Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should We Fine Churches?

Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?
tarantula
Posts: 858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 9:19:19 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Now that is an interesting thought!
Looncall
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 9:31:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Absolutely.

What other business would get away with selling a product that you receive only when you are dead and that therefore they cannot demonstrate that you will ever receive at all?
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 9:33:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 9:31:39 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Absolutely.

What other business would get away with selling a product that you receive only when you are dead and that therefore they cannot demonstrate that you will ever receive at all?

Bammmmmmmm .
Nice
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 10:04:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 9:19:19 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Now that is an interesting thought!

That would have to be the most profound, detailed, meaningful, eloquent, sensitive, pertinent, provocative post I have ever read.
Wow, mind-blowing stuff that you wrote there.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 3:00:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Churches are not retail outlets and receive monies through donation, so they can't be fined or sued.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
12_13
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 9:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Should churches be fined for misleading the public...

Can you prove they have misled people?
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 9:51:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 9:31:39 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Absolutely.

What other business would get away with selling a product that you receive only when you are dead and that therefore they cannot demonstrate that you will ever receive at all?

wait, how are churches selling anything?
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
Looncall
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 10:36:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 9:51:48 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 11/3/2016 9:31:39 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Absolutely.

What other business would get away with selling a product that you receive only when you are dead and that therefore they cannot demonstrate that you will ever receive at all?

wait, how are churches selling anything?

Sure they are selling. Parishioners fork over money and sometimes labour. In return, they receive false hope. Meanwhike, the clergy have a living.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 12:13:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 9:09:10 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Should churches be fined for misleading the public...

Can you prove they have misled people?

The onus is on the entity making the claim(s). If they can't substantiate them then they are not entitled to make them. That is how it works.
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 12:22:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

I can't fault your logic, but I don't ever see it happening. What I would like to see, and it might be possible if enough people kicked up a stink, is for all churches to lose their tax-exempt status. There is no reason for others to be funding their wealth-accumulation.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 4:58:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 9:31:39 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Absolutely.

What other business would get away with selling a product that you receive only when you are dead and that therefore they cannot demonstrate that you will ever receive at all?

As well as misleading, they should also be fined for intimidation by hooking followers with fear and guilt.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 5:07:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 9:09:10 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Should churches be fined for misleading the public...

Can you prove they have misled people?

For goodness sake...the thread is about the fact that churches have no proof of what they promote.
An institution that promotes an afterlife of eternal bliss without providing any proof is misleading people. Furthermore, churches use intimidation tactics in order to snare and maintain followers.

There are millions of people throughout the world who live their lives in constant fear of whether or not they are going to make it and you have the gall to ask for proof of this?
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 5:26:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 3:00:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Churches are not retail outlets and receive monies through donation, so they can't be fined or sued.

Good point. Here in Australia many churches, in particular, catholic have had many claims made against them, usually for sexual abuse. They have forked out many millions of dollars to settle the claims but I don't know of any that have made it through court...I stand to be corrected.

Nevertheless, it is time that churches are stopped from being treated as "special". They are public institutions and are (allegedly) providing services. They may do a small amount of charity work but I see no reason for them to be clumped into the same category as charitable organisations.
They should pay taxes and be liable like any other profit-making organisations.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 2:38:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 12:22:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

I can't fault your logic, but I don't ever see it happening. What I would like to see, and it might be possible if enough people kicked up a stink, is for all churches to lose their tax-exempt status. There is no reason for others to be funding their wealth-accumulation.
One of the major problems here is that most churches in America don't fall under the wealth-accumulation category. Most churches are small and wouldn't be able to function under taxation. That might sound appealing to some, but we have to consider those in lower income neighborhoods who benefit from their local church charities (food, shelter, etc.).
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 2:43:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

I think the untold 11th commandment was thou shalt not be a dick, but it wasn't poetic enough to be placed in the bible, and much of civilization is arguing in pettiness because of it. Some people seem to be taking this sort of seriously. Good trigger.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 2:52:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 2:38:23 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/4/2016 12:22:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

I can't fault your logic, but I don't ever see it happening. What I would like to see, and it might be possible if enough people kicked up a stink, is for all churches to lose their tax-exempt status. There is no reason for others to be funding their wealth-accumulation.
One of the major problems here is that most churches in America don't fall under the wealth-accumulation category.

