Good read.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/preachers-and-their-245000-sneakers-why-one-man-started-an-instagram-account-showing-churches-e2-80-99-wealth/ar-BB1ePOSD

Sorry on cell. Can't link it but I'm sure one of you can. This is a big point in why I think religion is a farce. They've been scamming for a couple thousand years. What's the Catholic Church going to do with all their wealth? Why don't they give it all to the poor and fight noble caused? Just doesn't make sense.

I'm not the one buying $800 Yeezys and $3500 suits. If I could afford that it would be quite a hell of a lot. I'm not that much outside poverty myself.

Yes, frankly I think those who have more should help more.

NotAGiantBagOfWater said:

---

Your not going to hurt anyone by giving them food or water if they don't have clean water or sufficient food. There are a lot of people living in abject poverty that could use that help.

---

Have you ever met a person who did not have access to food or water?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

NotAGiantBagOfWater said:

---

Your not going to hurt anyone by giving them food or water if they don't have clean water or sufficient food. There are a lot of people living in abject poverty that could use that help.

---

Have you ever met a person who did not have access to food or water?

---

Out of sight, out of mind?

I don't know for certain, but I don't remember ever meeting anyone like that, no.

Ok - sounds like a multiple. Is your number greater than zero?

Have had a lot of contact with the poor through Ben Taub, the VA, free clinics in Houston, etc.

One observation I have made is that I have never seen one without a cell phone.

And I believe we are supposed to help out as we can. But our family comes first.

NotAGiantBagOfWater said:

---

I don't know for certain, but I don't remember ever meeting anyone like that, no.

---

Who and where are these people that you provide food and water for if you've never met them?

Zobel said:

---

It's also disingenuous to act as if $1,400 sneakers are the norm.

Saying the OP is why religion is a farce is like saying Lorena Bobbitt is why you don't like women.

---

As a papist myself, I understand the issues with pointing out the worst instances and then generalizing. While I don't think we should generalize, by stating that $1,400 sneakers and Ferraris are the norm, we can/should call it out.

I'm no fan of the Catholic church, but to equate them to a modern day Prosperity Preacher is a pretty big stretch. It's probably debatable whether they are even Christian groups to be honest given that their beliefs are going to be wide ranging and often heretical.

One tenet of these kinds of churches that is important is that these kind of Preachers actually view their wealth as justification that God is showing them favor. So they create this expectation that the only way to know God is blessing that church is by the Pastor having nice things.

This of course is used as a club to pressure congregants into donate more and more of their wealth to the cause. This leads to disaster and probably does a lot to push people away from God because of this kind of abuse.

I happened to hear a discussion on something similar to this last week where a Pastor actually used John 3:16 as a passage to push people to donate more to the Church through their "First Fruits" offering. It's pretty crazy and really a bad thing.

Link to the podcast: Issues, Etc

Zobel said:

---

But you have clean water and food, you don't live in abject poverty. How much time did you spend helping others who aren't so well off with clean water and food?

How much charity should each person engage in? Is this social obligation based on a gradient? Or does it only kick in after a minimum income level, like income taxes? Who sets this?

---

It's certainly fair to ask people how much they give when questioning the giving of others. To point out that hypocrisy goes around.

I will note there is a considerable difference here though. ordinary people don't share the same level of guilt as church leaders who ask many people who don't have much money to give 10% of what they have. At least if a regular citizen is frivolous or selfish with their money it's money they earned. A church leader took that money from their flock under the pretense of that money being used toward good work.

To me, this is more akin to the leader of a charity driving a Lambo. We can all make our judgments as to what we think about that. It has really nothing to do with the fact claims of religions.

Right, you don't have to be a generous person to point out grifting or even outright religiously sanctioned theft. The problem is using the exception to condemn religion as a whole. At that point its just an antecedent argument - conclusion was already there, OP is just justifying his predetermined concept.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

But you have clean water and food, you don't live in abject poverty. How much time did you spend helping others who aren't so well off with clean water and food?

How much charity should each person engage in? Is this social obligation based on a gradient? Or does it only kick in after a minimum income level, like income taxes? Who sets this?

---

It's certainly fair to ask people how much they give when questioning the giving of others. To point out that hypocrisy goes around.

