mazaje:

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. .

I think I should be the one asking you what you are on about? I made a point that God is not a "money doubler/investment banker" subject to the whims of humans, I used the wrong choice of words to express myself, you called me out on it and rightfully so. I took the words back and reiterated the point I was making. Now you are here insisting that God is subject to man's will and you are trying to dubiously pass off God's responding to a person's plea as evidence of it. I am sorry but that won't do.

When you beg someone for something and in his compassion he gives it to you, it is a big stretch to jump to the conclusion that therefore your benefactor is subject to your will. I wonder how you think. . . .but never mind, I know you are just purposely being disingenuous.

Logicboy03:

Dont flatter yourself.

Trust me I don't in any way feel flattered by your obsession

Mr_Anony:
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. There is no law against that.
Also, no church I know of claims to offer salvation for money.

Sowing and reaping is clearly salvation, or whatever, for money.

And again, they must justify their claims. They must at the very least publicly show their members how they're money was used. And if it's used questionably they should be investigated, regardless of if members were satisfied or not. That equates to the church lying to government hence they should be punished regardless of what their members think. "Further the gospel"? Ok, but how? Was it really necessary considering their claims? This is from wiki's npo article, which demonstrates my concerns

"Most countries have laws which regulate the
establishment and management of NPOs, and
which require compliance with corporate
governance regimes. Most larger organizations are
required to publish their financial reports detailing
their income and expenditure publicly. In many
aspects they are similar to corporate business
entities though there are often significant
differences. Both not-for-profit and for-profit
corporate entities must have board members,
steering committee members, or trustees who owe
the organization a fiduciary duty of loyalty and
trust. A notable exception to this involves
churches, which are often not required to disclose
finances to anyone, including church members."

So, churches are not accountable to anyone, yet the rest are. Why?

Mr_Anony:
Trust me I don't in any way feel flattered by your obsession

B*tch please

Logicboy03:





B*tch please

hahahahahaha............LWKMD

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.

You keep dodging the main issue.Its not about taxation.
It is about being accountable, transparently and regular audits so that members of the public can see and know where the $1 billion dollars goes, whether it ends up in private pockets, personal estates or welfare services for the public donors of the fund.
That is the issue. That is where the government comes in. once you take money from the public under any guise, you must, as a matter law and ethics and morality, account for the use of such funds.

plaetton:

He is really turning into something else.Getting very desperate by the day.
I am sure there is nothing he would love more than the opportunity to rewrite the bible to suit himself.
He seems to have a big problem with the bible whenever a sovereign mind uses it to buttress a point.

The inerrant word of god indeed!

plaetton:
He seems to have a big problem with the bible whenever a sovereign mind

advocate666:

Whatever makes you feel good. And I also give 25% of my sperm to sad single women.

^^^

plaetton:
The ultimate giving.
The most important sacrifice.

plaetton:
He seems to have a big problem with the bible whenever a sovereign mind

*smh*

for such a mind.

wiegraf:

Sowing and reaping is clearly salvation, or whatever, for money.

Lol, wrong. That is your own invention right there. The churches in question sure don't see sowing/reaping as salvation.

And again, they must justify their claims. They must at the very least publicly show their members how they're money was used. And if it's used questionably they should be investigated, regardless of if members were satisfied or not. That equates to the church lying to government hence they should be punished regardless of what their members think. "Further the gospel"? Ok, but how? Was it really necessary considering their claims? This is from wiki's npo article, which demonstrates my concerns

"Most countries have laws which regulate the
establishment and management of NPOs, and
which require compliance with corporate
governance regimes. Most larger organizations are
required to publish their financial reports detailing
their income and expenditure publicly. In many
aspects they are similar to corporate business
entities though there are often significant
differences. Both not-for-profit and for-profit
corporate entities must have board members,
steering committee members, or trustees who owe
the organization a fiduciary duty of loyalty and
trust. A notable exception to this involves
churches, which are often not required to disclose
finances to anyone, including church members."

So, churches are not accountable to anyone, yet the rest are. Why?

