question for christians

Originally posted by Starrman
I work for a not-for-profit organisation; a charity called Crossroads, as a fundraiser. Now if we raised funds (ie didn't use our own money) to build a building (a church for example), once the building had been finished it would become a fixed asset and would be deemed to have increased our financial holdings. We could sell it, rent it, or keep it. Eith ...[text shortened]... asset in our accounts.

Fixed assets in NPOs are considered as increased financial holdings.

Of course they are and LH knows it. And the RCC hierarchy could decide to sell St. Peter's Basilica tomorrow no matter what the rank and file Catholic wanted or desired. There is even less accountability for their financial dealings than there is in a democratic government as Scribbles pointed out. But that has no bearing on whether the accumulation of assets makes a non-profit or governmental agency "richer"; it clearly does.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since gaining more revenue OR gaining more assets are BOTH "financial benefits" I don't have to "make up my mind" to categorize the term as "either/or". Financial benefit isn't a technical term; it's two words with meanings in common usage put together to make a term that only the most petty nitpicker would pretend not to understand.

Your second into standard financial practice. If you don't know that, you are ignorant.

1. By the same token, any of the following could be "financial benefits" - increased profits, decreased losses, decreased liabilities, decreased debt, increased debt (!), increased cashflows, decreased taxes, increased taxes etc. etc.

As I said earlier, if you're going to object to the imprecise use of 'murder', then you should be willing to take the flak on "financial benefits".

2. Whether the "common person" thinks the RCC is rich is not the point. He probably does. Considering that the "common person" (both globally and in most countries) is not Catholic, that's a bit like asking an Angolan whether he thinks the Zimbabwean government is rich.

The point is whether he would consider roads, parks, museums, art galleries, parliament and Senate buildings etc. (all real assets on government balance sheets) part of the "wealth" of the government and not, in some sense, himself.

3. (Never mind)