I will note there is a considerable difference here though. ordinary people don't share the same level of guilt as church leaders who ask many people who don't have much money to give 10% of what they have. At least if a regular citizen is frivolous or selfish with their money it's money they earned. A church leader took that money from their flock under the pretense of that money being used toward good work.

To me, this is more akin to the leader of a charity driving a Lambo. We can all make our judgments as to what we think about that. It has really nothing to do with the fact claims of religions.

---

These kinds of churches don't operate under that model.

They operate under the "we will guilt you until you give a significant portion of your net wealth to us" in the name of God. They aren't looking for 10% of your salary, but a much higher percentage of your total wealth.

In the link I have above, the Pastor used John 3:16 to argue that God sending his only begotten Son to die for us is an example of "giving generously" and that when they do their major offering of the year, the congregation should "give generously" on par with what God did for us.

But again, the Lambo is a feature of that group. It means they have God's favor and so of course the Pastor needs that to show others just how great this church is...

It's gross and not scriptural.

Quote:

---

Right, you don't have to be a generous person to point out grifting or even outright religiously sanctioned theft. The problem is using the exception to condemn religion as a whole. At that point its just an antecedent argument - conclusion was already there, OP is just justifying his predetermined concept.

---

Is it not fair for the non-believer to say "you don't even follow your savior. Why should i?".

edit: I think this is the "non-said" portion of condemning religion based on this.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

But you have clean water and food, you don't live in abject poverty. How much time did you spend helping others who aren't so well off with clean water and food?

How much charity should each person engage in? Is this social obligation based on a gradient? Or does it only kick in after a minimum income level, like income taxes? Who sets this?

---

It's certainly fair to ask people how much they give when questioning the giving of others. To point out that hypocrisy goes around.

I will note there is a considerable difference here though. ordinary people don't share the same level of guilt as church leaders who ask many people who don't have much money to give 10% of what they have. At least if a regular citizen is frivolous or selfish with their money it's money they earned. A church leader took that money from their flock under the pretense of that money being used toward good work.

To me, this is more akin to the leader of a charity driving a Lambo. We can all make our judgments as to what we think about that. It has really nothing to do with the fact claims of religions.

---

These kinds of churches don't operate under that model.

They operate under the "we will guilt you until you give a significant portion of your net wealth to us" in the name of God. They aren't looking for 10% of your salary, but a much higher percentage of your total wealth.

In the link I have above, the Pastor used John 3:16 to argue that God sending his only begotten Son to die for us is an example of "giving generously" and that when they do their major offering of the year, the congregation should "give generously" on par with what God did for us.

But again, the Lambo is a feature of that group. It means they have God's favor and so of course the Pastor needs that to show others just how great this church is...

It's gross and not scriptural.

---

I think something else too, and this might be in the weeds a bit, is when a pastor will have a "side gig" as an author, speaker etc. For example he might not take a salary at his church, but he sells his "I am a pastor and here is my book, buy it" type of book and makes good money doing that, or by speaking engagements. For me, I think he is clearly trading off his affiliation with a "ministry/Church/etc". While not "technically speaking" taking tithe money I think it certainly raises ethical questions.

I agree 100%. It's one thing to earn money from labor and investment and spoil yourself. It's not right, but at least the money was earned by either hard work or risk. It's another thing entirely to take donations and spend that money lavishly on personal luxuries.

There's a few different ways I look at this. First, investment or wages are paid to offset labor or risk. The personal receiving the money has already done everything required, implied, and expected to obtain the money. At that point, the person receiving the money has no duty or responsibility to the one who paid them. Donation is different. People donate for a purpose. Whether it's to save the trees, feed the homeless, or build a church, the people donating have a reasonable expectation that money will be spent for that purpose. To take that money and spend it on something else without first consulting the donor is akin to theft. That applies to jumbo jets for prosperity gospel preachers, corvettes for buidling preservations societies, and even when the Red Cross used donated Katrina money for other projects.

