What Christians should spend their monetary resources on.

[neo of the mind]

This topic was brought up by Towski in another thread and felt it deserved it's own topic since there are varying views.

I will start off the conversations by saying that Christians should give 10% of their income to the church they are members of. That is the minimum and additional resources can be given as each individual so chooses.

The main function of the tithing is to support the church in order that it's fuctions can be fully utilized.

[::Major_Baker::]

This topic was brought up by Towski in another thread and felt it deserved it's own topic since there are varying views.

I will start off the conversations by saying that Christians should give 10% of their income to the church they are members of. That is the minimum and additional resources can be given as each individual so chooses.

The main function of the tithing is to support the church in order that it's fuctions can be fully utilized.

What if 10% is simply too much? Trust in god to pay rent and bills?

[neo of the mind]

What if 10% is simply too much? Trust in god to pay rent and bills?

Of course, being a good steward of your money, you would pay your debts. That being said, every individual knows whether or not they are not able to give 10% because they are truly limited in their resources or they would much rather have a boat or the Tahoe versus getting something more frugal in order to tithe.

[Riddley]

What if 10% is simply too much? Trust in god to pay rent and bills?

We have this situation in NZ with people from the Pacific Islands who tithe to their churches. My daughters school prize giving was held in the local Pacific Islands church and it is very impressive. The best sound system outside of a Night Club, lights, the works. Now people probably don't mind paying and it is their right to do it, but could there not be less lighting and more healthcare?

[FlyingGuineapig]

In all seriousness, there are a lot of Christian charities either supported by churches or directly affiliated with them. When Hurricane Katrina hit, churches (along with the Red Cross and other non-religious charities) were organizing volunteers, collecting donations of diapers, food, children's games, and more.

Outside the US, there are churches & their charities organizing relief to Darfur, Lebenon, Guatemala, and helping those with AIDs in Africa, India, etc.

Within the US, when there aren't natural disasters, there are charities for helping the homeless or runaways. In the case of pro-life churches, there's often adoption services so that pregnant women who feel unfit/unable to raise the child have an alternative to abortion.

[towski]

The tithing thing is fine, and I am in awe of those who can do it, such as my parents.

My concern comes more with things such as the $25 million dollars being used to build the creation museum. It may just be me and how my beliefs work, but I tend to think Jesus would much rather see this money used to help our fellow man.

[neo of the mind]

in regards to Towski's post about a creationist museum and the 25 million that is going to pay for it.

I don't think all money that Christians have should go directly to helping the poor. A portion of that money should go for evangelical purposes.

I know of numerous examples personally of people changing their life around for the better, from being financially poor habitually, by becoming a Christian. This of course, unlike welfare for example, has a much better track record of lifting people out of poverty.

This museum, if successful, will have a domino effect that will help people, many of them poor, in ways that go beyond mere monetary considerations.

[neo of the mind]

The tithing thing is fine, and I am in awe of those who can do it, such as my parents.

My concern comes more with things such as the $25 million dollars being used to build the creation museum. It may just be me and how my beliefs work, but I tend to think Jesus would much rather see this money used to help our fellow man.

I would counter that Jesus, as described in the Bible, was well aware of people's basic needs, views their need of salvation as being more important.

[towski]

So Neo, do you think Jesus would support a $25 million dollar creation museum?

[steveksux]

So Neo, do you think Jesus would support a $25 million dollar creation museum?Especially given that Jesus, who knows everything, knows creationism is a bunch of hooey.... I think Jesus would much rather the money be spent on a genuine museum so people would stop making fun of those of his supporters who are so seriously misguided. They give the rest of His followers a bad reputation.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

So Neo, do you think Jesus would support a $25 million dollar creation museum?

If it brings people to the belief in Jesus and all that encompasses, then I would think He would support it.

It could also serve a positve purpose, but maybe not in the intentions of the people involved (the creation angle to be specific).

[neo of the mind]

Especially given that Jesus, who knows everything, knows creationism is a bunch of hooey.... I think Jesus would much rather the money be spent on a genuine museum so people would stop making fun of those of his supporters who are so seriously misguided. They give the rest of His followers a bad reputation.

Randy

Yes, I am certain that Jesus thinks it hooey that he created everything.:rolleyes:

[burntgorilla]

My friend drums for the praise band in his local church. They spent thousands getting him a new drum kit, and to be honest I feel it was a waste.

As for the opinion that money is better spent on evangelical purposes that aid, this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46226) sums up my views.

[brainpan]

Yes, I am certain that Jesus thinks it hooey that he created everything.:rolleyes:You appear to be having further confusion with the term creationism. It refers to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and one need not deny Jesus' role in creation to reject creationism. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

[neo of the mind]

My friend drums for the praise band in his local church. They spent thousands getting him a new drum kit, and to be honest I feel it was a waste.

As for the opinion that money is better spent on evangelical purposes that aid, this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46226) sums up my views.

Is this museum in Kentucky or sub-sahara Africa? Evangelical purposes are legitimate to THE PEOPLE THAT GIVE THE MONEY. You may not think it is, spend your money on what you want.

