The reason I started this thread is because in my opinion Roman Catholics, especially Roman Catholic Priests and Seminarians revert at a higher rate than any other Christian Denomination.
I will answer for myself as to why it was so easy for me to revert (although it took me a long time). It is because I believe Roman Catholicism to be the oldest Christian Denomination and is still the closest to what Christianity was supposed to be.
There are no prayers, practices or beliefs in Islam that a Roman Catholic would find to be strange or Alien. A Roman Catholic finds everything in Islam to be very familiar and not significantly different from what a practicing Roman Catholic does.
For a Roman Catholic to revert requires no changes of life style, it is a return to what a person was supposed to have been doing if they were a Practicing Roman Catholic. A Roman Catholic is well prepared to enter Islam, once they realize that what Islam teaches is inline with what Roman Catholicism originally taught. It only became separated from Islamic practices when the frills and rituals had been added by Popes and refomists.
I believe the more a Roman Catholic learns about Roman Catholicism the more receptive he becomes to Islam. This may be why it is so common for Priests and Seminarians to revert.
Did u read holy Quran ? What's your main doubt / objection about it ?
I pray that God will help you to find out the truth .
I am reading it right now. It is beautiful! But you have to understand, it is very difficult for me to believe Catholicism is false. I had a very strong faith until a few days ago.
Thank you for your prayers! I need them!
I am reading it right now. It is beautiful! But you have to understand, it is very difficult for me to believe Catholicism is false. I had a very strong faith until a few days ago.
Thank you for your prayers! I need them!
You always had strong faith? I always thought faith was a rollercoaster, where you have bursts of strong faith and then bursts of weak faith (and the latter only really exists to strengthen your faith in the long run).
You always had strong faith? I always thought faith was a rollercoaster, where you have bursts of strong faith and then bursts of weak faith (and the latter only really exists to strengthen your faith in the long run).
Of course not, there have been times when I doubted things but this time in my life I was as firm a Catholic as I could be. But Islam is challenging my faith. In the "discover Islam" forum I posted a few examples of why under "Jesus/Catholicism".
May be u would like to read some related stories .
These are a few of the creeds of Catholicism that I had always found difficult:
The Christian clergy of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, etc. Why do we need a hierarchy? Could a religion operate without one?
Divinity of Christ. Did he actually claim divinity? What was that first commandment again?
Doctrine of the Trinity. Sorry, I just don't get it. Anyway, some prominent Christian leaders now openly doubt it, as do some Christian sects, for example, the Unitarians.
Church statues. Idols are breakable. Anyway, what was that second commandment again?
Infallibility of the Pope. But he did make errors, for example when condemning Copernicus for saying the Earth revolved around the sun.
Original sin. A newborn baby has inherent sin and needs forgiveness (baptism)? Again, somehow difficult to understand.
Worshiping "saints." Do we need an agent to reach God?
Transubstantiation. Where bread and wine are transformed (literally) into the flesh and blood of Christ during the Mass. Are there elements of paganism here?
Christ died on the cross for the "sins of the world." If Christ died for our sins in advance, then why bother trying to be good? Anyway, did he really claim this?
there was a change of Pope. Pope Pius XXII died in 1958 and Pope John XXIII was elected as his successor.
Catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible (incapable of being wrong) and yet, rules are often changed/updated by new Popes. It seemed illogical to me that some things had to be changed if the previous Pope was incapable of making a mistake. In the 14th and 15th centuries there was a period when there were two Popes, one in France and one in Rome. Each of the Popes excommunicated and constantly ruled against one another. For a very short time there were even three Popes. How could two or even three Popes, be infallible if they constantly ruled against one another? The more I learned, the more unsettled I became. I questioned everything; after all, if something is true, it should be easy to explain. The teachers grew more frustrated with my questions and ended up beating me with canes because they could not give me proper answers. Repeatedly, I was told I just had to have faith.
The Christian clergy of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, etc. Why do we need a hierarchy? Could a religion operate without one?
ORGANIZED religion, Muslim Woman. The clue's in the name; it's an organization, with a hierachy.
Church statues. Idols are breakable. Anyway, what was that second commandment again?
I agree that idols aren't right, however, you should remember that Catholics don't worship idols.
Christ died on the cross for the "sins of the world." If Christ died for our sins in advance, then why bother trying to be good? Anyway, did he really claim this?
