Taxing the Church

[Obadiah]

So exposing the truth is condemning. Im not the judge...

Until you show me the scripture that condemns a church congregation for meeting in a building or a command that they may only meet in a private house or outside in the elements, it's not the truth. It's only your opinion and your personal preference. In that case, yes, you are acting as the judge and you are condemning.

...People think there donation is going to the needy but its going to a want and the needy are still in need...

The only people who think this are ignorant indeed and irresponsible for not asking what the church spends the money on. No one in their right mind will assume the church has no costs and everything they donate will go to what you call "the needy" Even if they meet in a house, who pays for the house? Do you really think that house appeared out of nowhere for free? Why do you unfairly saddle one person with all the expense?

...Im sorry but I think the Church thinks about itself before others.

Once again, your judgemental opinion only. By the way, there is no scripture stating the only purpose for the church is to be a charity giving handouts to all the world's needy. That is very unrealistic and very narrow minded. Read your Bible. The church is much more than a charity for outsiders!

 

[Corn Pop]

Its a big problem in this world in general, people get left behind with no care. The gov would rather spend 20 million on a flag debate when they say they care for the needy, and a church building will cry broke when all the members will go back to there nice homes with a fridge full of food.

 

[Obadiah]

Its a big problem in this world in general, people get left behind with no care. The gov would rather spend 20 million on a flag debate when they say they care for the needy, and a church building will cry broke when all the members will go back to there nice homes with a fridge full of food.

Once again, nothing but a very judgemental and narrow minded anti-church statement.

 

[jasonc]

Its a big problem in this world in general, people get left behind with no care. The gov would rather spend 20 million on a flag debate when they say they care for the needy, and a church building will cry broke when all the members will go back to there nice homes with a fridge full of food.

I think when I read gifford again .I will post all those nice homes next to the churches.

 

[Corn Pop]

Once again, nothing but a very judgemental and narrow minded anti-church statement.

Not really, it can go the other way as well, a filthy rich church where the members are broke. I dont take sides.

 

[Obadiah]

Not really, it can go the other way as well, a filthy rich church where the members are broke. I dont take sides.

Very well. Name 3. (With evidence, of course, of the financial situation of those 3 churches and the financial situation of all of their members.)

 

[Corn Pop]

Very well. Name 3. (With evidence, of course, of the financial situation of those 3 churches and the financial situation of all of their members.)

That would be unfair on other churches as not all churches are run the same, and I do believe there are good churches out there.

I admit to my errors of generalising when I say 'all', i should say 'some'.

So instead of picking out the negative I will shut up. But its a guess that mega churches would have a few poor members in the mix.

 

[Corn Pop]

Until you show me the scripture that condemns a church congregation for meeting in a building or a command that they may only meet in a private house or outside in the elements, it's not the truth. It's only your opinion and your personal preference. In that case, yes, you are acting as the judge and you are condemning.

The only people who think this are ignorant indeed and irresponsible for not asking what the church spends the money on. No one in their right mind will assume the church has no costs and everything they donate will go to what you call "the needy" Even if they meet in a house, who pays for the house? Do you really think that house appeared out of nowhere for free? Why do you unfairly saddle one person with all the expense?


Once again, your judgemental opinion only. By the way, there is no scripture stating the only purpose for the church is to be a charity giving handouts to all the world's needy. That is very unrealistic and very narrow minded. Read your Bible. The church is much more than a charity for outsiders!

Why do you think im ignorant and irrisponsible?

If people already live in houses and pay the bills as nothing is free, why spend money running a second house when the donations could go to needy causes?, and if that second house is really a need and not a want. Thats all I was talking about, I never wanted to get deeper in the subject.

And sure there is no limit how many believers can or cannot meet and get together in fellowship and prayer.

 

[Obadiah]

Why do you think im ignorant and irrisponsible?

If people already live in houses and pay the bills as nothing is free, why spend money running a second house when the donations could go to needy causes?...

Very well then, lets be fair. All the church members pool some money to share the cost of the house they meet in. As I said, why should one person bear the entire burden so that he can't help the needy (Since you claim this is the only thing they should spend money on.)

Oh, wait, that would mean they now are paying for a building, and you say they can't do that.

...And sure there is no limit how many believers can or cannot meet and get together in fellowship and prayer.

Ok then, there's no limit. So the average size of a church congregation in the United States is over 100 people. (http://www.uscongregations.org/blog...congregations-by-faith-group-part-1-20082009/) How many people do you know that are rich enough to own a house big enough to hold even just the average size congregation in the United States, much less a larger one? Only the very rich own a home that could hold that many people. So you just effectively either limited the number of people that are allowed to fellowship together by limiting the size of the building where they meet, or you limited churches to only meeting in very rich neighborhoods, which just excluded most of the needy people you are so worried about. Neither of these is proper or scriptural.

Not to mention you've never addressed the problem of zoning code violations. Holding church services in an area zoned as residential is illegal unless a variance is obtained, and they aren't going to issue a variance to a normal house unless the owner makes so many changes that he ends up with... a church building. People have been charged and convicted of this very thing. Most home churches get away with it because they are so small, so few, and so far between that they don't catch the eye of the government. But some have been convicted. So must I assume you are OK with breaking the laws? There's no way around it. That's not proper or scriptural either.

Why do you think im ignorant and irrisponsible?

Because of the uninformed and impractical rigid stances you are taking in threads like this.

 

[Obadiah]

Zoning code violations?. I had never heard of it until you explained it. Is it illegal for someone to invite a few friends over to there house for BBQ or bithday party?, thats a bit sad if its true. I had no idea its illegal for people to get together where you live and only a certain amount of people are allowed in your house. I thought under the religious freedom act people can practice there faith in peace and private.

Getting back to no limit fellowship, although its a different situation it has wisdom to it, what did Moses do when it got to much for him so many people having a winge?, he divided the work, yet the people were still one, they didnt all then have to go directly to Moses having a rant at the same time.

So similar for church, although there is no limit how many can get together in one place, they dont need to all be in the same place at once all at the same time.

I used to be a real estate agent and helped churches buy and sell property, so I learned a lot about related zoning and building code laws. I know of nothing called a "religous freedom act" that allows people to violate zoning or building code laws in the name of religion.

Having a few friends over for a BBQ or birthday party isn't the subject of this conversation. Having people for regularly scheduled church services and collecting money is a lot different in the eyes of the law. That's rightly considered "holding religious services" and requires the place where it takes place to be either in a certain type of commercial zone or a special class of zoning for religious activities. This is not legal in a "residential" zone. A lot of church building are located in residential zones, but they have been issued what is called a "variance" allowing them to "vary" from the zoning regulation in certain well defined ways. These well defined ways will differ from county to county, but some of the common ones are that they are subject to requirements such as having sufficient space on the property for parking all the cars so that their neighbors aren't regularly deprived of street parking. (Remember, the average size of an American church congregation is over 100 people!) There will be special requirements for the building itself, such as gender specific restroom facilities (and enough of them for the number of people in attendance), approved handicapped access to everything, even including upper floors so either an elevator or a massive wheel chair ramp must be built if there is a second floor or a basement (the American's with Disabilities Act that dictates this is a very powerful law!), approved fire exits, much different (and much more expensive) insurance, etc, etc. There will be restrictions on the use of the building too. For example, you can't turn it into a manufacturing facility during the week (disturbing the neighborhood with truck traffic, employee traffic, machinery noise, etc) even if the profits are being used as charity for the needy as part of the church's ministry. You can't divide up the basement or 2nd floor into apartments and rent them out to poor people as low income housing therefore putting an unexpected burden on the neighborhood's utilities even if housing the poor is part of the church's ministry. Depending on the specific local regulations the list can go on and on. A private home simply isn't going to be able to qualify. In fact, one of the requirements of the variance is usually that no one uses the property as a home at all unless there is a separate "parsonage" that is only used for that purpose. This may or may not be allowed depending on the specific location. Every location is individually analyzed to come up with the specific requirements of their particular variance.

Sure, you could limit the size to just a few people, but how do you pick and choose who to kick out? You could hide from the law, trying to claim you are just having some friends over, but the government knows better and if you push it you will find yourself with huge fines more fitting to a corporation than a homeowner! A guy down in the San Diego area found this out not too long ago. And none of these methods are Biblical or proper anyway. Most homeowners conducting regular church services in their homes are ignorant of all this (or they know and don't care as long as they don't get caught) but all it takes is one disgruntled neighbor to turn them in and they will have the county inspectors and code enforcement officer breathing down their necks.

These are just some of the legal reasons most church congregations meet in a non-residential building of some type. It may not be specifically built as a "church", and it may only be rented for a few hours on Sunday morning, but it will not be just someone's home unless that congregation doesn't have a problem with breaking the law nor with the bad testimony they give to their neighbors by breaking those laws that are in place to protect those neighbors.

One of the biggest reasons you don't hear about home churches getting in trouble with the law very often is that most of them don't last long enough for attention to be drawn to them and for legal action to be taken. They either fail or they grow too big and move into a non-residential building. And others have just been lucky so far or are in rare homes that are outside of zoned areas but still close enough to population centers to be effective.

Edit: I'm glad I've learned to always quote your posts for posterity when I respond to them because I see you are still making a regular habit of deleting most of your posts, as you did with this one.

 

[Corn Pop]

I think we are on totally different levels.

If 1000 people are friends and each week they all go to each others houses each week, John and 5 others are at Peters house and Paul is at Matthews and Luke is at Marks, that is not against the law.

And if I want to invite different friends to my house for catch up and fellowship each week, its not against the law, well not that I know of anyhow.

And I have no idea what you mean about money being tossed around, there is no such thing as a collection plate or even being considered a church. People do there alms and donate in there own time in there own privacy and thats between them and God. Maybe when John left on his way home he seen and bought a poor man some mcdonald or seen a cold man amd gave him his coat, I dont know.

I believe a church is a individual believer, in Christ, who makes the body that is scattered worldwide, and even there is no limit how many can come together in fellowship, knowone also needs to all be at the same place at the same time. I dont think there is any stadium in the world that can fit 2 billion people.

 

[Obadiah]

I think we are on totally different levels.

If 1000 people are friends and each week they all go to each others houses each week, John and 5 others are at Peters house and Paul is at Matthews and Luke is at Marks, that is not against the law.

And if I want to invite different friends to my house for catch up and fellowship each week, its not against the law, well not that I know of anyhow.

And I have no idea what you mean about money being tossed around, there is no such thing as a collection plate or even being considered a church. People do there alms and donate in there own time in there own privacy and thats between them and God. Maybe when John left on his way home he seen and bought a poor man some mcdonald, I dont know.

I believe a church is a individual believer, in Christ, who makes the body that is scattered worldwide.

I f you have a congregation of 1000 people you are not going to be meeting with only two or three at a time. That's just not going to be happening unless you are talking about hundreds of different unrelated home churches, which isn't what you are talking about.

I never said anything about "money being tossed around", that's an intentional misquote to defame. I said "Having people for regularly scheduled church services and collecting money..." That's completely different than what you are misrepresenting me as saying. You yourself talk about it being proper for a church to use it's money to help the needy. How is a church to get this money from it's people if it doesn't collect it? This is pretty basic common sense stuff to most people. And it is also one of the things that tells the government you are holding a church service and not just an occasional party. (Collecting money from people to attend a party is also illegal in most if not all places too, unless you are licensed and permitted to do so.)

If you are meeting and worshiping together as a church, you are conducting a church service even if you don't want to call it that. It doesn't matter to the authorities what you call it. If you say that you are just a couple of friends having a barbecue, you are lying. You may not see it that way, but the law does. I think we've pretty well established that you have no problem with using subterfuge to skirt around the law and you have no worries about what kind of testimony that presents to outsiders or before God as long as it helps you promote your idea of what you prefer a church to look like, realistic or not. That basically answers one of my original questions to you. With that answer in place, I think I'll head off to bed for the night.

Good night.

 

[Corn Pop]

I f you have a congregation of 1000 people you are not going to be meeting with only two or three at a time. That's just not going to be happening unless you are talking about hundreds of different unrelated home churches, which isn't what you are talking about.

I never said anything about "money being tossed around", that's an intentional misquote to defame. I said "Having people for regularly scheduled church services and collecting money..." That's completely different than what you are misrepresenting me as saying. You yourself talk about it being proper for a church to use it's money to help the needy. How is a church to get this money from it's people if it doesn't collect it? This is pretty basic common sense stuff to most people. And it is also one of the things that tells the government you are holding a church service and not just an occasional party. (Collecting money from people to attend a party is also illegal in most if not all places too, unless you are licensed and permitted to do so.)

If you are meeting and worshiping together as a church, you are conducting a church service even if you don't want to call it that. It doesn't matter to the authorities what you call it. If you say that you are just a couple of friends having a barbecue, you are lying. You may not see it that way, but the law does. I think we've pretty well established that you have no problem with using subterfuge to skirt around the law and you have no worries about what kind of testimony that presents to outsiders or before God as long as it helps you promote your idea of what you prefer a church to look like, realistic or not. That basically answers one of my original questions to you. With that answer in place, I think I'll head off to bed for the night.

Good night.

And you live in a different nation than me, so maybe its just we have different laws that is causing this.

All I know is that if I go to a friends house its not against the law to talk about God or sing and play music, and I dont give my friend any money, so dont accuse me of lying to try get around a law that probably does not even exist where I live.

So is everyone here breaking the law having fellowship and talking about God on this forum?

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Kiwidan stop for a second. Look over the conversation from beginning to end. From the start, the conversation on your part was that churches are like money making machines. And moved on that they aren't bibical, are not nessassery, even hinted that they are against the laws or teaching in the bible. You also said about all that was needed was to meet in eachother's homes.Around the same time Obadiah, responded with a sentiment that churches are not just for giving to the needy, they serve many purposes and give good functions for Christians. He also said that those who strengthen their faith with church, or without it are great for both types of people, and he challenged and disagreed with the idea that there was anything wrong, unlawful, or unbiblical to have a church.

From there the conversation escalated. The need for meeting at eachother's homes, or the condemning of meeting in churches from your perspective is met with the zoning laws and the population per meeting place issues brought up by Obadiah. That portion of the conversation escalated a few times before moving on.

And now at this point, after all the escalating of your views and counterpoints against Obadiah's views and counterpoints. We've moved past (way past) the original tangent of this conversation from small group gatherings at homes verses wasting money at churches, to church services and functions not fitting in the setting of a person's home and small gatherings that mimic church services are actually against the law.

If my observations are correct, your anger or disgust at churches, along with defensive stances to counter points has escalated the conversation to a point where it is now.

Looking back Rollo Tamasi, made a very good point.

Regardless of what people think about church organizations, they do provide things that Christians need.
Fellowship
Bible Study
Ministries to serve God
Opportunities to share the gifts God has given to you with others

We can't just dwell on the negative and then throw the whole system away.
The best thing to do is get involved and quietly try to serve God without causing trouble.
Stop looking at others
Look at what you are doing to please God.
Someone out there needs a word from each one of us.
Will they ever hear it?

4 things that are provided by church orginizations that are much harder to orginize at a single person's home. Even if a person finds ways to do some of those on their own, it is much harder to plan and orginize it expecially for larger groups of Christians.

Sorry for being harsh at this point, but stop trying to defend your points to take a second to acknowledge the other points within the conversation. They aren't bad points made and have merit to them. And they don't say you can't meet in a small group setting, but at least with the laws known you can't meet in a privite residence and also do all the other functions that happen in a church, such as house a high number of people in the home, give church services, or collect money for the needy. (The last point about collecting money for the needy was one of your main points against churches earlier on because they didn't give all the money they received to charities. If that's out of the loop to do at home gathering, then church charities are as well.)

Again, sorry for siding on the other side of your views on this one. Please don't delete them because of it. But please also take the points and counter points given to you into consideration.

 

[Corn Pop]

Kiwidan stop for a second. Look over the conversation from beginning to end. From the start, the conversation on your part was that churches are like money making machines. And moved on that they aren't bibical, are not nessassery, even hinted that they are against the laws or teaching in the bible. You also said about all that was needed was to meet in eachother's homes.Around the same time Obadiah, responded with a sentiment that churches are not just for giving to the needy, they serve many purposes and give good functions for Christians. He also said that those who strengthen their faith with church, or without it are great for both types of people, and he challenged and disagreed with the idea that there was anything wrong, unlawful, or unbiblical to have a church.

From there the conversation escalated. The need for meeting at eachother's homes, or the condemning of meeting in churches from your perspective is met with the zoning laws and the population per meeting place issues brought up by Obadiah. That portion of the conversation escalated a few times before moving on.

And now at this point, after all the escalating of your views and counterpoints against Obadiah's views and counterpoints. We've moved past (way past) the original tangent of this conversation from small group gatherings at homes verses wasting money at churches, to church services and functions not fitting in the setting of a person's home and small gatherings that mimic church services are actually against the law.

If my observations are correct, your anger or disgust at churches, along with defensive stances to counter points has escalated the conversation to a point where it is now.

Looking back Rollo Tamasi, made a very good point.



4 things that are provided by church orginizations that are much harder to orginize at a single person's home. Even if a person finds ways to do some of those on their own, it is much harder to plan and orginize it expecially for larger groups of Christians.

Sorry for being harsh at this point, but stop trying to defend your points to take a second to acknowledge the other points within the conversation. They aren't bad points made and have merit to them. And they don't say you can't meet in a small group setting, but at least with the laws known you can't meet in a privite residence and also do all the other functions that happen in a church, such as house a high number of people in the home, give church services, or collect money for the needy. (The last point about collecting money for the needy was one of your main points against churches earlier on because they didn't give all the money they received to charities. If that's out of the loop to do at home gathering, then church charities are as well.)

Again, sorry for siding on the other side of your views on this one. Please don't delete them because of it. But please also take the points and counter points given to you into consideration.

I admit i did get ahead of myself and carried in without really thinking or taking other peoples points into consideration. I appologise and admit my posts are a complete mess from getting ahead of myself and boasting to much. I humble myself and appologise to everyone who reads this thread for the mess I have created.

And just to let everyone know, im not in disgust or angry, I just got ahead of myself without listening to others, but I understand if others are upset or angry with me so I appologise.

Thank you for your post, I have not been reasonable.

 

[Angel]

Maybe im simple in saying this, but doesn't all money belong to God anyway?

 

[Angel]

This might interest a few of you.

http://www.crown.org/

Maybe off subject but it came to mind. My parents are councelors for this organization.

 

[JohnDB]

Maybe im simple in saying this, but doesn't all money belong to God anyway?

Because I am God's slave everything I am, have been, and will be belongs to God. I am a well cared for slave.
We regularly set aside a large portion of every paycheck to give away. It's God's money... Not ours. It goes wherever there is a need or request.
When we give it to a church, just because the stewardship may change hands the ownership does not. Kinda like a bank.

Jesus paid a Temple tax....a "user fee" at the Temple... Even though He was truly exempt. But he didn't want to offend on this subject (He had offended them on most other subjects) so he sent Peter off fishing.
Now notice that Jesus said that the first one would have the coin....not the others. I always wondered how long Peter fished that day and how many he caught before he quit.

But something to note....
When Judas threw the money back at the Temple the officials couldn't put the money back in the Treasury because it was "blood money". They didn't want to dirty up God's clean money. Because they at least had that much respect... Maybe misguided but respect just the same.