[neo of the mind]

You appear to be having further confusion with the term creationism. It refers to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and one need not deny Jesus' role in creation to reject creationism. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I was joking. I think it is hilarious how people that don't believe in Jesus as described in the Bible nor in his very existence, then bring him up in their debates.

[burntgorilla]

Is this museum in Kentucky or sub-sahara Africa? Evangelical purposes are legitimate to THE PEOPLE THAT GIVE THE MONEY. You may not think it is, spend your money on what you want.

More legitimate than helping starving people? Lots of religious charities do great work in Africa and other troubled areas. But I have difficulty accepting the idea that people say things like "what shall we spend our $25million on? We could use it to help many people all over the world, such as food aid, drug rehab programs, foster care and other things. Alternatively, we could use it to build a museum to expound our belief about creation. Actually, let's go with that. We're helping far more people that way than with the charity." What is Christian about that?

[Meek Heir]

I was joking. I think it is hilarious how people that don't believe in Jesus as described in the Bible nor in his very existence, then bring him up in their debates.

I believe it was Andrew Wiggin that said "I speak to people in the language they understand."

[neo of the mind]

I believe it was Andrew Wiggin that said "I speak to people in the language they understand."


First, you have to actually understand the language for it to be meaningful.

Second, it doesn't work on people that know where you are coming from already. Deception doesn't work that way.

[neo of the mind]

More legitimate than helping starving people? Lots of religious charities do great work in Africa and other troubled areas. But I have difficulty accepting the idea that people say things like "what shall we spend our $25million on? We could use it to help many people all over the world, such as food aid, drug rehab programs, foster care and other things. Alternatively, we could use it to build a museum to expound our belief about creation. Actually, let's go with that. We're helping far more people that way than with the charity." What is Christian about that?


You could say the same thing about church buildings themselves, since expounding beliefs is a major portion of their purpose. You can tie in mosques, temples, synagouges, etc.

As pointed out, religious organizations, including Christian organizations, which I would not be surpised to find the biggest givers of money and resources, cover a lot of the basis in helping people in poverty. These religious organizations, including Christian ones, try not to neglect their two fold mission.

[::Major_Baker::]

More legitimate than helping starving people? Lots of religious charities do great work in Africa and other troubled areas. But I have difficulty accepting the idea that people say things like "what shall we spend our $25million on? We could use it to help many people all over the world, such as food aid, drug rehab programs, foster care and other things. Alternatively, we could use it to build a museum to expound our belief about creation. Actually, let's go with that. We're helping far more people that way than with the charity." What is Christian about that?

plus, it is reasonable to assume that the main patrons of this museum are going to be the already faithful, so who is this really going to help? All it will do is reinforce the beliefs of the already relgiious.

I certainly would not pay the entry price to see what's inside..

[steveksux]

Yes, I am certain that Jesus thinks it hooey that he created everything.:rolleyes:He knows He did it through the physical processes such as the big bang for the universe and evolution for the biological diversity. He knows, and told the Pope who passed it on to the rest of us, that seven literal day creationism as detailed in the Bible is hooey. ANd young earth creationism even more so. God left the bread crumbs for us to find using science as an exercise for the reader. You learn so much more in the journey to figuring stuff out on your own rather than simply having it handed to you in ancient texts.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

You could say the same thing about church buildings themselves, since expounding beliefs is a major portion of their purpose. You can tie in mosques, temples, synagouges, etc.

As pointed out, religious organizations, including Christian organizations, which I would not be surpised to find the biggest givers of money and resources, cover a lot of the basis in helping people in poverty. These religious organizations, including Christian ones, try not to neglect their two fold mission.

Oh certainly. I'm not aiming this at solely Christians. Elaborate mosques are just as bad, in my opinion. It's one of the (many) things I have against the Catholic Church. I appreciate beautiful churches and cathedrals, admittedly, but from a religious perspective it would have been better to use the money to help the local citizens, rather than placing a magnificent building in their midst. I like the attitude of the priest in the beginning of Les Miserables. I mean, does the Pope really need to live in such opulence? It amused me to see the coffin John Paul II had, after living in the splendour of the Vatican for so long. I just don't see how any Christian could consider building a magnificent church (which is essentially for their benefit) a more honourable way to spend their money than giving it to those in need. The same applies for any other faith.

[Soc.Dem.]

Oh certainly. I'm not aiming this at solely Christians. Elaborate mosques are just as bad, in my opinion.[...] I just don't see how any Christian could consider building a magnificent church (which is essentially for their benefit) a more honourable way to spend their money than giving it to those in need. The same applies for any other faith.

Does it apply equally to those of no faith?

Elaborate chruches and mosques are bad you say, but what about elaborate country clubs, shopping malls and houses?

[steveksux]

Does it apply equally to those of no faith?

Elaborate chruches and mosques are bad you say, but what about elaborate country clubs, shopping malls and houses?Not unless you build them with money begged from gullible members of your atheist congregation.

Randy

[Soc.Dem.]

Not unless you build them with money begged from gullible members of your atheist congregation.

Randy

What's the difference between begging the "gullible" members of your congregation for money to build an elaborate church/mosque/synagogue/temple and begging the "gullible" members of your country club for money to build an elaborate club house?