If they are required to show their finances or not, I really see no problem with it. Every country is allowed to make it's own laws as it sees fit and for me, a religious institution is not the same kind of establishment as a mere charity.
There is something about religion and it's traditions that needs to be respected as long as they are not buying and selling, they are free to run as they want. At most if pressed, all they need to do is to show that the money is not being traded with. I know you might feel it sucks but in the end it is people choosing to donate money to a cause very dear to their hearts and give money to a man they like very much. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Nothing about this issue applies to "separation of church and state" because in this case, the church is not making any policies affecting the state in anyway. It is just receiving donations. When the government steps in, it becomes more a situation of dictating to a religion how it should conduct it's activities hence infringing upon religious freedom.

plaetton:
You keep dodging the main issue.Its not about taxation.
It is about being accountable, transparently and regular audits so that members of the public can see and know where the $1 billion dollars goes, whether it ends up in private pockets, personal estates or welfare services for the public donors of the fund.
That is the issue. That is where the government comes in. once you take money from the public under any guise, you must, as a matter law and ethics and morality, account for the use of such funds.

Members of the public did not donate the 1 billion dollars, members of the church did. Most churches I know are audited internally and the numbers are made available to the church members. Personally I think that is sufficient. Technically, in the case of tithing it is not deception because often both the pastor and his members believe it to be true. It is their religion and they must be allowed to practice it.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, wrong. That is your own invention right there. The churches in question sure don't see sowing/reaping as salvation.


If they are required to show their finances or not, I really see no problem with it. Every country is allowed to make it's own laws as it sees fit and for me, a religious institution is not the same kind of establishment as a mere charity.
There is something about religion and it's traditions that needs to be respected as long as they are not buying and selling, they are free to run as they want. At most if pressed, all they need to do is to show that the money is not being traded with. I know you might feel it sucks but in the end it is people choosing to donate money to a cause very dear to their hearts and give money to a man they like very much. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Nothing about this issue applies to "separation of church and state" because in this case, the church is not making any policies affecting the state in anyway. It is just receiving donations.

I know for sure, 100% that Nigerian churches, Redeem, Winners, infact , I can say with certainty that all PFN (Pentecostal Fraudsters of Nigeria) churches engage in one form of trade or another with their church funds. I have encountered many many of their shadow businesses, especially LPO financing at cut throat interest rates.

Mr_Anony:
Members of the public did not donate the 1 billion dollars, members of the church did. Most churches I know are audited internally and the numbers are made available to the church members. Personally I think that is sufficient. Technically, in the case of tithing it is not deception because often both the pastor and his members believe it to be true. It is their religion and they must be allowed to practice it.

You are sounding quite desperate.
Are the church members not members of the public. Is the church a partnership or private enterprise?
A church is open to every member of the public, is it not?

How many Nigerian Megachurches are audited internally and externally? Name few Pentecostal churches in Nigeria where anyone, or a member can walk to the MOG and ask for and gets have a of the monthly finances.

plaetton:

You are sounding quite desperate.
Are the church members not members of the public. Is the church a partnership or private enterprise?
A church is open to every member of the public, is it not?

The church is open to members of the public i.e. anyone is free to partake but then the church does not owe you an explanation if you are not indeed a partaker. There is a difference between potential members and actual members. All members of the church are members of the public but not all members of the public are members of the church.

You seem to be trying to equate the church to public companies, the church isn't such an organization.

plaetton:
How many Nigerian Megachurches are audited internally and externally? Name few Pentecostal churches in Nigeria where anyone, or a member can walk to the MOG and ask for and gets have a of the monthly finances.

In the RCCG Parish I used to attend back in Nigeria, there were particular sundays when the financial secretary would read out the accounts to the church members.

Mr_Anony:
The church is open to members of the public i.e. anyone is free to partake but then the church does not owe you an explanation if you are not indeed a partaker. There is a difference between potential members and actual members. All members of the church are members of the public but not all members of the public are members of the church.

You seem to be trying to equate the church to public companies, the church isn't such an organization.

I never said that a church was a company.
A church is a public institution.
A church is open to every member of the public.

While a church is free to teach or practice whatever they like, a church is first and foremost, a part of a greater community.
A church cannot operate outside the laws and norms of the community where it exists.

