I was reading an aviation trade publication recently in which one of these ministers was detailing how much he liked flying around in his corporate jet. The magazine said he was the leader of one of these mega-ministries that openly practice tithing (though according to one of the recent threads we had tithing doesn't happen in these ministries).

He doesn't see doing God's work as a requiring any form of poverty, so he's managed to turn his ministry into quite the non-taxable cash cow.

According to this guy, his church requires people to tithe. I can only go by what he says. Seems very possible given the diversity of America that not every church in America works the same way.

simple they tell them it is their religious duty to tithe, no church that I know of goes out and steals your sh*t if you don't give them the money they figure you owe them, thats reserved for organized crime and the goverment, er wait I am repeating myself.

If religious organizations wish to set up tax-exempt arms which do ONLY and NOTHING BUT charitable work, then those should be tax exempt. The Churches themselves should not be. If the Churches refuse to make such a distinction, then I say tax it all until they do.

Yeah, that sounds like either bullsh*t or something someone needs to be fired for right now.

I have always considered the separation of church and state to be laughable. It's something I firmly believe is necessary as I believe religion has far too much influence on society and politics but it doesn't really exist. Churches get tax exemptions, references to God are written all over our justice systems and constitutions, religious schools get public funding and politicians openly talk about how their religious views influence their policy. I don't believe true separation will ever be achieved but I will be ecstatic if it does.

Reasons like that (OP) remind us why separation is good both for the state and for the churches. It's a win-win for both.

Actually, I can confirm this. One of my friends sends her daughter to Catholic school and is required to tithe in order to enroll her child. She doesn't complain because the overall cost is still cheaper than sending her to a secular private school. Makes overall sense to me too since I'm sure the Church covers some of the costs of the education.

Is this really a problem? Does a religious institution risk its tax exempt status by having a requirement like this?

FWIW, there is no Biblical requirement for Christians to tithe. In the Old Testament, God decreed that one of the 12 tribes (the Levites) would basically be professional clergy, and members of the other tribes were to give 10% of what they produced (the literal meaning of tithe) for their sustenance. This was in the context of the whole government/society that God (through Moses) decreed.

The New Testament never applies that idea to Christians and "churches" (which is a very interesting concept in and of itself, and could be the basis for its own thread). It does talk about supporting those who are working for the Church, but there are no numbers involved. I've never been to a church that made any demands about a tithe, and I've seen many honest churches freely teach that the Bible just says to give whatever feels good (literally, what you can joyfully give).

Tithing is good karma. Imagine if everyone in the world gave 10% of their income to charitable causes out of the goodness of their hearts. The planet would be a lot nicer place, that's for sure. It's not much different than retirement funds, you are thinking beyond your limited, selfish here and now and investing in the world you live in. The only difference is that with tithing or other charity you are investing without thought of reward. If you never do this, well, bah humbug Mr Scrooge!

Does every church share this view? I'd think if it was that cut and dried it wouldn't constantly be popping up.

It sounds like you're describing philanthropy.

Are you suggesting that giving money away causes the alleviation of financial burdens?

Yes. I was specifically referring to a Christian (since that was the topic) obeying God's commands, though. I don't really know about non-Christians. To clarify, I'm NOT saying they live a life of luxury by any means, please don't think so. But I am confidently saying that their needs will be met, maybe not in conventional ways. Don't take this to mean that God is going to find them a subprime loan to buy a house they can't afford to park a leased Escalade in a six-car garage, though some will claim this to be true.

This goes back into God's promises in the Old Testament. God says we are to test Him in this regard, the only place in the Bible (I'm pretty sure it's the only place....otherwise He's adamant to NOT put Him to the test...)

Malachi 3:

As with His other promises, it's true.

Thanks, Fed, you're exactly right.

If I could add: The forethought involved in setting aside money to give means good things for people in terms of fiscal responsibility, but add to that the lessened emotional attachment to financial/material wealth that usually goes with altruistic people, and you'll find that those who donate tend to be more happy with their financial situations both from better planning and more realistic desires.

After all, the root of suffering is desire, isn't it? Yeah, that was a different buddha than Jesus who said that, but they were both pretty wise dudes.