[USA-1]

If it brings people to the belief in Jesus and all that encompasses, then I would think He would support it.

It could also serve a positve purpose, but maybe not in the intentions of the people involved (the creation angle to be specific).

30,000 children die of starvation everyday and you think it's good to waste 25 million on a worthess building? Jesus would be pissed.

[towski]

What's the difference between begging the "gullible" members of your congregation for money to build an elaborate church/mosque/synagogue/temple and begging the "gullible" members of your country club for money to build an elaborate club house?

I get to play golf?

[steveksux]

What's the difference between begging the "gullible" members of your congregation for money to build an elaborate church/mosque/synagogue/temple and begging the "gullible" members of your country club for money to build an elaborate club house?No threat of eternal damnation if you don't do it.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Not unless you build them with money begged from gullible members of your atheist congregation.

Randy

You can't possibly KNOW that these people are gullible considering that you do not know they were unaware of what their donations were going for.
Seems like your just carrying over the name calling from the closed thread.

[wish]

What's the difference between begging the "gullible" members of your congregation for money to build an elaborate church/mosque/synagogue/temple and begging the "gullible" members of your country club for money to build an elaborate club house?

Tax-exemption status.

The real question is: should this museum and other similar church "projects" be subsidized by the taxpayers?

[neo of the mind]

30,000 children die of starvation everyday and you think it's good to waste 25 million on a worthess building? Jesus would be pissed.

And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
[4] And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
[5] For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
[6] And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
[7] For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
[8] She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
[9] Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

[neo of the mind]

Tax-exemption status.

The real question is: should this museum and other similar church "projects" be subsidized by the taxpayers?


The site says that the donations are from private sources. Government can not subsidize any religious "project".

[JoeR]

And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
[4] And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
[5] For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
[6] And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
[7] For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
[8] She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
[9] Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

Doesn't this only really make sense in the context of Jesus being alive? I take that to mean "go ahead and do good works for me if you want while I'm here, because I'll soon be dead and then its time to take care of the poor."

[bowerbird]

I don't really have a problem with the money - I am SURE that there are more expensive churchs in the world. What I have a problem with is when those churchs are sitting in the middle of a ghetto.

It is one thing to berate someone who wants to give an expensive gift to another and quite another thing to spend money on yourself when you are professing to be for the poor.

One thing to raise money for a plane so that you can minister to remote areas in Outback Australia - quite another to ask for money to buy a better plane than the "other churches" have.

I think the crux is in the intent,

[steveksux]

You can't possibly KNOW that these people are gullible considering that you do not know they were unaware of what their donations were going for.They can be gullible and know exactly where their donations are going.

Randy

[towski]

I don't have a problem with nice churches, with ministers living in nice houses, or any like thing.

I have a problem with things I think are not in keeping with the spirit of the religion.

For example, this creation museum. Neo, I agree that this museum could educate people about creationism. It's not what I believe, but I'll concede the point that it could be used for both education and evangelism. But I would very much prefer to see the same $25 million used to set up a top notch, renewable community outreach with could clothe, feed, and train the poor. Evagelism can take place within this context, no problem at all. And quite frankly, I think you are much, much more likely to reach those people who need the comfort and message of the word through this type of ministry than you would ever reach through the building of a museum.

Those most likely to attend a creation museum are already believers, both in christianity and in creationsim. They already believe, and they already believe in the specific message of the bible that is being discussed.

By building the other ministry I discussed, however, you increase the positive view of christians in the community, you become an active participant in spreading the word, and you are involved in one of the core tenets of christianity, helping your fellow man.

[neo of the mind]

Doesn't this only really make sense in the context of Jesus being alive? I take that to mean "go ahead and do good works for me if you want while I'm here, because I'll soon be dead and then its time to take care of the poor."

If he had an attitude that giving to the poor was more important then him, for their perspective, he would have told them to sell the perfume.

You have to remember that Jesus had a ministry and they were not poor, they had a large amount of money and they just didn't give it all away, they used it to further his purposes.

If this museum will further his purposes then it will flourish, if not, it will fail.

[neo of the mind]

They can be gullible and know exactly where their donations are going.

Randy

I don't want to get into another defintion war, but if they are aware of the purposes of their donations then they were not cheated out of the money.

[wish]

The site says that the donations are from private sources. Government can not subsidize any religious "project".

If I'm not mistaken, donation income that religious organizations receive are tax-exempt. According to the museum website, they provide receipts so these private donors (in the US) can also write-off the donations they make to this ministry and this "project".

Of course, this will probably lead to a semantic argument about the definition of "subsidy"... :rolleyes:

[Scaryclouds]

I don't think all money that Christians have should go directly to helping the poor. A portion of that money should go for evangelical purposes.


Be is that not itself an evangelical purpose?

I understand what you are saying but over all I think a creation musem would do more to reinforce the beliefs of creationists than make a non-believer a believer. There are much more worthy evangelical causes than a creationists musem.

[neo of the mind]

I don't have a problem with nice churches, with ministers living in nice houses, or any like thing.

I have a problem with things I think are not in keeping with the spirit of the religion.

