12 million euro Church

Tim Robbins

According to the Sunday Times today, a Church in Firhouse cost 12 million to build. Is this true? If so can you justify it?

frozenfrozen

Vow of poverty and all that. They had to spend it so they wouldn't have any money

Onesimus

Do we have to justify it? is it any of your business what our organization spends?

frozenfrozen

Onesimus wrote: »

Do we have to justify it? is it any of your business what our organization spends?

It is a lot of money for a charitable organization to spend.. Is it any of your business to tell people what is their business? Be civil please...

homer911

If its the place I'm thinking of, its that mega-church, and there has been some discussion about them on this forum in the past. Someone attended and said there was a lot of references to giving money...

Tim Robbins

Onesimus wrote: »

Do we have to justify it? is it any of your business what our organization spends?

I am curious where it got the money from. 12 million is a lot of money.

Does this organisation have charity status? And if so, is it right an organisation that has so much money to spend on itself get charity status?
If I am tax payer in this state, surely I have right to have an opinion on that matter.

qrrgprgua

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Vow of poverty and all that. They had to spend it so they wouldn't have any money

Who is "They"? The Church belongs to the Parish. If the Parish want it then they raise funds for it. Its the exact same as GAA raising funds to maintain their grounds.

Or is there something wrong with a Parish wanting to build themselves a Church?

kneemos

Which denomination is it.?

gimmebroadband

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Who is "They"? They Church belongs to the Parish. If the Parish want it then they raise funds for it. Its the exact same as GAA raising funds to maintain their grounds.

Or is there something wrong with a Parish wanting to build themselves a Church?

Our parish which has a huge catherdral, was badly in need of repairs. The repairs were funded by the parish via donations etc.

qrrgprgua

This Thread brings back memories of a Project I help with building a Church with Franciscans. There was a Parish committee setup, anyone from the Parish could get involved. Well some women wanted beautiful stained glass windows with a design a local artist designed. Now when you have windows 12 metres high, stained glass is not cheap. We wanted to finish the church without stain glass as it was quicker and cheaper. But the parish group of women wanted the design they had proposed. Since the Church was their Church and they had the Majority behind them we went with it. It costed a fortune and prolonged the whole project...By fortune I mean 15% of the building costs. Plus we ran out of money, project stalled. It finally got completed.

At the end of the day it was the Church the people wanted. It wasn't what the Franciscans wanted and certainly not what I wanted. But to be fair to the parish they did raise the money and they got their windows.

Tim Robbins

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Who is "They"? The Church belongs to the Parish. If the Parish want it then they raise funds for it. Its the exact same as GAA raising funds to maintain their grounds.

Or is there something wrong with a Parish wanting to build themselves a Church?

No GAA team could raise 12 million.

Apparently it has about 1,000 members. That means 12,000 per person on average!

In addition, there is a perception that this sort of big money extravagance is not the message of Christianity.

philologos

Tim Robbins: Provide a link or citation so I can look at the details more.

Edit: Is this Victory Church? If so, I'm not surprised they are very much prosperity gospel - which is a modern heresy.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

According to the Sunday Times today, a Church in Firhouse cost 12 million to build. Is this true? If so can you justify it?

They were smart. They bought a lot of land cheaply, sold a lot of it for housing when prices were high, and built themselves a church. Personally, knowing a bit about the church in question, I doubt very much that it cost 12 million to build.

However, I see nothing wrong in principle with a church choosing to spend any sum of money they wish to construct a building. I spent €200,000 buying land and building a house for a family of four to live in - it's hardly surprising that a building large enough to cater for the needs of a congregation of 1000 people should run into millions - is it?

Furthermore, no true secularist should have a problem with this. Secularism demands that we treat the church like any other organisation - no special privileges, but no special restrictions either. If members of a GAA club want to spend their own money on a stadium, then no-one condemns them for that. If the trustees of a private school or university spend millions on classrooms and a library, then there's no fuss. So, if church members choose to pool their resources and build a nice building, then surely only churlish begrudgers will find fault?

Bertser

Is that the Victory Centre? Some organisation from America built that I think, probably minted with faith-healers and things like that.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

They were smart. They bought a lot of land cheaply, sold a lot of it for housing when prices were high, and built themselves a church. Personally, knowing a bit about the church in question, I doubt very much that it cost 12 million to build.

However, I see nothing wrong in principle with a church choosing to spend any sum of money they wish to construct a building. I spent €200,000 buying land and building a house for a family of four to live in - it's hardly surprising that a building large enough to cater for the needs of a congregation of 1000 people should run into millions - is it?

Furthermore, no true secularist should have a problem with this. Secularism demands that we treat the church like any other organisation - no special privileges, but no special restrictions either. If members of a GAA club want to spend their own money on a stadium, then no-one condemns them for that. If the trustees of a private school or university spend millions on classrooms and a library, then there's no fuss. So, if church members choose to pool their resources and build a nice building, then surely only churlish begrudgers will find fault?

I guess some people would see a contradiction between the message of the Gospel and spending 12 million on a Church.

And you're point about secularism is wise. I don't see why religions should get special privilege. I don't see why they should get charity status. Many do. But there are many, many, many organisations that have nothing to religion scamming charity as welll.

gimmebroadband

I could be wrong, but I think it's a Filipino Non-Denominational Church. There is an old thread discussion about it here!

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I guess some people would see a contradiction between the message of the Gospel and spending 12 million on a Church.

Plenty of people have plenty of ideas about the Gospel - most of them wrong.

And you're point about secularism is wise. I don't see why religions should get special privilege. I don't see why they should get charity status. Many do. But there are many, many, many organisations that have nothing to religion scamming charity as welll.

I would prefer to see the whole charitable status thing scrapped. It is too subjective. We would be better to follow the US example and have a classification for non-profit organisations. So, if an organisation does not provide profits for a proprietor or for share holders, then it shouldn't pay taxes. That would apply to schools, sports clubs, drama societies and churches.

PDN

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I think it's a Filipino Non-Denominational Church. There is an old thread discussion about it here!

That thread was very funny. It has nothing to do with the Philippines. It is a non-denominational church established and led by an Irish couple. Personally their style is not my cup of tea, but I think the main reason they attract such ire from atheists is that they are a church that is growing and prospering, which really annoys those who desperately want to believe that religion is dying out.

Sonics2k

I'd say it's more the fact they spent an obscene amount of money on a church really.

It's got nothing to do with dying religions, just the absolute bonkers amount of money spent on a building, when it could of gone to far better things.

We're not all out to get you PDN

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Plenty of people have plenty of ideas about the Gospel - most of them wrong.

And of course all of yours are right :-)

I would prefer to see the whole charitable status thing scrapped. It is too subjective. We would be better to follow the US example and have a classification for non-profit organisations. So, if an organisation does not provide profits for a proprietor or for share holders, then it shouldn't pay taxes. That would apply to schools, sports clubs, drama societies and churches.

I'd still have a problem with an organisation calling itself non profit and getting some privileges. For example, heads of Barnardo's, Rehab are on well over 6 figures.

I know someone working for a Christian organisation in Africa and she would have earned far more than the average industrial wage in that country. But she paid no tax and thought nothing wrong with this as she was giving a "gift" to people and the government was just corrupt. Kinda crazy.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

That thread was very funny. It has nothing to do with the Philippines. It is a non-denominational church established and led by an Irish couple. Personally their style is not my cup of tea, but I think the main reason they attract such ire from atheists is that they are a church that is growing and prospering, which really annoys those who desperately want to believe that religion is dying out.

As a matter of interest why are they not your cup of tea?

Yeah I suppose it would be a conern that the world of irrationality is growing. According to the Sunday Times today, some Nigerian Churchesare praying for gay people and people with autism because they believe these people are infected with evil spirits.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As a matter of interest why are they not your cup of tea?

I believe they put far too much emphasis on material prosperity and physical healing.

Yeah I suppose it would be a conern that the world of irrationality is growing. According to the Sunday Times today, some Nigerian Churchesare praying for gay people and people with autism because they believe these people are infected with evil spirits.

We weren't talking about Nigerian Churches. As for irrationality, that is very much a matter of opinion.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As a matter of interest why are they not your cup of tea?

Prosperity gospel in a nutshell, is why I disagree with Victory Church. I don't believe that Jesus promises to make people rich or healthy. Rather I think that Jesus Christ has saved us from sin by His death and His resurrection.

Simple answer. I think I would rather the 12 million be used to plant a number of churches and to promote evangelism and Bible teaching than to be used for one megachurch.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I believe they put far too much emphasis on material prosperity and physical healing.

So you agree with me they are not consistent with the message of the Gospel then :-)

We weren't talking about Nigerian Churches. As for irrationality, that is very much a matter of opinion.

It's one of many examples. you must remember many non religion people have had bad experiences with religion.

1. Hassle from parents to believe something they didn't.
2. Hassle finding a place to marry you on a Saturday
3. Hassle find a school place for your kids.
4. Political problems up the North.
5. Horrible experiences with school teachers
6. Loads of hassle if you gay.

It's natural for non religious people to hope it goes away until it starts seeing evidence of it having manners and not in any way a threat to non religious people.

I appreciate there may be many religions e.g. Quakers who don't pose these threats but I am talking about th emajority here and what there experience with religion is. Limited you may say but not a good experience either.

It would be a similar concern to me the rise of extreme islam in Ireland as well. But I guess we might be going off the point here.

philologos

Tim Robbins: Why do you expect us to discuss "religion" as a general concept? You should be specific in respect to Christianity on the Christianity forum.

charlemont

Onesimus wrote: »

Do we have to justify it? is it any of your business what our organization spends?

It is our business when your organisation can cough up for church buildings but puts on the poor mouth for victims of paedophilia.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Prosperity gospel in a nutshell, is why I disagree with Victory Church. I don't believe that Jesus promises to make people rich or healthy. Rather I think that Jesus Christ has saved us from sin by His death and His resurrection.

Simple answer. I think I would rather the 12 million be used to plant a number of churches and to promote evangelism and Bible teaching than to be used for one megachurch.

What about 12 million given to the poor?

As an atheist, it would worry me to see 12 million going into an atheist club(s). It just seems extorionate. Whatever the hell it was.

I'd have no problem with 12 million going into libraries, scientific research or sport facilities.

Perhaps I don't feel the need for other people to have the exact same opinion as me as you do even though I would hold my lack of belief as strong as you would hold your belief.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Tim Robbins: Why do you expect us to discuss "religion" as a general concept? You should be specific in respect to Christianity on the Christianity forum.

I was specific. I referenced a speciifc Christian Church didn't I?

Don't get your point...

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What about 12 million given to the poor?

As an atheist, it would worry me to see 12 million going into an atheist club(s). It just seems extorionate. Whatever the hell it was.

I'd have no problem with 12 million going into libraries, scientific research or sport facilities.

Perhaps I don't feel the need for other people to have the exact same opinion as me as you do even though I would hold my lack of belief as strong as you would hold your belief.

Material needs are important, but it is supremely important that people believe and trust in Jesus and repent before Him. That will have an influence on ones eternal welfare as well as ones material.

I would have no qualms on using that money to build churches, and encourage biblical teaching in wider society. Why? - Because I believe that people have sinned before God, that Jesus Christ has died in mans place on the cross for their sins, and this is the most important truth that man can know, and people have a desperate need to acknowledge their Creator.

As important as libraries, scientific or sport facilities are, they will matter very little when we come before God at the end of time. These things while important fade in comparison to introducing people to the Bible.

It's a lot more important than people holding my opinion. I don't even feel this is about my opinion. It is about God, and His standards.

Sonics2k

So, what you're basically saying is that it's better to build a few churches, teach people about the Bible and Jesus, rather than actually help them.

Really?

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

So, what you're basically saying is that it's better to build a few churches, teach people about the Bible and Jesus, rather than actually help them.

Really?

Except it is actually helping them. More than people will ever acknowledge.

It's more important that people are saved and receive eternal life than condemnation. Surely yes.

Temporal suffering should be a concern of Christians, but so should bringing people to know their Creator, to believe in Jesus, and to repent. Hands down encouraging people to repent and believe in Jesus is the most important activity that one can do in this age. The knowledge of God is better and more important than any other knowledge.

So yes, really I do think this

Run_to_da_hills

I have been to the old Victory on Pearse St in the late 90's. Afaik it was rented from Sinead O'Connors family, It also had a comprehensive bookshop. I have Never been to this one but if it is anything like DEC or ST Marks it would more than likely be more than just a church, ie community center, catering facilities for meals, kids Kresh. Sunday School etc.

fitz0

Churches have usually been enormously pricey buildings. This clipping from 1885 lists only part of the cost of Cologne Cathedral from 1823 to 1885 as £1,050,000. The actual cost would have been much more as that only accounts for the building and not the decoration inside. I can't even think of the cost in present day terms but I'd put it at £30m+ at least.

However, I'd be very concerned at such a huge expenditure if the church retains a tax exempt status. If it is a private church that pays tax though, I'm ok with it. Does anyone have a picture of the church?

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Except it is actually helping them. More than people will ever acknowledge.

It's more important that people are saved and receive eternal life than condemnation. Surely yes.

Temporal suffering should be a concern of Christians, but so should bringing people to know their Creator, to believe in Jesus, and to repent. Hands down encouraging people to repent and believe in Jesus is the most important activity that one can do in this age. The knowledge of God is better and more important than any other knowledge.

So yes, really I do think this

Well this is exactly my problem with religion. It makes normal people think crazy things.

Putting either atheism or your religion ahead of the welfare of another human being in sociopathological in my opinion.

Someone is surely in a better situation to make up their mind what they believe in if they are not suffering from poverty. So it would make sense to get them out of poverty first.

Otherwise, you are kinda trying to make their mind up for them.

PDN

fitz0 wrote: »

However, I'd be very concerned at such a huge expenditure if the church retains a tax exempt status. If it is a private church that pays tax though, I'm ok with it. Does anyone have a picture of the church?

Why on earth should a non-profit organisation pay tax?

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

Except it is actually helping them. More than people will ever acknowledge.

It's more important that people are saved and receive eternal life than condemnation. Surely yes.

Temporal suffering should be a concern of Christians, but so should bringing people to know their Creator, to believe in Jesus, and to repent. Hands down encouraging people to repent and believe in Jesus is the most important activity that one can do in this age. The knowledge of God is better and more important than any other knowledge.

So yes, really I do think this

I'm sorry but... that's a crazy opinion Phil.

It's honestly just insane that you really think giving someone a Bible to read and the vague hope that Heaven and God is real is better than providing them with clothing, shelter or food and real support.

Contrary to your myths and beliefs, faith alone will not keep you alive.

That 12million should have gone to worthy causes that would help people in need, the homeless, victims of abuse or assault, children in orphanages.

Not a feckin building or your idea of books on God.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Why on earth should a non-profit organisation pay tax?

Companies in Ireland pay very little tax anyway. If they are lucky to enough to mak a profit the tax is lower than income tax.

My issue would be a company says makes a million a year and instead of declaring a profit just pay themselves big salaries or write off thousands on expenses.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm sorry but... that's a crazy opinion Phil.

It's honestly just insane that you really think giving someone a Bible to read and the vague hope that Heaven and God is real is better than providing them with clothing, shelter or food and real support.

Contrary to your myths and beliefs, faith alone will not keep you alive.

That 12million should have gone to worthy causes that would help people in need, the homeless, victims of abuse or assault, children in orphanages.

Not a feckin building or your idea of books on God.

It's crazy if you're not a Christian. Sure.

If you are a Christian though, ultimately peoples eternal welfare is more significant than temporal suffering.

Not that Christians shouldn't help in terms of temporal suffering, but ultimately whether or not people know about Christ is of first importance. That's why I encourage and endorse evangelism, church planting and Bible awareness in society.

Temporal causes are worthy, but they are not anywhere near as worthy as the Gospel going out, and people being saved.

I never said faith alone will keep you alive. My point is there is something more significant than life on this earth. That is God, and people knowing Him.

Tim Robbins: I'm interested in introducing people to Jesus. I hope that they do believe. It is still very much about people discovering Him for themselves. That's the essence of what I believe was most powerful about the Reformation.

fitz0

Any organisation that is charitable yet has €12m to spend on a church should be paying tax. Not on their donations, perhaps, but on all that land they bought and sold to pay for that church. However, I don't know if the tax exemption extends to that or not. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

philologos

fitz0 wrote: »

Any organisation that is charitable yet has €12m to spend on a church should be paying tax. Not on their donations, perhaps, but on all that land they bought and sold to pay for that church. However, I don't know if the tax exemption extends to that or not. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm fairly sure that they would have paid capital gains on the property.

Manach

In general, charity law allows a certain status to the promotion of religion due to the long and noble tradition of support that the Churches have given to the poor and needy. This dates back to the statue of charity from Elizibethian times when this began to be formalised. The recent charity act in Ireland, whilst having made some minor changes, still recognises this along with with dozens of new modes of charity - eg urban renewal, reconciliation etc.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Tim Robbins: I'm interested in introducing people to Jesus. I hope that they do believe. It is still very much about people discovering Him for themselves. That's the essence of what I believe was most powerful about the Reformation.

I think it would be more objective to ensure people have sufficient access to health, education, standards of living so that they can make their mind up for themselves on an objective basis.

Even though I have as much confidence in my view of Jesus (or any religion) as you do in yours our priorities in how people should be treated appear to differ greatly.

prinz

fitz0 wrote: »

Churches have usually been enormously pricey buildings. This clipping from 1885 lists only part of the cost of Cologne Cathedral from 1823 to 1885 as £1,050,000. The actual cost would have been much more as that only accounts for the building and not the decoration inside. I can't even think of the cost in present day terms but I'd put it at £30m+ at least.

It's also still standing and a UNESCO Word Heritage Site. On the other hand..

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will grill the Department of Sport this week on how it managed to spend €43m on master-planning a national sports campus that was never built.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/department-faces-grilling-on-43m-bertie-bowl-spend-3017078.html

:pac:

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it would be more objective to ensure people have sufficient access to health, education, standards of living so that they can make their mind up for themselves on an objective basis.

Moderator's Warning

Good for you - and boards.ie have provided you with an Atheism and Agnosticism Forum where you can proclaim such beliefs to your heart's content.

But please recognise that, in the Christianity Forum, Christians are going to see the proclamation of their faith as being important. So less of the soap-boxing please.

If posters wish to crib about their objections to Christianity then there is an Atheist/Christian Debate Thread.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Tim Robbins: I'm interested in introducing people to Jesus. I hope that they do believe. It is still very much about people discovering Him for themselves. That's the essence of what I believe was most powerful about the Reformation.

I think it would be more objective to ensure people have sufficient access to health, education, standards of living so that they can make their mind up for themselves on an objective basis.

Even though I have as much confidence in my view of Jesus (or any religion) as you do in yours our priorities in how people should be treated appear to differ greatly.

Christians surprise surprise put emphasis on eternal needs as well as temporal because unlike atheists they believe there is more to life than this. They believe that knowing Jesus restores our relationship with God and saves us from an eternity in hell which as sinners we all deserve.

It would be cruel to hide that from people.
Jesus is the most important thing anyone can know and He comes first IMO.

A love of Jesus has brought much greater charitable effort in the world than many other ideologies and atheism even when its primary concern is what's eternal.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Christians surprise surprise put emphasis on eternal needs as well as temporal because unlike atheists they believe there is more to life than this. They believe that knowing Jesus restores our relationship with God and saves us from an eternity in hell which as sinners we all deserve.

It would be cruel to hide that from people.
Jesus is the most important thing anyone can know and He comes first IMO.

A love of Jesus has brought much greater charitable effort in the world than many other ideologies and atheism even when its primary concern is what's eternal.

I am trying to reply to your posts honestly but appear to be violating the charter. So unfortunately, I can't debate this.

What seems to have happend is you have used this debating tacticL

Christianity is XYZ

and that can only be questioned in another thread.

There are many people who call themselves Christian and would also put the human poverty above sharing their faith on someone. It is not a position that belongs uniquely to atheists.

Cheers.

fitz0

philologos wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that they would have paid capital gains on the property.

Thank you, I stand corrected.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There are many people who call themselves Christian and would also put the human poverty above sharing their faith on someone. It is not a position that belongs uniquely to atheists.

I would deeply question how much they understand what happened at Calvary and why that is hugely significant, and necessary for people to hear in the present age.

If Christians don't take eternal welfare seriously, then that is a heartless endeavour. Also, for the umpteenth time in this thread. Biblical Christianity does take temporal needs seriously, but as secondary to eternal needs.

I answered in that way, largely because I was asked as to why I believe that Gospel proclamation, church planting / growth, and Biblical understanding are crucially important to mankind. Namely, that if one doesn't accept Jesus as Lord, one has no way to the Father and is condemned eternally. The answer to that question is that Christianity is XYZ.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

I would deeply question how much they understand what happened at Calvary and why that is hugely significant, and necessary for people to hear in the present age.

If Christians don't take eternal welfare seriously, then that is a heartless endeavour. Also, for the umpteenth time in this thread. Biblical Christianity does take temporal needs seriously, but as secondary to eternal needs.

I answered in that way, largely because I was asked as to why I believe that Gospel proclamation, church planting / growth, and Biblical understanding are crucially important to mankind. Namely, that if one doesn't accept Jesus as Lord, one has no way to the Father and is condemned eternally. The answer to that question is that Christianity is XYZ.

Many people interpret the good Samaritan story from the gospel as saying the exact opposite. I hope that comment is subject to the: do no challenge Christianity is XYZ mod rule.

ceolte

A lot of apologetists here for Victory Firhouse. Fact is they have a massive over emphasis on giving and burden their congregation financially, all in the name of God. They then claim Tax back with their charity status on all giving from their members. If you think a church that focuses on preaching of money more than anything is okay to receives hundreds of thousands of euro back from revenue every year and outlay this on extravagent buildings then there is something seriously wrong.

PDN wrote:

They were smart. They bought a lot of land cheaply, sold a lot of it for housing when prices were high, and built themselves a church. Personally, knowing a bit about the church in question, I doubt very much that it cost 12 million to build.

I suggest you do some research. They also built at the height of the boom and are heavily indebted. The pastor, Brendan Hade is currently in the high courts for not paying his creditors. He also made a lot of his money from running asylum centres through the church and receiving a substantial amount of state funding over the years. These were shut down after extensive investigations highlighted awful conditions in these centres run by Victory.

Essentially they have milked the state during the boom years and now continue do so in revenue claims and then build lavish buildings and avoid paying their building debts. A similiar issue arose in Galway with their branch their with former members complaining of slave like conditions.

There is plenty of material available on the matter on Dialogue Ireland where the testimony of past members as well as current members can be read. I'd suggest anyone in support of this church read the articles and comments. In particular pay close attention to the posts from members and supporters of the church in those articles whose aggresive commenting is anything but reflective of the christianity we come to expect from those that adhere to the teachings of christ.


http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/category/victory-galway/

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Many people interpret the good Samaritan story from the gospel as saying the exact opposite. I hope that comment is subject to the: do no challenge Christianity is XYZ mod rule.

The Good Samaritan passage in Luke 10, has far reaching implications, insofar as it goes much further than what is temporal. As do other passages (such as John chapter 4) that point to marginalised groups in society.

The reality is though, that the Bible very clearly puts forward that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and that people desperately need to know that. That's irrespective of how you interpret it.

For the umpteenth time. I'm not saying that churches doing social work is a bad thing, but actually Gospel proclamation is ultimately what will matter eternally. Christians should be active in both respects. One has an impact in this temporal world, and one has an impact for an eternity. It is therefore obvious to me which is ultimately important.

ceolte: By "a lot" do you mean very few?