Homeless Solution

[lyghtningbyrd]

As member of my church's vestry (read, elected lay board) I can assure you that my church (and I highly doubt any other church in our denomination) has never had any profit. We are currently operating at a $65,000 deficit. We give 20% of our income to outreach and charity projects; the rest fund salaries (no increases this year among all the staff, including clergy) as well as building maintenance, materials for ministries such as sunday school and counseling, etc. Most of the ministry at our parish is done by unpaid volunteers.

Again, generalizations are not worthy of skeptics. I am sure you were not suggesting that your formula is how churches currently operate, right?

---,---'--{@

not really.. I was just proving that a church is a business - there was some debate about that earlier. Yeah that whole thing was pretty much a satire. I find it hard to believe your church didnt make a profit.

There are plenty of resources online that describe exactly how to make money with your church. I'll find a bevy of links and share them later

 

[thaiboxerken]

We are currently operating at a $65,000 deficit. We give 20% of our income to outreach and charity projects; the rest fund salaries (no increases this year among all the staff, including clergy) as well as building maintenance, materials for ministries such as sunday school and counseling, etc. Most of the ministry at our parish is done by unpaid volunteers.

This shows that your particular church business is a failure, nothing more.

 

[Finella]

This shows that your particular church business is a failure, nothing more.

It's not a failure at being a church, which is its purpose - not making money.

 

[Finella]

I find it hard to believe your church didnt make a profit.

Isn't that what non-profit organizations are supposed to do?

 

[Kimpatsu]

If churches are non-profit, how come so many evangelists are rich?

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's not a failure at being a church, which is its purpose - not making money.

1. Your church isn't successful enough to bring in enough donations to stay out of debt. This means that it's not reaching as many people as anticipated.

2. The treasurer of your church is an idiot for spending more money than the church brings in.

It's not a failure at being a church, which is its purpose - not making money.

A church's goal IS to make money, your church is failing. I guess the product isn't very marketable.

 

[Finella]

If churches are non-profit, how come so many evangelists are rich?

You're focusing on the few televangelists and generalizing -- again.

A similarly loaded question might be: If the JREF is nonprofit, how come James Randi is rich?

A church's goal IS to make money...

Oh, gee... I guess I missed that part of the Bible... must be in the back somewhere...

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're focusing on the few televangelists and generalizing -- again.

The televangelists have successful churches, that's why they are wealthy.

A similarly loaded question might be: If the JREF is nonprofit, how come James Randi is rich?

Do you know if Randi is rich? Or, are you just making this up? If Randi is rich, how did he gain his wealth?

Oh, gee... I guess I missed that part of the Bible... must be in the back somewhere...

Where in the NT does it say to form churches at all? Where does it say to erect buildings of worship to praise "Jesus"? Trying to use the bible to show the motivations of christians and churches is rather silly, since the christians and churches pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow.. and they extrapolate other ideas outside of the bible.

Churches are built to gain power by "spreading the word".

 

[darling]

Do you know if Randi is rich? Or, are you just making this up? If Randi is rich, how did he gain his wealth?

No, that would be merely a counter example of Kimpatsu's loaded question.

Where in the NT does it say to form churches at all?

Look, is it a bird? Is is a plane? No, it's the point, sailing over thaiboxerken's head...

Your saying "A church's goal IS to make money." is about as valid as a Sylvia Browne apologist saying "the JREF's goal IS to make money."

 

[lyghtningbyrd]

Churches are businesses. That cannot be refuted. I have proved it already. Its a proven fact. If you build a church in America, it must be a business, because it has an overhead cost, and employs measures of keeping it low. Do you really think the heads of congregation of your particular church are altruistic - somehow different from any other human being?

If so, I would think about it a little harder before you donated to the collection plate. Why can't you specifically give money to people in need? Why is it necessary to channel it into an intermediary which holds a large percent to pay its debts and give the congregation livelihood?

Why can't religious people just pray at home and read the bible at home? Why do you need to waste money? The church has you believing that if you don't go, it is amoral. If you enjoy watching football or jacking off on Sundays, too bad, the church says God doesn't approve.

Churches are businesses. Business in America must compete to survive, it is the human condition, and if you deny that you're just being naive.

If you don't believe me, reread my long post about 'how to start your own church.' And if you don't trust me, look it up yourself...

 

[darling]

Churches are businesses. That cannot be refuted.

Meh... to the same extent that the JREF is a business, yes.

I would think about it a little harder before you donated to the JREF. Why can't you specifically give money to people who want to learn? Why is it necessary to channel it into an intermediary which holds a large percent to pay its debts and give the membership livelihood?

Why can't skeptical people just sit and read Carl Sagan at home? Why do you need to waste money? If you enjoy watching John Edward or jacking off to Syliva Browne too bad, the JREF doesn't approve.

Yaddayadda.

It's a lousy argument when people use it against the JREF, and it's just as lousy an argument when people use it against churches.

 

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Meh... to the same extent that the JREF is a business, yes.

I would think about it a little harder before you donated to the JREF. Why can't you specifically give money to people who want to learn? Why is it necessary to channel it into an intermediary which holds a large percent to pay its debts and give the membership livelihood?

Why can't skeptical people just sit and read Carl Sagan at home? Why do you need to waste money? If you enjoy watching John Edward or jacking off to Syliva Browne too bad, the JREF doesn't approve.

Yaddayadda.

It's a lousy argument when people use it against the JREF, and it's just as lousy an argument when people use it against churches.

I don't necessarily agree that churches are businesses, but I don't think your word replace really works here.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, that would be merely a counter example of Kimpatsu's loaded question.

An attempted counter that fails because we know that the televangelists are wealthy, we don't know if Randi is or isn't.

Look, is it a bird? Is is a plane? No, it's the point, sailing over thaiboxerken's head...

I understood the point quite well, and I demonstrated that it is a fallicious point. Since when do christians really follow their bible?


Your saying "A church's goal IS to make money." is about as valid as a Sylvia Browne apologist saying "the JREF's goal IS to make money."

It has been demonstrated throughout history that churches make money and use that money to spread their empire. This is how businesses work. A pastor is paid well, is given a good house and other luxuries if the church business is well. If the church is not doing so well, the pastor settles for a lower salary or another pastor is hired in his place. Churches have all of the traits of a business, they have a product called faith that they are trying to sell and they are trying to sell it to everyone while making some money at the same time.

The evidence is there, you just won't accept it. Tax the church!

 

[Dancing David]

There are some mighty broad brush strokes here, not all churches make moeny as thier goal, some try to use what they make, I can think of more than one that spend what it can on the good works thing.

Peace

 

[Finella]

I don't necessarily agree that churches are businesses, but I don't think your word replace really works here.

I believe it was meant to show how ridiculous the original statement was. But, also, it does work. This is why.

An organization of like-minded people is formed to do something that is difficult for an individual to do. All of us skeptics here would burn out pretty quickly if we stood on street corners all the time trying to share the "word" of enlightenment to the Sylvia Brown-believers out there. By joining JREF we pool our resources and thus have more power to educate. Thus the whole is greater than the individual parts working independently (to butcher a phrase).

The same is with the church. The church shares resources and talents of its membership and therefore can help more people, and yes, spread its word. Those who contribute to the church know its motivation, it's their free choice to contribute.

Originally posted by ThaiboxerkenIt has been demonstrated throughout history that churches make money and use that money to spread their empire. This is how businesses work.

I'm sorry, but you said: "A church's goal IS to make money." You have to prove that making money is the only goal of all churches.

 

[Tarrin]

This seems to have become a semantics argument regarding the definition of "in business".

A non-profit org is in business primarily to fulfill the activites and goals set out by it's mission statement. Financially speaking, it's expenditures should remain roughly equal it's revenues. By definition then, no taxation occurs because there is no taxable income. Unfortunately however, the line becomes blurred when a non-profit org pays it's CEO a massive salary that is significantly out of proportion to the market value of the job being performed.

A for-profit entity is in business primarily to earn a profit.

I think the relevant point to consider with regard to churches/temples/etc (or any non-profit org for that matter) is whether or not they are capable of standing on their own financially without the benefit of taxpayer subsidies (by way of tax breaks, most significantly to it's membership on their user fees). As a taxpayer, I resent having to help churches stay in business and/or grow. Why should they survive if they
are not able to stay in the black on their own merits?

I'm sure there is significant commendable charity work being performed by churches all the time, but I would far prefer to allocate my charitable contribution budget to an organization that is held to the restriction of paying no more than 20% of it's gross revenue to administration costs. Churches are not held to this.

 

[lyghtningbyrd]

Meh... to the same extent that the JREF is a business, yes.

I would think about it a little harder before you donated to the JREF. Why can't you specifically give money to people who want to learn? Why is it necessary to channel it into an intermediary which holds a large percent to pay its debts and give the membership livelihood?

Why can't skeptical people just sit and read Carl Sagan at home? Why do you need to waste money? If you enjoy watching John Edward or jacking off to Syliva Browne too bad, the JREF doesn't approve.

Yaddayadda.

It's a lousy argument when people use it against the JREF, and it's just as lousy an argument when people use it against churches.

I don't donate to JREF, but its because I'm poor and don't care enough to do so and I'm saving up for a new guitar amp.

But at least the JREF is a useful organization.

 

[lyghtningbyrd]

...I'm sure there is significant commendable charity work being performed by churches all the time, but I would far prefer to allocate my charitable contribution budget to an organization that is held to the restriction of paying no more than 20% of it's gross revenue to administration costs. Churches are not held to this.

I agree. This is why I think that churches should be considered businesses like anything else. Churches in my town have advertisements on television. That's very expen$ive. Maybe the Better Business Bureau should regulate the church. This of course would cost more tax money..

The problem is really with religion itself. It's like a disease.

 

[Kimpatsu]

The problem is really with religion itself. It's like a disease.

Religion is a virus.

 

[darling]

As a taxpayer, I resent having to help churches stay in business and/or grow. Why should they survive if they
are not able to stay in the black on their own merits?

I guess that's fair enough if you feel the same way about all non-profits (which is what I gather from your post, although I could be wrong)

I would far prefer to allocate my charitable contribution budget to an organization that is held to the restriction of paying no more than 20% of it's gross revenue to administration costs. Churches are not held to this.

Nor are any non-profits. Are they?

Churches in my town have advertisements on television. That's very expen$ive.

So do many other non-religions non-profits. Your point?

The problem is really with religion itself. It's like a disease.

Yes, we gathered you don't like religion. But plenty of people don't like the JREF.

You've really got to come up with something better than that. So far nobody has done anything to distinguish churches from other non-profits.