For example, this creation museum. Neo, I agree that this museum could educate people about creationism. It's not what I believe, but I'll concede the point that it could be used for both education and evangelism. But I would very much prefer to see the same $25 million used to set up a top notch, renewable community outreach with could clothe, feed, and train the poor. Evagelism can take place within this context, no problem at all. And quite frankly, I think you are much, much more likely to reach those people who need the comfort and message of the word through this type of ministry than you would ever reach through the building of a museum.

Those most likely to attend a creation museum are already believers, both in christianity and in creationsim. They already believe, and they already believe in the specific message of the bible that is being discussed.

By building the other ministry I discussed, however, you increase the positive view of christians in the community, you become an active participant in spreading the word, and you are involved in one of the core tenets of christianity, helping your fellow man.


I understand what you are saying, but it would be closer to the truth if Chrisitan organizations don't already do that very thing. There is charity and community help all over the place. They are tripping all over themselves to help people in numerous ways.

As far as only believers going to the museum...to an extent yes, but a portion will be unbelievers...just like every Christian church every Sunday.

Speaking from a Baptist denomination, the gospel is preached in large or small part every service, specifically for that one person out of the hundred there that could have their life changed.

[towski]

I understand what you are saying, but it would be closer to the truth if Chrisitan organizations don't already do that very thing. There is charity and community help all over the place. They are tripping all over themselves to help people in numerous ways.

As far as only believers going to the museum...to an extent yes, but a portion will be unbelievers...just like every Christian church every Sunday.

Speaking from a Baptist denomination, the gospel is preached in large or small part every service, specifically for that one person out of the hundred there that could have their life changed.

Are you telling me that Christianity has reached the point of charity where the market is saturated? That there are no longer any poor to help? That the church has to find something to do with all that extra money, so why not a Creation museum?

[neo of the mind]

If I'm not mistaken, donation income that religious organizations receive are tax-exempt. According to the museum website, they provide receipts so these private donors (in the US) can also write-off the donations they make to this ministry and this "project".

Of course, this will probably lead to a semantic argument about the definition of "subsidy"... :rolleyes:

Well, I don't consider tax exemptions a subsidy of government. A tax exemption is just the government not stealing money from a non governmental entity. The government is not giving funds.

[neo of the mind]

Are you telling me that Christianity has reached the point of charity where the market is saturated? That there are no longer any poor to help? That the church has to find something to do with all that extra money, so why not a Creation museum?

Yes ,the market is saturated as far as help in relation to ministries. This is proven as recently as Hurricane Katrina were people have given close to 4 Billion dollars so far. That doesn't include the government, which one has to ponder why they had to do anything besides logistics, but that's a different topic.

The war on poverty is like the war on drugs, it is never ending and throwing money at it has proven not to be the solution.

If God felt that ending poverty was the important need of man, then he would have just done it. Then again, we are no longer in the garden of eden for a reason.

[towski]

Yes ,the market is saturated as far as help in relation to ministries. This is proven as recently as Hurricane Katrina were people have given close to 4 Billion dollars so far. That doesn't include the government, which one has to ponder why they had to do anything besides logistics, but that's a different topic.

The war on poverty is like the war on drugs, it is never ending and throwing money at it has proven not to be the solution.

If God felt that ending poverty was the important need of man, then he would have just done it. Then again, we are no longer in the garden of eden for a reason.

God doesn't want us to do any more to help the poor. Right.

Bye now. :wave:

[Soc.Dem.]

Yes ,the market is saturated as far as help in relation to ministries. This is proven as recently as Hurricane Katrina were people have given close to 4 Billion dollars so far. That doesn't include the government, which one has to ponder why they had to do anything besides logistics, but that's a different topic.

The war on poverty is like the war on drugs, it is never ending and throwing money at it has proven not to be the solution.

If God felt that ending poverty was the important need of man, then he would have just done it. Then again, we are no longer in the garden of eden for a reason.


So fighting to end povery is not an important endeavour for Christians? :rolleyes:

Christianity,-American Style!

Christianity made easy, comfortable...and pointless.

[wish]

Well, I don't consider tax exemptions a subsidy of government. A tax exemption is just the government not stealing money from a non governmental entity. The government is not giving funds.
Churches (and charitable nonprofits) are given tax exeptions on the presumption that they work to benefit the community. We can argue back and forth about the "community value" of this museum, but that would be pointless. The fact is that the IRS demands far less from churches than from non-religious nonprofits in regards to accounting for their income and expenditures.

To get back to your original question (the title of the thread), all religious organizations (not just Christian ones) should spend their money on whatever they want, provided that (in the ideal world) they get tax-exemptions only on the projects that provide a clear and tangible benefit to the community (as determined by IRS code). Funds that are used on questionable items/projects should be taxed. As long as they pay their fair share of taxes that everyone else has to pay (regardless of whether or not you consider it theft), they can do whatever they want (like build museums or install fancy sound stages and huge satellite dishes).

I think this would help to curb a lot of the abuse (and I'm not just pointing my finger at Christian churches here) and encourage religious organizations to do more and will ultimately lead to greater outreach in the end. This Creation Museum could do a lot more than house exhibits if it, say, provided meaningful employment to the disabled or others that otherwise have difficulty finding jobs. Or, it could run a free/low-cost cafeteria for the needy. A "biblical garden" out back could also provide more food and jobs as well as preserve rare/endangered crops and other botanical species. But as it currently is, I don't see any additional value provided by the museum that can't be accomplished by a website or brochure.

