Originally posted by no1marauder
How am I "stretching reality"???? A government DOES financially benefit when it receives more money; are you seriously asserting otherwise??? As does a non-profit corporation like the Church. You're the only one I ever heard claim differently.

If all organisations benefit financially from receiving money, what is the difference between a for-profit and a non-profit organisation?

You may very well be legally correct, I'm not disputing that. But, as I said earlier, I don't treat the legal view as the paradigm for viewing reality.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In the same way America engages in rape, murder, arson, violence etc.

EDIT: Never one to pass up the opportunity to play your word-games, Doctor?

No, because unlike the church, America is not equivalent to its citizenry.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, because unlike the church, America is not equivalent to its citizenry.

Isn't it? And here I thought the nice guys at ABC were talking about the people when they greet America each morning...

EDIT: You may want to look at definitions 1a and 3 of the word 'nation':

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nation

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Isn't it?

Of course not. And neither is the Church simply its members, unless you just define it that way.

For example, the ABC show is presumably extending its greeting to the illegal Mexicans watching as well, as they huddle around the TV, 90 to a room.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course not. And neither is the Church simply its members, unless you just define it that way.

For example, the ABC show is presumably extending its greeting to the illegal Mexicans watching as well, as they huddle around the TV, 90 to a room.

You do realise that, in the English language, a word or term can have more than just the one meaning, don't you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If all organisations benefit financially from receiving money, what is the difference between a for-profit and a non-profit organisation?

You may very well be legally correct, I'm not disputing that. But, as I said earlier, I don't treat the legal view as the paradigm for viewing reality.

Let's see: a "for profit" organization operates for profits; these can be either plowed back into the organization for other purposes or given to the shareholders as dividends. A non-profit can't do the latter.

Your "paradigm" is factually absurd as well as legally absurd. Revenues which flow to a non or for profit organization are used for those purposes desired by those who run the organization. The RCC is no different from GM in this regard; the more money it has the more things it can do that it wants to. Thus, the Church economically benefits from receiving more money in a direct sense because it can put that money to the uses it desires. Just like GM.

I see you've actually tried to deflect the argument from whether the Church gained more revenue from the indirect sale of indulgences, something that cannot be reasonably disputed, to whether a non-profit agency can "economically benefit" from having more money. I suppose you think this type of gamemanship is terribly clever. However, you need to be a little less obvious if you want to successfully "move the goalposts" again.

In any event, a non-profit organization does economically benefit from more money. And the Church got more money from indirect selling of indulgences. Since that's all I claimed, you should simply concede it rather than continue to do your sophist routine.

Personally, I don't think it would be terribly wrong if they did openly sell indulgences if people want to buy them. Last year, my family and I paid our grandmother's church to have a funeral mass and a priest at her gravesite. Of course, it's not MANDATORY, but there is an expected sum to be paid. Since we wished these things, we paid for them even though quite a few in the family regard these things as unimportant. The Church provided a service and I for one didn't mind paying for it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Isn't it? And here I thought the nice guys at ABC were talking about the people when they greet America each morning...

EDIT: You may want to look at definitions 1a and 3 of the word 'nation':

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nation

I don't really care what the dictionary says. America is not identical to the collection of its citizens, and the Church is not identical to the collection of its members.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You do realise that, in the English language, a word or term can have more than just the one meaning, don't you?

Not in one universe of discourse, it can't. Unless you are participating in the discussion, in which case we can expect your inevitable equivocation to support your otherwise untenable positions.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let's see: a "for profit" organization operates for profits; these can be either plowed back into the organization for other purposes or given to the shareholders as dividends. A non-profit can't do the latter.

Your "paradigm" is factually absurd as well as legally absurd. Revenues which flow to a non or for profit organization are used for th mportant. The Church provided a service and I for one didn't mind paying for it.

If you wanted to talk about 'revenue', you should have used that term instead of 'financial benefit' (a rather ambiguous term can can refer to profit or net income as well). Why do you think I asked you thrice to define the term? If you're going to talk finance, at least use financial terms.


Your "paradigm" is factually absurd as well as legally absurd.

Considering you don't know anything about my paradigm except that it is not equivalent to the legal paradigm, that's rather an ambitious statement, wouldn't you say?


However, you need to be a little less obvious if you want to successfully "move the goalposts" again.

I gave you the chance to define the goalposts. You refused to. Now don't accuse me of moving them.

In any event, a non-profit organization does economically benefit from more money. And the Church got more money from indirect selling of indulgences. Since that's all I claimed, you should simply concede it rather than continue to do your sophist routine.

I disagree with your definition of "economic benefit". For me, that term represents profit rather than revenue. Nevertheless, given your definition of economic/financial benefit as revenue, I have no cause for disagreement.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't really care what the dictionary says. America is not identical to the collection of its citizens, and the Church is not identical to the collection of its members.

Well, whatever "America" does or does not mean, the term "Church" is most often used (in Church documents) to refer to the body of believers. Rarely (if ever) is it used to refer to the hierarchy as you seem to use it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Not in one universe of discourse, it can't. Unless you are participating in the discussion, in which case we can expect your inevitable equivocation to support your otherwise untenable positions.

Aww... the poor little Doctor cannot play his word games, so he's throwing a tantrum...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Well, whatever "America" does or does not mean, the term "Church" is most often used (in Church documents) to refer to the body of believers. Rarely (if ever) is it used to refer to the hierarchy as you seem to use it.

Then why were you so ardent in claiming that the Church should be not held accountable for the priests' acts of molestation, when in fact it was the Church itself doing the molestation?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b/]If you wanted to talk about 'revenue', you should have used that term instead of 'financial benefit' (a rather ambiguous term can can refer to profit or net income as well). Why do you think I asked you thrice to define the term? If you're going to talk finance, at least use financial terms.


Your "paradigm" is factually absurd as well as legal resents profit rather than revenue. So, clearly, I disagree with your statement.

You are just trying to pull a Coletti now. The term "economic benefit" is not equivalent to "profits" in any discipline or standard usage I am aware of. When I get paid, I "economically benefit" whether I made a profit or not. You are trying to dodge the issue in a truly pathetic manner. To restate succintly:

1) The RCC got more money because it indirectly sold indulgences;
2) Getting more money is an economic benefit
Thus, 3) The indirect sale of indulgences economically benefited the RCC.

Please attack either premise 1 or 2. If you wish to attack (2) find some economics textbook that says "economic benefit = profit" (not that "profit is A economic benefit"😉.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then why were you so ardent in claiming that the Church should be not held accountable for the priests' acts of molestation, when in fact it was the Church itself doing the molestation?

As I said earlier, the Church is "doing the molestation" to the same extent that America is committing acts of rape, murder, arson etc. If you think that America as a whole should be held accountable for the crimes of every single American then, by that logic, the Church can be held accountable for priests' acts of molestation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I said earlier, the Church is "doing the molestation" to the same extent that America is committing acts of rape, murder, arson etc. If you think that America as a whole should be held accountable for the crimes of every single American then, by that logic, the Church can be held accountable for priests' acts of molestation.

This is not correct because you hold that the Church is identical to its members and I hold that America is not identical to its citizens.