brainwashed.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood_Church

[ReadyForAction]

Maybe they could set up some sort of benchmark that they have to donate in order to be tax exempt?

[WTG]

Pretty much is, except you're paying to be brainwashed.

Says someone who has been brainwashed to be against it.

[S7ranburgLar]

Do you have any idea the amount of profit any given religion can accumulate?

L. Ron Hubbard put it best: "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

having over a billion registered members usually helps you turn out a profit.
and i hardly think a science fiction writer is a credible source to quote when discussing religion.

[heyguys123]

it's really not a simple question at all. how would you separate churches from other non-profits that are also tax exempt? do you also eliminate tax exemption for faith-based charities? would taxing a church prohibit the free exercise of religion?

[PirateSkater182]

Says someone who has been brainwashed to be against it.

Yeah, you're stupid.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

having over a billion registered members usually helps you turn out a profit.
and i hardly think a science fiction writer is a credible source to quote when discussing religion.

Okay, how about the Vatican? You know how much the Vatican is worth? Billions!!!!!

Sell the Vatican, feed the world. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc)

[S7ranburgLar]

Pretty much is, except you're paying to be brainwashed.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood_Church

lol, well then, by your logic i could claim that the entirety of America is being brainwashed into chasing the American Dream by big business, while millions aren't covered by health care, and your top 1% control the entire planet?

referring to all religion as brainwashing is a little disgusting.

i'm not going to argue the legitimacy of religion with you. if you're steadfastly religious, you'll be absolutely dogmatic in your beliefs. if you're an atheist, you'll be just fucking dreadful to have a conversation with, because they think everyone is just stupid for believing in an invisible magical flying spaghetti monster. you can't win.

[S7ranburgLar]

Okay, how about the Vatican? You know how much the Vatican is worth? Billions!!!!!

Sell the Vatican, feed the world. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc)

Sell Walmart, feed the world and bring back mom and pop shops.

at least the church gives people a moral agent to abide in and a crutch for the poor to lean on.
don't be so narrow-minded just because you have a beef with organized religion.

[WTG]

Yeah, you're stupid.

Thank you! My entire life is now changed, because of your one-sided, biased views! My savior!


I'm just playin, you're still just an ass. ;-)

[whiterussian]

taxes on what?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Sell Walmart, feed the world and bring back mom and pop shops.

at least the church gives people a moral agent to abide in and a crutch for the poor to lean on.
don't be so narrow-minded just because you have a beef with organized religion.

Wal-Mart would never be sold. The shareholders wouldn't see to it. From my experience, those who are members of a church don't give a crap about the poor. They view the poor as a bunch of free-loading welfare recipients who feel entitled to government hand outs. It's a shame, because Jesus Christ was a noble figure in aiding the poor. Today's Christians do not feel that way.

[DeviateRogue]

Sell Walmart, feed the world and bring back mom and pop shops.

at least the church gives people a moral agent to abide in and a crutch for the poor to lean on.
don't be so narrow-minded just because you have a beef with organized religion.

Walmart has to pay taxes tho, so you'll need a better comparison, otherwise you're bound to lose this argument. I have no problem with religion, (I'm a christian) I do believe Megachurches need to be taxed, while small town churches shouldn't have to be.

[PirateSkater182]

Thank you! My entire life is now changed, because of your one-sided, biased views! My savior!


I'm just playin, you're still just an ass. ;-)

Did I try and change your ideas on anything? Fuck no I didn't.

[S7ranburgLar]

Walmart has to pay taxes tho, so you'll need a better comparison, otherwise you're bound to lose this argument. I have no problem with religion, (I'm a christian) I do believe Megachurches need to be taxed, while small town churches shouldn't have to be.

my example isn't to compare non-tax-paying bodies, i'm giving an example of another bloated institution that could 'feed the world' if it was sold. my main point was to illustrate whereas Walmart is a business in the strict sense of making money, Churches make money to help people.

[seymourbuttes]

Simple answer: yes.

Haha, you say yes, but Snoop Dogg says no.





And... Yes they should.

[PirateSkater182]

lol, well then, by your logic i could claim that the entirety of America is being brainwashed into chasing the American Dream by big business, while millions aren't covered by health care, and your top 1% control the entire planet?

referring to all religion as brainwashing is a little disgusting.

i'm not going to argue the legitimacy of religion with you. if you're steadfastly religious, you'll be absolutely dogmatic in your beliefs. if you're an atheist, you'll be just fucking dreadful to have a conversation with, because they think everyone is just stupid for believing in an invisible magical flying spaghetti monster. you can't win.

Since you know everything about me and "logic", I guess I don't even really need to respond.

[PirateSkater182]

See Mega-churches. And tell me how they aren't using a business infrastructure.

This.

[The Summer Ends]

churches should have to like report what percentage of their income goes towards helping people and stuff

if it's over a good percent then they shouldn't have to pay taxes

if it's like those big old TV churches with the weird shit and most of their money goes towards not helping people then sure tax them

this probably doens't make a lot of sense

[S7ranburgLar]

Since you know everything about me and "logic", I guess I don't even really need to respond.

and yet, you quoted me saying... nothing.

[PirateSkater182]

Christians get so mad about everything, I swear.

[PirateSkater182]

and yet, you quoted me saying... nothing.

That was the point, yes.

[apoemtothedead]

taxes on what?
Property.

[samsara]

Wal-Mart would never be sold. The shareholders wouldn't see to it. From my experience, those who are members of a church don't give a crap about the poor. They view the poor as a bunch of free-loading welfare recipients who feel entitled to government hand outs. It's a shame, because Jesus Christ was a noble figure in aiding the poor. Today's Christians do not feel that way.

No. I think it all depends on the church. I worked in one were they gave clothes and food to the poor who are mostly on drugs or and dependent on something and they never talked bad of those people. But I have known others that feel the way you stated also. So grouping ALL churches into one lump is really unfair.

[Nuns On A Bus]

I fail to see how the churches in my town are anything resembling businesses seeing as they already can't get enough money as it is and yet still manage to help more people than any business around here, so I don't see why they should have even more money taken away from them when it's going to a good cause. I can see the case for taxing a megachurch, but not any of the little churches around here that have 3 or 4 hundred people who go there.

Edit: I agree with whoever said that they shouldn't be taxed as long as they don't go around being political and such

[The Summer Ends]

i don't think my church should have to pay taxes. i'm mennonite and we have like 20 regular members of our church. i know that like 80% of the donations and money the church brings in goes towards charity/transportation to service for members (flights to NO after katrina, etc.)

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

No. I think it all depends on the church. I worked in one were they gave clothes and food to the poor who are mostly on drugs or and dependent on something and they never talked bad of those people. But I have known others that feel the way you stated also. So grouping ALL churches into one lump is really unfair.

I shouldn't have generalized. I apologize. I don't associate with organized religion. But I respect those that use it for good. I've come across those who are apart of church groups who build/repair houses for the poor. My criticism of organized religion stems from those who use it for profit, greed, and hate speech.

[The Summer Ends]

i think the westboro baptist church should be taxed until they fade from existence

[samsara]

I shouldn't have generalized. I apologize. I don't associate with organized religion. But I respect those that use it for good. I've come across those who are apart of church groups who build/repair houses for the poor. My criticism of organized religion stems from those who use it for profit, greed, and hate speech.

Yeah I get where you are coming from. A few bad people can give others a bad name.

[ace1112]

yes

[Scrandon]

Don't want to see a tax on any kind of donation, if that's what you're referring to.

[jmo182]

One dude I used to play music with bought a bass amp tax free with church money because he played with the church once a week. He stopped playing with the church after a few months or so and got to keep the amp. Now I'm not saying the guy knew this was going to happen/planned it. I'm just saying that if I had to pay tax on my amp then I feel like he should, too, no matter the circumstances. However, they feed millions and millions of people each year. They build houses and such for a lot of people who really need it. When it comes down to it, churches do a lot of good things, imho. The debate could truly go either way.

[bite2brkskn12]

Wal-Mart would never be sold. The shareholders wouldn't see to it. From my experience, those who are members of a church don't give a crap about the poor. They view the poor as a bunch of free-loading welfare recipients who feel entitled to government hand outs. It's a shame, because Jesus Christ was a noble figure in aiding the poor. Today's Christians do not feel that way.
Says who? I know I don't feel that way.

[jmo182]

i think the westboro baptist church should be taxed until they fade from existence

also this.

[PirateSkater182]

Too soon?
2xB4dbdNSXY&feature=related

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Says who? I know I don't feel that way.

Good for you then.

[bite2brkskn12]

People think b/c there are SOME greedy religious figures out there, that all churches and church goers are like that. You really have no idea how much good churches do.

[saysmydoctor]

Says someone who has been brainwashed to be against it.
What?
Yeah, you're stupid.
Hahahaha

[Matt Chylak]

People think b/c there are SOME greedy religious figures out there, that all churches and church goers are like that. You really have no idea how much good churches do.

this. and I haven't gone to Church seriously in two years.

[whiterussian]

Property.

That's pretty vague as far as an almost non-American like I can tell.

If it's the land/building, I'd say yes. It's taking up valuable space in many cases. Although emotionally, I'd feel bad about a simple honest church closing down because they couldn't afford the estate. But I guess it shouldn't have been there in the first place? I don't know egh.

As to the money - I have really no idea how church money works. But if people make a living off donations, then I guess they should be taxed the same as people who make money in other ways. I guess it's about proving where the money goes.

[Andy Young]

Absolutely.

[Jsmall]

I don't think so. All church's should be an a non-profit, if they act in a biblical fashion. They should spend every dollar the is not going towards bills, upkeep, and salary (A full time minister deserves a small paycheck), on the community. The church's job is to not just encourage followers, but to show love to others in the name of whatever religous figure they follow. I'd like to see more requirements for churchs, kind of like normal tax esemptions. If they are spending a certain percent of their money on outreach, they should not have to pay taxes. They are acting in the same fashion as a non-profit if that is the case and not too many people will argue that non-profits should pay taxes regardless of religious views.

The thing is putting a tax on religous groups could not work in this current time. The problem is if they set up a tax for churchs, you will anger a good number of voters. This is because the more outgoing you are in a religous group, the more likely you are to vote. It's not good for the politicians, it's not good for the churches, and if all churches are taxed a certain percent, it's bad for the community.

[Ollie McKraut]

Preserving the status quo is probably the best way to protect moderate sized churches that provide for their communities, without engaging in delicate and tedious bureaucratic drudgery to attempt collect society's due from faith corporations (only to be challenged to the last by their legal teams).