[neo of the mind]

I would like to defend what I actually stated, versus what you two read into it or put into it.

"God doesn't want us to do any more to help the poor. Right."

Nowhere did I say that God doesn't want us to do any more to help poor people. Christians are to continually help poor people for their physical needs, but Christ's teaching states that man does not live on bread alone, but by the word of God. In other words, there is a spiritual need in everyone that must be filled along with sustinance. One without the other will cause you to die, either physically or spiritually. Neglect of either one is not good.

"So fighting to end povery is not an important endeavour for Christians?"

Not in the way you think it can be done. Before the "Great Society" programs, the percentage of poor in America was about 14% and 20 years later it's still the same and currently it is roughly the same.
But this is based off of the governments definition of the poor which is flawed. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm

Again, throwing money at the poor does not end poverty, history shows it.

[Atticus]

Well, I don't consider tax exemptions a subsidy of government. A tax exemption is just the government not stealing money from a non governmental entity. The government is not giving funds.But a subsidy is exactly what an economist would call it. The government does all kinds of things to influence economic behavior. Giving a break to married couples, people who have children, contributions to charity, etc., are all subsidies because they are exemptions from expenses that would otherwise apply.

I know--it's our money--but government is defined as the entity that can legitimately take our money from us. If it doesn't do that because of some behavior or status, it's a subsidy.

[neo of the mind]

what you call exemption from expenses, I call refraining from theft.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
subsidy
One entry found for subsidy.
Main Entry: sub·si·dy
Pronunciation: 's&b-s&-dE, -z&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
Etymology: Middle English subsidie, from Anglo-French, from Latin subsidium reserve troops, support, assistance, from sub- near + sedEre to sit -- more at SUB-, SIT
: a grant or gift of money: as a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b : money granted by one state to another c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

this link sums up this issue well in my opinion and touches on some points made by others.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/churchsubsidy.htm

[burntgorilla]

What's the difference between begging the "gullible" members of your congregation for money to build an elaborate church/mosque/synagogue/temple and begging the "gullible" members of your country club for money to build an elaborate club house?

Because country club members don't necessarily claim to be following the teachings of Christ/Muhammed/whoever. Country club members pay (extortionate) fees because they want to play golf. Church goers pay a tithe because they want to support their church and follow Christ's teachings. You know, love thy neighbour and that kind of thing.

[Alvin T. Grey]

IMO? Porn & Beer.

I have read down through this thread, and come to the conclusion that modern Evangelicals seem to be more interested in their curch and their bible, then what is taught in them.

That pissed me of about the Catholic church too.

Now can you answer me this, when was the only time that Jesus got voilent?

[burntgorilla]

In the temple?

[Alvin T. Grey]

Exactly. BG. Keep money and religion seperate.
Now you can collect for charity, you can collect for the curch. But making a business out of it, is sailing close to the wind IMO.

[steveksux]

I don't want to get into another defintion war, but if they are aware of the purposes of their donations then they were not cheated out of the money.Precisely. I'm not disputing that. And they can still be gullible in doing so.

The Heaven's Gate people knew they were killing themselves to rendevous with a comet to get into Heaven. They weren't tricked into drinking kool-aid ala Jim Jones. Yet both groups were gullible even though only one was lied to.

People donating money earmarked for a Flat Earth museum are still gullible for believing that the earth is flat.

Gullible includes believing a lie you are told, it also covers believing goofy stuff told to you by someone who sincerely believes it and is not lying, merely obviously misinformed.

Randy

[steveksux]

If I'm not mistaken, donation income that religious organizations receive are tax-exempt. According to the museum website, they provide receipts so these private donors (in the US) can also write-off the donations they make to this ministry and this "project".

Of course, this will probably lead to a semantic argument about the definition of "subsidy"... :rolleyes:I was going to agree with Neo on this point, but I hadn't thought of this angle, it does seem to be a potential issue.

The museum is a business owned by the church. They're charging admission, its just like a regular museum (except that its presenting fraudulent information). It should not be tax exempt. I think its a valid question whether donations used to build it should be tax exempt as well.

Not sure there's a precedent for this sort of thing. Regular churches build soup kitchens, and they often prosthyletize to the people who show up, but its run on a non-profit basis, they dont' charge admission, its clearly charity. This clearly isn't.

[edit]I take it back, there is precedent for this type of thing. Didn't Jerry Falwell have an amusement park at one time? I remember seeing a photo of him going down the water slide in a suit for the grand opening. Liberty something or other? Was that treated as a business, or was it tax exempt?

Randy

[FlyingGuineapig]

[edit]I take it back, there is precedent for this type of thing. Didn't Jerry Falwell have an amusement park at one time? I remember seeing a photo of him going down the water slide in a suit for the grand opening. Liberty something or other? Was that treated as a business, or was it tax exempt?