This is not just Catholicism, but Christianity in general: If we don't bother to do good, than we are taking Christ's sacrifice in vain. His sacrifice is not a 'get out of jail free card', and should not be interpreted as such; rather, it is expression of how far God is prepared to go to love and forgive human beings, who are all sinners in some way, that He is prepared to sacrifice His own Son and put the sins of the world on His son- so that, as opposed to the animal sacrifices to atone for our sins, we can look to Jesus to atone for our sins. Also, He did claim it, to quote one example:
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
(Matthew 26:27-29)
It's clear you have a lot of enquires in relation to not just Catholics, but Christians in general. Why not take your questions to the Questions for Christians thread?
Catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible (incapable of being wrong) and yet, rules are often changed/updated by new Popes.
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica][SIZE=2]It seemed illogical to me that some things had to be changed if the previous Pope was incapable of making a mistake.
But there is quite a difference between saying that popes are fallible and Christianity is untrue.
It isn't a pope that declares Jesus to have been crucified and raised again. Yet a Muslim would have to declare that none of those things ever happened.
It's clear you have a lot of enquires in relation to not just Catholics, but Christians in general. Why not take your questions to the Questions for Christians thread?
well , these are not my questions . I found these in an ex - Catholics story . Anyway to know about Catholics belief , I went to Catholic forum but now banned .
Christ will never be proud to reject to be a slave to God .....holy Quran, chapter Women , 4: 172
But there is quite a difference between saying that popes are fallible and Christianity is untrue..
It was the thinking of a Catholic ( ex ). But we ( Muslims ) do believe that Popes are fallible.
.
It isn't a pope that declares Jesus to have been crucified and raised again. Yet a Muslim would have to declare that none of those things ever happened.
because holy Quran says that Jesus pbuh did not die on the Cross. Does not matter what Popes think / say about this. Quran is the criteria for us to judge the matter.
Christ will never be proud to reject to be a slave to God .....holy Quran, chapter Women , 4: 172
But we ( Muslims ) do believe that Popes are fallible.
And many Christians would agree with that statement. They are called protestants. I'm saying that just because one questions the infallibility of the role of the papacy, one does not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and abandon faith in Jesus.
Likewise, just because one has some doubts about some of the things one has encountered in the behavior of some who go by the name Christian or a few specific aspects of the institutional church does not requite that a person walk away from faith in Jesus.
Therefore, I submit that those of us who have had a personal encounter of faith with the living Jesus are allowed to doubt some of the things we find in the institution of the church, it doesn't mean we have to live apart from Christ and cannot ourselves be part of the body of Christ, even as we search for the best fit with regard to in what congregation we will find the needed support for our faith walk.
because holy Quran says that Jesus pbuh did not die on the Cross. Does not matter what Popes think / say about this. Quran is the criteria for us to judge the matter.
And if indeed one can accept that statement from the Qur'an as true, it would be reason to abandon all Christian teaching which is founded on the reality and atoning value of Christ's sacrifice. For me, that such a testimony is found in the Qur'an is sufficient reason, even with the great love I have for Muslim people and the ethic of Islam, that I could never say the Shahadah. That line just doesn't ring true. But you're exactly right, it doesn't matter what Popes think/say about this. It only matters only whether or not one believes the Bible or the Qur'an to be true in reporting the death of Christ.
And many Christians would agree with that statement. They are called protestants. I'm saying that just because one questions the infallibility of the role of the papacy, one does not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and abandon faith in Jesus.
Likewise, just because one has some doubts about some of the things one has encountered in the behavior of some who go by the name Christian or a few specific aspects of the institutional church does not requite that a person walk away from faith in Jesus.
Therefore, I submit that those of us who have had a personal encounter of faith with the living Jesus are allowed to doubt some of the things we find in the institution of the church, it doesn't mean we have to live apart from Christ and cannot ourselves be part of the body of Christ, even as we search for the best fit with regard to in what congregation we will find the needed support for our faith walk.
And if indeed one can accept that statement from the Qur'an as true, it would be reason to abandon all Christian teaching which is founded on the reality and atoning value of Christ's sacrifice. For me, that such a testimony is found in the Qur'an is sufficient reason, even with the great love I have for Muslim people and the ethic of Islam, that I could never say the Shahadah. That line just doesn't ring true. But you're exactly right, it doesn't matter what Popes think/say about this. It only matters only whether or not one believes the Bible or the Qur'an to be true in reporting the death of Christ.
Peace Gene,
One of the most difficult concepts non-Christians have, is the Role of the Pope. Many if not most non-Christians are under the impression the Pope represents Christianity.
