mazaje:

The part in bold is your opinion and has no biblical support. . .The bible actually states that if you give cheerfully, the god it talks about will bless you in return and double your money. . .The bible clearly states that its god is a money doubler as long as you give him freely. . .

There is a difference between "God will bless you" and "God is under an obligation to bless you"

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I am really interested in knowing how you can read something and understand it without having an interpretation of it.

When I read it the bible, I take a literal meaning of it. Then, I bash christians like you with the literal meaning but then, your apologist side kicks in and then you say that your interpretation is different. I then debunk you with your own interpretation.

cr8v: When you don't pay your tithen the Kingdom of God suffers. You can give to the poor but that should not interfer with your tithe. Its God's money! Its your lack of knowledge of the scriptures that makes u reason like a natural man.

Why do we pay tax to government? Why not use the money and help the unemployed. You also have a misconception that pastors use it to live extravagantly, though I don't deny that some may abuse it, but leave their judgment to God. Don't think its tithe that buys private jets. But even if its from the tithe, it means the people are getting so blessed that ten percent of their money can buy a jet. Why not join them to try it

So who gives the money to god

Logicboy03:


When I read it the bible, I take a literal meaning of it. Then, I bash christians like you with the literal meaning but then, your apologist side kicks in and then you say that your interpretation is different. I then debunk you with your own interpretation.

really? wow, I have never seen you actually debunk anything on this forum. Besides the loose way you use the word "debunked" I doubt you even know what it means.

Mr_Anony:
As I always say, not all who claim to be christians are indeed christians. Secondly, you may want to ask them why they have stubbornly chosen to interpret scripture wrongly?


Urhm........quite frankly, what a religion does with their money is absolutely none of your business. As for the rights of the government, Why should the governments tax it's citizens and then go on to tax the people who have been freely donated to. That is like taxing the citizen twice. It is not the business of the government to stick it's nose into the accounts of recipients of free-will donations. And yeah...the church is not a public institution in that sense.

You see , this where your moral schizophrenia kicks in.
It s about accountability.
You feel you have the right to take resources from people, under the pretext of religious scripture, but should owe no one an account for the resourses collected on behalf of god?.
That would make you a thief.
Whew!
Why do christians shy away from accountability, both in church finances and in real life individual responsibilities?.

Mr_Anony: really? wow, I have never seen you actually debunk anything on this forum. Besides the loose way you use the word "debunked" I doubt you even know what it means.

Is that why you ran away from the debate on morality? Evolutionary basis for morality?

Mr_Anony:
There is a difference between "God will bless you" and "God is under an obligation to bless you"

The way it reads from the bible appears like it is the bible god's duty to bless though who give to him freely, hence the promise of blessings and doubling of their possessions. . . .

plaetton:

You see , this where your moral schizophrenia kicks in.
It s about accountability.
You feel you have the right to take resources from people, under the pretext of religious scripture, but should owe no one an account for the resourses collected on behalf of god?.
That would make you a thief.
Whew!
Why do christians shy away from accountability, both in church finances and in real life individual responsibilities?.

You see my friend, what you are proposing goes against democracy and freedom of religion. I am sure the a very well able to manage their accounts by themselves without. It is not the business of the government to stick it's nose into their accounts especially since it is not taxing them. How far will the government go with it, will they poke their noses into the muslim's finances also? How about traditional religions? Will the government also monitor the number of goats and chickens that babalawo killed for sacrifice?

Trying to control religions is the kind of militant atheism that sprang under Mao Zedong and led to the killing and persecution of many relgious people.

mazaje:

The way it reads from the bible appears like it is the bible god's duty to bless though who give to him freely, hence the promise of blessings and doubling of their possessions. . . .

If that is how you read it, then good for you. God is not bound to man's will.

Logicboy03:


Is that why you ran away from the debate on morality? Evolutionary basis for morality?

ran away? no I did not.

Mr_Anony:
If that is how you read it, then good for you. God is not bound to man's will.

But the bible has instances of god going out of his way to do man's will, no? Cases where he already wanted to do something, man pleaded with him to reconsider and he did man's will. . .If god is not bound by man's will then why do people pray to god for protection for example?. . .Why pray to him to bless u at all if its his will for you to be poor or sick?

Mr_Anony:
ran away? no I did not.

https://www.nairaland.com/1097131/strategies-dialoguing-atheists/12#13113094



Dare to adress my post?

Logicboy03:



https://www.nairaland.com/1097131/strategies-dialoguing-atheists/12#13113094



Dare to adress my post?

Lol, did you just use the word "dare"?
Lol, nevermind, I will in due time.

mazaje:

But the bible has instances of god going out of his way to do man's will, no? Cases where he already wanted to do something, man pleaded with him to reconsider and he did man's will. . .If god is not bound by man's will then why do people pray to god for protection for example?. . .Why pray to him to bless u at all if its his will for you to be poor or sick?

So if I plead with you to do something and you do it, it means your are subject to my will?

