Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[Jacquemar]

Does he have a job elsewhere? Does that income cover his food, shelter and transportation?

Or, is he simply 'living [large] off the church' and avoiding income taxs in the process?

According to a google search, Joe Osteen is worth over a whopping $50,000,000, with a house valued at over $10,000,000 in Texas; and his "church" is taking in $43,000,000 a year in collections. His cool $50,000,000 must have come from somewhere.

 

[Alistair]

According to a google search, Joe Osteen is worth over a whopping $50,000,000, with a house valued at over $10,000,000 in Texas; and his "church" is taking in $43,000,000 a year in collections. His cool $50,000,000 must have come from somewhere.

Immaculate salary

 

[cityboy-stl]

According to a google search, Joe Osteen is worth over a whopping $50,000,000, with a house valued at over $10,000,000 in Texas; and his "church" is taking in $43,000,000 a year in collections. His cool $50,000,000 must have come from somewhere.

Selling his books and speaking fees for which he charges $100,000 to $200,000 per speech apparently.

I wonder how much Jesus charged in speaking fees for the Sermon on the Mount? < That's sarcasm in case you were wondering.

 

[Jacquemar]

Selling his books and speaking fees for which he charges $100,000 to $200,000 per speech apparently.

I wonder how much Jesus charged in speaking fees for the Sermon on the Mount? < That's sarcasm in case you were wondering.

That's a hell of a lot in book sales. I think its only a matter of time before the IRS comes a-knocking.

 

[Kulindahr]

One thing that struck me about televangelists, a mostly if not almost completely American phenomenon, is that they do not have to meet any of the qualifications usually required of religious leaders. The do not have to attend seminary or divinity school, they do not have to be ordained, nor do they have to graduate from college or even high school. Something to think about.

All part of or on the border of a streak of radical Christianity that thinks preachers are more qualified for being less educated.

 

[Kulindahr]

According to a google search, Joe Osteen is worth over a whopping $50,000,000, with a house valued at over $10,000,000 in Texas; and his "church" is taking in $43,000,000 a year in collections. His cool $50,000,000 must have come from somewhere.

Does he have a job elsewhere? Does that income cover his food, shelter and transportation?

Or, is he simply 'living [large] off the church' and avoiding income taxs in the process?

Selling his books and speaking fees for which he charges $100,000 to $200,000 per speech apparently.

I wonder how much Jesus charged in speaking fees for the Sermon on the Mount? < That's sarcasm in case you were wondering.

That's a hell of a lot in book sales. I think its only a matter of time before the IRS comes a-knocking.

He inherited a decent amount (high six figures), but once the big building was built he was handed a salary of $200k by the church, much of which he invested, quickly more than doubling his net worth. His largest source of income, though, has been book sales, again most of which was reinvested. He stopped taking a salary in 2005 IIRC, partly because of the bad appearance of a monster salary but on a pragmatic level because he was pulling in more than that annually from his book royalties (which run like $1.6 million a year) and investments (reportedly earning a bit more than the book royalties). I heard recently that he's stopped taking book royalties, directing them to one of his church's charity programs, but I haven't been able to verify that. Then there are speaking fees and his radio show; as I understand it he gets no income directly from the radio shows but people for some reason send money directly to him, which since it counts as gifts isn't taxable (unless it's over something like $20k from a single donor)!

FWIW, the IRS has come knocking previously, and he's come away clean.

I still despise the guy, which is why I went looking at his income, but one charge against him that fails is that he is fleecing his flock -- he just doesn't have to!

 

[Jacquemar]

This is hardly funny, and not really a meme, so I'll leave it here instead:

 

[Kulindahr]

Except the first statement, the foundation of the whole thing, is historically false: the canon was settled two centuries before Constantine, and the council he called didn't even discuss the matter.

The irony here is that many of you like to attack religion for lying, but you do it . . . by lying.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics [2012 - 2021 Edition]

what kind of evil would do this to a kid...?

As a kid, I used to say:

"Why is it raining?" - because God's crying.
"Why is God crying?" - because it's raining.

Grey pictures which can be photocopied. Your photocopy will be grey, and it's made out of ink.

Grey matter. The brain is sometimes known as grey matter.

God is the result of a thought process in people's brains.

Hmmmm...

 

[johaninsc]

new pics posted, so I'm bumping the discussion thread

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics [2012 - 2021 Edition]

As a kid, I used to say:

"Why is it raining?" - because God's crying.
"Why is God crying?" - because it's raining.

One of my uncles said rain was when the cloud giants watered the clouds too much ad they leaked.
It made me wonder how much a cloud giant weighed, if one could stand on a cloud that leaked water.

 

[Kulindahr]

Russel didn't understand what the word "faith" means in the Bible -- put in that meaning, and his words make no sense:

"Where there is evidence, no one speak of 'trust'. We only speak of trust when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Krauss makes the same mistake:

It's the straw-man approach to argument: re-define someone's term and ridicule them for your definition.

 

[Kulindahr]

Another great example of a straw-man argument -- and this one is puerile enough to be nauseating.

 

[belamyi]

Evidence: the emotion of conviction.

 

[Kulindahr]

Evidence: the emotion of conviction.

Not even remotely. In fact many believers I know believe in spite of emotion.

 

[belamyi]

Not even remotely. In fact many believers I know believe in spite of emotion.

But that's not called 'evidence'.
Obviously, you can always call a rose a fart.

 

[Kulindahr]

But that's not called 'evidence'.
Obviously, you can always call a rose a fart.

You said it was evidence -- I said it wasn't. You're just repeating my point, and then making a puerile statement about your own statement.

 

[belamyi]

"Where there is evidence, no one speak of 'trust'. We only speak of trust when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Evidence: the emotion of conviction.

Not even remotely. In fact many believers I know believe in spite of emotion.

But that's not called 'evidence'.
Obviously, you can always call a rose a fart.

You said it was evidence -- I said it wasn't. You're just repeating my point, and then making a puerile statement about your own statement.

That's what I get for wanting to make it shorter

I said that what they call "evidence" as some sort of external, independent, 'objetive reality', is actually nothing but inner feeling and subjective judgement.

 

[Kulindahr]

I said that what they call "evidence" as some sort of external, independent, 'objetive reality', is actually nothing but inner feeling and subjective judgement.

Which is completely incorrect.

 

[johaninsc]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics [2012 - 2021 Edition]

I'm reminded of those who tried to kill this thread a few years ago