[Neo Cassady]

If they want to open their mouths and wallets towards political and social issues, then yes. If they want to feed the homeless and STFU, then no.

This.

the catholic church is one of the largest charity bodies in the world (if not the largest, i don't have numbers so i couldn't say).

Yet they stick their noses into political/social issues (abortion and gay rights) in ways that go beyond the church doors. That's when it becomes an issue. Preach what you want in your own house, but don't go on the campaign trail.

I was raised and confirmed Catholic, FWIW.

[God damner]

I'm going to go with no. If your retarded enough to give money to a scam like organised religion then they deserve your money, every penny of it.

[DeviateRogue]

I'm going to go with no. If your retarded enough to give money to a scam like organised religion then they deserve your money, every penny of it.

I hate posts like this.

[Jsmall]

I'm going to go with no. If your retarded enough to give money to a scam like organised religion then they deserve your money, every penny of it.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it a scam. There is more to religion to some, than just being rewarded in the afterlife after all.

[Theseventhson]

I'm going to go with no. If your retarded enough to give money to a scam like organised religion then they deserve your money, every penny of it.

whatadouche

[meow]

I think main churchs should. Like the headquarters of their faith. Little churchs no.

[bite2brkskn12]

This.



Yet they stick their noses into political/social issues (abortion and gay rights) in ways that go beyond the church doors. That's when it becomes an issue. Preach what you want in your own house, but don't go on the campaign trail.

I was raised and confirmed Catholic, FWIW.

So your saying that churches should just sit back watch as our world goes down the drain? Churches try to be a light in the community. I don't think there's anything wrong with them protesting or passing out flyers for something they believe in. I've honesty never seen a church protest against gays. People protesting against gay rights especially with signs that say suchs things like "God hates f*gs" than I agree with you and those people aren't really Christians. A REAL follower of Christ would never act or discriminate against someone. Catholics and most Christians believe abortion is wrong/murder and they should be able to protest it. If you don't like it than ignore them.

[Mibabalou]

So your saying that churches should just sit back watch as our world goes down the drain? Churches try to be a light in the community. I don't think there's anything wrong with them protesting or passing out flyers for something they believe in. I've honesty never seen a church protest against gays. People protesting against gay rights especially with signs that say suchs things like "God hates f*gs" than I agree with you and those people aren't really Christians. A follower of Christ would never act or discriminate against someone. Catholics and most Christians believe abortion is wrong/murder and they should be able to protest it. If you don't like it than ignore them.

Someone failed history class.

[bite2brkskn12]

Someone failed history class.

um no dickwad. Just because you claim to be a Christian doesn't mean you are. The word Christain means follower of Christ or Little Christ. A real christian would never act that way.

[Theseventhson]

um no dickwad. Just because you claim to be a Christian doesn't mean you are. The word Christain means follower of Christ or Little Christ. A real christian would never act that way.

then there has been a shit ton of fake Christians through out history.

[bite2brkskn12]

then there has been a shit ton of fake Christians through out history.
I agree with you 100%. People find God and than think they are holier than THOU and think they can judge people.

[rawesome]

Holy shit, what good timing. I'm doing a twenty page paper on this topic this semester.

[I'm Awesome]

I agree with you 100%. People find God and than think they are holier than now and think they can judge people.

You don't strike me as the most intelligent person. First of all, it's "holier than thou". It's quite amusing that you are trying to use that expression while calling other Christians fake. How do you know what goes through their heads? They are the only ones that actually know whether they are Christians or not. Your argument that some people are "fake Christians" is ridiculous. The majority of people that claim to be Christians really believe they are Christians. Sure there are some frauds that really don't believe in Christianity, but they are few and far between. I can turn this argument on you. Try this line of logic: I am a Christian. I disagree with you on some of the particulars of the Christian religion. You are not a "real" Christian because you don't believe the same things I do. I know this because I am a "real" Christian. Maybe you should stop with the holier than now (whoops, I meant "holier than thou", it seems you ignorance is contagious) routine and give people the benefit of the doubt when they claim to be Christians.

[I'm Awesome]

um no dickwad. Just because you claim to be a Christian doesn't mean you are. The word Christain means follower of Christ or Little Christ. A real christian would never act that way.

I don't think you are a real Christian. I think you only claim to be.

[apoemtothedead]

So your saying that churches should just sit back watch as our world goes down the drain? Churches try to be a light in the community. I don't think there's anything wrong with them protesting or passing out flyers for something they believe in. I've honesty never seen a church protest against gays. People protesting against gay rights especially with signs that say suchs things like "God hates f*gs" than I agree with you and those people aren't really Christians. A REAL follower of Christ would never act or discriminate against someone. Catholics and most Christians believe abortion is wrong/murder and they should be able to protest it. If you don't like it than ignore them.

I lol'd.

I agree with you 100%. People find God and than think they are holier than now and think they can judge people.
I lol'd.

[Fringe]

If they want to open their mouths and wallets towards political and social issues, then yes. If they want to feed the homeless and STFU, then no.

This. I'm a Christian, but even I don't believe that the church should be involved in political issues. We don't live in a theocracy for gosh sakes.

[PirateSkater182]

I'm going to go with no. If your retarded enough to give money to a scam like organised religion then they deserve your money, every penny of it.

I love posts like this.


The more people are offended, the more I can laugh.

Edit: Your username made me lol after I posted this.

[Juan Jose]

Depends on the church. A small local one that helps out in the community no. A. Mega church with shitloads of money coming in yes.

[Fringe]

I love posts like this.


The more people are offended, the more I can laugh.

Edit: Your username made me lol after I posted this.

Pretty ignorant

[roche]

Fake Christians ?!? So... are they doing it for the lulz?

[PirateSkater182]

Pretty ignorant

No ignorant is not the right word here.I can laugh at those who are easily offended. Whats ignorant about that?

[I'm Awesome]

Pretty ignorant

Yeah, there isn't really anything ignorant about his post. He is just stating that he loves laughing at people that are easily offended. You should probably refrain from using the word "ignorant" if you aren't going to properly use it. Here's how it should be used: you are ignorant when it comes to properly using the word "ignorant" in a sentence.

[Kozzy333]

Depends on the church.

[jawstheme]

Depends on the church. A small local one that helps out in the community no. A. Mega church with shitloads of money coming in yes.

I agree. The know of a few small churches that house and feed the homeless on a regular basis. The local episcopal church just gave $1,200 cash of its' own money, and a bunch of clothes to a family who's house just burned down. Plus, they are housing the family. Not coincidentally, these kinds of churches tend to be the most non-judgemental.

However, the larger, top level churches should definitely pay taxes. Sadly, churches at the upper levels aren't much different than corporations. But hey, they should just look on the bright side: If they just admit they're corporations and pay taxes they can get bail outs!

[topher465]

No. It doesn't matter how much a church "makes". That's discriminatory. Are you going to tax the National Geographic Society because it brings in a ton of money, but not a small church because it brings in less?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the logic. Even though larger churches bring in more money, they also have more expenses. More staff, more bills. Many mega-churches also have "satellite" churches or other churches that they have to support as well. But honestly, that doesn't even matter. They only thing churches sell is a belief. I don't think an organization should get taxed because of a belief.

[jawstheme]

No. A church is a non-profit organization.

Haha, come on. These big evangelical preachers make over a million dollars a year and have 5,000 acre ranches. Non-profit my ass. They aren't even required to make their financial statements public.

[Regards]

If they want to open their mouths and wallets towards political and social issues, then yes. If they want to feed the homeless and STFU, then no.
I more or less agree towards this.
Haha, come on. These big evangelical preachers make over a million dollars a year and have 5,000 acre ranches. Non-profit my ass. They aren't even required to make their financial statements public.
Actually around 1,500 pastors monthly have to disembark from ministry due to finances. Its only a select handful that are taking extreme advantage of how non-for profits work. Even some Pastors of what you'd say is a mega church, see Francis Chan, live extremely under means and humbly giving most to the poor. Everyone is going to take advantages of a system no matter if its for religion, politics etc etc.

[jawstheme]

I more or less agree towards this.

Actually around 1,500 pastors monthly have to disembark from ministry due to finances. Its only a select handful that are taking extreme advantage of how non-for profits work. Even some Pastors of what you'd say is a mega church, see Francis Chan, live extremely under means and humbly giving most to the poor. Everyone is going to take advantages of a system no matter if its for religion, politics etc etc.

They should at least have to show that they are non-profit, and that the money they make is going back into the community. And I do agree with you that people take of the advantage of the system, and I don't like other so called "non-profits" who's company presidents are millionares anymore than I like the people taking advantage of religious tax exemption.

[Juan Jose]

I agree. The know of a few small churches that house and feed the homeless on a regular basis. The local episcopal church just gave $1,200 cash of its' own money, and a bunch of clothes to a family who's house just burned down. Plus, they are housing the family. Not coincidentally, these kinds of churches tend to be the most non-judgemental.

However, the larger, top level churches should definitely pay taxes. Sadly, churches at the upper levels aren't much different than corporations. But hey, they should just look on the bright side: If they just admit they're corporations and pay taxes they can get bail outs!

Exactly, most of them use their money to lobby politicians over bullshit like gay marriage and abortion just like corporations lobby for deregulation and tax breaks. On the other hand most local churches like the one you just described struggle to make ends meet let alone give back to the community. The church I occasionally go to gives money to humanitarian causes and to local schools so kids can have new textbooks, renovated classrooms and computers so I make it a point to shell out some money when I show up

[Fringe]

No ignorant is not the right word here.I can laugh at those who are easily offended. Whats ignorant about that?

I meant generally in this topic.

Like "I don't know what I'm talking about so instead I'll be an ass hat."

[Aphasia17]

If they want to open their mouths and wallets towards political and social issues, then yes. If they want to feed the homeless and STFU, then no.

This.

[SimplyPaige]

Depends on the size of the church.

[Spartan789013]

If they want to open their mouths and wallets towards political and social issues, then yes. If they want to feed the homeless and STFU, then no.

This man is right, listen to him.

[JordanBuell]

If they want to open their mouths and wallets towards political and social issues, then yes. If they want to feed the homeless and STFU, then no.

This sums up the entire thread

[brook183]

Simple answer: yes.

but your avatar says no!

[Young Machetes]

Churches take up our country's land, stick their noses in political issues, and open their mouths in general to speak out. So hell yes.