Along with that, you must consider the expectations of the donor. If someone donates to Joel Olsteen expecting him to feed the hungry, and then he buys a private jet then he has done wrong. If he has a campaign to raise money for a private jet and people donate to it, then it's hard to argue he is stealing from them. However, it does make the tax deductible nature of the organization questionable when the primary purpose of the organization seems to be the luxury living of the staff and not helping the needy or spreading the Gospel.

The Catholic Church question is sticky too. It's the largest charitable organization in the world. There are very few people or organizations that can criticize them from a moral high ground. Also, most of the ostentatious and elaborate works are churches and cathedrals. These are literally houses of God, and if God doesn't deserve wondrous beauty then who does? Also mentioned above is the fact that these projects provide work and therefore money and food to a large population for an extended period of time. I think everyone agrees it better to give someone a livelihood instead of a handout.

None of this excuses the blatant greed in these or any other religious organizations or charities.

Ordhound04 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

But you have clean water and food, you don't live in abject poverty. How much time did you spend helping others who aren't so well off with clean water and food?

How much charity should each person engage in? Is this social obligation based on a gradient? Or does it only kick in after a minimum income level, like income taxes? Who sets this?

---

It's certainly fair to ask people how much they give when questioning the giving of others. To point out that hypocrisy goes around.

I will note there is a considerable difference here though. ordinary people don't share the same level of guilt as church leaders who ask many people who don't have much money to give 10% of what they have. At least if a regular citizen is frivolous or selfish with their money it's money they earned. A church leader took that money from their flock under the pretense of that money being used toward good work.

To me, this is more akin to the leader of a charity driving a Lambo. We can all make our judgments as to what we think about that. It has really nothing to do with the fact claims of religions.

---

These kinds of churches don't operate under that model.

They operate under the "we will guilt you until you give a significant portion of your net wealth to us" in the name of God. They aren't looking for 10% of your salary, but a much higher percentage of your total wealth.

In the link I have above, the Pastor used John 3:16 to argue that God sending his only begotten Son to die for us is an example of "giving generously" and that when they do their major offering of the year, the congregation should "give generously" on par with what God did for us.

But again, the Lambo is a feature of that group. It means they have God's favor and so of course the Pastor needs that to show others just how great this church is...

It's gross and not scriptural.

---

I think something else too, and this might be in the weeds a bit, is when a pastor will have a "side gig" as an author, speaker etc. For example he might not take a salary at his church, but he sells his "I am a pastor and here is my book, buy it" type of book and makes good money doing that, or by speaking engagements. For me, I think he is clearly trading off his affiliation with a "ministry/Church/etc". While not "technically speaking" taking tithe money I think it certainly raises ethical questions.

---

I agree, though some nuance is needed in this day and age with so many pastors starting youtube channels, podcasts, etc.

The "side gig" itself isn't necessarily the issue, but it's all about the expectations that the Pastor puts on his congregation in terms of supporting that side gig in addition to the hefty pressure to still tithe well above 10% to "support the Church."

Of course its fair. As fair as saying "American teenagers love to shoot schools, why should I care about murder laws?"

Zobel said:

---

How much of your personal income do you donate per year?

(This is not tu quoque. I'm going somewhere with this.)

---

3-4%. United way and local food bank.

Already made the point I was going to make, sorry

Hendrix said:

---

Zobel said:

---

How much of your personal income do you donate per year?

(This is not tu quoque. I'm going somewhere with this.)

---

3-4%. United way and local food bank.

---

One other thing. I'm very fortunate in my career and income. If the socialist democrats raise my taxes not only income but capital gains I'll cut off all charitable donations. I'm already donating money to immigrants that come here illegally and everything is free plus all the multi generational welfare recipients which have cars and phones nicer than mine. I'm frugal as hell. But sadly that's the truth. My taxes are about to go to an obscene level and I'm donate more than my share. Sadly a lot of charities are going to get hit. I'm giving to the ultimate charity. The completely broken US government. Meanwhile I'm looking at some ag exempt property west of Austin I can hide some money in. Blanco and Johnson city area. I think ag exempt land today is an incredible investment to dodge taxes enjoy it and give it to my son one day. Great inflation hedge too. It's it the ultimate Bitcoin. They're not making anymore land west of Austin. Lol. Sorry if I pissed anyone off. Just found that article disturbing and funny.