> So why is using "church" in the traditional Christian religious sense and being exempt from taxes bad?
It's not, per se. Although I do think the Parsonage exemption is wrong and should be repealed, and I do think "religion" as a criteria for non-profit status should also be removed from tax code. Just treat Churches like any other 501(c)3. What's the problem with that? (Answer: many churches spend untaxed money on things that would lose them their 501(c)3 status if they weren't religious organizations... which is almost always also unbiblical stewardship of church finances, so it's perplexing to me that any practicing Christian would oppose at least the latter change to tax law).
But, again, that's not what I was saying. What I critiquing was your characterization of Buddhist temples and Synagogues as "in the traditional sense of the word" (your owrds).
That traditional sense has no meaning in the USA. Go read court opinions. "Church" does not imply Christian. "Gospel" doesn't even imply Christian. Because, if those things did imply Christian, most of the tax benefits that are unique to churches would be struck down as state establishment of religion (protestant Christianity, to be precise). These aren't my opinions. They're the law. "Church" and "Gospel" are interpreted to mean, roughly, any group that meets regularly and has some sort of spiritual tenets.
Anyways, again, this is all far off-topic from my original post, which in fact characterized tithing in a positive light.
It's not, per se. Although I do think the Parsonage exemption is wrong and should be repealed, and I do think "religion" as a criteria for non-profit status should also be removed from tax code. Just treat Churches like any other 501(c)3. What's the problem with that? (Answer: many churches spend untaxed money on things that would lose them their 501(c)3 status if they weren't religious organizations... which is almost always also unbiblical stewardship of church finances, so it's perplexing to me that any practicing Christian would oppose at least the latter change to tax law).
But, again, that's not what I was saying. What I critiquing was your characterization of Buddhist temples and Synagogues as "in the traditional sense of the word" (your owrds).
That traditional sense has no meaning in the USA. Go read court opinions. "Church" does not imply Christian. "Gospel" doesn't even imply Christian. Because, if those things did imply Christian, most of the tax benefits that are unique to churches would be struck down as state establishment of religion (protestant Christianity, to be precise). These aren't my opinions. They're the law. "Church" and "Gospel" are interpreted to mean, roughly, any group that meets regularly and has some sort of spiritual tenets.
Anyways, again, this is all far off-topic from my original post, which in fact characterized tithing in a positive light.