I'd be happy if we charged them more taxes than the average citizen, I despise religion anyways, but that's just a personal opinion.

[karic97]

i'm giving an example of what a church's money is primarily used for: helping people.
the catholic church is one of the largest charity bodies in the world (if not the largest, i don't have numbers so i couldn't say).

then they should keep there walet open and help people not comment on social and political issues

[jawstheme]

Churches take up our country's land, stick their noses in political issues, and open their mouths in general to speak out. So hell yes.

I'd be happy if we charged them more taxes than the average citizen, I despise religion anyways, but that's just a personal opinion.

So, that probably has nothing to do with your sweeping generalization.

[Simulcast]

Churches take up our country's land, stick their noses in political issues, and open their mouths in general to speak out. So hell yes.

I'd be happy if we charged them more taxes than the average citizen, I despise religion anyways, but that's just a personal opinion.


No church I have attended has ever done the things you speak of.

[S7ranburgLar]

then they should keep there walet open and help people not comment on social and political issues

that's fine, but you do realize that millions of people rely on religion as the sole authority of political and social issues? they have a responsibility to their followers to take stands on important issues -- even if you may think they're wrong.

[topher465]

Haha, come on. These big evangelical preachers make over a million dollars a year and have 5,000 acre ranches. Non-profit my ass. They aren't even required to make their financial statements public.

Maybe televangelists, but those are people, not churches. Why are you going to punish the majority of churches in America for a couple people who want abuse their position? That doesn't seem right.

[Dicebox]

I'm curious as to what percentage of giving vs. keeping would deserve taxation. I'm scared of what taxation on churches would do to their political influence as well. Just like Americans feel they have a right to receive benefits or influence because they pay taxes, I wonder how some churches would respond to gain more power and take advantage of that.

I attend a "mega-church" as in we will have more than 4,000 people on any given Sunday. It doesn't mean they're corrupt however. I could be wrong on the actually number, but I think we gave away $1.7 million to the community last year. Once a year we take a huge offering where %100 goes to benefit others. The amount last year was around $400,000. I went on their website to see if they publish their financial reports, and they do. I sent an e-mail to request the most recent one.

It seems like everyone wants separation of the church and state, except when it comes to their own greed.

[Simulcast]

Maybe televangelists, but those are people, not churches. Why are you going to punish the majority of churches in America for a couple people who want abuse their position? That doesn't seem right.

:appl:

[karic97]

that's fine, but you do realize that millions of people rely on religion as the sole authority of political and social issues? they have a responsibility to their followers to take stands on important issues -- even if you may think they're wrong.
those people are ass hats im not an atheist but i dont belive in being a sheep and following blindly its people like pat Robertson and the westboro baptist church that use faith to manipulate people.

[S7ranburgLar]

those people are ass hats im not an atheist but i dont belive in being a sheep and following blindly its people like pat Robertson and the westboro baptist church that use faith to manipulate people.

even atheists are blindly following previous atheists? i don't see many atheists doing original research into disproving the existence of God.

[paper halo]

even atheists are blindly following previous atheists? i don't see many atheists doing original research into disproving the existence of God.

The existence of God can not be proven or disproven, asshat.

[jawstheme]

Maybe televangelists, but those are people, not churches. Why are you going to punish the majority of churches in America for a couple people who want abuse their position? That doesn't seem right.

Have you read any other post I've made? I'm all for tax exemptions for churches, but not the ones that are run like for-profit corporations.

On a side note, at the highest level I honestly believe the Catholic Church is as corrupt as any organization out there, and not only should it be taxed, but it should be regulated and probed like any other business that has obvious scandals.

[caveBEAR]

Nice to see my response we universally enjoyed and agreed upon. That's new for me.

[bite2brkskn12]

You don't strike me as the most intelligent person. First of all, it's "holier than thou". It's quite amusing that you are trying to use that expression while calling other Christians fake. How do you know what goes through their heads? They are the only ones that actually know whether they are Christians or not. Your argument that some people are "fake Christians" is ridiculous. The majority of people that claim to be Christians really believe they are Christians. Sure there are some frauds that really don't believe in Christianity, but they are few and far between. I can turn this argument on you. Try this line of logic: I am a Christian. I disagree with you on some of the particulars of the Christian religion. You are not a "real" Christian because you don't believe the same things I do. I know this because I am a "real" Christian. Maybe you should stop with the holier than now (whoops, I meant "holier than thou", it seems you ignorance is contagious) routine and give people the benefit of the doubt when they claim to be Christians.

I actually have a 4.0 gpa and I'm on the dean's list at my college and I wrote that post at 3 o'clock in the morning so excuse me. But i'm not talking about people beleiving different things. A real christain would never discriminate against another human being. It doesn't say anywhere in the bbile to discriminate against anyone. Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. So How could someone Post a sign that says "God hates..." and be a Christian? It clearly in the bible to love everyone. Most people don't read the bible and don't know what it says but go around preaching anyway. That to me is a fraud and in this case, a fake Christin.

Edit: Also, If I believed what your saying I do, than I'd believe that every other denomination of Christianity would be wrong except for mine and that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[bite2brkskn12]

I don't think you are a real Christian. I think you only claim to be.
Oh yeah, I stick up for God in almost every "Religion" Thread on this stupid website, been on Missions trips, read the bible, and try to friendly to everyone I meet.. I'm definitely a fake. I just get angry when people post against the Church when they have no idea what they are talking about.

[topher465]

Have you read any other post I've made? I'm all for tax exemptions for churches, but not the ones that are run like for-profit corporations.

On a side note, at the highest level I honestly believe the Catholic Church is as corrupt as any organization out there, and not only should it be taxed, but it should be regulated and probed like any other business that has obvious scandals.

I was reading some of them a few minutes ago, and I agree with you. If there was a way for them to weed out all of the jerks, I'm for it. I just don't want to see it hurt any of the other ones that are actually trying to do good.

As for being involved in politics, the church was riddled with political figures in it's early history. King David, Jesus, etc. were political figures. I do not support the heavy politicking I think is being referenced in here, like lobbying, but I do think that the idea of pursuing a greater good does have its political implications, and if handled properly, and in the right forum ("look at my actions" type of deal), is supportable.

[Dicebox]

I was reading some of them a few minutes ago, and I agree with you. If there was a way for them to weed out all of the jerks, I'm for it. I just don't want to see it hurt any of the other ones that are actually trying to do good.

As for being involved in politics, the church was riddled with political figures in it's early history. King David, Jesus, etc. were political figures. I do not support the heavy politicking I think is being referenced in here, like lobbying, but I do think that the idea of pursuing a greater good does have its political implications, and if handled properly, and in the right forum ("look at my actions" type of deal), is supportable.
In what way was Jesus a political figure? As far as I know, the people were looking for a political king out of Jesus and he refused and avoided that role. Could you explain?

[Regards]

No church I have attended has ever done the things you speak of.
You should know better than anyone here that what you'll find in the thread will be 90% sweeping generalizations and 10% intellectual discussion.

[S7ranburgLar]

The existence of God can not be proven or disproven, asshat.

well, you can't prove or disprove ANYTHING, technically. so what's your point, asshat?

besides, if God appeared before us today, that would certainly prove God's existence, would it not?

[topher465]

In what way was Jesus a political figure? As far as I know, the people were looking for a political king out of Jesus and he refused and avoided that role. Could you explain?

Well I mean not in the sense that he was a member of a political system. But he was crucified because of what he said, believed, and did. He claimed he was the son of God, performed miracles, spoke in open public forums. Even though his ideas weren't directly political, they had an effect on the system. They challenged it. Sometimes when people challenge things (look at the movement in the 60s), it can be political. Hence, even though Jesus wasn't a part of the government, he still acted politically.

if God appeared before us today, that would certainly prove God's existence, would it not?

I disagree. I think the first thing that we would do as humans would be to explain it away.

[shwaz499]

yes because we were founded on the belief of a separation between church and state. if churchs are exempt from paying taxes that all goes down the shitter.

[Jason Tate]

Yes.

[shwaz499]

The existence of God can not be proven or disproven, asshat.

it can...it just hasn't... that said, i'll believe when i see it... until then religion is nonsense

[paper halo]

well, you can't prove or disprove ANYTHING, technically. so what's your point, asshat?

besides, if God appeared before us today, that would certainly prove God's existence, would it not?

That your poor attempt at making a point was wasted, toolshed.

[Dicebox]

I'm curious. How would taxation not violate the separation between church and state?

[Simulcast]

You should know better than anyone here that what you'll find in the thread will be 90% sweeping generalizations and 10% intellectual discussion.

Yes. I wonder why I even post in these threads anymore. The fruitful discussion is not worth the nonsense I have thrown at me on a regular basis.

[Jason Tate]

I'm curious. How would taxation not violate the separation between church and state?
I'm not sure what this is asking. I'm assuming the same way Churches have to abide by other laws of the state.

[Theseventhson]

I'm curious. How would taxation not violate the separation between church and state?

What?

[Dicebox]

I'm not sure what this is asking. I'm assuming the same way Churches have to abide by other laws of the state.
Thanks, I guess I wasn't clear. Looking closer I can see how not taxing churches is a violation of "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If churches had to pay taxes, I would be fine with that. Though I hope it would do more good than harm.

[inthemidst]

If they want to open their mouths and wallets towards political and social issues, then yes. If they want to feed the homeless and STFU, then no.

Haha, I like this answer.

[roche]

that's fine, but you do realize that millions of people rely on religion as the sole authority of political and social issues? they have a responsibility to their followers to take stands on important issues -- even if you may think they're wrong.

It's fine if people rely on religion to give their lives purpose and meaning, and the the Church has every right to impart their moral guidance on patrons. However when that guidance begins to infringe upon the rights of others, (when they lobby for church laws to become state laws) they have crossed a line. Many of the "important issues" religious leaders stand behind and relentlessly lobby against are issues that do not directly affect the lives of religious followers. Gay marriage, abortion, and general social deviance are not being forced on the religious and all proponents are asking for is a choice (seriously, when a area becomes "pro-gay marriage" that doesn't mean you have to marry a dude, it's just an option for humans of that persuasion). When organized religion begins to become active in politics and begins funding their special interests in parliament, they are acting as a corporation would and should be taxed as such. Or we could just keep Church and State separated.

[Young Machetes]

No church I have attended has ever done the things you speak of.

Westboro Baptist Church is the first that comes to mind.

[samsara]

Westboro Baptist Church is the first that comes to mind.

Church = cult

[jawstheme]

Westboro Baptist Church is the first that comes to mind.