If you do not know that a church is a public institution, then you are ignorant, and it 's probably because you are too used to the bastardized and anything-goes type of churches we have in Nigeria.
I think that is your problem.

Mr_Anony:
In the RCCG Parish I used to attend back in Nigeria, there were particular sundays when the financial secretary would read out the accounts to the church members.

Good for them.
But there is a big difference between hurriedly reading financial statements to a tired and sapped out crowd, and actually making available to all, at all times, audited copies of the entire parrishe's and church finances from month to month.

plaetton:


I never said that a church was a company.
A church is a public institution.
A church is open to every member of the public.

While a church is free to teach or practice whatever they like, a church is first and foremost, a part of a greater community.
A church cannot operate outside the laws and norms of the community where it exists.

If you do not know that a church is a public institution, then you are ignorant, and it 's probably because you are too used to the bastardized and anything-goes type of churches we have in Nigeria.
I think that is your problem.

A church is a religious institution while it is free and open to members of the public, there are certain byelaws it has which must be observed by it's members.
A religious institution has it's own rules, and those rules are not determined by the community in which it exists. A church in a muslim comunity will operate based on laws outside the norms of the community in which it is situated, vice versa for a mosque in a christian community.

A church is not a public institution in the sense that you are trying to portray here.

plaetton:

Good for them.
But there is a big difference between hurriedly reading financial statements to a tired and sapped out crowd, and actually making available to all, at all times, audited copies of the entire parrishe's and church finances from month to month.

Lol, my friend you asked and I answered but yet you are not satisfied. Where did you get the impression from my reply that the financials were hurriedly read or that they were not available on request? It appears your anti-church bias is desperately seeking for a fault here.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, wrong. That is your own invention right there. The churches in question sure don't see sowing/reaping as salvation.


If they are required to show their finances or not, I really see no problem with it. Every country is allowed to make it's own laws as it sees fit and for me, a religious institution is not the same kind of establishment as a mere charity.
There is something about religion and it's traditions that needs to be respected as long as they are not buying and selling, they are free to run as they want. At most if pressed, all they need to do is to show that the money is not being traded with. I know you might feel it sucks but in the end it is people choosing to donate money to a cause very dear to their hearts and give money to a man they like very much. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Nothing about this issue applies to "separation of church and state" because in this case, the church is not making any policies affecting the state in anyway. It is just receiving donations. When the government steps in, it becomes more a situation of dictating to a religion how it should conduct it's activities hence infringing upon religious freedom.

Good $deity anony, this is very simple. All this story is irrelevant. Church and state implies everyone gets treated the same, but churches in this case are treated differently. This is a crystal clear violation of that principle. Taxing them entails infringing on religious freedoms in what universe? Wth is telling them they can't practice whatever they wish to practice? They are the ones gaining special privileges just because. The other organizations are the ones being treated unfairly. For crying out loud how dishonest can you be??

As for the sowing, I said salvation or whatever, I do not know what it's called. But it's clear, give us money, you will be rewarded shortly. Placebo or not, it's a service. Practitioners of alternative medicine are taxed for similar 'services', why not churches?

Mr_Anony:
A church is a religious institution while it is free and open to members of the public, there are certain byelaws it has which must be observed by it's members.
A religious institution has it's own rules, and those rules are not determined by the community in which it exists. A church in a muslim comunity will operate based on laws outside the norms of the community in which it is situated, vice versa for a mosque in a christian community.

A church is not a public institution in the sense that you are trying to portray here.

Let me correct you.
First, in plural democratic societies,religious institutions do not make their own laws, they make their own doctrines and articles of faith, and even at that, such doctrines cannot go against the laws,fundamental principles and ethos of the society or community in which they exist. ok?

Let me correct you. The laws of the community, most communities, allow for religious freedom. But no religious freedom is ever allowed to go against the laws and norms of a community.

"Operate based on Laws outside the norms of the community?"

Does that sentence even make any sense?
Pls read your sentence again and see if it makes any sense at all, unless you are trying to use tricky words in a desperate move to score cheap points.

If the laws of a muslim community allow for the existence of a church, then that church will, and is operating within what is allowed in that community.

For example, In UAE, churches are allowed to operate only within the church. No public preaching or evangelism is allowed.

wiegraf:

Good $deity anony, this is very simple. All this story is irrelevant. Church and state implies everyone gets treated the same, but churches in this case are treated differently. This is a crystal clear violation of that principle. Taxing them entails infringing on religious freedoms in what universe? Wth is telling them they can't practice whatever they wish to practice? They are the ones gaining special privileges just because. The other organizations are the ones being treated unfairly. For crying out loud how dishonest can you be??

You have attacked a strawman here. A religious organization is very different from other non-profit organizations because they deal the beliefs of an individual. If part of what an individual believes is that he should buy a jet for his pastor or donate money to that effect then so be it.
The church is not a business offering an easily quantifiable service. It usually does not make any material promises to it's members rather it is more focused on their spiritual lives. The state must respect that. . . .and as a result, the state cannot begin to dictate to tell a church what is or is not necessary for the propagation of it's gospel. For instance if a church chooses to buy 5 private jets with donations turnover, it is not in the place of the state to query the church over it or prescribe for the church how it's gospel ought to be propagated in that sense as long as their method of spreading their gospel is non-violent and doesn't endanger other non-member citizens, they are free to propagate their religion as they see fit.

As for the sowing, I said salvation or whatever, I do not know what it's called. But it's clear, give us money, you will be rewarded shortly. Placebo or not, it's a service. Practitioners of alternative medicine are taxed for similar 'services', why not churches?

As I said earlier, your understanding of how these churches work is poor. They are not saying "give us money" they are saying "give to God", "give for the propagation of God's kingdom" these people are not paying for a service but giving their money for something they hold dear to them.

plaetton:

Let me correct you.
First, in plural democratic societies,religious institutions do not make their own laws, they make their own doctrines and articles of faith, and even at that, such doctrines cannot go against the laws,fundamental principles and ethos of the society or community in which they exist. ok?

Let me correct you. The laws of the community, most communities, allow for religious freedom. But no religious freedom is ever allowed to go against the laws and norms of a community.

"Operate based on Laws outside the norms of the community?"

Does that sentence even make any sense?
Pls read your sentence again and see if it makes any sense at all, unless you are trying to use tricky words in a desperate move to score cheap points.

If the laws of a muslim community allow for the existence of a church, then that church will, and is operating within what is allowed in that community.

For example, In UAE, churches are allowed to operate only within the church. No public preaching or evangelism is allowed.

Lol, Would you describe UAE as a religiously tolerant society?

Let us look again at the "Operating based on Laws outside the norms of the community?". If for instance one of the norms of a community is to celebrate Christmas in December, a religion that abhors Christmas operates by laws outside the norms of such a community.

In the same way if it is part of a religion's laws to donate money and buy a private jet for it's pastor, then that is what it is. They don't owe the rest of the community any explanation for the jet they bought for him.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, Would you describe UAE as a religiously tolerant society?

Let us look again at the "Operating based on Laws outside the norms of the community?". If for instance one of the norms of a community is to celebrate Christmas in December, a religion that abhors Christmas operates by laws outside the norms of such a community.

In the same way if it is part of a religion's laws to donate money and buy a private jet for it's pastor, then that is what it is. They don't owe the rest of the community any explanation for the jet they bought for him.

Te more you go like this, the more you reveal yourself as very disingenous fellow.
Dont you know the meaning of laws as opposed to norms?
Norms are expectations of similar behaviours.They are not binding to all.
Laws, on the other hand are binding to all.
Are you doing this dance around words deliberately , or are you not intelligent enough to understand the issues here?.

Show me any community where anyone is forced to celebrate anything.
And also show me any church where the rank and file members voted to donate money to buy a private jet for their pastor.
The members give their money as sacrifice to god, and the pastor takes the money and does whatever that pleases him and we are not talking about pastor's salary or allowances, which should, in every case be statutory and transparent.

The main issue here is first of all, being accountable for all money received in the name of god or church.
The issue of what they choose to do with the money, on behalf of the church is not a legal issue , but a moral and ethical one.

In the case of private jets,We are talking about wholesale looting here in the name of god, while donors are left to fend for themselves with a promise that god god will do this or that for them in due time.
Fraud , fraud , fraud, Anony, and you know it.
Do not condone evil.

In Ikeja, Arch-Bishop Vinning memorial Anglican church is much older than Winners Chapel.
in the church premises, they run a subsidized day-care center, a state of the art medical facility of which my family and I have been beneficiaries, as well as other communities services.

Even as an atheist, I have no problems giving whatever I can afford , whenever I can afford, to the church, because, I can clearly see and feel where the money is going.

Also in Ikeja, Saint Leo Catholic Church runs many commnunity services,a daycare center, runs a primary school, all subsidized by church funds.
again, I would have no problems at all donating or even willing a portion my meagre estate to them, not for the purpose of buying god's favour or blessing(dont believe in it, dont need it), but as a contribution to my community.

On the other hand,using church funds to buy, insure, maintain and fly a private jet,while nothing, zero is provided for members in the form of schools, vocational centers, clinics, etc,is immoral, evil and criminal.

On judgement day, while we atheist are lined up waiting for get our placement in hell,by the time the angels reach our turn, there would be no space left in hell to put us because hell will be filled to the brim with pentecostal preachers and those who support their criminality.
lol.

Mr_Anony:
You have attacked a strawman here. A religious organization is very different from other non-profit organizations because they deal the beliefs of an individual. If part of what an individual believes is that he should buy a jet for his pastor or donate money to that effect then so be it.
The church is not a business offering an easily quantifiable service. It usually does not make any material promises to it's members rather it is more focused on their spiritual lives. The state must respect that. . . .and as a result, the state cannot begin to dictate to tell a church what is or is not necessary for the propagation of it's gospel. For instance if a church chooses to buy 5 private jets with donations turnover, it is not in the place of the state to query the church over it or prescribe for the church how it's gospel ought to be propagated in that sense as long as their method of spreading their gospel is non-violent and doesn't endanger other non-member citizens, they are free to propagate their religion as they see fit.


As I said earlier, your understanding of how these churches work is poor. They are not saying "give us money" they are saying "give to God", "give for the propagation of God's kingdom" these people are not paying for a service but giving their money for something they hold dear to them.

Erm, do you know what a strawman is? A church is special in a secular society how, because you say so? 'Spiritual' automatically makes them above the law? We should let baba use human heads because they are spiritual? Or even say let said baba distribute banned or harmful substances harming others simply because they are spiritual? And this isn't a victimless crime, there are victims. The parishioners giving they're hard earned money expecting it to be used for charity are victims (again even if you are happy with blindly giving I'm pretty sure others aren't). The rest of society that does not believe in your particular or any other delusion but pays taxes for services and infrastructure that the church will use, these people are victims as well. In a secular government, 'spiritual' is not a free pass to do as you please, I would have thought that would be obvious. If a church makes a claim for npo status, it must be held to the same standard of accountability of other such organizations, simple.

You have nothing to add except to claim that churches are more equal than other organizations, in a secular society no less, then we've reached the LALALA stage.

As for the reaping, do you think I need a phd to understand what is happening? They aren't giving to charity, they are explicitly paying for a service. Even if it is a particularly silly one to onlookers, just like say alternative medicine. If these doctors get taxed for their 'services', then why not churches? Let me guess, in a secular society which preaches separation of church and state churches are above, or in fact are the law, yes?

in the end humans (religious folks especially) are simply lazy in spirit and in mind and body. hoping that they will receive that big basket of cash/successes for simply investing in the Heavenly MLM program. I have fun every morning guilt-tripping the driver behind me into dropping some change for the beggars on the Marina. once we hit traffic you can see them itch as i throw down a fifty or hundred to the kids. give em a couple of seconds and the guilt starts seeping in.. you could get at least 5-6 cars behind you doing the same thing. I'd feel a lot better giving to orphanages (kids God cares little about going by present trends) than have the Church decide which and where to spend my money

plaetton:

Te more you go like this, the more you reveal yourself as very disingenous fellow.
Dont you know the meaning of laws as opposed to norms?
Norms are expectations of similar behaviours.They are not binding to all.
Laws, on the other hand are binding to all.
Are you doing this dance around words deliberately , or are you not intelligent enough to understand the issues here?.

As I said, the rules in a religion do not depend on the laws or norms of a community. You even gave me an example of the UAE making a law that is in direct conflict with the Christian commission of "Go ye into the world and preach the gospel"

Show me any community where anyone is forced to celebrate anything.

North Korea

And also show me any church where the rank and file members voted to donate money to buy a private jet for their pastor.

Lol, how does one "vote to donate"? However, if you are honestly seeking those who donated to their pastors private jet, you have the members of the church of Oritsejafor.

Personally: in my former church, as youths of the church, we once contributed money to buy a generator for our pastor on his birthday out of the goodwill we had for him. I see no difference between this and buying him a private jet. If we had the means, we probably would have given him such a gift. There is nothing wrong with that.
Eventually a well to do member of our church bought a car for him. Funny enough a year later the same pastor gifted the car to someone else. This is the kind of giving that goes on in christian communities. Unfortunately you don't see this, all you do is stand outside and look out for who is riding the jet.

The members give their money as sacrifice to god, and the pastor takes the money and does whatever that pleases him and we are not talking about pastor's salary or allowances, which should, in every case be statutory and transparent.

This is merely your biased opinion, it is not always true.

The main issue here is first of all, being accountable for all money received in the name of god or church.
The issue of what they choose to do with the money, on behalf of the church is not a legal issue , but a moral and ethical one.

I agree about being accountable, I am only saying the obligation is owed primarily to the members of the church and not the general public. There is not moral or ethical basis for the church to publicly publish it's accounts to people who are not members.

In the case of private jets,We are talking about wholesale looting here in the name of god, while donors are left to fend for themselves with a promise that god god will do this or that for them in due time.
Fraud , fraud , fraud, Anony, and you know it.
Do not condone evil.

While I realize that there are some fraudsters out there taking advantage of people for their selfish benefit, all I can really do is point out that they are unchristian but then whatever religion it is that they are practicing, they are free to practice it even if it entails buying houses cars and private jets for their pastors in the hope of eternal riches, it is not really my business. If they really believe that God is a money doubling investment banker, then what I'll do is to preach the gospel to them and pray for them to repent. I won't support a government telling a religion how to conduct it's practices even if I don't agree with the religion.

In Ikeja, Arch-Bishop Vinning memorial Anglican church is much older than Winners Chapel.
in the church premises, they run a subsidized day-care center, a state of the art medical facility of which my family and I have been beneficiaries, as well as other communities services.

Even as an atheist, I have no problems giving whatever I can afford , whenever I can afford, to the church, because, I can clearly see and feel where the money is going.

Also in Ikeja, Saint Leo Catholic Church runs many commnunity services,a daycare center, runs a primary school, all subsidized by church funds.
again, I would have no problems at all donating or even willing a portion my meagre estate to them, not for the purpose of buying god's favour or blessing(dont believe in it, dont need it), but as a contribution to my community.

On the other hand,using church funds to buy, insure, maintain and fly a private jet,while nothing, zero is provided for members in the form of schools, vocational centers, clinics, etc,is immoral, evil and criminal.

Believe it or not, A lot of Pentecostal churches do the same charity work you are commending the Anglicans for

On judgement day, while we atheist are lined up waiting for get our placement in hell,by the time the angels reach our turn, there would be no space left in hell to put us because hell will be filled to the brim with pentecostal preachers and those who support their criminality.
lol.

Lol, You don't have to go to hell. I'll keep praying for you to repent

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?.

there should be accountability.

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. . .

actually it is called reasonableness and " a setting of a patern" for the future.

Also, that he is not dogmatic but reasonable and considerate.

wiegraf:

Erm, do you know what a strawman is? A church is special in a secular society how, because you say so? 'Spiritual' automatically makes them above the law? We should let baba use human heads because they are spiritual? Or even say let said baba distribute banned or harmful substances harming others simply because they are spiritual?

If I remember correctly, I said they are free to carry out their religion as long as it is non-violent and doesn't endanger human life. Your reference to baba and human head is pointless and shows you are not really paying attention.

And this isn't a victimless crime, there are victims. The parishioners giving they're hard earned money expecting it to be used for charity are victims (again even if you are happy with blindly giving I'm pretty sure others aren't).

As I have argued earlier, the church should be accountable to it's members. I have no problem with that. I just don't think it is necessary that their numbers be declared to the general public or that the state should have a say in how the church's money is spent. Get it now?

The rest of society that does not believe in your particular or any other delusion but pays taxes for services and infrastructure that the church will use, these people are victims as well. In a secular government, 'spiritual' is not a free pass to do as you please, I would have thought that would be obvious. If a church makes a claim for npo status, it must be held to the same standard of accountability of other such organizations, simple.

Unfortunately, you score no points here. Who is the church if not it's members? Members who have already paid their taxes before donating money for the running of the church. Why should these monies be taxed a second time?
Could you please name some of these "services and infrastructures" that the church is using for which it should be taxed.

You have nothing to add except to claim that churches are more equal than other organizations, in a secular society no less, then we've reached the LALALA stage.

Not really, I have only pointed out that a religious organization is different from your regular charity in the sense that religious organizations have rules/codes of membership and practice (I would wager also that professional associations such as the National Union of Journalists, Nigerian Bar Association etc are not required by law to declare their finances to their members) the state has to respect that. and as much as possible not compel a religion to compromise it's rules.
The citizens of the state are free to choose whatever religion they like and are not compelled to join a religion or give money to it. If a religion does not disclose it's financials and you as an individual does not like it, then please feel free to leave the religion and join another one or even start your own religion. Calling the state to come in and force your religion to declare it's finances to you seems to me to go foul of the idea of religious freedom.

As for the reaping, do you think I need a phd to understand what is happening? They aren't giving to charity, they are explicitly paying for a service. Even if it is a particularly silly one to onlookers, just like say alternative medicine. If these doctors get taxed for their 'services', then why not churches? Let me guess, in a secular society which preaches separation of church and state churches are above, or in fact are the law, yes?

This is merely your subjective opinion. The parishioners themselves for the most part see their giving as an act of worship and not an act of trade. Besides it is their money and they have every right to spend it as they see fit.
In fact if you insist it is a trade, then you must quantify the "goods and services" where you cannot physically quantify the "goods and services", you have no business taxing it. Alternative medicine is quantifiable.

Don't waste time anony, move on to other people/topics if you have nothing new to add. Basically your argument boils down to churches having some sort of special status. My position is that that obviously should not be so, it is a clear violation of separation of church and state. It is essentially a form of religious profiling as well. You will not see reason though. To indulge you

Mr_Anony:
If I remember correctly, I said they are free to carry out their religion as long as it is non-violent and doesn't endanger human life. Your reference to baba and human head is pointless and shows you are not really paying attention.

What the heck do you think this was for?

me:
And this isn't a victimless crime, there are victims. The parishioners giving they're hard earned money expecting it to be used for charity are victims (again even if you are happy with blindly giving I'm pretty sure others aren't). The rest of society that does not believe in your particular or any other delusion but pays taxes for services and infrastructure that the church will use, these people are victims as well. In a secular government, 'spiritual' is not a free pass to do as you please, I would have thought that would be obvious. If a church makes a claim for npo status, it must be held to the same standard of accountability of other such organizations, simple.

Who isn't paying attention? Non-violent is not the only type of crime there is, I hope you are aware of that, yes?

Mr_Anony:
As I have argued earlier, the church should be accountable to it's members. I have no problem with that. I just don't think it is necessary that their numbers be declared to the general public or that the state should have a say in how the church's money is spent. Get it now?

No. Again, it is accountable to society as a whole. Especially if it expects a free pass. That includes people who do not share its delusions.

Mr_Anony:
Unfortunately, you score no points here. Who is the church if not it's members? Members who have already paid their taxes before donating money for the running of the church. Why should these monies be taxed a second time?
Could you please name some of these "services and infrastructures" that the church is using for which it should be taxed.

This is a tough one...hmmm, let me see... What in the world do taxes pay for? Let's take a guess. Maybe government? Google is your friend, let's take a look at what americans use federal tax for, though this is probably laymans

http://www.ehow.com/facts_4928940_do-federal-income-taxes-pay.html

"Defense
According to the U.S. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the federal government spends over $700 billion a year on military and national security-related expenses, which accounts for approximately 20% of the federal budget.

Education
According to the U.S. Department of Education, the federal government spends over $68 billion a year to help schools and colleges, which accounts for approximately 2% of the federal budget.

Financial Assistance
The U.S. government spends over $700 billion a year on social security (20% of budget) and over $450 billion a year on welfare and financial aid programs (13% of budget.)

Health Care
The U.S. government spends approximately $700 billion a year (21% of budget) on government programs such as Medicare that provide health care coverage to the elderly, disabled individuals, and individuals that cannot afford care.

Transportation
The U.S. Department of Transportation receives approximately $68 billion (2 – 3% of budget) a year to establish and maintain airports, pipelines (oil, gas, etc.), roadways, railroads, waterways, and other similar forms of transportation."



Wait, why am I even wasting time responding to a question about what taxes pay for? To someone who lives in the UK no less, where people don't sit around all day and rely on oil money (that's arguably not theirs, myself included though)

And note, in this particular scenario, where a member might assume he's giving to a charity of sorts, members need not be taxed (that would probably depend), but the church itself as an entity should be, so long as it cannot prove it's NPO.
If it's NPO, then just like every other organization that wants that status, it should prove itself.

Mr_Anony:
Not really, I have only pointed out that a religious organization is different from your regular charity in the sense that religious organizations have rules/codes of membership and practice (I would wager also that professional associations such as the National Union of Journalists, Nigerian Bar Association etc are not required by law to declare their finances to their members) the state has to respect that. and as much as possible not compel a religion to compromise it's rules.
The citizens of the state are free to choose whatever religion they like and are not compelled to join a religion or give money to it. If a religion does not disclose it's financials and you as an individual does not like it, then please feel free to leave the religion and join another one or even start your own religion. Calling the state to come in and force your religion to declare it's finances to you seems to me to go foul of the idea of religious freedom.

We are speaking about secular societies here, yes? I've already told you, there is nothing special about religious organizations. 'Spiritual' is not a free pass to do as they wish. At all. Think of my baba lawos from earlier. Just because your church might be bigger or their practices look more benign does not change the fact that they're own version of 'spiritual' is not above the law as well.

NBA and NUJ or what not would be required to show their books so long as they are NPO, that is assuming they are not even government run. Everyone is, except for....churches. I am not a member of a church, I pay taxes. If I ran any organization that was not for profit, I would have to prove I really was not for profit to get a free pass on tax. In essence, I would have to prove to society at large, not just members of my organization, that I deserve the goodwill I am receiving from them via tax breaks. That's it. All this about members etc, irrelevant. Society does not belong to just members of a church. It's an organization just like any other and they should earn their dues.

Mr_Anony:
This is merely your subjective opinion. The parishioners themselves for the most part see their giving as an act of worship and not an act of trade. Besides it is their money and they have every right to spend it as they see fit.
In fact if you insist it is a trade, then you must quantify the "goods and services" where you cannot physically quantify the "goods and services", you have no business taxing it. Alternative medicine is quantifiable.

Who says they can't spend their money as they see fit? How many times have I stated this? Now, if someone pays $140 expecting to (the pastor won't forget to add a 'maybe') reap double the amount in 24 hours, that's a clear cut transaction. You are paying for his services, imagined or not, like fortune telling I suppose. So good for you, it's your money! But guess what, fortune tellers are regulated and do apply for business licenses in much of the developed world, just like everyone else. Alternative medicine is NOT quantifiable. It's pure quackery, placebos, yet they pay taxes as well. All these 'reap and sow' schemes fall in the same category, regardless of your subjective opinion. Pay money, receive service (with results that may vary). (some of these schemes should be outright illegal sef, but that's another topic)

And you speak for all xtians? I doubt it. Just look through these threads and see the testimonies of various xtians and how they 'reaped' whatever from their sowing. They clearly see it as a transaction, at the very least similar buying a lottery ticket.