Randy

Back in the late 80s or so, I though Jim & Tammy Fae Bakker had an amusement park - Heritage USA. (BTW, is it spelled Baker or Bakker?)

Hey - Wiki has some info on it - and they even mention Jerry Falwell going down a water slide. And a bit about the finances (which sound "less than stellar")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_USA


In the midst of Heritage USA high point, which earned $126 million a year the IRS revoked the tax exemption. Soon after Baker's federal indictment and public condemnation sexual affair attendance dropped. Falwell argued "PTL's Heritage USA complex in Fort Mill, S.C., was competing unfairly against tax-paying tourist attractions, and that the tax-exempt ministry should be separated from the running of hotels and amusement parks." Under Falwell's leadership, Heritage USA sought "Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection with debts estimated at $72 million."

The 165,000 people who gave $1,000 to Jim Bakker's planned Heritage U.S.A. resort in return for promised four-day vacation stays received $6.54 each. Pictures of the park (including the water-park Heritage Island) remain accessible online and over the years projects have been constructed on the vast lands of the former Christian-theme park

[The Big Bog]

I'm totally with Alvin on all this.

If Jesus came back today I sincerely do believe he'd tear through the Vatican or this Creation Museum or whatever's left of Heritage, USA and kick some major booty. And he'd probably then roll up his sleeves and head right for the country club. Y'all are just rationalizing.

[bowerbird]

Remember Jimmy and Tammy Bakker?

Between 1984 and 1987, the Bakkers received annual salaries of $200,000 each and Jim awarded himself over $4,000,000 in bonuses. Their assets at that time included a $600,000 house in Palm Springs, four condominiums in California, and a Rolls Royce. In their success, the Bakkers took conspicuous consumption to an unusual level for a non-profit organization. PTL once spent $100,000 for a private jet to fly the Bakkers' clothing across the country. It also once spent $100 for cinnamon rolls because the Bakkers wanted the smell of them in their hotel room. According to Frances FitzGerald in an April 1987 New Yorker article, "They epitomized the excesses of the 1980s; the greed, the love of glitz, and the shamelessness; which in their case was so pure as to almost amount to a kind of innocence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bakker

Tammy's excuse for all of this is still a catch cry within the family to this day....

"God didn't mean us to be poor"

[neo of the mind]

While I can not nor wish to defend the Bakkers, her statement is not wrong in the sense that Jesus says that those that seek after the kingdom of God instead of material needs, the material needs will be added on as a result.

In part by direct blessings from God, which I have experienced, and in part by your change in worldview and lifestyle.

I would clarify that having the material needs would result in not being "poor" but that doesn't mean that you will be wealthy. Her understanding of what poor is may be different from the average joe.

The bakkers and others, by any standard, were not good stewards of money.

[Atticus]

While I can not nor wish to defend the Bakkers, her statement is not wrong in the sense that Jesus says that those that seek after the kingdom of God instead of material needs, the material needs will be added on as a result.

In part by direct blessings from God, which I have experienced, and in part by your change in worldview and lifestyle.

I would clarify that having the material needs would result in not being "poor" but that doesn't mean that you will be wealthy. Her understanding of what poor is may be different from the average joe.Indeed. There is an old idea (not biblical, but cultural--developed over time) that says God makes wealthy those who serve Him best. In this conception, it's the poor who are drunkards, thieves, lazy, and generally sinful. (See the tracts of Hanna More for an example of this idea). It's an evangelical protestant idea.

There is a parallel idea (this one much older and with much more biblical backing) that the poor are much more God's servants than the rich--that wealth is a stumbling block to righteousness, not evidence of righteousness.

The Bakkers' side of that coin is pretty clear.

[wish]

I was going to agree with Neo on this point, but I hadn't thought of this angle, it does seem to be a potential issue.

The museum is a business owned by the church. They're charging admission, its just like a regular museum (except that its presenting fraudulent information). It should not be tax exempt. I think its a valid question whether donations used to build it should be tax exempt as well.

Not sure there's a precedent for this sort of thing. Regular churches build soup kitchens, and they often prosthyletize to the people who show up, but its run on a non-profit basis, they dont' charge admission, its clearly charity. This clearly isn't.

[edit]I take it back, there is precedent for this type of thing. Didn't Jerry Falwell have an amusement park at one time? I remember seeing a photo of him going down the water slide in a suit for the grand opening. Liberty something or other? Was that treated as a business, or was it tax exempt?

Randy
I'm no tax expert (and someone correct me if any of this is wrong), but off-site church businesses are taxed. Church property where services are actually held are exempt from property tax, but if the church owns a separate facility that houses a church-run thrift shop, that property is taxed. Income from sales is taxed, but donations (cash or goods) to the thrift shop are exempt. I would assume that the AIG museum property (assuming they own it), admissions fees and book/gift shop income are taxed. But unless they are willing to disclose their financial records, there's no easy way to find out.