His point was that sweeping generalizations are a fallacious way to argue a conclusion. You can't just cherry pick the most convenient examples.

[inthemidst]

If the Church is insistent on becoming an institution which helps the less fortunate, then I'm fine with them qualifying under 501(c)3 regulations. However, the current state of the Church as more of a politically-driven institution shouldn't qualify as a tax exemption, but instead should be forced to pay taxes. Unfortunately, it's easy to say that you're helping others, and not do anything at all. That's basically a moral hazard. There should be some kind of IRS Auditing System where the church could qualify for tax exemption if they meet those federally regulated requirements (aiding the poor, certain amount of money given to charity, etc), but if they do not meet those requirements, then they have to pay a penalty.

[S7ranburgLar]

I disagree. I think the first thing that we would do as humans would be to explain it away.

you have a point, i mean, we are quite quick to lock people claiming to be prophets up in mental institutions.

[TK]

No. However, I do believe religious institutions should be required to release their financial information. Depending on what percentage of profit is put towards the community and other activities, the government should be able to penalize the church with fines or even removing the ability to claim the benefits of a non-profit organization.

[UnderMyDreams]

Yes.

[PirateSkater182]

I meant generally in this topic.

Like "I don't know what I'm talking about so instead I'll be an ass hat."

See, THATS ignorant.

[Regards]

Westboro Baptist Church is the first that comes to mind.
And every Muslim is Al-Qaeda, and every Jew an accountant!

See, I can play that fun game too.

[cgant5316]

Yeah, you're stupid.

and your response is oh so intelligent

[PirateSkater182]

and your response is oh so intelligent

If it was a good response in the first place, I might of had a little something more to work with.

[topher465]

However, the current state of the Church as more of a politically-driven institution shouldn't qualify as a tax exemption, but instead should be forced to pay taxes.


What should churches, whether politically-driven or not, be taxed for?

I guess I just walk away from these types of conversations feeling that the reason some people feel they should be taxed is because they feel that churches are taking advantage of the system and should be put in their place. What does everything think churches do with their money? Granted, there are those who do take advantage of the system, but those are individuals. Churches as a whole function as a group, a connectivity of people and resources and you're going to tax them directly out of the money that people put into a plate every Sunday so that their church can continue to function weekly, the staff can be paid for their efforts, the church can still fund their missions? How many churches do you see assembled at protests, or lobbying in Congress? Very few. You see people (aside from Westboro Church). If a pastor or a priest wants to make a comment from the pulpit about a moral topic regarding that religion and the current political state, he and his congregation shouldn't be taxed for it.

[Jason Tate]

What should churches, whether politically-driven or not, be taxed for?

I guess I just walk away from these types of conversations feeling that the reason some people feel they should be taxed is because they feel that churches are taking advantage of the system and should be put in their place. What does everything think churches do with their money? Granted, there are those who do take advantage of the system, but those are individuals. Churches as a whole function as a group, a connectivity of people and resources and you're going to tax them directly out of the money that people put into a plate every Sunday so that their church can continue to function weekly, the staff can be paid for their efforts, the church can still fund their missions. How many churches do you see assembled at protests, or lobbying in Congress? Very few. You see people (aside from Westboro Church). If a pastor or a priest wants to make a comment from the pulpit about a moral topic regarding that religion and the current political state, he and his congregation shouldn't be taxed for it.
They should be taxed for the same reason any business is taxed. Why should they be exempt?

[topher465]

They should be taxed for the same reason any business is taxed.

Businesses mode of function is to sell something for the primary purpose of making money. And I agree, there are some churches that just want to make money, and that's it, and I agree, that's pretty crappy. It's estimated that there are 335,000 "churches," or "religious congregations." How many of these do you think are trying to sell their religion as a product for the primary purpose of making money?

[Simulcast]

Westboro Baptist Church is the first that comes to mind.

I don't attend that church.

Point being most churches are not like the WBC.

[Jason Tate]

Businesses mode of function is to sell something for the primary purpose of making money. And I agree, there are some churches that just want to make money, and that's it, and I agree, that's pretty crappy. It's estimated that there are 335,000 "churches," or "religious congregations." How many of these do you think are trying to sell their religion as a product for the primary purpose of making money?
I don't think every business has a primary goal of making money, so I don't think that's a prerequisite to being taxed on any profit you do accrue.

[jawstheme]

I don't think every business has a primary goal of making money, so I don't think that's a prerequisite to being taxed on any profit you do accrue.

Why should churches be taxed where other non-profits are not?

[Jason Tate]

Why should churches be taxed where other non-profits are not?
They can apply for non-profit status if they fit the requirements.

[topher465]

I don't think every business has a primary goal of making money, so I don't think that's a prerequisite to being taxed on any profit you do accrue.


As far as I know, we don't tax non-profit organizations because they aren't designed to make money. At the root, churches aren't designed to make money, therefore they shouldn't be taxed. And again, there are churches that abuse that right, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority aren't functioning properly.

[Young Machetes]

His point was that sweeping generalizations are a fallacious way to argue a conclusion. You can't just cherry pick the most convenient examples.

Regardless, they don't pay taxes, and I say you should tax every church in the country.

[jawstheme]

They can apply for non-profit status if they fit the requirements.

I can definitely agree with this

[jawstheme]

As far as I know, we don't tax non-profit organizations because they aren't designed to make money. At the root, churches aren't designed to make money, therefore they shouldn't be taxed. And again, there are churches that abuse that right, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority aren't functioning properly.

The justification for being tax exempt is that they fill some role that the government would otherwise be obligated to fill, like housing the poor. Many churches do this and should be tax exempt.

[MonopolyMan]

ya why wouldn't they have to??? If I hold religious gatherings at my home does that mean I don't have to pay taxes?? haha dumb question. You can pray/worship whatever, anywhere, anytime you want. Why is it that a building that uses the same materials and building codes as all the others get a break??

[kidinthebushes]

Nope. If schools can't teach Creation, then they shouldn't have to.

[Theseventhson]

ya why wouldn't they have to??? If I hold religious gatherings at my home does that mean I don't have to pay taxes?? haha dumb question. You can pray/worship whatever, anywhere, anytime you want. Why is it that a building that uses the same materials and building codes as all the others get a break??

Churches do much more than just give people a place to worship.

[Theseventhson]

Nope. If schools can't teach Creation, then they shouldn't have to.

:rolleyes:

[kidinthebushes]

ya why wouldn't they have to??? If I hold religious gatherings at my home does that mean I don't have to pay taxes?? haha dumb question. You can pray/worship whatever, anywhere, anytime you want. Why is it that a building that uses the same materials and building codes as all the others get a break??

How's a church different than a Village Hall building? Oh wait, churches have to raise their own funds, the Village just reaps tax money.

[cgant5316]

If it was a good response in the first place, I might have had a little something more to work with.

oh so intelligent

[Theseventhson]

oh so intelligent

Wow, you got him good, bro. Congrats.

[PirateSkater182]

oh so intelligent

You have anything better to say yet... or what?

Edit: And if you're going to be a dick about using the words "have had", at least use capitalization and punctuations.

[PirateSkater182]

Wow, you got him good, bro. Congrats.

Too good.

[topher465]

The justification for being tax exempt is that they fill some role that the government would otherwise be obligated to fill, like housing the poor. Many churches do this and should be tax exempt.

So every church would file for tax exemption. What would those requirements look like? Caps on pastor's salaries? Limits on churches' media budgets?

[jawstheme]

So every church would file for tax exemption. What would those requirements look like? Caps on pastor's salaries? Limits on churches' media budgets?
I would imagine there would be caps on salaries, but media budgets wouldn't be necessary if the money generated was going toward the organization. I doubt it would stop corruption though. Just look at the corruption in the American Cancer Society. It would hopefully make records public, which is never a bad thing.

[inthemidst]

What should churches, whether politically-driven or not, be taxed for?

I guess I just walk away from these types of conversations feeling that the reason some people feel they should be taxed is because they feel that churches are taking advantage of the system and should be put in their place. What does everything think churches do with their money? Granted, there are those who do take advantage of the system, but those are individuals. Churches as a whole function as a group, a connectivity of people and resources and you're going to tax them directly out of the money that people put into a plate every Sunday so that their church can continue to function weekly, the staff can be paid for their efforts, the church can still fund their missions? How many churches do you see assembled at protests, or lobbying in Congress? Very few. You see people (aside from Westboro Church). If a pastor or a priest wants to make a comment from the pulpit about a moral topic regarding that religion and the current political state, he and his congregation shouldn't be taxed for it.

I'm not against religion. In fact, I am speaking from a Christian viewpoint. However, there should be some kind of law, or monitoring against those "few" whom manipulate the system in order to make a financial gain. It's just not right, and shouldn't be overlooked. So, why not penalize them for their, for lack of a better term, thievery? I'm not saying all churches should be taxed, but those who would qualify under the standard 501(c)3 regulations should be exempt, and those who do not meet those requirements should pay it forward.

[Machu505]

Nope. If schools can't teach Creation, then they shouldn't have to. While I don't think churches ought to pay taxes, it doesn't have anything to do with teaching religious doctrine with no scientific evidence suggesting its validity in biology classes.

[oceanfloors]

You have anything better to say yet... or what?

Edit: And if you're going to be a dick about using the words "have had", at least use capitalization and punctuations.

All of this.

[boxingwithstars]

No. However, I do believe religious institutions should be required to release their financial information. Depending on what percentage of profit is put towards the community and other activities, the government should be able to penalize the church with fines or even removing the ability to claim the benefits of a non-profit organization.

Agreed.

[topher465]

I'm not against religion. In fact, I am speaking from a Christian viewpoint. However, there should be some kind of law, or monitoring against those "few" whom manipulate the system in order to make a financial gain. It's just not right, and shouldn't be overlooked. So, why not penalize them for their, for lack of a better term, thievery? I'm not saying all churches should be taxed, but those who would qualify under the standard 501(c)3 regulations should be exempt, and those who do not meet those requirements should pay it forward.

I agree and understand that. If there was a system that could be put in place that would fairly weed those people out without hurting any of the other churches in any way, I would be for it.



I would imagine there would be caps on salaries, but media budgets wouldn't be necessary if the money generated was going toward the organization. I doubt it would stop corruption though. Just look at the corruption in the American Cancer Society. It would hopefully make records public, which is never a bad thing.


Yeah its a shame. Most of the churches I go to have a lot of their budgetary stuff available for people to see which is good, but I don't think all do.

