Jump to content

Joel Osteen is a fraud meta thread

BurntOrange&White

By BurntOrange&White
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
On 8/17/2018 at 4:32 PM, hobbes2702 said:

Yes. Stop using the government to fund fairy tales.

The gov't isn't funding  them. Most churches cover the costs of general maintenance, utilities, paying a pastor a modest living wage and covering their housing costs, medical, etc. The rest is usually ear marked for church activities and outreach, charity work.

But hey make up your own narrative and reality.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dutchrudder said:
5 hours ago, slorch said:
I could live with that as long as it extended to the pay of any executive of a non-profit/ charity.  Let's just set max compensation for all of em, shall we?
 
i don't disagree with your position on this.  It would need to be shored up for consistency's sake.  Not just for religious entities.

Read more  

Wait, do people who run a non profit get tax free housing too??? I thought it was only pastors/rabbis/priests/imams, etc.

They don’t get tax free housing unless you’re talking about a parsonage. But *most* churches do not provide a parsonage anymore, and the number continues to drop. So if they own their own home, they pay property taxes.

Now they can designate a portion of their income as housing allowance, which is not subject to income tax. If that’s what you meant, you’re correct. BUT they have to declare the fair rental value of the home for SS tax purposes. Most churches do not provide health insurance (contrary to the post above). Most do not provide retirement. And clergy have to pay SECA rather than FICA, so their SS taxes are actually higher.

It’s not exactly a sweet deal, the housing allowance notwithstanding.

Edited by formermav43
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
On 8/19/2018 at 7:32 PM, Dutchrudder said:
On 8/19/2018 at 3:27 PM, slorch said:
I could live with that as long as it extended to the pay of any executive of a non-profit/ charity.  Let's just set max compensation for all of em, shall we?
 
i don't disagree with your position on this.  It would need to be shored up for consistency's sake.  Not just for religious entities.

Wait, do people who run a non profit get tax free housing too??? I thought it was only pastors/rabbis/priests/imams, etc.

Comp is comp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
Junior Miller

Junior Miller 1502

Posted
Posted

So if you start a church using the name of a very well known deity and then perpetuate a message that aligns with people's thirst and desire for excess and committing the 7 deadly sins they will just hand you all their money? 

Shit, I'm starting the Jesus Christ Church and preaching Bout how it's perfectly fine to bang those chicks from work, or those sweet hookers in Vegas because if God didn't want you to he wouldn't have made you so horny. Praise Jesus!!!!!

Make sure you don't forget my Venmo is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Although I don’t trust the man very much, somebody remind me what the difference is in his business model versus that of the Catholic Church?  Is it because he hasn’t been around as long.  I’ve known of Joel Osteen longer than I’ve known my current priest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
50 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Although I don’t trust the man very much, somebody remind me what the difference is in his business model versus that of the Catholic Church?  Is it because he hasn’t been around as long.  I’ve known of Joel Osteen longer than I’ve known my current priest.  

They’re both scams.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lobo said:

Although I don’t trust the man very much, somebody remind me what the difference is in his business model versus that of the Catholic Church?  Is it because he hasn’t been around as long.  I’ve known of Joel Osteen longer than I’ve known my current priest.  

Most priests take a vow of poverty. There are a million more differences if you take the time to learn about them. 

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted

What’s even more sickening is his parishioners are largely low income and vulnerable.   I don’t know a single person who goes there. And when I drive by on Sundays the attendees look pretty destitute.  

I don’t know what kind of offerings they get.  It might be lower than one would think.  Osteen makes his money selling books.  

Preaching prosperity gospel is low hanging fruit for the economically vulnerable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
On 8/16/2018 at 12:13 PM, Catpfish said:

I'm tracking just fine.  I'm referring to property taxes

You’d have to do that for all nonprofits and not discriminate against religious nonprofits in violation of the First Amendment.   So goodbye to most of them in any city.  Because they can’t afford the property taxes.  Churches gone.  Museums gone.  Zoos gone.  Planned parenthood gone. Symphonies gone.  Dog shelters gone.  Every private school in every city - gone   

My church has a budget of around $1 million a year.  The dirt and facilities we sit on are easily worth $300 million if sold to a developer.  There are all sorts of worthwhile charities of a secular and non secular nature that have a similar standing.  Condo and commercial developers would like it I guess.  Would suck for HISD to have to take on 900 more students with zero additional revenue   

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

What’s even more sickening is his parishioners are largely low income and vulnerable.   I don’t know a single person who goes there. And when I drive by on Sundays the attendees look pretty destitute.  

I don’t know what kind of offerings they get.  It might be lower than one would think.  Osteen makes his money selling books.  

Preaching prosperity gospel is low hanging fruit for the economically vulnerable.  

He sucks. My grandma used to go to Lakewood when his dad ran it. His dad sucked too.  I went a couple times with her. Back then, when the offering happened, some people gave, some didn't.  Still, there were plenty of poor people giving well beyond what they could afford. Probably happens the same way now.  

Joel made the operation several orders of magnitude larger. I doubt they get enough from the offering to even cover the show's production costs now. It's all about the TV and book deals, as well as offerings that come in from TV viewers. 

He could probably still do very well even if he rejected all the offerings of attendees. His greedy ass would never do that though.  He probably gets off on it. You see this 20, Victoria. This is the last 20 some poor schmuck had. He can't even feed his kids and he gave it to us.  Can't believe he thinks the Lord blessed him.  Then he tears up the 20 and hate fucks Victoria on his private plane. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Apep

Apep 645

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Most priests take a vow of poverty. There are a million more differences if you take the time to learn about them. 

That's not true. Religious priests, (i.e. members of a religious order like the Franciscans), take a vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Most priests are diocesan, (i.e. work for their territorial bishop), and take only a vow of obedience.

I'd imagine Osteen is like many non-mainline Protestant ministers, (especially on the prosperity side), and isn't at all shy about requesting copies of tax returns so that he gets his 10% tithe. Add book sales and other income streams and he is raking it in. The average Catholic family tithes about 1% of their gross income and diocesan priests top out under $100k including housing allowance. (That's for married priests with children, e.g. ex-Protestant ministers who converted and were ordained. Celibate clergy start out around $25k and live in rectories.) A very few Catholic priests, think Andrew Greeley, become rich on book sales or media appearances. Others skim off the top or have connections, (organized crime or otherwise), that bring in the bucks. But most of them do alright because they have decent healthcare, a pension, free housing, and no wives or kids.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lobo said:

Although I don’t trust the man very much, somebody remind me what the difference is in his business model versus that of the Catholic Church?  Is it because he hasn’t been around as long.  I’ve known of Joel Osteen longer than I’ve known my current priest.  

 

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Most priests take a vow of poverty. There are a million more differences if you take the time to learn about them. 

The Catholic Church needs to take a vow of poverty

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Most priests take a vow of poverty. There are a million more differences if you take the time to learn about them. 

My wife's church's priest lives in a $2.0mm home on top of a hill in West Lake Hills overlooking our massive campus.  His shoes and car are 10x nicer than mine.  He's a super nice guy and very dedicated to helping people, but under a vow of poverty---he is not.  He seems to also enjoy his skybox invitations for UT events.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Apep said:

That's not true. Religious priests, (i.e. members of a religious order like the Franciscans), take a vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Most priests are diocesan, (i.e. work for their territorial bishop), and take only a vow of obedience.

I'd imagine Osteen is like many non-mainline Protestant ministers, (especially on the prosperity side), and isn't at all shy about requesting copies of tax returns so that he gets his 10% tithe. Add book sales and other income streams and he is raking it in. The average Catholic family tithes about 1% of their gross income and diocesan priests top out under $100k including housing allowance. (That's for married priests with children, e.g. ex-Protestant ministers who converted and were ordained. Celibate clergy start out around $25k and live in rectories.) A very few Catholic priests, think Andrew Greeley, become rich on book sales or media appearances. Others skim off the top or have connections, (organized crime or otherwise), that bring in the bucks. But most of them do alright because they have decent healthcare, a pension, free housing, and no wives or kids.

I don't really know what the breakdown is and can't find the answer, but I accept that most are diocesan rather than members of an order. I think the broader point is still true, in that there is obviously a large difference between how the average catholic priest lives versus Osteen. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

My wife's church's priest lives in a $2.0mm home on top of a hill in West Lake Hills overlooking our massive campus.  His shoes and car are 10x nicer than mine.  He's a super nice guy and very dedicated to helping people, but under a vow of poverty---he is not.  He seems to also enjoy his skybox invitations for UT events.  

Is the last name of the priest Lawrence? My old priest at St. Michael's was from Austin, and he was known to come from a moneyed family. When he retired he went back to being rather wealthy. 

The vast majority of catholic priests live in the rectory. Most also have vows of celibacy. There is a hige gap between Cathloics in general and Osteen is the difference between eating Doritos and eating food made by a student of Escoffier. Just complete opposite ends of the spectrum. You might even say Dorito's aren't even remotely healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lobo said:

My wife's church's priest lives in a $2.0mm home on top of a hill in West Lake Hills overlooking our massive campus.  His shoes and car are 10x nicer than mine.  He's a super nice guy and very dedicated to helping people, but under a vow of poverty---he is not.  He seems to also enjoy his skybox invitations for UT events.  

I don’t care if someone is rich.  I care if they get rich by improper means.  Some could have family money.  Or marry money.  Some could just be big savers and investors.  I had a great uncle who was an army radiologist and I doubt he ever made much more than $100k a year before he retired in the early 80s.  He and his wife invested in the market and real estate.  And they couldn’t have kids.  Outside of a nice house that appreciated a ton in Aiken in SC and a membership at Palmetto CC where they played golf every day, they spent nothing.    Their estate was $30 million.  

Edited by Johnny Sack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Is the last name of the priest Lawrence? My old priest at St. Michael's was from Austin, and he was known to come from a moneyed family. When he retired he went back to being rather wealthy. 

The vast majority of catholic priests live in the rectory. Most also have vows of celibacy. There is a hige gap between Cathloics in general and Osteen is the difference between eating Doritos and eating food made by a student of Escoffier. Just complete opposite ends of the spectrum. You might even say Dorito's aren't even remotely healthy.

No, not from a moneyed Family.  The rectory we built for him is the $2.0mm estate on a Westlake hilltop on the 30 acre church campus that’s as gorgeous as any large estate in the area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2687

Posted
Posted

I can try to understand, that if I were raised in a strictly religious viewpoint and raised not to question, I'd submit myself to all these strictures that go against my instincts for freedom and self-agency. But, if the religious figure goes directly against the teachings of Jesus?  

And even putting aside the substance of what he says, this is what blows my mind: these naive (possibly desperate?) people also have to be TERRIBLE judges of character. Perhaps willfully so?  I mean, Osteen is one grade above Robert Fucking Tilton. If you can watch him for more than a couple of minutes and not see he's obviously a slick, oily, unctuous charlatan, how do you tie your shoes in the morning??  I could see through this dickbag by age 12. Are his followers all around boomer age? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Most religious true believers are 

 

22 minutes ago, Deej said:

His followers are desperate people with little education. 

Disagree. Prosperity gospel appeals to those who have already succeeded. They have "education", they went to college and all that. Poor people don't buy that bullshit. It's not desperation, it's confirmation bias.

To beat a dead horse, the meek will inherit the earth. Ask yourself, who are the modern Pharisees? Osteen is an obvious choice. But he's a symptom, not a cause.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31687

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

 

Disagree. Prosperity gospel appeals to those who have already succeeded. They have "education", they went to college and all that. Poor people don't buy that bullshit.

I think its a mixture.  Prosperity gospel ratifies those who are prosperous and gives false hope (or something similar) to those who are less than prosperous.

A superficially positive message holds a lot of appeal for a lot of different people.  One that implies or outright states that God wants you to be rich or that wealth is a sign of piousness, is just that much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think its a mixture.  Prosperity gospel ratifies those who are prosperous and gives false hope (or something similar) to those who are less than prosperous.

A superficially positive message holds a lot of appeal for a lot of different people.  One that implies or outright states that God wants you to be rich or that wealth is a sign of piousness, is just that much better.

Bottom line he's a symptom, not a cause. You take two seconds to think about theology, you know he's fake as fuck. Why is he given this lofty perch? In a normal country, he'd be selling used cars. Because we are morally decadent, we are late Imperial Rome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105586

Posted
Posted
I think its a mixture.  Prosperity gospel ratifies those who are prosperous and gives false hope (or something similar) to those who are less than prosperous.
A superficially positive message holds a lot of appeal for a lot of different people.  One that implies or outright states that God wants you to be rich or that wealth is a sign of piousness, is just that much better.

It really is amazing.

God wants you to be rich. You being rich is a fulfillment of God’s plan for you. Therefore, anything in furtherance of God’s plan (you being stinking rich) is a-ok. In fact, anything that stands in the way of that plan (like laws, morality, decency) is evil, because hey, it opposes the divine plan.

It provides the rationale for anything in the pursuit of wealth. It’s pure wickedness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

 

Disagree. Prosperity gospel appeals to those who have already succeeded. They have "education", they went to college and all that. Poor people don't buy that bullshit. It's not desperation, it's confirmation bias.

To beat a dead horse, the meek will inherit the earth. Ask yourself, who are the modern Pharisees? Osteen is an obvious choice. But he's a symptom, not a cause.

Go drive around the Summit on Sunday morning.  It’s pretty much all lower income folks.  Rich people don’t go to Lakewood.  They go to St  Luke’s, St Johns, St Martins, etc   

I’ve lived pretty close to that place for 15 years now and am pretty familiar with the demographics of the place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17045

Posted
Posted
You’d have to do that for all nonprofits and not discriminate against religious nonprofits in violation of the First Amendment.   So goodbye to most of them in any city.  Because they can’t afford the property taxes.  Churches gone.  Museums gone.  Zoos gone.  Planned parenthood gone. Symphonies gone.  Dog shelters gone.  Every private school in every city - gone   
My church has a budget of around $1 million a year.  The dirt and facilities we sit on are easily worth $300 million if sold to a developer.  There are all sorts of worthwhile charities of a secular and non secular nature that have a similar standing.  Condo and commercial developers would like it I guess.  Would suck for HISD to have to take on 900 more students with zero additional revenue   
 

Zoos and Museums offer real tangible benefits. There is no god. There is a panda. There were dinosaurs.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27977

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

You’d have to do that for all nonprofits and not discriminate against religious nonprofits in violation of the First Amendment.   So goodbye to most of them in any city.  Because they can’t afford the property taxes.  Churches gone.  Museums gone.  Zoos gone.  Planned parenthood gone. Symphonies gone.  Dog shelters gone.  Every private school in every city - gone   

My church has a budget of around $1 million a year.  The dirt and facilities we sit on are easily worth $300 million if sold to a developer.  There are all sorts of worthwhile charities of a secular and non secular nature that have a similar standing.  Condo and commercial developers would like it I guess.  Would suck for HISD to have to take on 900 more students with zero additional revenue   

 

It's more that if the churches are being used as a profit centered business and participating in politics, they probably shouldn't qualify for tax-exempt

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...