That is the main issue I have with the religious tax exemption. Regular non-profits are required to file various tax returns that are made public record, but not so with religious groups. Unless the abuses are blatant or is reported to the IRS, there is little or no oversight when it comes to regulating financial abuses committed by religious organizations (and this includes Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Scientology, and others as well as Christian groups). I know it's a touchy area with the separation of church&state thing, but in all honesty, certain "religious" organizations such as AIG should not (IMO) be considered the same as a regular church and given the same tax benefits. As far as I can tell, their only goal is to promote Creationism, and they do little except run retreats, sell books, solicit donations, and build museums to this end. No counseling, services, or other true charitable works.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Indeed. There is an old idea (not biblical, but cultural--developed over time) that says God makes wealthy those who serve Him best. In this conception, it's the poor who are drunkards, thieves, lazy, and generally sinful. (See the tracts of Hanna More for an example of this idea). It's an evangelical protestant idea.

There is a parallel idea (this one much older and with much more biblical backing) that the poor are much more God's servants than the rich--that wealth is a stumbling block to righteousness, not evidence of righteousness.

The Bakkers' side of that coin is pretty clear.
Why do you think Greed & Avarice are two of the deadly sins?

[neo of the mind]

This should clear it up:

Is the building donations tax exempt:

It appears so, yes. See International users, please note section on right.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/donate/onlinedonation.aspx?CountryID=5


However.


Paying to go to the museum appears not to be tax exempt:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/membership/faq.aspx
General Questions
Q: Is my museum membership tax-deductible?

A: Your membership is not a donation. You are purchasing admission to the museum in the same manner that you would purchase a pass to an amusement park. As such, your museum membership is NOT tax-deductible.


I would agree in that I don't see currrently how tax exemption for a museum would not be given for it's operation but would for it's construction.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Why do you think Greed & Avarice are two of the deadly sins?

I think greed & avarice are the same sin, they're just paired up as synonymns.

Let's see - there's pride (or hubris), lust, gluttony, laziness (or sloth), greed (or avarice), envy, and anger (or wrath). (OK, I had to cheat and look up the last two)

[neo of the mind]

The "seven deadly sins" are directly from Pope Gregory the Great and not the Bible.

http://www.le.ac.uk/arthistory/seedcorn/faq-sds.html

Thank God for the reformation and the ability for the people to be able to read God's words for themselves.

[The Big Bog]

This should clear it up:

Is the building donations tax exempt:

It appears so, yes. See International users, please note section on right.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/donate/onlinedonation.aspx?CountryID=5


However.


Paying to go to the museum appears not to be tax exempt:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/membership/faq.aspx
General Questions
Q: Is my museum membership tax-deductible?

A: Your membership is not a donation. You are purchasing admission to the museum in the same manner that you would purchase a pass to an amusement park. As such, your museum membership is NOT tax-deductible.


I would agree in that I don't see currrently how tax exemption for a museum would not be given for it's operation but would for it's construction.

Without knowing legally how any of this is set up, I can state some general rules ...

In instances where you donate to a nonprofit organization and receive nothing in return, your donations are going to be tax deductible. In those instances, the IRS recognizes you are giving something up free and clear in hopes that it will be used for a greater purpose. I suspect this is the reason donations towards the construction of the museum are tax deductible.

However, when you pay admission to go to the museum, you are getting something in return--namely, the chance to view exhibits, see films, and learn a thing or two about how the earth was (not) created. Payment of an admission fee is not going to be given out of a detached and disinterested generosity as you are anticipating some kind of benefit in return.

[Alvin T. Grey]

I think greed & avarice are the same sin, they're just paired up as synonymns.

Let's see - there's pride (or hubris), lust, gluttony, laziness (or sloth), greed (or avarice), envy, and anger (or wrath). (OK, I had to cheat and look up the last two)

I keep getting avarice and envy mixed up.

[steveksux]

This should clear it up: ....
I would agree in that I don't see currrently how tax exemption for a museum would not be given for it's operation but would for it's construction.Can you do a clarification of this clarification? ;)

Is this a typo, or am I misinterpreting? Can't quite tell if you're agreeing that tax exempt for construction/non-tax exempt for operations is reasonable or the other way around.

Randy

[Alvin T. Grey]

The "seven deadly sins" are directly from Pope Gregory the Great and not the Bible.

http://www.le.ac.uk/arthistory/seedcorn/faq-sds.html

Thank God for the reformation and the ability for the people to be able to read God's words for themselves.

Gosh darned ecclesiastical flip floppers. They were against the bible before they were for it.....

[steveksux]

I think greed & avarice are the same sin, they're just paired up as synonymns.Not to start another semantic argument, but wouldn't those be synosyns?

Randy

[Atticus]

The "seven deadly sins" are directly from Pope Gregory the Great and not the Bible.

http://www.le.ac.uk/arthistory/seedcorn/faq-sds.html

Thank God for the reformation and the ability for the people to be able to read God's words for themselves.An interesting remark for two reasons. First, is your remark here meant to indicate you think greed/avarice AREN'T sins? If not, then it's just a gratuitously anti-Catholic remark.

Second, I'd question then the doctrine of the Trinity--for which there is no biblical basis.

I take it your church observes no creeds made beyond the Bible?

[neo of the mind]

Can you do a clarification of this clarification? ;)

Is this a typo, or am I misinterpreting? Can't quite tell if you're agreeing that tax exempt for construction/non-tax exempt for operations is reasonable or the other way around.

Randy

Your right, it was a little mixed up. I was saying that I did not understand why a tax exemption would be given for the construction but not the operation. The Big Bog cleared it up rather nicely and I would agree.

[neo of the mind]

An interesting remark for two reasons. First, is your remark here meant to indicate you think greed/avarice AREN'T sins? If not, then it's just a gratuitously anti-Catholic remark.

Second, I'd question then the doctrine of the Trinity--for which there is no biblical basis.

I take it your church observes no creeds made beyond the Bible?

No, I am not saying they are not sins. If you read the link it describes the reason why the Catholic church introduced the "seven deadly sins" and all I was saying was the people would know what all the sins were if they were able to read the Bible for themselves. Because the populace was not able to read the Bible prior to the reformation, they relied on the church to tell them.

As far as the doctrine of the Trinity, I would disagree, the basis is evident for the doctrine. But that's another thread if you want to discuss it further.

[steveksux]

Your right, it was a little mixed up. I was saying that I did not understand why a tax exemption would be given for the construction but not the operation. The Big Bog cleared it up rather nicely and I would agree.
I do that too, think of a better way to put something, then forget to change the whole sentence to reflect the new wording.... ending up with a mess worse than the original phrasing... :D

Randy

[Soc.Dem.]

"So fighting to end povery is not an important endeavour for Christians?"

Not in the way you think it can be done. Before the "Great Society" programs, the percentage of poor in America was about 14% and 20 years later it's still the same and currently it is roughly the same.
But this is based off of the governments definition of the poor which is flawed.

Again, throwing money at the poor does not end poverty, history shows it.

Throwing money at the poor as in charity won't end poverty, no.

Changing economic and social structures will.

Provide every citizen with free education and health care, and raise minimun wages so that people can actually live of their wage, and you'll come far.

It's been done elsewhere.

[bowerbird]

Indeed. There is an old idea (not biblical, but cultural--developed over time) that says God makes wealthy those who serve Him best. In this conception, it's the poor who are drunkards, thieves, lazy, and generally sinful. (See the tracts of Hanna More for an example of this idea). It's an evangelical protestant idea.

There is a parallel idea (this one much older and with much more biblical backing) that the poor are much more God's servants than the rich--that wealth is a stumbling block to righteousness, not evidence of righteousness.

The Bakkers' side of that coin is pretty clear.


The whole "camel through the eye of the needle thing" I hear you. I am just amazed at how that has been ignored.

[Soc.Dem.]

Because the populace was not able to read the Bible prior to the reformation, they relied on the church to tell them.

The people being able to read the Bible for themselves has nothing to do with the reformation and everything to do with the invention of the printing press.

[neo of the mind]

The people being able to read the Bible for themselves has nothing to do with the reformation and everything to do with the invention of the printing press.

The ability to translate the Bible into non-Latin languages is what I am commenting on and printing out a million Bibles in a language most could not read would still result in others telling others what was written in the Bible. Like I said, thank God for the Reformation.

"The single greatest challenge to the hegemony of the Catholic Church was initiated in Germany at the beginning of sixteenth century by Martin Luther, whose publication of the Bible in the German language initiated what was to become later known as the Protestant Reformation. During the Middle Ages illiteracy was the norm in Europe; religious propaganda for the masses had been largely communicated through the spoken word and images. Luther's powerful challenge to the monopoly of the Catholic Church came in the form of books—notably Bibles and prayer books in vernacular (non-Latin) languages."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/gute-j03.shtml

[steveksux]

The ability to translate the Bible into non-Latin languages is what I am commenting on and printing out a million Bibles in a language most could not read would still result in others telling others what was written in the Bible. Like I said, thank God for the Reformation.I think you're both right. Hand copies of the Bible in German would take too long to produce, distribute, to make any difference. Protestant Reformation dies on the vine, or spreads like molasses over centuries, not decades. Millions of mass produced printed Bibles in Latin would be unreadable, and also make no difference. It was the confluence of those two events that did the trick. Can't have one without the other.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

The whole "camel through the eye of the needle thing" I hear you. I am just amazed at how that has been ignored.

I disagree with it a bit. If I study hard, go to a good uni, get a good job and work hard in it, why shouldn't I get a good wage for it? Some other chump might drop out of school and spend his life on benefits, I don't see why Heaven would be more accessible for him than me.

[heel31ok]

There is no virtue in being poor. The point is poor or not your righteousness is not tied to what you have or do not have in the material but in the spiritual.If you rely on your money instead of God then you are in for trouble but that does not mean you cannot have money and serve God.In fact this was the concern of the apostles when they asked "how then can we be saved?"
"with man this is impossible but with God all things are possible"

[Strel]

A man once asked God:

"Lord, how long is a billion miles to you?"

"But a mere inch", answered God.

Then the man asked, "Oh Lord, how long is a billion years to you?"

And God answered, "Naught but a second, my child."

"And Lord," the man asked, "how much is a billion dollars to you?"

"Nothing more than a penny", God answered.

The man thought for a moment, and then asked "Then Lord, would you please give me a penny?"

"In a second," said God.

[GI Joe]

I am not going to hell, I have aready been there and they done kicked me out. They were afraid I was going to take over.