[Jason Tate]

Nope. If schools can't teach Creation, then they shouldn't have to.

What kind of reasoning leads to this ... ?

[Modern Leper]

no. they should burn.

[DeviateRogue]

no. they should burn.

That's a logical response. :rolleyes:

[Love As Arson]

Tax churches. Make philosophical and science centers tax-exempt.

[Modern Leper]

That's a logical response. :rolleyes:

thanks bru.

[DeviateRogue]

Tax churches. Make philosophical and science centers tax-exempt.

That wouldn't piss anyone off. As much as I think churches should be taxed, I know it will never happen, the outcry by Christians already feeling oppressed would be ridiculous.

[inthemidst]

I agree and understand that. If there was a system that could be put in place that would fairly weed those people out without hurting any of the other churches in any way, I would be for it.

Glad we could agree on that. I didn't used to feel this way, but recently I started questioning the idea of religion. Not the theology, but mostly just the "Americanized" institution that seems to breed a lot of corruption in this country. I'm not too happy about it, but I do see quite a good turn-around in this arena, particularly up north (see Pastor Timothy Keller) who promote social justice above political aspiration.

[bgeez120]

yes, unless they can prove that the money they get goes back into the community

[jawstheme]

Tax churches. Make philosophical and science centers tax-exempt.

Churches can be a philosophical center in themselves.

[cgant5316]

You have anything better to say yet... or what?

Edit: And if you're going to be a dick about using the words "have had", at least use capitalization and punctuations.

My sincerest apologies, friend haha I'm a dick. All that I wanted to say was that you basically put down WTG for what? Claiming (with just as much reason) that you are brainwashed? I found it funny that you decided to say "Yeah, you're stupid" because he stated his opinion, much like you stated yours.

[cgant5316]

Wow, you got him good, bro. Congrats.

thanks bro

[cgant5316]

You should know better than anyone here that what you'll find in the thread will be 90% sweeping generalizations and 10% intellectual discussion.

^ I like that.

[Theseventhson]

^ I like that.

Funny that you would like that.

[bite2brkskn12]

ya why wouldn't they have to??? If I hold religious gatherings at my home does that mean I don't have to pay taxes?? haha dumb question. You can pray/worship whatever, anywhere, anytime you want. Why is it that a building that uses the same materials and building codes as all the others get a break??

I see where your going with this but you work. Priests and nuns do not work and give up their lives to do "Gods" will. They live off of and the church is kept going based on the offerings of the people. The people who are giving donations all ready pay taxes so why should their money be taxed twice?

[bite2brkskn12]

That wouldn't piss anyone off. As much as I think churches should be taxed, I know it will never happen, the outcry by Christians already feeling oppressed would be ridiculous.

Churches are kept going by the offerings of the people. Those people pay taxes so why should their money be taxed twice?

[ninthandash]

No. However, I do believe religious institutions should be required to release their financial information. Depending on what percentage of profit is put towards the community and other activities, the government should be able to penalize the church with fines or even removing the ability to claim the benefits of a non-profit organization.


awesome avatar!

[PirateSkater182]

My sincerest apologies, friend haha I'm a dick. All that I wanted to say was that you basically put down WTG for what? Claiming (with just as much reason) that you are brainwashed? I found it funny that you decided to say "Yeah, you're stupid" because he stated his opinion, much like you stated yours.

I see where you're coming from. I'm a non-theist, so if you were to call me brainwashed, to me it doesn't make sense.

[DeviateRogue]

Churches are kept going by the offerings of the people. Those people pay taxes so why should their money be taxed twice?

...See megachurches... there's quite a difference in how the money is made.

[bite2brkskn12]

...See megachurches... there's quite a difference in how the money is made.
Elaborate for me. There aren't nearly as many mega churches as there are small ones. For the mega churches, they still are supported by the offering. If a church has 10,000 people and everyone gives $1 than that church gets $10,000 in one day. If you are talking about these people who ask for money on tv, that's an even smaller amount of churches and those people are still taking a offering even though they are abusing their power.

[DeviateRogue]

Elaborate for me. There aren't nearly as many mega churches as there are small ones. For the mega churches, they still are supported by the offering. If a church has 10,000 people and everyone gives $1 than that church gets $10,000 in one day. If you are talking about these people who ask for money on tv, that's an even smaller amount of churches and those people are still taking a offering even though they are abusing their power.

A large amount of Megachurchs' funding comes from the books, cds, dvds, and other merchandise they sell inside of their church.

[1.8Nate]

well, you can't prove or disprove ANYTHING, technically. so what's your point, asshat?

besides, if God appeared before us today, that would certainly prove God's existence, would it not?
Failed argument, time and time again. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming something exists, not the person claiming it doesn't.

See: philosophy.

Every day we discover more things about the world we live in and where we came from through science. Some people are not satisfied with that. Why challenge yourself if an ancient book explains everything for you, right?

[Asthenia-182]

It's what Jesus would've wanted.
:clap::clap::clap:

[rainbowrenee]

A large amount of Megachurchs' funding comes from the books, cds, dvds, and other merchandise they sell inside of their church.

Do you think this isn't a fair way to acquire funds?

There are a couple medium sized local churches around here who sell media to their congregation. I honestly do not know where the profit from these products go, but I do know a couple of these churches have a reputation of going on many mission trips, helping with the homeless and building women's shelters locally.

[bite2brkskn12]

A large amount of Megachurchs' funding comes from the books, cds, dvds, and other merchandise they sell inside of their church.

Are you just pulling this out of your ass? Churches may make some money off of their book store but it isn't as much as you think.

[rawesome]

Churches are kept going by the offerings of the people. Those people pay taxes so why should their money be taxed twice?
To be fair, people aren't forced to give up that money.

[bite2brkskn12]

To be fair, people aren't forced to give up that money.
I didn't say they were

[rawesome]

I didn't say they were
I know.

[bite2brkskn12]

I know.

Well, I don't think people would donate as much or at all if the money was going to be taxed

[rawesome]

Well, I don't think people would donate as much or at all if the money was going to be taxed
Yeah, me neither. So?

[bite2brkskn12]

Yeah, me neither. So?
Just Saying

[rawesome]

Just Saying
Would you agree that if people didn't donate to a church because they didn't want their money to be taxed, they probably shouldn't be going to a church at all? I mean, religion appears to me to be something more important than tax deductions, and one should really be less concerned with taxes than with funding an institution that seemingly gives their lives meaning, no?

Wouldn't taxing churches just weed out all of the half-assed Christians/Muslims/etc...?

[DeviateRogue]

Are you just pulling this out of your ass? Churches may make some money off of their book store but it isn't as much as you think.

When a church buys a Compaq center or a Verizon wireless amphitheater tell me they aren't making a huge profit?

I'm all for donations and what not, but there's just something off by Megachurches that's why I never attend them.

[bite2brkskn12]

Would you agree that if people didn't donate to a church because they didn't want their money to be taxed, they probably shouldn't be going to a church at all? I mean, religion appears to me to be something more important than tax deductions, and one should really be less concerned with taxes than with funding an institution that seemingly gives their lives meaning, no?

Wouldn't taxing churches just weed out all of the half-assed Christians/Muslims/etc...?
You make a good point and I actually agree with you. I still don't think that the churches should be taxed though. Just an Example: I'm not catholic but I've been going to Mass with my girlfriend and the prisets/nuns dedicate their lives and barely live off of the donations of the people. The priest and nuns also use the money to be a light in the community. I think they are doing a great thing and like other NON Profit organizationsso they shouldn't be taxed. Yes, there are greedy people out there giving Religion a bad name but most Churches are out there doing something positive. Feeding starving people, going over to less fortunate countries and feeding them/ building houses, and other good deeds just like the ones I mentioned.

[rawesome]

You make a good point and I actually agree with you. I still don't think that the churches should be taxed though. Just an Example: I'm not catholic but I've been going to Mass with my girlfriend and the prisets/nuns dedicate their lives and barely live off of the donations of the people. The priest and nuns also use the money to be a light in the community. I think they are doing a great thing and like other NON Profit organizationsso they shouldn't be taxed. Yes, there are greedy people out there giving Religion a bad name but most Churches are out there doing something positive. Feeding starving people, going over to less fortunate countries and feeding them/ building houses, and other good deeds just like the ones I mentioned.
Look, I'm not religious at all but I agree wholeheartedly that charitable organizations shouldn't be taxed. I think most people in this thread generally agree as well. That being said, there are limits to what constitutes non-profit as well as boundaries expected because of separation of church and state. Donating money to political candidates (I don't know of any examples of this happening, just using it for arguments sake) or lobbyists is not a charitable cause. I think that churches should be taxed first, as property owners, but if they prove themselves as non-profit charities actually doing charitable work they can receive tax exempt status. It should be earned, is the key.

[bite2brkskn12]

When a church buys a Compaq center or a Verizon wireless amphitheater tell me they aren't making a huge profit?

I'm all for donations and what not, but there's just something off by Megachurches that's why I never attend them.

That's not all Mega Churches. You can't make an accusation of all "Mega" churches based on a few examples and you can't make an accusation of Churches based on Mega Churches. There are a lot more small churches than there are Mega Churches. Lots of Churches buy amphitheaters to host Christain concerts and events for Christains"the donaters" to attend. A lot of these events donate a huge amount of money to organizations. I know this isn't the case all the time but I know that this is the case sometimes.

[bite2brkskn12]

Look, I'm not religious at all but I agree wholeheartedly that charitable organizations shouldn't be taxed. I think most people in this thread generally agree as well. That being said, there are limits to what constitutes non-profit as well as boundaries expected because of separation of church and state. Donating money to political candidates (I don't know of any examples of this happening, just using it for arguments sake) or lobbyists is not a charitable cause. I think that churches should be taxed first, as property owners, but if they prove themselves as non-profit charities actually doing charitable work they can receive tax exempt status. It should be earned, is the key.

I agree with you 100%

[S7ranburgLar]

Failed argument, time and time again. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming something exists, not the person claiming it doesn't.

See: philosophy.

Every day we discover more things about the world we live in and where we came from through science. Some people are not satisfied with that. Why challenge yourself if an ancient book explains everything for you, right?

You can't apply a scientific method towards theology, it doesn't work; try applying it to the philosophy you speak of... Yet, people still believe in, and follow, the ideology of Locke (US constitution etc. ) or that of Marx, and so on. There is no scientific proof that any of them work, people just have faith in the ideas of some ancient writer's dusty, old tome.