Mr_Anony:
You see my friend, what you are proposing goes against democracy and freedom of religion. I am sure the a very well able to manage their accounts by themselves without. It is not the business of the government to stick it's nose into their accounts especially since it is not taxing them. How far will the government go with it, will they poke their noses into the muslim's finances also? How about traditional religions? Will the government also monitor the number of goats and chickens that babalawo killed for sacrifice?

Trying to control religions is the kind of militant atheism that sprang under Mao Zedong and led to the killing and persecution of many relgious people.

This is disingenuous. If they've nothing to hide, they should prove their tax-exempt status. Seperation of church and state. Other organizations prove themselves, why should religious organizations be exempt? Just because?

wiegraf:

This is disingenuous. If they've nothing to hide, they should prove their tax-exempt status. Seperation of church and state. Other organizations prove themselves, why should religious organizations be exempt? Just because?

You took the words right out of my mouth.
I have the right to take money from the public under any pretext but I owe no member of the public any responsibility to account for the money.
Only a fraudulent organisation or religion would behave so immorally.

" This myth of christ has indeed proved very profitable ".

wiegraf:

This is disingenuous. If they've nothing to hide, they should prove their tax-exempt status. Seperation of church and state. Other organizations prove themselves, why should religious organizations be exempt? Just because?

They are under no such obligation. A religious organization is not a public company having shareholders so it doesn't have to publish it's numbers.
Religious organizations also are not selling any goods and services, they are only receiving donations. It is wrong to tax a person and then tax his donations also.

The state really doesn't have any business with their accounts since it isn't taxing them. All the state would be bothered about at best is the citizen who claims tax deductions for having donated to charity in which case, what the state would be concerned with is if he has indeed paid to a legitimate charity. (personally, I don't believe a person should claim tax deductions for donating to charity, I think it takes away from the selflessness that typifies charitable giving)
As for the charity itself and what it does with the money especially when it is a religious organization, the state has no business since it cannot dictate to the organization what it should do with it's funds.

The only obligation a religious institution might have is to be accountable to it's members and not the state. It is ironic how you campaign for separation of church and state and yet you want to force the state into the church's business.

Give me one non-emotional reason why the church should be accountable to people who didn't donate to it? Mind you the donors have already settled with the state by paying their taxes.

Mr_Anony:
So if I plead with you to do something and you do it, it means your are subject to my will?

If I already had something planned and you plead with me and make me change my mind they yes, am subject to your will. . .same applies to your god. . .So your assertion is false. . .

mazaje:

If I already had something planned and you plead with me and make me change my mind they yes, am subject to your will. . .same applies to your god. . .So your assertion is false. . .

It could also mean that you love me care about my needs. In fact that's the more plausible explanation. Remember we are talking about a plea here and not a command (very big difference).

Mr_Anony:
They are under no such obligation. A religious organization is not a public company having shareholders so it doesn't have to publish it's numbers.
Religious organizations also are not selling any goods and services, they are only receiving donations. It is wrong to tax a person and then tax his donations also.

The state really doesn't have any business with their accounts since it isn't taxing them. All the state would be bothered about at best is the citizen who claims tax deductions for having donated to charity in which case, what the state would be concerned with is if he has indeed paid to a legitimate charity. (personally, I don't believe a person should claim tax deductions for donating to charity, I think it takes away from the selflessness that typifies charitable giving)
As for the charity itself and what it does with the money especially when it is a religious organization, the state has no business since it cannot dictate to the organization what it should do with it's funds.

The only obligation a religious institution might have is to be accountable to it's members and not the state. It is ironic how you campaign for separation of church and state and yet you want to force the state into the church's business.

Give me one non-emotional reason why the church should be accountable to people who didn't donate to it? Mind you the donors have already settled with the state by paying their taxes.

Incredible. Are charities taxed if they cannot prove their not-for-profit status, yes or no? Do charities not receive donations, yes or no? Don't even get me started on 'sowing and reaping' schemes which are not donations. So, other organizations that cannot prove they're npo have to pay tax but religions don't just because you say so? Then you call me emotional?

Give me a non-emotional reason why they shouldn't pay taxes Because religions are special? Do churches use government infrastructure, yes or no? Are they part of society, yes or no?

Do you understand what separation of church and state means? It doesn't mean treat churches differently you know, it unambiguously means the opposite, regardless of your personal opinion. Like everyone else, they should prove their npos if they want tax breaks. I highly doubt the law you describe holds everywhere (a quick google and it does not seem to, at all) and even if it did, believe me, there are lots of religious people who aren't sheeple that would like to verify they're hard earned cash isn't going to a bombardier fund.

wiegraf:


Incredible. Are charities taxed if they cannot prove their not-for-profit status, yes or no? Do charities not receive donations, yes or no? Don't even get me started on 'sowing and reaping' schemes which are not donations. So, other organizations that cannot prove they're npo have to pay tax but religions don't just because you say so? Then you call me emotional?

