1. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    07 Nov '07 01:52
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TELEVANGELIST_PROBE?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    This doesn't sound good. The thought of Benny Hinn facing Barbara Boxer in congressional hearings would just be too much.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Nov '07 02:11
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TELEVANGELIST_PROBE?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    This doesn't sound good. The thought of Benny Hinn facing Barbara Boxer in congressional hearings would just be too much.
    I just hope Benny can afford good legal council. 😛
  3. Joined
    03 Oct '07
    Moves
    655
    07 Nov '07 03:20
    Why is a government official worried about the finances of religious organizations, doesn't he have something better to do? I question the financial dealings of religious organizations myself, but I don't take it to Congress.

    1st Amendment:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I believe that the organizations need to be policed from within the organization not from Congress.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Nov '07 03:24
    Originally posted by SourJax
    Why is a government official worried about the finances of religious organizations, doesn't he have something better to do? I question the financial dealings of religious organizations myself, but I don't take it to Congress.

    1st Amendment:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [b]prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    ...[text shortened]... ieve that the organizations need to be policed from within the organization not from Congress.[/b]
    Trust me, when there is that much money involved the government shows an active interest every time.
  5. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    07 Nov '07 04:232 edits
    Originally posted by SourJax


    1st Amendment:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [b]prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    ;[/b]
    LOL. Do you take that to mean that anything at all is lawful provided it is done in the name of religion? Were the Muslims who blew up New York City that one time lawfully exercising their freedom of religion?
  6. Joined
    03 Oct '07
    Moves
    655
    07 Nov '07 04:511 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    LOL. Do you take that to mean that anything at all is lawful provided it is done in the name of religion? Were the Muslims who blew up New York City that one time lawfully exercising their freedom of religion?
    No not at all, if the church we using the finances to fund illegal drug, porn, or dog fighting rings, then I wouldn't have a problem with the government looking into the organizations. But if the government is looking into the organizations for buying an expensive table or commode, then I have a problem. The government wastes more money on luxury than anyone, obviously they aren't going to look into where our tax dollars are going. They already know our tax dollars are in their pockets, table, and commodes.
  7. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    07 Nov '07 04:52
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TELEVANGELIST_PROBE?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    This doesn't sound good. The thought of Benny Hinn facing Barbara Boxer in congressional hearings would just be too much.
    Nobody pays 23,000 for a toilet. I wonder what hidden expense lies therein.
  8. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    07 Nov '07 04:55
    Originally posted by SourJax
    No not at all, if the church we using the finances to fund illegal drug, porn, or dog fighting rings, then I wouldn't have a problem with the government looking into the organizations. But if the government is looking into the organizations for buying an expensive table or commode, then I have a problem. The government wastes more money on luxury than anyone ...[text shortened]... ollars are going. They already know our tax dollars are in their pockets, table, and commodes.
    I think the point of investigating the astronomically expensive commode is the possibility that the true expense might actually be less than 1,000. Where did the other 22,000 go?
  9. tinyurl.com/ywohm
    Joined
    01 May '07
    Moves
    27860
    07 Nov '07 04:56
    Originally posted by SourJax
    No not at all, if the church we using the finances to fund illegal drug, porn, or dog fighting rings, then I wouldn't have a problem with the government looking into the organizations. But if the government is looking into the organizations for buying an expensive table or commode, then I have a problem. The government wastes more money on luxury than anyone ...[text shortened]... ollars are going. They already know our tax dollars are in their pockets, table, and commodes.
    The government looks into all non-profit 501(c)(3) agencies if it believes the agencies aren't meeting the criteria for non-profit. If it looks like the agency is indeed for profit, government wants it to pay the same taxes as other for-profit agencies. Churches do face regulations. A church can't rent out a piece of property to a person and collect rents because that makes it for-profit. It has no connection at all to the exercise of religion.
  10. Joined
    03 Oct '07
    Moves
    655
    07 Nov '07 05:17
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    The government looks into all non-profit 501(c)(3) agencies if it believes the agencies aren't meeting the criteria for non-profit. If it looks like the agency is indeed for profit, government wants it to pay the same taxes as other for-profit agencies. Churches do face regulations. A church can't rent out a piece of property to a person and collect r ...[text shortened]... ts because that makes it for-profit. It has no connection at all to the exercise of religion.
    I understand all that, I'm all for keeping those organizations that relegate themselves to government regulation regulated. I simply question the real motive behind this. If he is really on a "fact finding" mission then have at it, however if he is on a "witch-hunt", he needs to mind his own business.

    Myself, I don't understand why any organization would put themselves under regulation in the first place. Tax breaks aren't on my to do list when it comes to serving the Lord, discipleship is. All I can say is, May the Lord's will be done.
  11. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    07 Nov '07 05:451 edit
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TELEVANGELIST_PROBE?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    This doesn't sound good. The thought of Benny Hinn facing Barbara Boxer in congressional hearings would just be too much.
    My wife and I were watching Paula White once (for kicks). She was sermonizing about the need to get rid of all the clutter in the mind in order to live for the Lord. On stage she had a huge wardrobe full of clothes which she used as a prop, grabbing handfuls of clothes and throwing them out in synch with her message. People in the audience were nodding and wiping tears from their eyes. I remember we couldn't believe how goofy it all was.

    That is, until I read this article to my wife, and she recalled being shocked when she noticed Paula tossing Louis Vuitton purses out of her prop-closet (apparently LV purses run $1500 and up). Were the LV purses seriously a church expense, or a shopping spree disguised as a church expense? If it is the latter, I have seriously underestimated Paula White's ingenuity.
  12. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    07 Nov '07 08:10
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    My wife and I were watching Paula White once (for kicks). She was sermonizing about the need to get rid of all the clutter in the mind in order to live for the Lord. On stage she had a huge wardrobe full of clothes which she used as a prop, grabbing handfuls of clothes and throwing them out in synch with her message. People in the audience were noddin ...[text shortened]... church expense? If it is the latter, I have seriously underestimated Paula White's ingenuity.
    I say this in all Christian kindness, but Paula White is a whore. She is an absolutely vapid dingbat who has gotten by on her good looks. Instead of holding up "the lamp post" she has taken her begging charms to TV to feed off of insecure emotional wrecks who found her looks to be much more appealing that Tammy Faye.

    Tammy Faye was an emotional wreck too, but she loved people like porn stars and homosexuals. She didn't care, she just loved them. Paula White, on the other hand, would tell people that God wouldn't love you until you sent her some money. She would tell you how to have a wonderful relationship with your spouse and then get a divorce herself. Of course she never got any legitimate counseling. Why do that when you listen to God all the time. What a dumb ass.
  13. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    07 Nov '07 10:31
    no idea who paula white is but sounds like fun. better than the preachers who hold up the bible and wave it about. still the synic in me laught.
Back to Top