There lies no burden of proof for religion, its members follow their religion through faith or they find their own proof of god everywhere. The only people who demand proof also demand their forumla and methods be followed to acquire it.
Nobody is forcing you to adopt a religion, and - as far as i'm aware - churches appeal solely to your sense of faith when attempting to convert people.
I don't see why people are so insistent on science being applied to everything. Science is not the sole authority for human knowledge, as it will never answer the fundamental question of 'why?' that is on so many people's minds.

edit: i should mention that i'm not a member of any organized religion.

[Frosty]

You can not tell me that the Catholic Church is not a business.

[1.8Nate]

You can't apply a scientific method towards theology, it doesn't work; try applying it to the philosophy you speak of... Yet, people still believe in, and follow, the ideology of Locke (US constitution etc. ) or that of Marx, and so on. There is no scientific proof that any of them work, people just have faith in the ideas of some ancient writer's dusty, old tome.

There lies no burden of proof for religion, its members follow their religion through faith or they find their own proof of god everywhere. The only people who demand proof also demand their forumla and methods be followed to acquire it.
Nobody is forcing you to adopt a religion, and - as far as i'm aware - churches appeal solely to your sense of faith when attempting to convert people.
I don't see why people are so insistent on science being applied to everything. Science is not the sole authority for human knowledge, as it will never answer the fundamental question of 'why?' that is on so many people's minds.

edit: i should mention that i'm not a member of any organized religion.
The burden of proof lies completely on religion. If I claimed that the Earth was flat, it would be my responsibility to try and prove that scientifically. But yet you're saying that the Bible and its followers can make absurd claims and don't have the responsibility of proving them?

We don't live 500 years in the past. If you choose to not accept science, that is purely out of your own naivety and ignorance. Scientific theories and laws have been proven and observed. Nobody is claiming that it has all the answers, but religion is and that is why it has the burden of proof. Especially when so many claims in the Bible (just using it as an example) conflict with modern things in science that have been proven.

People shy away from science and dismiss it for one reason: it conflicts with their crazy ideas and has evidence behind it. The "formulas and methods" you are talking down on are the ones that threaten people the most. Because there's no way to use them to prove their crazy non-existent bullshit. "Faith" is just the lazy way out of someone not having to prove something. I don't have "faith" in science, there's no need to because it's there and has been proven. If i wanted to find an answer to a question and I know science has that answer, it is my responsibility to educate myself through science.

You're in college right? Take some legitimate science or anthropology classes. You'll learn that science is not just an "opinion" like you try to play it off as.

[I'm Awesome]

I actually have a 4.0 gpa and I'm on the dean's list at my college and I wrote that post at 3 o'clock in the morning so excuse me. But i'm not talking about people beleiving different things. A real christain would never discriminate against another human being. It doesn't say anywhere in the bbile to discriminate against anyone. Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. So How could someone Post a sign that says "God hates..." and be a Christian? It clearly in the bible to love everyone. Most people don't read the bible and don't know what it says but go around preaching anyway. That to me is a fraud and in this case, a fake Christin.

Edit: Also, If I believed what your saying I do, than I'd believe that every other denomination of Christianity would be wrong except for mine and that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

There are several things that are wrong with your response comment. To begin with, I could care less about how good your grades are. They aren't necessarily a direct indication on how well you use logic and reasoning. Most tests today only show your ability to memorize information and then regurgitate it on to a test. Secondly, using the excuse that you were tired is not applicable in this case. You wrote "holier than now" instead of "holier than thou". You obviously didn't know the correct expression. If you would have wrote holier than tho, tou, the, or something close to the actual expression then I could believe that it was an honest mistake, and that you actually understand the expression. It is clear that you have been misusing the expression for quite sometime "now". So please, don't give me that tired excuse.

"A real christian would never discriminate against another human being"? Really? I guess you forgot about what the Bible says about homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13). I guess you also think that killing someone just because they are attracted to the same sex isn't discrimination, huh? Or should I bring up the slavery, the genocide, and the misogyny parts of the Bible too? You clearly haven't read the entire Bible if you think that there isn't any parts that discriminate toward certain groups. Or maybe you just choose to ignore those parts.

About your "Edit:" sentence, correct me if I'm wrong (I couldn't tell what you meant because you sentence is mostly incoherent), but you said that it would be stupid to believe that other denominations of Christianity are wrong. I believe the opposite. If you believe that there is one god, and that he has one set of standards and rules for all of man, then you couldn't believe that there are multiple correct denominations of Christianity. It is contradictory. Someone has to be wrong. Otherwise, god isn't consistent morally. In order to fully believe in a religion you have to also believe that other religions are wrong.

[I'm Awesome]

Oh yeah, I stick up for God in almost every "Religion" Thread on this stupid website, been on Missions trips, read the bible, and try to friendly to everyone I meet.. I'm definitely a fake. I just get angry when people post against the Church when they have no idea what they are talking about.

Nope. I'm a real Christian and you don't believe the same things that I do. So you aren't a real Christian.

Okay, so I'm not a Christian. I guess you weren't quick enough to pick up on my role reversal ploy. I was trying to make the point that you are not the authority that determines if a person is a Christian or not. If someone says they are a Christian and they try to follow the Bible and such, you should give them the benefit of the doubt. You, going around claiming that certain people aren't and weren't Christians is asinine. You don't know what those people are thinking, so you can not determine if they are Christians or not.

Also, which god are you sticking up for on this website? The Christian God? The Pagan God? The Scientology God? The Greek Gods? The Hindu God? The Muslim God? The Jewish God? You should probably pick one, because they aren't all the same.

[I'm Awesome]

that's fine, but you do realize that millions of people rely on religion as the sole authority of political and social issues? they have a responsibility to their followers to take stands on important issues -- even if you may think they're wrong.

Then they should be taxed. It's very simple.

[I'm Awesome]

even atheists are blindly following previous atheists? i don't see many atheists doing original research into disproving the existence of God.

I think you get the award for "Most Ignorant Comment on this Thread". I love how you lump all atheists together. The only thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe there is a god. Other than that, they could have drastically different opinions on anything and everything. And since when does looking at empirical evidence, or lack there of, and analyzing it, mean you are blindly following something? That is just a ridiculous statement. Someone following blindly would mean that they don't have any evidence for something, yet they still believe in it because somebody told them to (example: RELIGION!).


You don't see many atheists doing original research into disproving the existence of God? First of all you can't disprove the existence of anything. That was your first mistake. So that point is moot. Secondly, around 90% of scientists in the genetics and biology fields don't believe in a god. I guess those scientists aren't doing any kind of original work on anything, huh?

I'm going to stop now because your statement is so obviously stupid that I think even you can see that.

[Love As Arson]

Churches can be a philosophical center in themselves.
Philosophy and understanding isn't their aim, however. Generally, their philosophy is related to explaining or justifying concepts of their own religion. That isn't an indictment of their discourse, it is just that it serves a different purpose.

That wouldn't piss anyone off. As much as I think churches should be taxed, I know it will never happen, the outcry by Christians already feeling oppressed would be ridiculous.
I don't care.

[captivewear]

This topic has nothing to do with whether you are christian or not. I could care less and it shouldn't change the answer to the question. From a moral perspective I think it is wrong that churches don't pay taxes on the things that they sell and the donations they get. And don't sit here and tell me that they only survive off donations cause any church that does weddings or funerals charge out the ying yang for them. Churches are businesses whether you want to hear that or not. Name me ONE church that is not. They all sell you a product and want your $ in some shape or form. I am not saying that they are all bad by any means so don't try and twist my answer and try and make me look bad. Churches are not non profits in reality. They use that money and look at the Catholic church. The Vatican is one of the richest and strongest groups on the planet. Why? Cause they have money which equals power.
If there is a god I know he would be embarrassed at the things you use gods name in vain for. To me using his/her/it name to make money and build these mega churches is disgusting especially when you are taking 10% of people's incomes to do it. We do need churches but we dont need corporate empires to go pray in...

[Recovery Room]

This topic has nothing to do with whether you are christian or not. I could care less and it shouldn't change the answer to the question. From a moral perspective I think it is wrong that churches don't pay taxes on the things that they sell and the donations they get. And don't sit here and tell me that they only survive off donations cause any church that does weddings or funerals charge out the ying yang for them. Churches are businesses whether you want to hear that or not. Name me ONE church that is not. They all sell you a product and want your $ in some shape or form. I am not saying that they are all bad by any means so don't try and twist my answer and try and make me look bad. Churches are not non profits in reality. They use that money and look at the Catholic church. The Vatican is one of the richest and strongest groups on the planet. Why? Cause they have money which equals power.
If there is a god I know he would be embarrassed at the things you use gods name in vain for. To me using his/her/it name to make money and build these mega churches is disgusting especially when you are taking 10% of people's incomes to do it. We do need churches but we dont need corporate empires to go pray in...
I don't think that's every church/religion. Jehovah's Witnesses don't charge for weddings or funerals. Nor do they require you to "donate" 10% of your income. You give whatever you want and drop it into discreetly positioned boxes scattered throughout the building. Their Kingdom Halls are also fairly small and discreet, normally they're built to blend in with the neighborhood as opposed to stick out like a sore thumb.

Mormons tend to have bigger buildings than the Witnesses for their worship, but I believe they're scaled back compared to some of the other denominations. I can't say for sure if they charge for weddings and/or funerals, though. Nor am I sure how the funds from the members are received.

I agree, though, the mega-churches, especially lining the Bible Belt, and the sick amount of money thrown into the Vatican are deplorable.

[jawstheme]

This topic has nothing to do with whether you are christian or not. I could care less and it shouldn't change the answer to the question. From a moral perspective I think it is wrong that churches don't pay taxes on the things that they sell and the donations they get. And don't sit here and tell me that they only survive off donations cause any church that does weddings or funerals charge out the ying yang for them. Churches are businesses whether you want to hear that or not. Name me ONE church that is not. They all sell you a product and want your $ in some shape or form. I am not saying that they are all bad by any means so don't try and twist my answer and try and make me look bad. Churches are not non profits in reality. They use that money and look at the Catholic church. The Vatican is one of the richest and strongest groups on the planet. Why? Cause they have money which equals power.
If there is a god I know he would be embarrassed at the things you use gods name in vain for. To me using his/her/it name to make money and build these mega churches is disgusting especially when you are taking 10% of people's incomes to do it. We do need churches but we dont need corporate empires to go pray in...

While I agree with you about the Vatican, you are overlooking small community churches that aren't affiliated with the Vatican or the Catholic Church, and definitely do give back most of their money to the community.

[jawstheme]

I don't think that's every church/religion. Jehovah's Witnesses don't charge for weddings or funerals. Nor do they require you to "donate" 10% of your income. You give whatever you want and drop it into discreetly positioned boxes scattered throughout the building. Their Kingdom Halls are also fairly small and discreet, normally they're built to blend in with the neighborhood as opposed to stick out like a sore thumb.

Mormons tend to have bigger buildings than the Witnesses for their worship, but I believe they're scaled back compared to some of the other denominations. I can't say for sure if they charge for weddings and/or funerals, though. Nor am I sure how the funds from the members are received.

I agree, though, the mega-churches, especially lining the Bible Belt, and the sick amount of money thrown into the Vatican is deplorable.

I visited a Kingdom Hall (Jehovah's Witnesses church) and one thing I liked about it was the collection money was in a bin in a closet type room, and you could either put money in or take money out depending on your needs.

[Recovery Room]

I visited a Kingdom Hall (Jehovah's Witnesses church) and one thing I liked about it was the collection money was in a bin in a closet type room, and you could either put money in or take money out depending on your needs.
For real? I've never heard of them doing that.

Give a penny, take a penny.

[Recovery Room]

IProbably so. Some passage about "give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's" comes to mind. I think that referred to the taxes imposed by the Roman Empire upon Jews.
It wasn't Jesus saying he was pro-taxes.

Obviously that particular test from the Pharisees and his response were regarding taxes, but that wasn't the main point. That response, overall, was pertaining to Jesus' followers and their obedience to God's requirements first and foremost, but also making sure they were obedient to the laws of the land where they resided as well.

[jawstheme]

It wasn't Jesus saying he was pro-taxes.

Obviously that particular test from the Pharisees and his response were regarding taxes, but that wasn't the main point. That response, overall, was pertaining to Jesus' followers and their obedience to God's requirements first and foremost, but also making sure they were obedient to the laws of the land where they resided as well.

I always interpreted that passage differently. He has someone bring him a coin with Ceasar's face on it and then he says the quote. Jesus always denounced money, so why wouldn't he say give the coin back to Ceasar? It has Ceasar's face on it anyway. I don't see anything in there about being obedient to the laws of the land particularly, or that taxes are always justified, which is what that passage is typically used to promote.
I'm pretty much agreeing with you here, except for the obedience to the laws of the land thing. I like the christian anarchist view better, personally.

[MonopolyMan]

I see where your going with this but you work. Priests and nuns do not work and give up their lives to do "Gods" will. They live off of and the church is kept going based on the offerings of the people. The people who are giving donations all ready pay taxes so why should their money be taxed twice?

i got you...it just seems these days there are more mega churches with so many sources of income....at least here in so cal...

[Chris92]

It wasn't Jesus saying he was pro-taxes.

Obviously that particular test from the Pharisees and his response were regarding taxes, but that wasn't the main point. That response, overall, was pertaining to Jesus' followers and their obedience to God's requirements first and foremost, but also making sure they were obedient to the laws of the land where they resided as well.
The " laws of the land" include paying taxes. I don't see how your interpretation makes churches exempt from that.

[Recovery Room]

The " laws of the land" include paying taxes. I don't see how your interpretation makes churches exempt from that.
For argument's sake, the law at the moment doesn't require churches to pay taxes. But my interpretation had nothing to do with the initial question, I was just giving some perspective on the verse you mentioned.

Either way, my comment was regarding a follower's personal behavior.

[Chris92]

For argument's sake, the law at the moment doesn't require churches to pay taxes. But my interpretation had nothing to do with the initial question, I was just giving some perspective on the verse you mentioned.

Either way, my comment was regarding a follower's personal behavior.
Okay, I understand. And I would actually agree with your interpretation of that verse--it's a pretty common interpretation I think. I just disagreed with the way in which I thought you were applying it.

[Wasupi]

I can't say for sure if they charge for weddings and/or funerals, though. Nor am I sure how the funds from the members are received.


Weddings/Funerals are free

Funds are voluntarily donated. Mormon scripture says that you should donate 10%. No one enforces it, but it is suggested.

[1.8Nate]

Weddings/Funerals are free

Funds are voluntarily donated. Mormon scripture says that you should donate 10%. No one enforces it, but it is suggested.
lol.

[Regards]

A large amount of Megachurchs' funding comes from the books, cds, dvds, and other merchandise they sell inside of their church.
First, where is your resource for this statement?
When a church buys a Compaq center or a Verizon wireless amphitheater tell me they aren't making a huge profit?

I'm all for donations and what not, but there's just something off by Megachurches that's why I never attend them.
Second, I'm curious what your definition of a "megachurch" is. There a lot of people throwing the term around without giving much of a definition of what it is.
The burden of proof lies completely on religion. If I claimed that the Earth was flat, it would be my responsibility to try and prove that scientifically. But yet you're saying that the Bible and its followers can make absurd claims and don't have the responsibility of proving them?

We don't live 500 years in the past. If you choose to not accept science, that is purely out of your own naivety and ignorance. Scientific theories and laws have been proven and observed. Nobody is claiming that it has all the answers, but religion is and that is why it has the burden of proof. Especially when so many claims in the Bible (just using it as an example) conflict with modern things in science that have been proven.

People shy away from science and dismiss it for one reason: it conflicts with their crazy ideas and has evidence behind it. The "formulas and methods" you are talking down on are the ones that threaten people the most. Because there's no way to use them to prove their crazy non-existent bullshit. "Faith" is just the lazy way out of someone not having to prove something. I don't have "faith" in science, there's no need to because it's there and has been proven. If i wanted to find an answer to a question and I know science has that answer, it is my responsibility to educate myself through science.

You're in college right? Take some legitimate science or anthropology classes. You'll learn that science is not just an "opinion" like you try to play it off as.
Burden of Proof lies on Atheism as much as it lies on Christianity as much as it lies on Islam as much as etc etc. And using science as your defense against religion is silly and is like comparing apples and oranges.

[rawesome]

Burden of Proof lies on Atheism as much as it lies on Christianity as much as it lies on Islam as much as etc etc. And using science as your defense against religion is silly and is like comparing apples and oranges.

This statement is incredibly off the mark. First of all, Atheism makes no claims that need proven. I know youu think saying there is no god needs to be proven, but that's just not the case. Take Russel's Teapot, for example. If I claim that there is an invisible teapot floating in the asteroid belt that cannot be seen, but is most definitely there and I know it because someone else told me, why would you expect to have to show me evidence against that claim when I haven't shown you any evidence in favor of it?

And people don't use science as a defense against religion. They simply use scientific claims to explain phenomena in the universe and offer it as an alternative theory (one that comes, often, with substantial backing and evidence) that maybe an omnipotent, unexplainable God that no one has ever seen did, in fact, decide to create the universe rather arbitrarily one day 14 billion years ago. I know no self-respecting scientist who genuinely believes that they have to provide a defense against religion; science is simply telling people how things work based on observation.

[1.8Nate]

Burden of Proof lies on Atheism as much as it lies on Christianity as much as it lies on Islam as much as etc etc. And using science as your defense against religion is silly and is like comparing apples and oranges.
That's the thing, science does have proof for the claims it makes. Otherwise it wouldn't make them.

This statement is incredibly off the mark. First of all, Atheism makes no claims that need proven. I know youu think saying there is no god needs to be proven, but that's just not the case. Take Russel's Teapot, for example. If I claim that there is an invisible teapot floating in the asteroid belt that cannot be seen, but is most definitely there and I know it because someone else told me, why would you expect to have to show me evidence against that claim when I haven't shown you any evidence in favor of it?

And people don't use science as a defense against religion. They simply use scientific claims to explain phenomena in the universe and offer it as an alternative theory (one that comes, often, with substantial backing and evidence) that maybe an omnipotent, unexplainable God that no one has ever seen did, in fact, decide to create the universe rather arbitrarily one day 14 billion years ago. I know no self-respecting scientist who genuinely believes that they have to provide a defense against religion; science is simply telling people how things work based on observation.
Good post. :-)

[Regards]

This statement is incredibly off the mark. First of all, Atheism makes no claims that need proven. I know youu think saying there is no god needs to be proven, but that's just not the case. Take Russel's Teapot, for example. If I claim that there is an invisible teapot floating in the asteroid belt that cannot be seen, but is most definitely there and I know it because someone else told me, why would you expect to have to show me evidence against that claim when I haven't shown you any evidence in favor of it?

And people don't use science as a defense against religion. They simply use scientific claims to explain phenomena in the universe and offer it as an alternative theory (one that comes, often, with substantial backing and evidence) that maybe an omnipotent, unexplainable God that no one has ever seen did, in fact, decide to create the universe rather arbitrarily one day 14 billion years ago. I know no self-respecting scientist who genuinely believes that they have to provide a defense against religion; science is simply telling people how things work based on observation.
I think you misunderstood my post. Anyone who claims to hold truth, one way or an other, has a burden of proof. The opposite party doesn't matter whether conservative Southern Baptist Christian, radical Muslim, or Atheist. I wasn't trying to side skirt the issue of burden of proof laying on me if I claim that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for our sins, I understand and accept that I have a burden of proof with that. Heck, even scripture tells me I have a burden of proof with my faith.

I could very easily argue that everything science has proven thus far is how God has created the universe. Unfortunately there are Christians who are not able to grasp the fact that evolution maybe be the way God deemed this all to happen. Even Hawkins latest argument that claims proof of how the universe was self created has a flaw: gravity. If gravity was used in such a way, which I'm not discrediting it as it probably was, then where did gravity and that law of physics come from?

Does this make sense?

[jawstheme]

That's the thing, science does have proof for the claims it makes. Otherwise it wouldn't make them.


Good post. :-)

Science doesn't prove anything. Science is based on inductive reasoning. Scientific theories work so long as all observations support them. This does not take away how important science is to understanding the world around us and the universe itself.

[bite2brkskn12]

There are several things that are wrong with your response comment. To begin with, I could care less about how good your grades are. They aren't necessarily a direct indication on how well you use logic and reasoning. Most tests today only show your ability to memorize information and then regurgitate it on to a test. Secondly, using the excuse that you were tired is not applicable in this case. You wrote "holier than now" instead of "holier than thou". You obviously didn't know the correct expression. If you would have wrote holier than tho, tou, the, or something close to the actual expression then I could believe that it was an honest mistake, and that you actually understand the expression. It is clear that you have been misusing the expression for quite sometime "now". So please, don't give me that tired excuse.

"A real christian would never discriminate against another human being"? Really? I guess you forgot about what the Bible says about homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13). I guess you also think that killing someone just because they are attracted to the same sex isn't discrimination, huh? Or should I bring up the slavery, the genocide, and the misogyny parts of the Bible too? You clearly haven't read the entire Bible if you think that there isn't any parts that discriminate toward certain groups. Or maybe you just choose to ignore those parts.

About your "Edit:" sentence, correct me if I'm wrong (I couldn't tell what you meant because you sentence is mostly incoherent), but you said that it would be stupid to believe that other denominations of Christianity are wrong. I believe the opposite. If you believe that there is one god, and that he has one set of standards and rules for all of man, then you couldn't believe that there are multiple correct denominations of Christianity. It is contradictory. Someone has to be wrong. Otherwise, god isn't consistent morally. In order to fully believe in a religion you have to also believe that other religions are wrong.

I think your forgetting that the bible also condemns Heterosexual relationships if they are outside of Marriage. I'm pretty sure a huge part of the bible is God trying to get Moses and his followers out of slavery and into the promised land. If God thought slavery was right, than why would he help these people out of slavery? I am a Christain "follower of Christ" and I follow Jesus' teaching. Jesus loved everyone. Gays, straights, poor, rich, etc. Jesus never spoke out against gays or w.e your trying to say. Your just picking random quotes out of the bible to make a point. Get off of your high horse.

About my edit As long as you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins (believe in your heart, confess with your mouth) than you are a christian. Every man has a different interpretation of the bible since man isn't perfect. Some people believe Jesus didn't have brothers or sisters and some people believe Mary was always a virgin. Some people believe everything in the bible really happened. Even the little stories Jesus used to spread a message. Who is to say who's right and who's wrong. All the different christian denominations have believe Jesus Christ died for them but they have some minor differences. I am non-denominational so I try not to get hung up on any of those things.

[bite2brkskn12]

i got you...it just seems these days there are more mega churches with so many sources of income....at least here in so cal...
Yeah, I lived in California and I remember a church selling tickets for their Christmas eve service which is sickening.

[1.8Nate]

I think you misunderstood my post. Anyone who claims to hold truth, one way or an other, has a burden of proof. The opposite party doesn't matter whether conservative Southern Baptist Christian, radical Muslim, or Atheist. I wasn't trying to side skirt the issue of burden of proof laying on me if I claim that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for our sins, I understand and accept that I have a burden of proof with that. Heck, even scripture tells me I have a burden of proof with my faith.

I could very easily argue that everything science has proven thus far is how God has created the universe. Unfortunately there are Christians who are not able to grasp the fact that evolution maybe be the way God deemed this all to happen. Even Hawkins latest argument that claims proof of how the universe was self created has a flaw: gravity. If gravity was used in such a way, which I'm not discrediting it as it probably was, then where did gravity and that law of physics come from?

Does this make sense?
"How" God created the universe? So you're telling me evolution has produced what we see today within the few thousand years since the flood and Noah's Ark? The Bible doesn't say "God created the primate, which evolved later into man and shared common ancestors with monkies". It says he created A man, and from that man he created a woman. People are grasping for straws trying to merge the two together to make themselves feel less crazy.

Science doesn't prove anything. Science is based on inductive reasoning. Scientific theories work so long as all observations support them. This does not take away how important science is to understanding the world around us and the universe itself.
Proof, truth, understanding, evidence. Let's have a debate over semantics!

[rawesome]

I think you misunderstood my post. Anyone who claims to hold truth, one way or an other, has a burden of proof. The opposite party doesn't matter whether conservative Southern Baptist Christian, radical Muslim, or Atheist. I wasn't trying to side skirt the issue of burden of proof laying on me if I claim that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for our sins, I understand and accept that I have a burden of proof with that. Heck, even scripture tells me I have a burden of proof with my faith.

I could very easily argue that everything science has proven thus far is how God has created the universe. Unfortunately there are Christians who are not able to grasp the fact that evolution maybe be the way God deemed this all to happen. Even Hawkins latest argument that claims proof of how the universe was self created has a flaw: gravity. If gravity was used in such a way, which I'm not discrediting it as it probably was, then where did gravity and that law of physics come from?

Does this make sense?
Yeah, I understand your point (I took classes in evolutionary science at a Catholic college, so that was basically the slant they were teaching). I didn't really pay attention to the post you were quoting, I guess, so I missed the thing about absolute truth claims. I'll just say that to answer a question like gravity automatically with a question that's even harder to prove (God) seems counterproductive and unscientific.

[<*)))><]

This thread belong in PL

[inthemidst]

I think you misunderstood my post. Anyone who claims to hold truth, one way or an other, has a burden of proof. The opposite party doesn't matter whether conservative Southern Baptist Christian, radical Muslim, or Atheist. I wasn't trying to side skirt the issue of burden of proof laying on me if I claim that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for our sins, I understand and accept that I have a burden of proof with that. Heck, even scripture tells me I have a burden of proof with my faith.

I could very easily argue that everything science has proven thus far is how God has created the universe. Unfortunately there are Christians who are not able to grasp the fact that evolution maybe be the way God deemed this all to happen. Even Hawkins latest argument that claims proof of how the universe was self created has a flaw: gravity. If gravity was used in such a way, which I'm not discrediting it as it probably was, then where did gravity and that law of physics come from?

Does this make sense?

The burden of proof is such a burden, haha.

[Regards]

"How" God created the universe? So you're telling me evolution has produced what we see today within the few thousand years since the flood and Noah's Ark? The Bible doesn't say "God created the primate, which evolved later into man and shared common ancestors with monkies". It says he created A man, and from that man he created a woman. People are grasping for straws trying to merge the two together to make themselves feel less crazy.
Oh, so I'm assuming your a biblical scholar who understand the biblical Hebrew language? Or the fact that in its Hebrew, Genesis 1-3 reads more like a form of poetry then it doest throughout the rest of Genesis? There's much more that goes into that text then "A man".

I guess I'll go take my "feel less crazy" pills now. :rolleyes:

[inthemidst]

This always turns into a theological discussion, instead of the actual purpose of the forum, which was to debate if churches should be responsible for paying taxes. Should've seen this coming.

[rawesome]

"How" God created the universe? So you're telling me evolution has produced what we see today within the few thousand years since the flood and Noah's Ark? The Bible doesn't say "God created the primate, which evolved later into man and shared common ancestors with monkies". It says he created A man, and from that man he created a woman. People are grasping for straws trying to merge the two together to make themselves feel less crazy.
From what I've understood, what the text reads in the original language (Hebrew, right?) is a word that is pronounced very similarly to the English name "Adam." However, when translated what the word actually means is something akin to a "dirt critter," which many Christians who do subscribe to the theory of Evolution say could be any sort of mammal, or really any animal, and that said creature could have later evolved into homo sapien. It was changed after many years and translations for more aesthetic reasons.

I don't necessarily buy the latter part, as I think that without what we know about science today many Christians would just say that God created humans then, but it is what it is.

[Regards]

From what I've understood, what the text reads in the original language (Hebrew, right?) is a word that is pronounced very similarly to the English name "Adam." However, when translated what the word actually means is something akin to a "dirt critter," which many Christians who do subscribe to the theory of Evolution say could be any sort of mammal, or really any animal, and that said creature could have later evolved into homo sapien. It was changed after many years and translations for more aesthetic reasons.

I don't necessarily buy the latter part, as I think that without what we know about science today many Christians would just say that God created humans then, but it is what it is.
There's a lot more that goes into the Hebrew language then even the translation of single words. Its a lot more intricate than that. I'll admit that I never took biblical Hebrew as a study, but I had a professor who is renown for his knowledge on biblical languages and some of the stuff that we miss in Genesis is astounding. I wish I was still in school and I could ask him about the creation story and give you guys a better answer.

This always turns into a theological discussion, instead of the actual purpose of the forum, which was to debate if churches should be responsible for paying taxes. Should've seen this coming.
Yeah, truth. I'll back out now, I didn't mean for it to turn into one.

[inthemidst]

Yeah, truth. I'll back out now, I didn't mean for it to turn into one.

It's not that I mind theological discussion. I actually enjoy it, but there's a time and place for everything I guess, and everytime something like religion is involved, most people tend to "snap", and think "well, I don't believe this, I don't believe that, so my answer is such and such". Meanwhile, this is more of a political forum topic than religious.

[1.8Nate]

Oh, so I'm assuming your a biblical scholar who understand the biblical Hebrew language? Or the fact that in its Hebrew, Genesis 1-3 reads more like a form of poetry then it doest throughout the rest of Genesis? There's much more that goes into that text then "A man".

I guess I'll go take my "feel less crazy" pills now. :rolleyes:
I'm not a biblical scholar, but that's the problem with the Bible, anyone can take what they want out of it to fit their agenda. I take it at face value. It's hard to sit around and say parts of it mean this, parts of it mean that, parts of it are metaphors or poems, other parts are fact. See what I'm saying?

[JamesBond]

no.
you people seriously want the church to hand over a portion of its collection plate money for taxes?
people are so quick to shit all over religion...

lol. there's no point in defending religion in satans den.

[Nevuk]

Maybe some churches don't deserve to be taxed. I don't know. I do know that the vast majority of the churches in the US are run far more like businesses than like any form of charitable organization.

[Drown_The_City]

Yes. I don't see why they should be exempt.

If they run like anyother NPO than they shouldnt have to.
Majority of churches in some way benefit the community they are in.

[Drown_The_City]

Yeah, I lived in California and I remember a church selling tickets for their Christmas eve service which is sickening.

that is disgusting. religion is supposed to be something personal. Not a fucking movie that you go watch and get a happy feeling at the end

[bastard_of_ness]

They're no different than any other business.

X-)

[bastard_of_ness]

If they run like anyother NPO than they shouldnt have to.
Majority of churches in some way benefit the community they are in.

That the correct answer.

[bite2brkskn12]

Maybe some churches don't deserve to be taxed. I don't know. I do know that the vast majority of the churches in the US are run far more like businesses than like any form of charitable organization.

Where are you getting this from? Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't mean it's fact. The real fact is that a majority of churches are a light in the community but there are SOME churches out there giving everyone a bad name.

[Simulcast]

Maybe some churches don't deserve to be taxed. I don't know. I do know that the vast majority of the churches in the US are run far more like businesses than like any form of charitable organization.

How do you know this?