Give me a non-emotional reason why they shouldn't pay taxes Because religions are special? Do churches use government infrastructure, yes or no? Are they part of society, yes or no?

Do you understand what separation of church and state means? It doesn't mean treat churches differently you know, it unambiguously means the opposite, regardless of your personal opinion. Like everyone else, they should prove their npos if they want tax breaks. I highly doubt the law you describe holds everywhere (a quick google and it does not seem to, at all) and even if it did, believe me, there are lots of religious people who aren't sheeple that would like to verify they're hard earned cash isn't going to a bombardier fund.

Oh my bad...of course the church should prove their not-for-profit status but then my point is simply this: Even if it is discovered that the church has made a turnover of $1 billion in donations that year, the government cannot tax that money because to do so would mean taxing it's donors a second time.

Mr_Anony:
Oh my bad...of course the church should prove their not-for-profit status but then my point is simply this: Even if it is discovered that the church has made a turnover of $1 billion in donations that year, the government cannot tax that money because to do so would mean taxing it's donors a second time.

Still running away from the evolutionary basis of morality?

Logicboy03:



Still running away from the evolutionary basis of morality?

Lol, there is no such thing as an evolutionary basis of morality besides why are you hounding me unnecessarily? I am under no obligation to reply yet I have promised you that I will. I'll give you a reply when I want to for now there are more interesting stuff for me to dip my beak in than your topic but don't worry I'll come around to it. Cool your heels a bit.

By the way, in other news: I just might be visiting London this weekend, would you like to meet up?

Mr_Anony:
Oh my bad...of course the church should prove their not-for-profit status but then my point is simply this: Even if it is discovered that the church has made a turnover of $1 billion in donations that year, the government cannot tax that money because to do so would mean taxing it's donors a second time.

They can do absolutely whatever they like as long as it's legal and they're npo, it need not even be charity per say. But they must prove they're npo (usually this means profits etc are not allowed to be distributed amongst individuals, etc) like any other organization that wants the status else tax. The citizens need not necessarily be taxed, the church though should be. Unfortunately separation of church and state is still an illusion.

wiegraf:

They can do absolutely whatever they like as long as it's legal and they're npo, it need not even be charity per say. But they must prove they're npo (usually this means profits etc are not allowed to be distributed amongst individuals, etc) like any other organization that wants the status else tax. The citizens need not necessarily be taxed, the church though should be. Unfortunately separation of church and state is still an illusion.

True that...they are free to buy private jets in the name of the church and live posh lives as long as it is in the name of the church. I see no reason why anyone on the outside would complain too much. Most of these 'megachurches' today actually have their legal and accounting solid and airtight.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, there is no such thing as an evolutionary basis of morality besides why are you hounding me unnecessarily? I am under no obligation to reply yet I have promised you that I will. I'll give you a reply when I want to for now there are more interesting stuff for me to dip my beak in than your topic but don't worry I'll come around to it. Cool your heels a bit.

By the way, in other news: I just might be visiting London this weekend, would you like to meet up?

I can never resist a chance to debunk you

Logicboy03:

I can never resist a chance to debunk you

Lol, someone is obsessed with me

Mr_Anony:
True that...they are free to buy private jets in the name of the church and live posh lives as long as it is in the name of the church. I see no reason why anyone on the outside would complain too much. Most of these 'megachurches' today actually have their legal and accounting solid and airtight.

True, but that would depend on what they claim they intend to use the money for. If they claim to be charities for instance, there are very likely limits they are abusing. Buying jets to what end? What justifies such ostentation? That doesn't look like an npo to me. They'd be investigated if they weren't churches. If they claim to offer salvation for money then they are a business and probably both parties should be taxed. They can't just claim to be npo and not expect to be monitored because they're religious.

wiegraf:

True, but that would depend on what they claim they intend to use the money for. If they claim to be charities for instance, there are very likely limits they are abusing. Buying jets to what end? What justifies such ostentation? That doesn't look like an npo to me. They'd be investigated if they weren't churches. If they claim to offer salvation for money then they are a business and probably both parties should be taxed. They can't just claim to be npo and not expect to be monitored because they're religious.

Usually, the jet is either bought for the ministry to 'further the gospel' or it is given to the pastor as a gift from contributions of his church members. In fact, in many instances, their house, cars, children's school fees e.t.c. come from direct donations. There is no law against that.

Also, no church I know of claims to offer salvation for money.

true2god: Make ur point and allow others to make theirs. U r not the wisest person on earth.

coming from you am impressed.

If not for the fact that plaeton had already given him what he deserves i had wanted to give him my bit.

Mr_Anony:
It could also mean that you love me care about my needs. In fact that's the more plausible explanation. Remember we are talking about a plea here and not a command (very big difference).

You can do a person's will without it being a command. . .What exactly are you on about?. . .You started by saying something isn't scriptural, when i showed you that it was you are now trying to continue with your games of chasing your long tail. . .Keep on keeping on. .

Mr_Anony:
Lol, someone is obsessed with me

Dont flatter yourself.