Needless to say your last paragraph pretty well sums up one of the biggest differences between us. Each of us has our reasons for believing as we do and it is doubtful we will come to any compromise over the Crucifixion
Catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible (incapable of being wrong) and yet, rules are often changed/updated by new Popes. .
.
. The teachers grew more frustrated with my questions and ended up beating me with canes because they could not give me proper answers. Repeatedly, I was told I just had to have faith.
Same reason why my wife reverted. I find that most catholics and christians have reverted because of this apparent clerical and pope divinity and infallibility claims that are never truly accepted wholeheartedly. Most for her was that to absolve the sins you need to confess to a priest, yet those priests were sometimes (and as shown recently in the paedophilia scandals) to be just as sinful if not worse than average people.
Why again would an infallible pope, proven fallible over and over again, along with his appointed sinful clergy, be the "agents" of God? That is the question that kept chipping away at my wife's heart, and the whole jazz routine crumbled when she read about Islam truthfully and understood the real story of Jesus and Moses and Mohammad -Salawatu Allahi Wasalamuhu AAlaihim-.
format_quote Originally Posted by Supreme
ORGANIZED religion, Muslim Woman. The clue's in the name; it's an organization, with a hierachy
That is precisely it though, catholics are quickly realizing that it goes against logic and reason as well as the commandments of Allah as well as the actual stories in the bible itself, to have the path of heaven locked in the hands of an organization. It is gaming the way to paradise that is falling against the wall of inner logic:
Jesus coming down in Jerusulum, from a jewish descendency and speaking Aramaic, yet the church speaks and prays in Latin, and gets based in a land far away out of the city where the biggest persecutions of christians were made, and ends up being led by European Popes claiming to be divine infallible agents.
That along with contradictions of Priests and clergy cannot marry or father children, yet to catholics Jesus is the son of God.
The fact that 95% of the religion is released after Jesus death, and includes fundamentals surrounding events brought about after the death, and the well-known massacre of gospels made at the beginning of the church, it is quite hard to continue having "faith".
Organized religion is nothing more than organizations wanting to profit out of people's natural need and desire to reach God, and the organization's tool is creating a need for them to be in the middle. Such are the fundamental reasons why all those churches are registered as profitable organizations, and that is how Islam stands separate from all these fabrications of men, and why I believe catholics are converting most of all christians, to Islam.
_____________________________________________
Iblis's eternal destination in the Hellfire is due to Arrogance, not Disbelief.
One of the most difficult concepts non-Christians have, is the Role of the Pope. Many if not most non-Christians are under the impression the Pope represents Christianity.
[QUOTE]
Pope should represent whole christianity as he represent one and only true Church, which saved unchangable moral teachings and theology. The first pope was apostle Peter. The role of catholic pope is a tradition blessed by God, otherwise Creator wouldn't allow of such long existence of papacy in Rome.
Last edited by Amadeus85; 03-10-2010 at 02:16 PM.
This country is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.
One of the most difficult concepts non-Christians have, is the Role of the Pope. Many if not most non-Christians are under the impression the Pope represents Christianity.
Pope should represent whole christianity as he represent one and only true Church, which saved unchangable moral teachings and theology. The first pope was apostle Peter. The role of catholic pope is a tradition blessed by God, otherwise Creator wouldn't allow of such long existence of papacy in Rome.
I ask those who read Amadeus to respect and acknowledge his view as that which represents the Catholic Church. As a non-Catholic Christian I would ask you to respect and acknowledge that it does not represent the view of every Christian.
Organized religion is nothing more than organizations wanting to profit out of people's natural need and desire to reach God, and the organization's tool is creating a need for them to be in the middle. Such are the fundamental reasons why all those churches are registered as profitable organizations, and that is how Islam stands separate from all these fabrications of men, and why I believe catholics are converting most of all christians, to Islam.
A few different things:
1) You've asserted that you believe "catholics are converting most of all christians, to Islam." I encourage you to read my post #33 on page 3.
2) You've stated "churches are registered as profitable organizations." I'm not aware of this being true. Those churches for which I am aware of their status are registered a non-profit organizations.
3) You also claim, "Organized religion is nothing more than organizations wanting to profit out of people's natural need and desire to reach God." The reality is that there are many forms of organized religion and probably as many reasons for it as their are forms. No doubt, some have done so for the purpose of making a profit. But equally undoubtable is that not all have organized for that reason. And though you try to imply otherwise, even Islam is organized: it has organized Jurisprudence; it's major division into Sunni and Shi'ite have to do with authority and this translates to organizational issues; and the administration of the Caliphate is a prime example of organized religion. But I do understand what you mean in saying that the Ummah is not organized. That the existance of organized Islamic congregations that build mosques and have registered status with their respective governments is not the same as saying that all of Islam is organized. Yet, this would be true of every religion of which I can think. Certainly this is true with respect to Christianity. Though I am the pastor of an organized congregation and we are affiliated with other congregations through our denominational organization. Our connection with other congregations outside of our denomination and with Christendom as a whole is decidedly unorganized, for no such organization exists. As such, I think your criticism of organized religion in general, and the implied critique of organized Christianity in particular is misplaced and unfounded.
That is precisely it though, catholics are quickly realizing that it goes against logic and reason as well as the commandments of Allah as well as the actual stories in the bible itself, to have the path of heaven locked in the hands of an organization. It is gaming the way to paradise that is falling against the wall of inner logic:
Jesus coming down in Jerusulum, from a jewish descendency and speaking Aramaic, yet the church speaks and prays in Latin, and gets based in a land far away out of the city where the biggest persecutions of christians were made, and ends up being led by European Popes claiming to be divine infallible agents.
That along with contradictions of Priests and clergy cannot marry or father children, yet to catholics Jesus is the son of God.
The fact that 95% of the religion is released after Jesus death, and includes fundamentals surrounding events brought about after the death, and the well-known massacre of gospels made at the beginning of the church, it is quite hard to continue having "faith".
Organized religion is nothing more than organizations wanting to profit out of people's natural need and desire to reach God, and the organization's tool is creating a need for them to be in the middle. Such are the fundamental reasons why all those churches are registered as profitable organizations, and that is how Islam stands separate from all these fabrications of men, and why I believe catholics are converting most of all christians, to Islam.
I don't know, I've considered converting to Catholicism before. The infallibility and organizational structure of it all just made it all the more appealing to me. Which other organization can claim a billion members? Not many, that's for sure.
May be u would like to read some related stories .
These are a few of the creeds of Catholicism that I had always found difficult:
The Christian clergy of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, etc. Why do we need a hierarchy? Could a religion operate without one?
Divinity of Christ. Did he actually claim divinity? What was that first commandment again?
Doctrine of the Trinity. Sorry, I just don't get it. Anyway, some prominent Christian leaders now openly doubt it, as do some Christian sects, for example, the Unitarians.
Church statues. Idols are breakable. Anyway, what was that second commandment again?
Infallibility of the Pope. But he did make errors, for example when condemning Copernicus for saying the Earth revolved around the sun.
Original sin. A newborn baby has inherent sin and needs forgiveness (baptism)? Again, somehow difficult to understand.
Worshiping "saints." Do we need an agent to reach God?
Transubstantiation. Where bread and wine are transformed (literally) into the flesh and blood of Christ during the Mass. Are there elements of paganism here?
Christ died on the cross for the "sins of the world." If Christ died for our sins in advance, then why bother trying to be good? Anyway, did he really claim this?
there was a change of Pope. Pope Pius XXII died in 1958 and Pope John XXIII was elected as his successor.
Catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible (incapable of being wrong) and yet, rules are often changed/updated by new Popes. It seemed illogical to me that some things had to be changed if the previous Pope was incapable of making a mistake. In the 14th and 15th centuries there was a period when there were two Popes, one in France and one in Rome. Each of the Popes excommunicated and constantly ruled against one another. For a very short time there were even three Popes. How could two or even three Popes, be infallible if they constantly ruled against one another? The more I learned, the more unsettled I became. I questioned everything; after all, if something is true, it should be easy to explain. The teachers grew more frustrated with my questions and ended up beating me with canes because they could not give me proper answers. Repeatedly, I was told I just had to have faith.
You are confusing Infallibility of the Papal Office with Impecibility which would mean the pope was perfect. The Pope is only considered Infallible when he speaks on Faith and Morals and speaks Ex Cathedra(From the Chair of Peter) by a formal declaration. Such as The Immaculate Conception and Assumption Dogmas. He is also infallible when he teaches what has always and everywhere been taught by the Church such as that Women cannot be priests. The last Infallibility is assigned when the Magesterium in Union with the Pope makes a solem declaration on faith or morals. Popes have never been thought to be infallible in all they do or say. This is a case of people opposing what they think the Church teaches.
A few different things:
1) You've asserted that you believe "catholics are converting most of all christians, to Islam." I encourage you to read my post #33 on page 3.
Thanks. Like you said though in the post, the list of countries are strictly European and Western so there is a bias. Not only that, but their sample size taken (480 out of 70,000) is suggesting muslims were 0.6% of the European and American population, when it is actually 10 times that on average in Europe and 4 times in America and Australia. So it's already flawed.
I see also more than just a bias though, because the study was addressing the number of conversions out of catholicism to whatever denominations, not the number of christians converting to Islam and how many of those christians were catholics.
2) You've stated "churches are registered as profitable organizations." I'm not aware of this being true. Those churches for which I am aware of their status are registered a non-profit organizations.
Catholic was primarily land and money, so much so that they established the separate state of the vatican just to maintain their autonomy and their funds away from any european turmoil, with swiss guards (and bankers )) helping out. Yes, maybe the English and Lutheran churches were based in the beginning on reasons other than immediate profit and domination, but I was speaking today in terms of the churches as organizations: They are established in the United States as tax-exempt institutions, with non-profit offshoot foundations that support charities, but primarily earn and maintain positive income:
"Church Budgets and Income Current research data on churches by John C. LaRue, Jr. | posted 9/01/2000
1 of 1
As a church deacon and ministry executive, I understand the challenge and the faith that goes into projecting income and planning expenses for a church. Since the majority of churches will be preparing next year's budget in the fall, Your Church offers this study data on church finances. Find out how your own congregation compares.
Sources of Income
The typical church counts on tithes and offerings for 93 percent of its budget. Investments (2%), revenue from programs and ministries (1%), and other sources (3%) account for the remainder of a typical church's income. Churches with budgets greater than $500,000 depend less on tithes and offerings (87% of income) than the average church, and more on revenue from programs and ministries (5%) and other sources (6%).
Buy the rest of this article and get the complete results of the Church Research Report. Download Here.
John C. LaRue, Jr., is vice president of Christianity Online for Christianity Today, International, in Carol Stream, Illinois."
3) You also claim, "Organized religion is nothing more than organizations wanting to profit out of people's natural need and desire to reach God." The reality is that there are many forms of organized religion and probably as many reasons for it as their are forms.
I understand what you mean but I hold on to my position. Churches by design claim to be "agents" of God and wish to stand in between the people and the creator, and are run as a business with money flowing in needing to be more than money flowing out. Some are outrageous in demanding 10 or 20% out of their member's income as a tithe, some are more subtle and civilized in that they ask for or encourage donations, but they all run on that basis of budgets and income, and would point it out in sermons if the collection plate come back kind of light. Just because the church pastor asks for "donations" in the service, does not mean that the money are all going to charities. They go into the church funds, and these funds need to be in the black.
_____________________________________________
Iblis's eternal destination in the Hellfire is due to Arrogance, not Disbelief.
I understand what you mean but I hold on to my position. Churches by design claim to be "agents" of God and wish to stand in between the people and the creator, and are run as a business with money flowing in needing to be more than money flowing out. Some are outrageous in demanding 10 or 20% out of their member's income as a tithe, some are more subtle and civilized in that they ask for or encourage donations, but they all run on that basis of budgets and income, and would point it out in sermons if the collection plate come back kind of light. Just because the church pastor asks for "donations" in the service, does not mean that the money are all going to charities. They go into the church funds, and these funds need to be in the black.
I'm not arguing with the process you have given. That's exactly where my income comes from as well. It certainly does not all go to other charities beyond the church. Of course, I would submit the what people receive for their donations are intangible religious services. And that they give to be sure that the church is able to continue to offer those specific religious services: a building in which to meet; a pastor who will deliver a sermon and visit them; a program to educate their children in the faith; a soup kitchen to feed the hungry of the community; utilities so that there is light, water, and heat when they gather for service; etc...
But mosques have similar expenses. And like churches they have their process to be sure they are able to meet them. One may or not pay for staff (though I'm sure most work in both is done by volunteers), and the way donations are received might be the passing of the plate in one and soliciting through letters and other means in the other, but I fail to see any significant difference between them enough to make the statement you did earilier.
Organized religion is nothing more than organizations wanting to profit out of people's natural need and desire to reach God, and the organization's tool is creating a need for them to be in the middle. Such are the fundamental reasons why all those churches are registered as profitable** organizations, and that is how Islam stands separate from all these fabrications of men...
**Also, do you really mean to say "profitable"? No one has to register as "profitable". Churches register as "non-profit organizations" (in the USA, as 501.c3 organizations), and the term "non-profit" would also make more sense to the point of your argument.
^In a masjid no one takes an income to give sermons or cook and provide food, everything is voluntary and for Allah.
In fact a mosque will usually have two donation boxes for people to choose from, one is called 'sadaqah' which is purely charity for others and another called 'lillah' which is donations to help run the mosque.
I don't understand how anyone can take an income from donations to do work for god
Last edited by aadil77; 03-11-2010 at 03:03 PM.
He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. [Quran {33:43}] www.QuranicAudio.com www.Quran.com
But mosques have similar expenses. And like churches they have their process to be sure they are able to meet them.
They don't.
One may or not pay for staff (though I'm sure most work in both is done by volunteers), and the way donations are received might be the passing of the plate in one and soliciting through letters and other means in the other, but I fail to see any significant difference between them enough to make the statement you did earilier.
The differences are:
There is no such ownership or organization behind the mosque that collects the "expenses" and would ask people to donate to meet them. The masjid is built either by communal efforts, or on rulerhip funds as it should be under Islamic rule. A prayer leader who demands money for his services from the public muslims is not only unworthy of leading prayer, but as Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal explained it is not even allowed to accommodate one who does. The state or rulership are allowed to arrange salaries only to dedicated caretakers who may make the athan, lead the prayer, mind the cleanliness etc. No one demands donations neither by plate or letters or anyway. There is no bank account for the masjid, financial statements, or organizational affiliation (Even if some sects have resorted to that, it's a great deviation that reduces their status to that of a cult).
No Religious services are provided by the masjid. Some charitable libraries or islamic education centers or marriage registry may attach themselves to a masjid (especially in unislamic countries), but the masjid itself provides nothing more than a place where people pray. There are no religious services provided to start with. Scholars and lecturers might visit masjids to give lectures, but these are not services and none of them would expect to earn out of that money.
There is no claim of "intermediary" status claimed by a masjid. No masjid claims they have a cleric who absolves sins, baptizes, or blesses anyone.
**Also, do you really mean to say "profitable"? No one has to register as "profitable". Churches register as "non-profit organizations" (in the USA, as 501.c3 organizations), and the term "non-profit" would also make more sense to the point of your argument.
Churches ARE registered as tax-exempt institutions that can turn out a profit, just because branch chapels and foundations are registered as non-profit charities does not mean the organizational "Church" is. Church management is a business, and organizations behind them are using the money funneled to pay themselves along with the charities they support. They hold back funds, reinvest in businesses, and grow portfolios.
Catholic church is worth over 100 billion dollars (Pretty close to Microsoft, don't you think?) and is still piling on assets and money. Mormon church is crossing 10 billion dollars in annual income thanks to their tithing. European churches have went into set taxes out of its members and are reinvesting "surplus" money, and Protestant churches far and wide continue to collect money and funnel whatever is above the local chapter's budget to the organizational headquarters. In rural areas (like Kiribati, Micronesia) and other places some of the church members have given up more than half of their personal income to the church which was sent to the church HQ:
"CHURCH FINANCESThe one dominant issue of the Church is finance. It has caused deep concern in the K.P.C. since at least the early 1990's - but while in the 90's there was keen debate around the issue, by this year there seemed resignation, perplexity, or anger. There had been a debate, said Rev. Bureieta: "Are we a Church or are we a business?" Large sums of money flow from the island Churches into H.Q. in Antebuka, South Tarawa. On the basis of numerous discussions, I estimate that 60-70% of the total annual income of the local Churches flows into H.Q., and that local Church members give up 30-40% of their total annual income to sustain this. In one Church, members gave 50% of their personal income, in another 75%, and in a few cases 100% (many I-Kiribati onlyearn money for the benefit of the Church - their everyday existence requires no money at all)."
So yes church charity foundations and activities may be indeed non-profit, but church organizations are certainly not, and they can be registered and run like a trust or corporation. (Or do you think that Church of Scientology (I know it's not christian, but still a registered church) is run as a non-profit organization?)
Last edited by Sampharo; 03-11-2010 at 04:10 PM.
_____________________________________________
Iblis's eternal destination in the Hellfire is due to Arrogance, not Disbelief.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
)) helping out. Yes, maybe the English and Lutheran churches were based in the beginning on reasons other than immediate profit and domination, but I was speaking today in terms of the churches as organizations: They are established in the United States as tax-exempt institutions, with non-profit offshoot foundations that support charities, but primarily earn and maintain positive income:
1 of 1 
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks