Is It YOUR Church?

[Red Wolf]

I hear Christians refer to ""THEIR CHURCH""""
But who really owns YOUR Church? Who owns the deed? Whose name is on the bank accounts?

You probably put money in the basket to support the Church.....but it really is not yours...you are just another customer.

If all the church goers move away and the building is sold, ....who gets the proceeds?

What can be done to correct this inequity?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Red Wolf]

Why is it inequitable?

Be aware, when you hand over money to anyone or any organisation it may not be used as you intended. But if you are aware and hand over the money freely - what of it?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Red Wolf]

If someone refers to YOUR Father does that mean you own your father?

Biblically "church" refers to the people not the building, and certainly not money or bills*. The Christian brotherhood would still exist if everyone met under a tree in a field and had no money at all. And the head of the True "church" is Christ. We belong to Christ, he in turn belongs to God so we all, belong to God in the sense that we are dedicated to him. Personally I refer to my/our religion as in the religion to which I belong (ie which I am a part of), not the religion which I founded or own. (Someone might use the " MY" in a similar sense when they say "MY" COUNTRY" (wouldnt refer to refer to "my" organization but I might say our organization in the same sense).

I am part of a brotherhood that belongs to God; they are my family, my people not because I own them but because we are all dedicated to the same Father.

* In the present world money is necessary to pay for expenses, as one of Jehovahs Witnesses we view any monetary contributions as dedicated to our God and are happy for them to be used to pay necessary expenses.

[Menotu]

I hear Christians refer to ""THEIR CHURCH""""
But who really owns YOUR Church? Who owns the deed? Whose name is on the bank accounts?

You probably put money in the basket to support the Church.....but it really is not yours...you are just another customer.

If all the church goers move away and the building is sold, ....who gets the proceeds?

What can be done to correct this inequity?

Seems, like with so many things 'Christian', there are multiple definitions to the word 'church'. In this case, at least 2
So many (Christian and not) think the only definition for 'church' is a building. There's the building and the group of people (for lack of a better term). So even if the building burns to the ground (the church), people still have their church ('the church').

That said, the building - the organization and the money it brings in - should be taxed (IMO) if they use their 'church' to influence politics that effect everyone within the society and don't use 100% of their proceeds to benefit societal causes.

[onewithhim]

I hear Christians refer to ""THEIR CHURCH""""
But who really owns YOUR Church? Who owns the deed? Whose name is on the bank accounts?

You probably put money in the basket to support the Church.....but it really is not yours...you are just another customer.

If all the church goers move away and the building is sold, ....who gets the proceeds?

What can be done to correct this inequity?

Well, let's see. First, we don't pass a basket or a plate. There are donation slots around the Hall if anyone wants to donate. No one has to. All the donations are anonymous, unless one wants to donate by check, and then of course one's name is on it.

The Watchtower Society owns the buildings and has the bank accounts. Any sales proceeds go to the furtherance of the job that Jesus assigned us to do, which no other religion truly does---preaching about the Kingdom (a real government). Everything the WTS has is used for the preaching work, including the housing and feeding of those who are full-time proclaimers of the Kingdom, and the production of millions of books, Bibles, magazines & brochures and tracts. It is phenomenal what the brothers do with our money. And get this---each baptized member of Jehovah's Witnesses gives only what he can truly afford, not a tenth of his income, and then only if he chooses to. It was figured out in our congregation that if everyone gave $8.00 a month, the maintenance of the Kingdom Hall would be well taken care of, and we'd have money to send to the WTS for the world-wide work. I give $75 a month, and some don't give anything.

We don't feel that there is any "inequity." Accounts reports are read every month, and our records are open to any governmental authority. (This is unlike other churches.) We are happy to just hear that we are meeting our bills.

We don't have Bingo or bake sales or Peter's Pence. We don't have to worry about donating money to go toward the pay-off of people who have been molested by the clergy. No one even mentions a "tithe."

If you want to stir up trouble, go after the bastions of corruption and pain that insist on people giving their money (and large sums of it) and then not being open about where it is going. The tithe-grubbers and general money-suckers such as the Mormons, the assorted Protestant organizations, the RCC, and the Orthodox institutions are well-deserving of scrutiny.


.

[otseng]

The tithe-grubbers and general money-suckers such as the Mormons, the assorted Protestant organizations, the RCC, and the Orthodox institutions are well-deserving of scrutiny.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making negative generalized comments about other groups.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to C&A from TD&D.

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 5 by onewithhim]

While you make good points (I always wondered how Bingo is allowed but I don't know all the rules so..... )

The tithe-grubbers and general money-suckers such as the Mormons, the assorted Protestant organizations, the RCC, and the Orthodox institutions are well-deserving of scrutiny.

I would say all religions are deserving of scrutiny on all different levels. When one group tells another they need to live a certain way, vote a certain way, live a certain way, interact within a society that doesn't believe as they do, etc, that itself opens them up to scrutiny, which isn't always a bad thing.

[onewithhim]

The tithe-grubbers and general money-suckers such as the Mormons, the assorted Protestant organizations, the RCC, and the Orthodox institutions are well-deserving of scrutiny.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making negative generalized comments about other groups.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

OOPS! Completely forgot myself.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 5 by onewithhim]

While you make good points (I always wondered how Bingo is allowed but I don't know all the rules so..... )

The tithe-grubbers and general money-suckers such as the Mormons, the assorted Protestant organizations, the RCC, and the Orthodox institutions are well-deserving of scrutiny.

I would say all religions are deserving of scrutiny on all different levels. When one group tells another they need to live a certain way, vote a certain way, live a certain way, interact within a society that doesn't believe as they do, etc, that itself opens them up to scrutiny, which isn't always a bad thing.

I agree. Then the religions that are doing all kinds of devious things with their money would have to pay taxes, and the ones that are up=front about what they do and are not involved in politics, for example, could be tax-free.


The Vatican cannot be called to account for anything because Mussolini made it a legal state, independent of Rome. I don't understand why Rome cannot now reverse Mussolini's grant to the Vatican, and make them accountable to it once again.



.