Hacker News Reader

Comment by _bxg1 | Hacker News Reader

> I watched nuns offer compassionate care to the dying...I became uncomfortably aware that New Agers do not build hospitals or feed alcoholics – they buy self-actualisation at the cash register.

> Half the time, though, I couldn’t get a word in. It turned out what most people want is the chance to unload for an hour.

> “Get to a doctor,” I told him. “Now.”

I grew up in an evangelical, southern-baptist church. I indeed saw many mission trips, community events, charitable efforts. But there was always a catch: it was always a veiled effort to convert people. You didn't have to convert of course, but that's what the whole thing was about. Every greeting, every friendly conversation, every volunteer effort. They were all just spoonfuls of sugar. None of it was without ulterior motives. It was like one of those business "seminars" that really just wants you to buy something. Every interaction with another human was steeped in this mentality. Of course, when asked, they would argue that converting people is the most compassionate thing you can possibly do. I have to disagree.

What I never got, even as a convert, was a real chance to unload to someone who would actually, truly listen. As someone with deep anxiety and depression, nobody ever told me to go to a therapist. Not once. They would always nod, and smile sympathetically, and say "have faith and leave it up to God".

Every religion - even every religious body - is different. I just felt the need to provide a counterexample to the rosy light that traditional religion was left in by the author. For me, Christianity was astrology: something that made me feel superficially better sometimes, but was really just pushing me further and further away from any actual healing or personal development.

View on HN

I think that's a very specific brand of Christianity. Mainline Protestant groups and most Catholics don't really emphasize conversions.

I see relatively little harm in mainstream Protestant churches and the more liberal Catholic parishes. Evangelical and conservative Catholic churches start to creep me out, even if people do get some value from them.

In my view, if you get value from having a Christian faith practice, it would be best to quit more evangelical and dogmatic churches and start attending more open-minded, less conversion-oriented churches, e.g. Episcopalian, Methodist, Metropolitan, etc.

> For me, Christianity was astrology: something that made me feel superficially better sometimes, but was really just pushing me further and further away from any actual healing or personal development.

> I grew up in an evangelical, southern-baptist church.

Well there's your problem. Not all denominations are created equal.

> None of it was without ulterior motives.

Yes, this is what you get when you take away the real heart of Christianity, all you have left is a useless shadow of the real thing that can't produce its proper effects in a soul.

I really have to write a book about this. There are too many people who have absolutely no idea what Christianity is, and because of that, they all keep abandoning it and refuse to even consider it. Or they hold fast to an emasculated, false version of it, and spread this counterfeit religion believing it to be the real thing, despite it not producing the fruits of it within their own lives.

But in the meantime, check out:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHr17i6CU5FgiHD3hI0k0...

and

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6znY3VjqN25fNvGKVRLU...

I actually went to a Christian university, and right around the time I started to realize I needed to leave the belief system I'd grown up with, I also took a couple of (required) classes on theology/the history of Christianity, so I do have a perspective outside of what I started with. There were also some pretty intelligent and worldly professors there who happened to be Christians, some of whom I had some really good discussions with. Hilariously, both the school and most of said professors called themselves Baptist, just like the church I started in.

What all of it taught me is this: the labels of religion really have no bearing on what the heart of the group is actually going to be like. There are lots of versions of religion out there, many of them using the same symbols and texts, and some of them are good and healthy and some of them are bad and destructive (and everything in-between). What you're going to get in a particular case is just totally random. The things that really matter are completely divorced from the packaging.

I noticed the same thing: what religion you are (and whether you have one) isn't a guarantee of whether you're a "good person." I have a Catholic friend who spends his time complaining, being negative, and mainly serving himself, but then you also have Venerable Fulton Sheen who was also Catholic and an amazing guy. And I know some Lutherans who love Jesus more than many Catholics that I know do. And some non-religious people who are more forgiving than many Christians I know.

Just last night I was telling my children about this principle, and explaining the Catholic perspective of it to them: it all comes down to how much love a person has in their heart. And love is naturally selfless and self-sacrificing. The famous hyperbole is "God is love", not that God isn't also God, but that if you have love in you, you have God in you to some extent. And the more a person loves someone, the more they will seek to find out what they can do to please that person and what they should avoid to not offend that person.

So there will always be people who love Jesus but don't even know he's God! Because they God's name, which isn't so much a bunch of letters as it is what he stands for: goodness, kindness, gentleness, unity, self-sacrifice, selflessness, mercy, courage, hope, trust, and so on. Anyone who loves these things loves God, even if they've only heard lies about Jesus. They may hate that false version of Jesus, but they love the true one!

That's not to say our religion is useless, and that anyone can just "be a good person" without ever belonging to it. But if you want to please someone and give them fish, but didn't know that they hate seafood, they will see and appreciate your good intentions, but also kind of wish you looked further into what they really like and dislike. This is what the Catholic Church is: through it, God told the world what he loves and what displeases him. Not in the hypocrisy of the many non-Catholics out there who go to Mass every Sunday and shout at you for being homosexual. But in her immutable teachings and in her explanations of what she meant when she wrote down the Gospels.

Uh, I think pretty much all christian denominations would say everyone else does not know what real christianity. My wife says it all the time when I point out some absurdity of religion. I'll bet $100 she's not in the same sect/group you are.

Yes, it's the same kind of rhetoric that people in pretty much all religions/beliefs/denominations use about all the others to trick people into joining.

Yours is wrong, ours is right. Yours is misguided, ours knows the true way. Yours is corrupt, ours is trustworthy and wholesome. Yours won't help your soul reach enlightenment, ours will save you. Yours is counterfeit, ours is real.

The sad thing to me that there are plenty of people in pretty much and religious group that are well meaning, hoping to get some direction or happiness in their religious study and observation. But I'm sad to say from my perspective they are mostly wasting their time. I want others to find solace, wisdom, goodness from their religion. And not kill me because I'm not in their group.

It's a fallacy to say that just because some denominations say that, all must therefore be incorrect. It's the whole "I'm Sparticus" situation. There really is a Sparticus.

Any serious Christain who seriously studies history will see clearly that the Catholic Church as it is now is the same as it was on Pentecost, being the true church from the beginning, and that all Protestant churches have descended from it and decided to change their doctrines for various non-legitimate reasons.

There doesn't have to be a Spartacus! I'll just say that when I was a teenager and realized that there's a reason we don't see supernatural things, and people with cell phones don't see and take pictures of ghosts, monsters, angels, big foot, the virgin of Guadalupe and flying saucers - because they probably don't exist.

Then you haven’t done enough research. Look into the miracles done by saints in the Catholic Church or through their intercession and having been verified by credible scientists and medical professionals.

I have looked into it. I tried hard for a time to find evidence. The church claims miracles that are pretty suspect. Mother Teresa did great things (while also appearing at times to kind of celebrate poverty) but I never saw why it rose to a miracle of god. Look at the stories of people seeing the virgin of guadalupe, then it was kind of converted to being the virgin mary by the church, but why are they never happening where they can be recorded? Same thing with ghosts. I wish there was an afterlife, then my grandparents wouldn't be dead in the ground and ended.

The biggest miracle of all is the Resurrection of Jesus which was verified by many people including over 500 people who all saw him at once. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence attesting to its historicity. It’s why the Catholic Church even was able to begin!

But you bring up a good question: why aren’t these things recorded or seen more publicly? Well, you know the major theory around why spam has so many obvious warning signs like major typos, unprofessional fonts, and silly plots? It’s to filter out everyone but the most gullible and desperate. God uses the same principle. He makes situations where it’s like 99.9% an obvious certainty but leaves 0.1% possibility for doubt, for those people who just don’t want to believe.

There’s no shame in using a want to believe as your starting point for investigating it. Check out resources online for the historicity or the Resurrection from a Catholic point of view (the only intellectually satisfying denomination) and you’ll find that it’s so extremely probable to the point of being basically verified.

How do you know you understand real Christianity, as opposed to other Christians who hold fast to an emasculated version?

For one thing, the Bible says "You'll know them by their fruits," and although the Catholic Church has produced a lot of sinners, they're about on par with other denominations and other religions, philosophies, and non-religions, whereas the number of Saints who practiced heroic virtue is far greater in Catholicism than any other form of religion or lack.

There's also countless medically and scientifically verified miracles. They're still happening today, and it's not just "oh trust me it was a miracle", but actual medical professionals testify under oath that such-and-such truly happened and that it isn't possible under any known laws of physics or medicine etc.

And then there's just the fact that it's the only philosophy that truly lines up with real life experience. Every other form of Christianity will eventually say "it just is what it is, you just have to have faith." But this is the only one that fully satisfied my intellectual mind without having to give up intellectual integrity. I also found out about Fulton Sheen this year, and he understood this the same way. He's extremely underrated and should be read and listened to by anyone who considers themselves intellectual.

And finally, it's the only philosophy or religion that has ever fixed me. All others failed.

> the number of Saints who practiced heroic virtue is far greater in Catholicism than any other form of religion or lack

Such as Mother Teresa, who allowed people to die in horrible conditions in hospices where patients were given insufficient food and no painkillers because "suffering makes you closer to god," and then went to a costly, fancy facility and took painkillers herself when it was her time to die.

>There's also countless medically and scientifically verified miracles.

This is absurd. Just because something happens that can't be fully explained by science with current knowledge and technology does not make it a religious miracle. Also, pretending that is true, how would that be evidence of you belonging to a denomination that is "real Christianity." Perhaps it was one of the other countless religions that try to falsely attribute things they don't understand to 'miracles'

>it's the only philosophy that truly lines up with real life experience

Satanism truly lines up with my real life experiences. Is that evidence that that is the true or real religion?

>But this is the only one that fully satisfied my intellectual mind without having to give up intellectual integrity.

You just said that you believe that there are medically and scientifically verified miracles, so I'd say this statement is false. How do you feel about dinosaurs? How old do you think the earth is?

>And finally, it's the only philosophy or religion that has ever fixed me

This I can understand and respect. IMO the rest of what you said is mostly brainwashing/indoctrination.

There's a lot wrong with Catholicism, but it doesn't oppose evolution (in fact, several recent popes have declared that evolution is proven fact) and it doesn't teach young-earth creationism, though it seems many Catholics are confused on this matter about what their own church teaches.

> though it seems many Catholics are confused on this matter about what their own church teaches.

It doesn't help that groups aligned with politically activist right-wing Protestant Evangelical/Fundamentalist groups are instrumental in funding and shaping much Catholic media (notably, EWTN) in the US, which often results in political propaganda supporting policies pushed by the “Christian” Right being portrayed in Catholic media as if it were accepted Catholic doctrine despite often not being (or even conflicting with) the doctrine of the Church.

Interesting. My wife and I would like to know more about this. She listens to EWTN a lot, and I can’t stand them but for different reasons than you mentioned. Which doctrines and urgencies and propaganda do you mean?

God can suspend the laws of physics which he designed in the first place. And it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory, which I think is perfectly reasonable to believe, and fully compatible with our religion, which only says that Adam and Eve were literal people who we are all descended from, but not that the 7-day creation was literal.

> And finally, it's the only philosophy or religion that has ever fixed me. All others failed.

> There's also countless medically and scientifically verified miracles. They're still happening today, and it's not just "oh trust me it was a miracle", but actual medical professionals testify under oath that such-and-such truly happened and that it isn't possible under any known laws of physics or medicine etc.

But in a broader discussion about astrology, these are the kinds of claims made by all sorts of groups.

As for the works of Christian bodies throughout history, well, the world has seen it and it is what it is. It may be good, it may be bad, or somewhere in-between, but it isn't morally beautiful enough as a sole justification to adopt a position of faith on these matters.

But none of this really talks about why you know the real Christian groups from the lesser ones. That's the kind of talk any Christian group would make against another.

The only way someone can be Protestant is to be ignorant of history. If you look at the writings of the saints for the past 1900-2000 years, they all believed the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and they were saints because they lived those teachings and received her Sacraments which are only present in the Catholic Church. All forms of Protestants started off in the 1500s by simply guessing and assuming that the Catholic Church had strayed from the truth, and then guessing what that truth might be. There is no credible basis for any of their teachings at all. They started off on the logical fallacy that because there are evildoers in the church and because the church seems to condone their behavior, the church must have fallen from grace and erred in her doctrine. No, the Church’s members were corrupt but her teachings and Sacraments remained intact. And she was healed of her gangrene and errors by saints like Frances de Sales and Ignatius of Loyola, who explained the truth and converted hundreds of thousands of Protestants back to Catholicism even during their lifetimes, let alone afterward.

> The only way someone can be Protestant is to be ignorant of history Or being born into it. Kinda like the vast majority of Roman Catholics in fact.

> and they were saints because they lived those teachings

They were saints because they passed the Roman Catholic saint tests. The Church is very specific about that.

> All forms of Protestants started off in the 1500s

Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer.

> They started off on the logical fallacy...

Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon.

> There is no credible basis for any of their teachings at all

The Bible is a bit picky about idolatry and excess of mammon. I guess it's each to their own as to what you consider a credible teaching.

> And she was healed of her gangrene and errors

Well, that's good to know. Hate to think there's any systemic issues with the modern Church.

> They were saints because they passed the Roman Catholic saint tests. The Church is very specific about that.

Yeah and that test is that (a) they lived a very virtuous life, with virtues being generally well defined and these definitions generally agreed upon by anyone who ever learned a thing or two about them, and (b) through their intercession miracles have happened and been verified thoroughly as being outside the boundaries of science.

> Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer.

Sure, there were Arians and Gnostics for example, but no Christians today ever say they're Arians of Gnostics, they say they adhere to the doctrines of Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Joseph Smith or the Queen of England, etc.

> Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon. [...] The Bible is a bit picky about idolatry and excess of mammon. I guess it's each to their own as to what you consider a credible teaching.

That's the same thing I said: they claim the church became corrupt, and for their reasoning they point to bad practices, trying to draw from these bad practices conclusions about corrupted doctrines.

> Well, that's good to know. Hate to think there's any systemic issues with the modern Church.

Your sarcasm is very warming on this bitterly cold day. Yes, there is corruption in the church once again. That doesn't mean the teachings or the Sacraments are invalid, just that the teachings aren't understood as well or followed as much anymore, nor are the Sacraments received properly often enough.

That's why I try to correct any and all misunderstandings anyone has about Catholic teachings insofar as I am able. So many people are led away from Catholicism, or lukewarm with it, simply because of misunderstandings about what it really is and what it really teaches.

> Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer.

"Protestant" and "schismatic" don't mean the same thing. There are certainly Christian and pseudo-Christian groups that have existed out of union with Rome before the Protestant Reformation, but neither they nor the Catholic Church nor Protestants consider them "Protestant", and their disagreements with and relations with the Roman Catholic Church are distinct from those between Protestant Churches and Rome (and the latter group is itself quite diverse.)

> Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon.

Not with your expansive definition of Protestantism they didn't. I mean, that clearly isn't an issue with the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and either the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox Churches. And while I suppose that something that might loosely be described that way was involved with groups like the Bogomils and Cathars, in both cases more fundamental differences over Christology and the nature of God were more central. (For that matter, much of the Protestant-in-the-strict-sense split was more about secular politics than theology.)

> There's also countless medically and scientifically verified miracles.

Speaking as a Catholic, no there aren't.

There are simply alleged miracles that have not been scientifically explained. Miracles aren't scientifically verifiable, and even a lack of current explanation is necessarily potentially a transitory state.

Right, I short-handed it. If an event occurred that is quite contrary to our thorough understanding of a situation, e.g. a sudden disappearance of a fatal and currently-incurable illness along with all traces of it, and this happens directly after the invocation of the intercession of a Saint in heaven, then it is theoretically possible that it's a coincidence and that we just don't understand further science behind it. But only someone who doesn't want to believe in the obvious and strong conclusion that it was a miracle is going to be able to. God designed it this way, so that it's not absolutely provable, but pretty much obvious to anyone with a good heart. I add this last clause because as Venerable Fulton Sheen said, the atheist half-believes in God by night, and nobody refuses to be Catholic except if its incompatible with the life they would rather live. Those who don't want to believe the truth don't have to, for "God sends upon them a strong delusion to make them believe what is false."

Okay, I listed to it for 20 minutes (I was going to stop after 5 ;-)). That guy was a good speaker. His church has had some great philosophical thinkers and done a lot for charity and helping people.

How do you reconcile that with the terrible things that have been part of it. That church has itself had some serious problems, including being part of destroying the culture of people in the new world, oppressing women, went through periods of multiple competing leaders who demonized each other, suppressed and basically enabled continuing abuse of children by religious leaders in the current era.

I find it very difficult to reconcile these two competing facts, which seems to be pretty common in other christian denominations also (such as the endlessly depressing stories in Dan Savage's old columns on church leaders abusing their congregations).

> How do you reconcile that with the terrible things that have been part of it. That church has itself had some serious problems

The Church is not just her members, which admittedly do fail so very often and in serious ways. If the Church were just the members, I would not be Catholic today. But the Church is far more: she is "the pillar and the bulwark of the truth" according to the Bible. She is the mother of all Saints. She is the keeper of the true interpretation of God's Word, because she also authored the Gospels.

When I say "the Catholic Church", I usually mean the collective writings of the saints, and the lives of the saints -- who had the Spirit of Christ and showed what it means to really reach the full potential of being a Christian[1] -- and the 7 Sacraments which are the source of the power of Jesus within us.

[1] Check out the writings of St. Francis de Sales, the sermons of Ven. Fulton Sheen, the life of St. Francis of Assisi or of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the writings of St. Theresa of Calcutta, and the autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux

I can try to answer that, even though I'm not actively catholic. You must evaluate an entity (person, organization, company) by what it is, not what it was. What it was can be a hint about what it is, but you must be available to reevaluate. You must be available to _forgive_, which happens to be a central tenet of Christianity.

The covering up of modern pedophile practices inside the catholic church is part of what it is not what it was. Also they have enormous amounts of money, in other words practice none of the material detachment they claim to follow.

Also, Venerable Fulton Sheen explains how our religion gives him his power: https://youtu.be/YT-vzobvYMg?t=2250 (timestamped to the right spot).

Your experience isn’t typical and most people who do good deeds do it because humans get psychic benefit from helping others. Is the joy of giving an ulterior motive in your mind? Most evangelicals don’t care as much about converting others as they do about feeling pious and close to God themselves. Mormons and JW are somewhat exceptional in their missionary focus, oddly do since they believe in a finite number of people will be saved but then again religion isn’t about logic but faith and psychic benefit.

Let me clarify: there were many genuinely compassionate people there. When I say "ulterior motives" I don't mean (necessarily) selfish motives, but an incredibly warped and misguided idea of what it means to "help people". They scooped everyone into a single proverbial bucket as "needing to say a prayer to accept Jesus" and didn't generally interface with people as real, multifaceted humans who might have more complex needs. They thought the way to help the most people was to industrialize and streamline everything.

And why wouldn't they try to convert them? If they truly believe that the people they're helping physically are doomed to an eternity in hell and that they have information about the only way to avoid that (through Jesus Christ) - it would be incredibly selfish to not share that information.

My point is their actions are completely in-line with their beliefs. It's irrational for them to act otherwise.

And this is the same argument that has been recited to me more times than I can count, and which my father still recites to me periodically.

> And why wouldn't they try to convert them?

Because, one would hope, they have the emotional intelligence to see and accept the clear and present outlier in their oversimplified idea of human nature who's sitting right in front of them. And to - even if it doesn't result in a real change to their belief system - at least be able to set everything aside for a moment and be present with the real person in front of them.

Is irrational for them to have those believes in the first place, but that didn't stop them from believing them, so...

Maybe my bible searching isn't work, do you know of a scripture that says Christians should convert people?

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” - Mark 16:15

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. - Matthew 28:19-20

Give praise to the Lord, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done. - Psalm 105:1

For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “I have made you a light for the Gentiles,that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.” - Acts 13:47

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. - 1 Peter 3:15

There's plenty more than these if you need them. Sharing the good news of what God has done has historically been one of the greatest goals of Jesus followers.

I am aware of these verses teaching things like baptism, spreading the good news, teaching of Jesus and salvation.

But none of those verses say "convert people".

There is only one verse I could find where the word "convert" survived these three major translations, KJV, NKJV and NASB:

'...and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.' - Matthew 18:3

And this verse places the responsibility on the individual, not the Christian doing the preaching.

Do you know where the idea of "converting" people was given as a task to a group to affect others instead of a personal responsibility? Is this a Catholic or Protestant teaching?

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations" is what you're referring to as 'converting people'. This is, I believe, a view held by both Protestants and Catholics.

Recently I have been looking more carefully at language, and I have found that people say one thing but mean another.

With "conversion", a verb, I don't see how "making students of Jesus" (and I wonder what "making" here means) is the same as "everyone must convert themselves to children". Don't these seem to be two completely different ideas?

Is there some verse that more clearly states "convert people" with the same meaning, intent and using similar language?

Yes, I knew a girl who was raped and her mother would only allow her to talk to their priest rather than medical and/or mental health professionals. People in the thread are talking about how astrology, religion, psychics, etc. are all ok because they don't cause harm but I believe they can and do cause harm in many cases.

Of the people I know that strongly believe in things like astrologists, psychics, or religion a large percentage also believe other absurd conspiracy theories such as vaccines causing autism, the moon landing being fake, etc.

I think we set a dangerous precedent by allowing people to blindly buy into things like astrology, without calling them out. I of course don't believe these kinds of things should be made illegal/regulated as people should be able to make their own decisions, but I also don't think they should be humored and blindly tolerated by the rest of the population.

If Nazism is illegal, so should be Catholicism and other religions. Either go full freedom of speech/thought or not, no in betweens. The amount of suffering Catholicism and Christianity in general has caused is probably comparable to Nazism anyways.

To me, it's selling lies to vulnerable people; and not just that, it's lies that not only steal money, but directly make the lives (especially its mental side) of these people and their families including (especially!) children considerably worse. Despicable, way worse than selling shit vacuum cleaners or life insurance.

While I personally agree that religion overall has a major negative impact on society, and has throughout history, I still don't think they should be made illegal or regulated. People can believe what they want to believe, and trying to control thoughts and ideologies is absolutely not something I would ever support. It would set an incredibly dangerous precedent

They should at least pay taxes just like anybody else, but most countries don't even have that.

Yes, I agree that religions should have to pay taxes. When I said regulate, I meant regulating peoples right to practice

Tax laws vary from country to country and even within countries, but it is possible to exempt religious groups from taxation without giving them special treatment, simply by applying the principle that non-profit groups aren't taxed. So, the local church doesn't pay taxes, but the neighbourhood sports club doesn't pay taxes either, since both are non-profit entities.

Yeah no, after the billions the catholic church has nobody can claim with a straight-face they are a non-profit.

What about your local synagogue or mosque, how many billions do they have? What about some small non-denominational Christian church, how much have they got?

Even with the Catholic Church, sure the Vatican has billions in the bank, the parish around the corner definitely doesn't.

Last time I went around the local church, they still had a lot of gold on the building

> Yeah no, after the billions the catholic church has nobody can claim with a straight-face they are a non-profit.

"Non-profit" doesn't mean "doesn't have significant assets", it means "doesn't have shareholders or similar stakeholders with a claim on assets". (It is about not returning a profit to someone else, not about not making profits.)

But they do spend the money on vacations and houses and such, why does that not count as return of profit?

Reasonable salaries, benefits and expenses to employees are not classified as a profit distribution. Providing residential accomodation to employees is a fringe benefit. Even providing employees with vacations is a fringe benefit, not a profit distribution.

My brother-in-law works in the construction supply industry. He isn't an owner or stockholder of his employer, he is just one of many non-managerial employees. His employer owns a holiday home and allows the employees to use it for vacation. (They have to apply in advance, and there is some system worked out on how to share it out – I think there is a waiting list, and also more senior people may get some priority.) When he takes his family on vacation to that holiday home, it is not a "return of profit", it is an employee benefit.

When the company buys the house you live in is that an employee benefit? Really, is just playing fool pretending getting everything in your life paid is "just a benefit" and not a profit, that getting everything in your life sorted out is exactly what profiteers do with profit anyways.

An organisation providing its employees with residential accomodation is not unheard of, and not at all specific to religion. It is common for governments to provide housing to senior officials (head of state or government, senior ministers, etc) and ambassadors. That doesn't make those governments for-profit, and the President/Prime Minister/Ambassador/etc is not a stockholder/owner of the government receiving a profit distribution from it.

Historically, even relatively junior employees were often provided with accomodation. One of my favourite examples is a couple of unusual residences in Sydney, Australia, which are houses built into sewer vents [1], [2]. The government-owned water utility built these residences for the sewer workers who maintained the vents to live in (along with their families). That didn't make these sewer workers somehow recipients of a "profit distribution", nor did it make the government-owned water utility a "for-profit". (The houses still exist, but are now sold or rented-out to non-employees, since providing employees with residential accomodation is far less common than it used to be–and the sewer vents are still in use to ventilate the main sewers that run beneath them.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corunna_Road_Sewer_Vent_and_Co...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Street_Sewer_Vent_and_...

In this case such "employees" are also the ones deciding who is gonna keep running the organization for the next generation (therfor enjoying the exact same benefits); all in all is just a for-profit doing a lot of lawyering play to call themselves a non-profit, a non-profit should be exclusively a term for organizations that barely survive month-to-month, if you are amassing billions you aren't that.

> When the company buys the house you live in is that an employee benefit?

Yes, when the company owns it and keeps the house (potentially assigning it to your successor) when you leave the position, absolutely.

You forgot the option when it's tax fraud

Is the joy of giving an ulterior motive in your mind? Most evangelicals don’t care as much about converting others as they do about feeling pious and close to God themselves, at least that’s been my experience. Rather than convert it seems like many want to hoard piety and Hoover up all the holiness for themselves. I think it’s all about absolution for our sins.

[copied from a comment I left elsewhere]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com