Neither do businesses, which fall under the "going concern" category, which is the same category as a church, they must take in revenues in order to pay their expenses, the problem is that businesses are forced to pay taxes for the public services, like roads, bridges, etc that allow people to patronize the business. Not so with churches, the public is forced to hand over some of their hard earned monies in taxes to pay for those services that allow the churches followers to patronize their church.

In other words, my taxes allow YOU to patronize your church. Then, to top it off, YOUR church calls me an evil atheist who deserves to go to hell.

Are you starting to understand why folks are pissed at churches not paying their way?

Most churches are small and wouldn't be able to function under taxation.

Like a small business trying to stay afloat while it is forced to pay extra taxes in order for your church to keep it's doors opened?

That might sound appealing to some, but we have to consider those in lower income neighborhoods who benefit from their local church charities (food, shelter, etc.).

Yes, when the small businesses are forced to go out of business because their taxes are too high, the unemployed numbers increase. a vicious circle that can be eliminated by making churches pay taxes like everyone else.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 4:25:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 2:52:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/4/2016 2:38:23 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/4/2016 12:22:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

I can't fault your logic, but I don't ever see it happening. What I would like to see, and it might be possible if enough people kicked up a stink, is for all churches to lose their tax-exempt status. There is no reason for others to be funding their wealth-accumulation.
One of the major problems here is that most churches in America don't fall under the wealth-accumulation category.

Neither do businesses, which fall under the "going concern" category, which is the same category as a church, they must take in revenues in order to pay their expenses, the problem is that businesses are forced to pay taxes for the public services, like roads, bridges, etc that allow people to patronize the business. Not so with churches, the public is forced to hand over some of their hard earned monies in taxes to pay for those services that allow the churches followers to patronize their church.

What do you mean businesses which fall under the "going concern" category is the same category as a church? I might be misunderstanding you, but your definition of businesses that fall under the "going concern" category seems to call itself into question.

In other words, my taxes allow YOU to patronize your church. Then, to top it off, YOUR church calls me an evil atheist who deserves to go to hell.

I don't think you have a problem with paying taxes for secular charities. Or do you?
Are you starting to understand why folks are pissed at churches not paying their way?

Sure. They don't like the idea of supporting a charity that is religious based. Your statement about MY church calling you an evil atheist says it all (at least in your case).

My church has never called you an evil atheist who deserves to go to Hell. You don't like the fact that some people, myself included, believes what the Bible says concerning all of mankind. The fact that you can't separate the views of church charities, and the service they provide, merely reveals an unhealthy hang-up on your part.

If you don't believe in Hell, why are you so concerned about the views of others on the subject? This has far little to do with you than you seem to think.
Most churches are small and wouldn't be able to function under taxation.

Like a small business trying to stay afloat while it is forced to pay extra taxes in order for your church to keep it's doors opened?

I'm sorry, but a church is a non-profit organization. I know you don't like that. The fact is, whether you like it or not, people in urban areas would suffer if their local churches were forced to shut down.

That might sound appealing to some, but we have to consider those in lower income neighborhoods who benefit from their local church charities (food, shelter, etc.).

Yes, when the small businesses are forced to go out of business because their taxes are too high, the unemployed numbers increase. a vicious circle that can be eliminated by making churches pay taxes like everyone else.
Part of the services local churches provide is job training. And if many people in urban areas are deprived of food, shelter, foster care, etc., taxing churches is not going to help. I don't think you realize what position many people would be placed under should their local churches have to shut down.

Yes, mega churches that have accumulated a lot of money can pose a problem (although a number of them provide a lot of services), and scam churches that exploit tax exemption as well. I'm not implying that tax exemption should be tossed out liberally to anyone/group claiming to be a church.

I know that one of the major arguments concerning tax exemption of churches is whether or not tax exemption, or the elimination of, would be a violation of separation of church and state. Well, originally, it was believed that taxing churches could have lead to a theocracy. And this was a different time period where the idea of separation of church and state had different implications, so there's no reason to believe that initially it wouldn't have. If you were open to that possibility, wouldn't you have supported tax exemption for churches back then to avoid a theocracy?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:23:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:25:14 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/4/2016 2:52:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/4/2016 2:38:23 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/4/2016 12:22:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

I can't fault your logic, but I don't ever see it happening. What I would like to see, and it might be possible if enough people kicked up a stink, is for all churches to lose their tax-exempt status. There is no reason for others to be funding their wealth-accumulation.
One of the major problems here is that most churches in America don't fall under the wealth-accumulation category.

Neither do businesses, which fall under the "going concern" category, which is the same category as a church, they must take in revenues in order to pay their expenses, the problem is that businesses are forced to pay taxes for the public services, like roads, bridges, etc that allow people to patronize the business. Not so with churches, the public is forced to hand over some of their hard earned monies in taxes to pay for those services that allow the churches followers to patronize their church.

What do you mean businesses which fall under the "going concern" category is the same category as a church? I might be misunderstanding you, but your definition of businesses that fall under the "going concern" category seems to call itself into question.

Perhaps, you're not aware of business acumen.

In other words, my taxes allow YOU to patronize your church. Then, to top it off, YOUR church calls me an evil atheist who deserves to go to hell.

I don't think you have a problem with paying taxes for secular charities. Or do you?

Churches are not charities, they are churches.

Are you starting to understand why folks are pissed at churches not paying their way?

Sure. They don't like the idea of supporting a charity that is religious based.

Churches are NOT charities.

Your statement about MY church calling you an evil atheist says it all (at least in your case).

Yes, it does say it all.

My church has never called you an evil atheist who deserves to go to Hell.

The book in which it supports certainly does.

You don't like the fact that some people, myself included, believes what the Bible says concerning all of mankind.

It is a sick book, the Bible.

The fact that you can't separate the views of church charities, and the service they provide, merely reveals an unhealthy hang-up on your part.

Churches are not charities, try to get that simple concept through your head.

If you don't believe in Hell, why are you so concerned about the views of others on the subject?

It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what others believe and their actions as a result.

This has far little to do with you than you seem to think.
Most churches are small and wouldn't be able to function under taxation.

Like a small business trying to stay afloat while it is forced to pay extra taxes in order for your church to keep it's doors opened?

I'm sorry, but a church is a non-profit organization.

But, it uses many services that taxes pay, from my pocket.

I know you don't like that. The fact is, whether you like it or not, people in urban areas would suffer if their local churches were forced to shut down.

LOL. No, they wouldn't suffer at all.

That might sound appealing to some, but we have to consider those in lower income neighborhoods who benefit from their local church charities (food, shelter, etc.).

Yes, when the small businesses are forced to go out of business because their taxes are too high, the unemployed numbers increase. a vicious circle that can be eliminated by making churches pay taxes like everyone else.
Part of the services local churches provide is job training.

Then, churches should be paying taxes like other job training facilities.

And if many people in urban areas are deprived of food, shelter, foster care, etc., taxing churches is not going to help.

LOL. You're being ridiculous.

I don't think you realize what position many people would be placed under should their local churches have to shut down.

No problem at all, we can close the churches and open up a low income housing unit.

Yes, mega churches that have accumulated a lot of money can pose a problem (although a number of them provide a lot of services), and scam churches that exploit tax exemption as well. I'm not implying that tax exemption should be tossed out liberally to anyone/group claiming to be a church.

It should be place across the board to all churches.

I know that one of the major arguments concerning tax exemption of churches is whether or not tax exemption, or the elimination of, would be a violation of separation of church and state. Well, originally, it was believed that taxing churches could have lead to a theocracy. And this was a different time period where the idea of separation of church and state had different implications, so there's no reason to believe that initially it wouldn't have. If you were open to that possibility, wouldn't you have supported tax exemption for churches back then to avoid a theocracy?

It seems you still don't understand why churches should be taxed.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
12_13
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 9:21:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 5:07:10 AM, Willows wrote:
For goodness sake...the thread is about the fact that churches have no proof of what they promote.

And what could be proof for something that is still coming, not something that is here yet? You couldn"t even prove that train is tomorrow in your station, it is something that people have to wait and see. But I think people make a mistake, if the waiting of heaven is what determines their actions. On basis of the Bible, people should become righteous and I think that is more than believing or knowing what will happen in future.

An institution that promotes an afterlife of eternal bliss without providing any proof is misleading people.

They would be misleading, if they would know that there is no afterlife and still claim that by doing something, person may have it.

Furthermore, churches use intimidation tactics in order to snare and maintain followers.

I think that is wrong, if they really do so. There is no need for that. But perhaps people are also too easily intimidated.
12_13
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 9:21:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 12:13:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2016 9:09:10 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Should churches be fined for misleading the public...

Can you prove they have misled people?

The onus is on the entity making the claim(s). If they can't substantiate them then they are not entitled to make them. That is how it works.

I thank that as a no for my question. You made a claim and couldn"t prove it true.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 10:20:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 9:21:21 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 12:13:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/3/2016 9:09:10 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Should churches be fined for misleading the public...

Can you prove they have misled people?

The onus is on the entity making the claim(s). If they can't substantiate them then they are not entitled to make them. That is how it works.

I thank that as a no for my question. You made a claim and couldn"t prove it true.

What claim did I make?

You don't seem to understand who holds the burden of proof. It rests with the entity making the advertising claim, not the consumer or the regulator. Educate yourself:

http://www.marketingresearch.org...

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces advertising standards under the Federal Trade Commission Act which mandates that advertisements be fair, non-deceptive and that advertisers back-up their claims.[1]

Before a company runs an ad, the FTC requires the company to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims: objective evidence that supports the claim - that is at minimum based on the type of evidence that the advertiser says that it has.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 2:24:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 9:21:04 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:07:10 AM, Willows wrote:
For goodness sake...the thread is about the fact that churches have no proof of what they promote.

And what could be proof for something that is still coming, not something that is here yet? You couldn"t even prove that train is tomorrow in your station, it is something that people have to wait and see. But I think people make a mistake, if the waiting of heaven is what determines their actions. On basis of the Bible, people should become righteous and I think that is more than believing or knowing what will happen in future.

An institution that promotes an afterlife of eternal bliss without providing any proof is misleading people.

They would be misleading, if they would know that there is no afterlife and still claim that by doing something, person may have it.

Furthermore, churches use intimidation tactics in order to snare and maintain followers.

I think that is wrong, if they really do so. There is no need for that. But perhaps people are also too easily intimidated.

If there is no proof for the absurd promises they are promoting then they have no right to do so.
Threatening eternal hell is widespread and in where children are involved it is outright child abuse.
I look forward to the day when these disgusting institutions are shut down for good
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 2:30:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

They cannot be disproved either, Temps of houses can.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 5:36:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 2:30:10 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

They cannot be disproved either, Temps of houses can.
Absolutely ridiculous.
So do you think that anyone can make any spurious claim (such as "I have a haunted house, pay me $100 to look inside") and get away with it because it can't be disproven?

If a claim cannot be proven, the instigator has no right to make such a claim, let alone, benefit from it.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 5:44:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 2:43:45 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

I think the untold 11th commandment was thou shalt not be a dick, but it wasn't poetic enough to be placed in the bible, and much of civilization is arguing in pettiness because of it. Some people seem to be taking this sort of seriously. Good trigger.

Come to think of it there is already so much crap in the bible that is far from poetic.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:42:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 8:23:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:25:14 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

One of the major problems here is that most churches in America don't fall under the wealth-accumulation category.

Neither do businesses, which fall under the "going concern" category, which is the same category as a church, they must take in revenues in order to pay their expenses, the problem is that businesses are forced to pay taxes for the public services, like roads, bridges, etc that allow people to patronize the business. Not so with churches, the public is forced to hand over some of their hard earned monies in taxes to pay for those services that allow the churches followers to patronize their church.

What do you mean businesses which fall under the "going concern" category is the same category as a church? I might be misunderstanding you, but your definition of businesses that fall under the "going concern" category seems to call itself into question.

Perhaps, you're not aware of business acumen.

So anytime someone requests clarification from you, they lack understanding of the subject? That by the way is one of the problems with discussion forums. Often it's not so much wanting to inform others as it is trying to come off as more intelligent.
In other words, my taxes allow YOU to patronize your church. Then, to top it off, YOUR church calls me an evil atheist who deserves to go to hell.

I don't think you have a problem with paying taxes for secular charities. Or do you?

Churches are not charities, they are churches.

If you want to contradict what the IRS classifies as a charity, go ahead.
Are you starting to understand why folks are pissed at churches not paying their way?

Sure. They don't like the idea of supporting a charity that is religious based.

Churches are NOT charities.

You'll have to take that up with the IRS if you're concerned about paying taxes for them.
Your statement about MY church calling you an evil atheist says it all (at least in your case).

Yes, it does say it all.

What do you think should be done about churches? Do you really expect me to believe your only gripe is having to support them by paying taxes?
My church has never called you an evil atheist who deserves to go to Hell.

The book in which it supports certainly does.

Then it's also an issue of the book. What do you think should be done about the book?
You don't like the fact that some people, myself included, believes what the Bible says concerning all of mankind.

It is a sick book, the Bible.

If it's sick, what do you think should be done about it? Again, it can't just be a tax issue....if you're willing to be honest about it.
The fact that you can't separate the views of church charities, and the service they provide, merely reveals an unhealthy hang-up on your part.

Churches are not charities, try to get that simple concept through your head.

I have no interest in your personal interpretations.
If you don't believe in Hell, why are you so concerned about the views of others on the subject?

It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what others believe and their actions as a result.

So then Christians should not be allowed to think the way we do. Is that correct?
This has far little to do with you than you seem to think.
Most churches are small and wouldn't be able to function under taxation.

Like a small business trying to stay afloat while it is forced to pay extra taxes in order for your church to keep it's doors opened?

I'm sorry, but a church is a non-profit organization.

But, it uses many services that taxes pay, from my pocket.

As of right now, churches (that qualify) are legally considered charities. Do you have a problem with paying taxes for charities in general?

I know you don't like that. The fact is, whether you like it or not, people in urban areas would suffer if their local churches were forced to shut down.

LOL. No, they wouldn't suffer at all.

Oh really? Have you ever lived in an urban low income neighborhood? I have for about 15 years.

I would love to hear you try and tell some of those who rely on church charity that they wouldn't suffer if their local church was gone. Love would be too tame a word. I would be ecstatic to hear you try and explain yourself on this one.
That might sound appealing to some, but we have to consider those in lower income neighborhoods who benefit from their local church charities (food, shelter, etc.).

Yes, when the small businesses are forced to go out of business because their taxes are too high, the unemployed numbers increase. a vicious circle that can be eliminated by making churches pay taxes like everyone else.
Part of the services local churches provide is job training.

Then, churches should be paying taxes like other job training facilities.

First off, ministers and volunteers do pay taxes. Secondly not everyone can afford job training facilities.
And if many people in urban areas are deprived of food, shelter, foster care, etc., taxing churches is not going to help.

LOL. You're being ridiculous.

Again, I'd love to hear you explain yourself to those that depend on their local church for various services they would not get otherwise.
I don't think you realize what position many people would be placed under should their local churches have to shut down.

No problem at all, we can close the churches and open up a low income housing unit.

Now who's being ridiculous? And what do you mean by close the churches?
Yes, mega churches that have accumulated a lot of money can pose a problem (although a number of them provide a lot of services), and scam churches that exploit tax exemption as well. I'm not implying that tax exemption should be tossed out liberally to anyone/group claiming to be a church.

It should be place across the board to all churches.

How about all charities including of course secular charities?
I know that one of the major arguments concerning tax exemption of churches is whether or not tax exemption, or the elimination of, would be a violation of separation of church and state. Well, originally, it was believed that taxing churches could have lead to a theocracy. And this was a different time period where the idea of separation of church and state had different implications, so there's no reason to believe that initially it wouldn't have. If you were open to that possibility, wouldn't you have supported tax exemption for churches back then to avoid a theocracy?

It seems you still don't understand why churches should be taxed.
I understand why you think they should. But quite frankly, I think your prejudice overrides the need churches provide for their neighborhoods in urban areas.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 1:12:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 12:42:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/4/2016 8:23:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:25:14 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:



How about all charities including of course secular charities?
I know that one of the major arguments concerning tax exemption of churches is whether or not tax exemption, or the elimination of, would be a violation of separation of church and state. Well, originally, it was believed that taxing churches could have lead to a theocracy. And this was a different time period where the idea of separation of church and state had different implications, so there's no reason to believe that initially it wouldn't have. If you were open to that possibility, wouldn't you have supported tax exemption for churches back then to avoid a theocracy?

It seems you still don't understand why churches should be taxed.
I understand why you think they should. But quite frankly, I think your prejudice overrides the need churches provide for their neighborhoods in urban areas.

Secular charity organizations are just that; charities.
Churches profess to do charity work but they are not charity organizations. They sneakily coerce money from followers and call it donations. This is wrong and corrupt and it is time churches start manning up about their responsibilities like any other profit-making organization.

"the need churches provide for their neighborhoods in urban areas"? You have to be joking...there is no need for them at all.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 4:07:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 1:12:04 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 12:42:34 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/4/2016 8:23:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:25:14 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:



How about all charities including of course secular charities?
I know that one of the major arguments concerning tax exemption of churches is whether or not tax exemption, or the elimination of, would be a violation of separation of church and state. Well, originally, it was believed that taxing churches could have lead to a theocracy. And this was a different time period where the idea of separation of church and state had different implications, so there's no reason to believe that initially it wouldn't have. If you were open to that possibility, wouldn't you have supported tax exemption for churches back then to avoid a theocracy?

It seems you still don't understand why churches should be taxed.
I understand why you think they should. But quite frankly, I think your prejudice overrides the need churches provide for their neighborhoods in urban areas.

Secular charity organizations are just that; charities.
Churches profess to do charity work but they are not charity organizations. They sneakily coerce money from followers and call it donations. This is wrong and corrupt and it is time churches start manning up about their responsibilities like any other profit-making organization.

"the need churches provide for their neighborhoods in urban areas"? You have to be joking...there is no need for them at all.
For one, you're not an American, so I can't really expect you to understand what goes on in American urban areas. It's a bit different with Russe who should know better.

And it's actually not really that you shouldn't know, as you could educate yourself as well, but your case is pretty extreme. You had a bad experience as a kid, and all of your threads including this one is your retaliation. This is your way of getting back at the evil man in the boy scouts or whatever it was that used a questionable method of instilling fear.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 7:01:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:19:26 AM, Willows wrote:
Today a large paint company was fined $400,000 for misleading consumers.

Writing on the cans claimed that the paint would reduce the house temperature on hot days by up to 15%. The court found that the company had misled consumers since there was no evidence that the paint would do what was claimed.

Should churches be fined for misleading the public by making claims that can't be proven?

Or disproven???? No.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax