Rich Preachers

[Ted Lange 16041]

Can someone explain why they are a thing?  

[Larry T. Spider 1740]

Because people love to give money to support their confirmation bias. 

[David Dennison 18655]

Read The Grand Inquisitor.

Edited February 11, 2019 by David Dennison

[bad_teammate 13132]

 

[Mo Horn 8807]

6 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Can someone explain why they are a thing?  

Fear is a powerful motivator, and for those who believe in judgement after death, eternity is a long time. And it's not new. Why do you think the Vatican is worth billions?

[pyrohornIII 4809]

Because a lot of people are greedy.  If somebody can make them accept God wants them to be greedy, that they deserve all the things they want then that is who they will support.  These preachers can't condone greed without practicing it.   They make their money by telling others to give to God seed money and God will repay them many times over.

Pretty down to earth explanations on the phenomena here:

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6553063-will-jesus-buy-me-a-double-wide

Edited February 11, 2019 by pyrohornIII

[Brian Fantana 6667]

2 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Fear is a powerful motivator, and for those who believe in judgement after death, eternity is a long time. And it's not new. Why do you think the Vatican is worth billions?

Imagine being such a fucking pussy you're scared to die

[David Dennison 18655]

 

[Horn Dog 9671]

Lets not forget that they are able to use tax-free status of their church to acquire land and property to grow their wealth in a way that most of us could only dream of.

[David Dennison 18655]

17 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Lets not forget that they are able to use tax-free status of their church to acquire land and property to grow their wealth in a way that most of us could only dream of.

I'd love to know the monetary value of the Roman Catholic Church.

[CooterBrown 17905]

I'd love to know the monetary value of the Roman Catholic Church.

It’s probably over $1 trillion.

[ChiTownDoc 21098]

Wife’s family is Catholic but not too into it...so like most Catholics I guess.   Anyways, traveling the world and seeing various basilicas etc really blows your mind.  You’ll go to some ass poor third world country and it’s nothing but ornate gold and glam where the downtrodden worship.  I feel like I’m taking crazy pills when I see them ‘pass the plate’ at these things.  

[Surly Bevo 24696]

Higher quality

 

 

[Pancho 44470]

The tithe “scripture” is one they demand their followers take literally.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

I suppose one should make a distinction between a rich preacher and a rich church.  Neither is entirely (or at all) consistent with fundamental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to fundamentalist Christianity, but a preacher moreso than a church.

[TexArcher 37508]

If you can convince people that Hell is a real place, but offer them forgiveness for absolutely anything, they can find all sorts of ways to accumulate massive wealth and they'll gladly give you 10% of it in exchange for forgiveness for how they got it.

Plus the church colonized every resource-rich nation on earth and stole what it wanted, errr, spread salvation.

It really is history's best business model, errrr, tax-exempt charity.

If only my atheist sense of right and wrong didn't preclude me from getting in on the action...

[TwiceHorn 31269]

3 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Plus the church colonized every resource-rich nation on earth and stole what it wanted, errr, spread salvation.

Even if you conflate the Catholic Church with the Kingdoms of Spain and Portugal, and maybe Holland, which might be fair-ish, this is hardly accurate.  And even then you have to lump in the Church of England, and that isn't fair.  And the rest of the Protestant denomination, which constitute a vast swath of "church," at least for the last 600 years, had nothing to do with it.

Edited February 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TexArcher 37508]

And England.  And others.

But fair enough: change "the church" to "Christian countries."  It doesn't really change the point.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

2 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

And England.  And others.

But fair enough: change "the church" to "Christian countries."  It doesn't really change the point.

It's a shitty point.

[Ted Lange 16041]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose one should make a distinction between a rich preacher and a rich church.  Neither is entirely (or at all) consistent with fundamental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to fundamentalist Christianity, but a preacher moreso than a church.

They are obviously a bit interchangeable, but preacher was more my question.   Think Ed Young in Houston.  How can any Christian reconcile what the Bible says and how Ed lives?   

[TexArcher 37508]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

It's a shitty point.

Aw, man.  That's gonna keep me up all night.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

8 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

They are obviously a bit interchangeable, but preacher was more my question.   Think Ed Young in Houston.  How can any Christian reconcile what the Bible says and how Ed lives?   

There are quite a few churches that have become property rich by occupying what has become prime real estate for very long periods of time that spend their entire operating budgets on their "mission" and congregants.  And then there are more modern churches that have purchased prime real estate in order to enrich their pastors by attracting more congregants.

I don't really know that much about Ed Young except that he sure seems to be a cheesedick televangelist that falls into the latter category.  Osteen certainly qualifies.

Edited February 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31269]

3 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Aw, man.  That's gonna keep me up all night.

No one cares.

[Ted Lange 16041]

And while we are at it, can any republican explain why Osteen deserves tax breaks?

[Ted Lange 16041]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

There are quite a few churches that have become property rich by occupying what has become prime real estate for very long periods of time that spend their entire operating budgets on their "mission" and congregants.  And then there are more modern churches that have purchased prime real estate in order to enrich their pastors by attracting more congregants.

Fair.  But how does someone who has read the Bible think the leader of the church should have a helicopter or his wife drive a $300,000 car?

[Surly Bevo 24696]

3 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Fair.  But how does someone who has read the Bible think the leader of the church should have a helicopter or his wife drive a $300,000 car?

Tradition mostly...

[F250 28682]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

Because a lot of people are greedy.  If somebody can make them accept God wants them to be greedy, that they deserve all the things they want then that is who they will support.  These preachers can't condone greed without practicing it.   They make their money by telling others to give to God seed money and God will repay them many times over.

Pretty down to earth explanations on the phenomena here:

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6553063-will-jesus-buy-me-a-double-wide

This is the likeliest explanation. Prosperity gospel pretty much runs off of the grifters classic principle of working a victim's greed. The trick is convincing the person it isn't greed but a religious imperative to become wealthy. Then as you said, the victim is convinced to invest seed money.

American Christianity has come a long way since the days of the Puritan Work Ethic.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

And while we are at it, can any republican explain why Osteen deserves tax breaks?

The idea with the tax break originally was that churches provide social and community services that weren't available generally.  Similar secular organizations receive the same benefit.

The exemption isn't easily revoked because, like granting/deniying religious rights to peyote-smoking inmates, judging the "legitimacy" of religious beliefs is a dangerous business.

I'm all for holding their feet to the fire on restricted activities that cause a loss of the exemption, namely participating in political campaigns, but even that can get tricky.

[TDunk 590]

I think that is in two Corinthians.  

[TwiceHorn 31269]

8 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Fair.  But how does someone who has read the Bible think the leader of the church should have a helicopter or his wife drive a $300,000 car?

Hell no.  I don't know what kind of gymnastics these people go through to justify that.

[Ted Lange 16041]

OK.  I’m genuinely curious from hearing from the folks that go to churches like 2nd Baptist on their thoughts 

Do they just think Jesus was full of shit?

[TwiceHorn 31269]

18 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

OK.  I’m genuinely curious from hearing from the folks that go to churches like 2nd Baptist on their thoughts 

Do they just think Jesus was full of shit?

Don't know all that much about 2nd Baptist, but I am highly suspicious of churches that have multiple locations.  I suppose they justify it by "increasing their outreach."

My church is old and property rich (same site for 100 years) and spends its budget every year on its mission, which periodically includes renovating or refreshing the physical plant, which is a combination of very old (90 years) and new buildings, including an auditorium for "rock church" that I dislike and a gym building. The pastor is well-compensated for running a decent sized (15,000 members) corporation, but he's not going to get rich.  When it found a need for other locations to increase outreach, it founded at least two other freestanding Methodist churches further north, which now have their own sizable congregations and has now turned its attention south to revitalize a formerly robust church in a deteriorated part of town.

Also, I am highly suspicious of any "congregational" church that does not answer to a higher earthly authority for matters doctrinal and financial.  Congregations on their own have a tendency to get up to the devil, so to speak.  And, other than the Catholic Church, most of the ones that are highly offensive are congregational.

Edited February 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[UpperWestside 6136]

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose one should make a distinction between a rich preacher and a rich church.  Neither is entirely (or at all) consistent with fundamental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to fundamentalist Christianity, but a preacher moreso than a church.

Both bother me. I have always felt that way. When I see the TD Jakes of the world wearing 3k suits and meanwhile your congregation has members who are struggling to just pay their bills and afford food it angers me.

Jesus was a poor man who preached about helping others. He had nothing of monetary value so I feel pretty certain he would be shunned completely by most denominations. 

The prosperity gospel preachers as a whole are just inherently evil human beings. Screw the lot of them. I 100 percent support taxing churches. 

Edited February 11, 2019 by UpperWestside

[Bookman 4610]

Lol Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity in America. This has been apparent for years. Look at how many “Christians” voted for Donald Trump.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

4 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

Both bother me. I have always felt that way. When I see the TD Jakes of the world wearing 3k suits and meanwhile your congregation has members who are struggling to just pay their bills it angers me.

Jesus was a poor man who preached about helping others. He had nothing of monetary value so I feel pretty certain he would be shunned completely by most denominations. 

The prosperity gospel preachers as a whole are just inherently evil human beings. Screw the lot of them. I 100 percent support taxing churches. 

Well, again, using Jakes as an example, most of the rich preachers have some sort of church, but it's a church of, by, and for the preacher, and it is, ta da, congregational.  The church is secondary to its pastor and has no existence outside its current pastor.  The ones that have become property rich over time have, by definition, outlasted at least a half dozen pastors, which Potters House will not, or Young's church, or Osteens. 

Edited February 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31269]

Just now, Bookman said:

Lol Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity in America. This has been apparent for years. Look at how many “Christians” voted for Donald Trump.

Certain strains of "Christianity," yes.  But you are painting with a mighty broad brush.

[UpperWestside 6136]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Well, again, using Jakes as an example, most of the rich preachers have some sort of church, but it's a church of, by, and for the preacher, and it is, ta da, congregational.  The church is secondary to its pastor.

I agree. I went to a smaller Christian university. I do not think I am better than any other man or woman who walks this earth. I do look at those who use God as a way to enrich themselves while stealing from those who have nothing by promising untold riches as being lucifer incarnate. It really hurts my heart to watch it happen.

[UpperWestside 6136]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Certain strains of "Christianity," yes.  But you are painting with a mighty broad brush.

White evangelical "Christians" love the clownshow occupying the White House. The least educated portion of our nation want him there. Those are by and large Christians in name only.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

2 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

White evangelical "Christians" love the clownshow occupying the White House. The least educated portion of our nation want him there. Those are by and large Christians in name only.

Indeed.  There are large numbers of black and hispanic Christians, many Catholics (gasp), who have never supported Trump.  I think that's true of many white mainstream Protestants, many of whom are as liberal as they come.  Despite all the noise they make, "Evangelical" (read congregational "Christians" who just get to make shit up), are not mainstream Protestants.

[UpperWestside 6136]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Indeed.  There are large numbers of black and hispanic Christians, many Catholics (gasp), who have never supported Trump.  I think that's true of many white mainstream Protestants, many of whom are as liberal as they come.  Despite all the noise they make, "Evangelical" (read congregational "Christians" who just get to make shit up), are not mainstream Protestants.

I do believe it is wise to understand that different ethnic groups of Christians that belong to various denominations, and many white Christians, do not support Dotard. The sooner the white evangelical block of voters holds no sway in this country the better. Barry Goldwater was before my time, but he understood them really well amd what they were going to do if they got unbridled access to power. I just hope future generations remember what is unfolding right now so this disaster of an administration never exists again in a future iteration.

Edited February 11, 2019 by UpperWestside

[Mole 4320]

1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

OK.  I’m genuinely curious from hearing from the folks that go to churches like 2nd Baptist on their thoughts 

Do they just think Jesus was full of shit?

“Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” 

Maybe if Jesus had someone like Copland to give his seed money to...

[Bookman 4610]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

But you are painting with a mighty broad brush.

It’s easier that way. Wish the exceptions would make more noise.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Bookman

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20343]

[NWBuck 8547]

3 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

 The sooner the white evangelical block of voters holds no sway in this country the better. Barry Goldwater was before my time, but he understood them really well amd what they were going to do if they got unbridled access to power.

The Religious Right (or Moral Majority) came into being as an attempt to protect tax exempt status along with the ability for Christian Colleges to remain segregated. The issue of abortion was not the main focus, in spite of arguments to the contrary. 

[52-80 19086]

In many countries, when you register your residency, it asks you to claim your religious affiliation (optional, of course).

What many new residents / immigrants dont realize, is that that information is linked to the tax bureau and thus to payroll.  They get 10% deducted from their pay, automatically.

If you want to stop it, you got to go to the city offices and "formally renounce" your affiliation.

 

Great scam.  Highly recommended.

[deadshank 24651]

7 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

They are obviously a bit interchangeable, but preacher was more my question.   Think Ed Young in Houston.  How can any Christian reconcile what the Bible says and how Ed lives?   

How does he live?   Tell us.  

[Post Oak 20184]

It's all one great big con.

[Horn Dog 9671]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose one should make a distinction between a rich preacher and a rich church.  Neither is entirely (or at all) consistent with fundamental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to fundamentalist Christianity, but a preacher moreso than a church.

 

8 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Fair.  But how does someone who has read the Bible think the leader of the church should have a helicopter or his wife drive a $300,000 car?

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I believe part of the issue is some rich churches don’t necessarily pay their preacher a huge salary, but they provide exorbitant benefits and use of tax exempt church property such as a huge mansion in Piney Point to live in, expensive cars, and even helicopters and private jets.  So the preacher can live like a billionaire but claim a “modest” salary 

Edited February 11, 2019 by Horn Dog

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

9 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Can someone explain why they are a thing?  

Perhaps the long tradition of absurd opulence found in the Catholic Church has something to do with it.

[Asithappens 974]

9 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Because people love to give money to support their confirmation bias. 

Yep.

I'm not a fan of those type of preachers, but like Trump, the real blame doesn't fall on them: it falls on those who let them do their thing. 

Don't get mad at a shitbird for being a shitbird if there are measures in place to prevent them from being a shitbird.