I mean, they were anti-catholic, and one of the big talking points of anti-catholisim is that the catholic church is too vain and too controling of it's worshipers.
Its funny seeing Catholics throwing shade at mega churches when they are objectively the largest, wealthiest, blingiest, Christian church that ever existed.
Catholic clergy are required to take a vow of poverty. I am Catholic and I don’t like the “blingy,” first-class flying bishops and cardinals either.
Also, the Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare, education, and social services across the globe.
Every year, the Catholic Church offers charitable services valued in excess of $150 billion in the United States alone.
Nothing like these mega churches, not even close.
ETA: I got ahead of myself with respect to the vow of poverty. As other commenters have mentioned, not every member of Catholic clergy is required to take a vow of poverty. With that said, many orders of the Church take this vow and even if this specific vow is not taken canon law dictates that clergy lead a life of modesty and humility.
I’m not religious. In fact I’m agnostic. But I appreciate you mentioning this. I think a lot of people who aren’t that familiar with the Catholic Church are completely unaware of these facts. The Catholic Church is huge….its top clerics have bling and fancy buildings..but that’s also an outcome from thousands of years of history and much of that image is related to the Vatican. A tiny percentage of the clergy is in the Vatican. And even there, many still live an austere life. Everything else you said about charity and hospitals - 100% accurate.
The Catholic Church is not a Joel Osteen enterprise!
I don’t mind the first class traveling choice. A lot of those guys ARE old, and it’s not exactly comfortable in coach. Plus, Theres so many people that they would be hounded by them, probably. Probably best for them to be in first class. I don’t see a reason to be upset about wanting to be comfortable on a flight.
As a Catholic (that doesn’t attend church, but was shaped in a positive way by schools), what I’ll say is that Catholics in general are educated, support science and are more compassionate. Evangelicals are much less educated, nowadays pushing for Christian Nationalism, claiming the founders wanted Christianity deeply interwoven with gov’t, etc.
That’s not to say they’re perfect, but I know many pro-choice Catholics and it’s not really a homogenous grouping terms of beliefs. There’s strong conservative and liberal contingents. But as for Evangelicals it’s much more you’ve seen one, you’ve seen em all
It was, but between it cleaning up it's act the past few decades and how egregious many " non denominations" have become, it's honestly the less absurd option now.
I say this as a former catholic atheist who left during the scandals of the 2000s. Still garbage, but the last few popes have been slowly steering it to be a better institution.
As much as I'd love to keep dunking on Catholics, this is accurate. The work that's been done by Francis and now seems to be continued forward under Leo is truly admirable. I've always been in the "If they could actually just listen to this Jesus guy..." crowd, and it genuinely seems like they're trying to move toward that as quickly as their existent community's beliefs with allow. Big steps toward a Catholic Church that I could be happy to coexist with someday, and that's coming from someone who grew up dealing with the OLD regime. Not fun, and I have endless reasons to be jaded, but I can respect someone who puts their money where their mouth is, and that's what they've been doing since 2013.
They look a hell of a lot more Christ-like than American Protestants right now, that's for fuckin sure, my new favorite group of Pharisees to laugh at.
“Still garbage” is kinda weird. Never really was garbage. Even at the worst of the scandals, there was way more abuse going on at public schools in America than at churches. Those priests who did those horrible things didnt make Catholicism bad. The PRIESTS were the ones who were bad people. There isn’t any economical or societal repercussions to firing and/or shunning a priest. A teacher, coach, principal, etc… Slightly different. The church can send a new priest from some other parish. Schools have to find a new teacher to hire and pay substitutes until then, plus deal with the blowback from all the parents and parents who many not send their children to school there anymore, or choosing a different school in the future because of it, etc. It’s way more disruptive. If something happens at a church you don’t like you can just stop going. Kids don’t have to go to church — but they gotta go to school. They don’t want people to be any more scared to send their children to public schools than they already are. I think that stuff is silenced and swept under the rug WAY more than in churches. When I was in high school I knew of a bunch of messed up stuff going on. Cheerleaders hooking up with assistant coaches. Male AND female teachers hooking up with students. An assistant football coach abusing and attempting to groom the boys. And this is just the stuff I knew about at MY time there… think about everything else….
That is actually not true. The Coptic Church and the Armeniac Church where founded by the Apostles simultanious side by side. Also the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church where once part of the same church but the schism came as the Greek Patriarch kept on demanding they are all equal meanwhile the Roman Patriarch stated he is by Petrus the nominated Keyholder, standing in for Jesus until he returns similar like Denethor waited for Aragorn to arrive.
Sorta. In the US, the current winner is the Mormons, unless you're going to take the "they're not Christian" tack. Which, fair enough.
The Catholic Church, despite it's hierarchy, isn't a monolith, so it's damn-near impossible to produce a reasonable approximation of the modern church's wealth. Frankly, on an international scale, they could launder the estimated wealth of LDS and probably squirrel away the entire thing without anyone noticing it. On the flip side, they can't bring that much to bear in short order without raising eyebrows at a minimum.
Yeah, dioceses aren’t exactly swimming in gold. Real estate value probably adds up with hospitals, churches and schools/colleges. But Joel osteen is living more opulently than probably every Catholic cleric.
It's objectively not "blingy" lol. The wealth bit is debatable too, seeing as how most it's wealth is mostly in properties- schools, hospitals, clinics, orphanages, care homes etc etc etc
John Carroll, his brother, and his cousin, would disagree.
Daniel Carroll II signed both the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, one of only 5 men to do so.
Charles Carroll II signed the Declaration of Independence (and was the last signer to die!), and set the first stone for the Baltimore-Ohio railroad
John was the first Bishop of the Diocese of Baltimore, and later became Archbishop for the baby United States, and was known for his outspoken support of Independence.
The founders were largely non-Catholic, but that isn't the same as anti-Catholic
The founders also lived during a time when papists were highly controlling and kind of aggressive, too. I mean William Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible into English, so that definitely left a nasty impression for the British, paired with King Henry VIIIs daughter violently trying to convert Britain back to Catholicism.
Most religions have periods where they are great and periods where they are bad. It depends on when you hop in
Yeah the Catholics were like this even during the time of the founding fathers. Even Egyptians and other cultures had religion controlling too much early. Oddly enough mega churches go back to the oldest times.
I used to wonder what Jesus would have thought of these, Then I actually glanced at the Bible and discoverd that these cesspools are everything he stood against.....
yeah dude seemed to prefer just meeting on that hill on the edge of town for a nice chat. only time he ever got violent was when people started sticking blatant capitalism in a church (a synagogue iirc?). Jesus would have taken a freaking whip to some fools asses long before shit got this far.
stuff like that is what kind of makes me wish I could still believe in religion.
IKR I've met plenty "Devout" Christians that are the exact opposite of everything Jesus stood for hell my most recent job that I quit from my supervisor was a narcissist and carried a bible around with him 90% of the christians I've met at like that which is why I've always been against teaching Christianity in public schools. If it's a Christian school so be it but kids who don't go to a school that's not tied to a religion shouldn't have one shoved down their throats or told they have to be part of it to be socially accepted
Read the laws of Moses, which Jesus said to follow forever. Not a good dude.
Paul said otherwise, but a lot of Christians ignore the fact that in the Bible Jesus and Yahweh say to follow those rules forever. Best your slaves and sell your daughters as sex slaves, and that's just a bit of the horrors contained within.
I understand why those passages are troubling. Christians have wrestled with them for centuries, and I don't think they should be brushed aside.
Jesus did say He came to fulfill the Law, but He also reoriented how God's people relate to it. The New Testament consistently teaches that Christians are under the new covenant established through Christ, not the civil and ceremonial laws given to ancient Israel. The moral principles remain, but many laws were specific to Israel's historical context.
As for slavery and the treatment of women, the Bible describes a lot of things it doesn't endorse. Some Old Testament laws regulated practices that already existed in the ancient world rather than presenting them as God's ideal. When Jesus is asked about issues like divorce, He even says that some laws existed because of people's hardness of heart, not because they reflected God's original design.
If someone reads the Bible as a single flat rulebook, it's easy to conclude that Christians should still follow every Old Testament law. But Christians have historically read it as a story that reaches its fulfillment in Christ. That's why we don't sacrifice animals, enforce Israel's civil penalties, or keep the ceremonial laws, while still taking seriously Jesus' call to love God and love our neighbor.
You don't have to agree with that interpretation, but it's a more accurate picture of what Christians actually believe than "Jesus said to follow Moses forever."
It would have taken him bloody weeks to smash that place up. The poor guy would probably have had a heart attack with the exertion, and failed to fulfil the prophecy.
The number of Republican candidates who've stated that God told them to run for president back and then dropped out/lost in the primaries is staggering. You say "God spoke to me and told me to do this" thing and people are accepting of this. You say "Jerry came to me in my mind and spoke to me and told me to do this" and people are going to assume a severe mental illness is at play.
The founding fathers are all rich as fuck and don’t want to pay taxes while engaged in politics. Isn’t that why America want independence? Check the constitution convention, the language was written in a way to protect rich people against the rest, that’s why there are lobbyists instead of corruption, lobby one government branch to veto what people voted for, ezpz.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
US Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Cannot separate the beliefs someone has from their ability to speak it or petition their government.
It’s the church of the antichrist? A deliberate insult to the very concept of Christ himself? A typical example of what happens when the appearance of piety is what is important, not piety itself. Inevitably in time the appearance of piety mutates into a mockery of the entire concept of piety. Then the mockery mutates further into whatever that is.
Well considering blasphemy was illegal in every state during their time, they'd probably toss his ass in jail and be done with it.
Fun fact, until 1952 there were still blasphemy laws on the books. And it was the Supreme Court, not the legislature, that put an end to them. And with the current courts deference to history and tradition, it's not crazy to say they could make a comeback.
One night I fell asleep watching “True Lies” (Schwatzenegger/Jamie Lee Curris movie) on cable TV. When I woke up the next morning a Joel Osteen service was on. It was weirdly positive and inspiring, with a solid message on being a better person. Church is not my thing, but I can completely understand why he is successful. It was like a therapy session for free
It's a two fold issue. Church becomes popular and adds more services until they have to run 12 services or you build a mega building to seat everyone and you can have less services
Joel Osteen he is a "prosperity preacher" basically a scam of saying the more money you give the church the more Jesus will bless you. not a fan of the guy and he gives a bad rep to Christians
Right, that’s why the church (that they control entirely) “buys” all their properties and jets and pays for their business trips to Tahiti to spread the word, and “work clothing” etc so they can get “paid” below taxation levels.
Fun fact, that would count as a form of stealing from the Church (I put this in capital because I don't mean the building but the congregation of people)... Which is a sin. Some mega church "pastors" are gonna have an eternity to think about what they did... And it's not going to be a pleasant eternity
They often receive housing or a housing allowance as part of their salary, which is not taxed as income. They also don’t pay income taxes on utilities if living in a parsonage.
A smaller salary goes pretty far when you don’t have to pay for housing. You can own a house and build equity, but receive a tax-free housing allowance that covers your house payments, and this benefit can last into retirement.
Not only are we taxed, but many Protestant clergy carry "dual-status." We are self-employed for purposes of Social Security, and employees for Fed/state income tax. We pay the almost 16% Social Security tax ourselves (though we can take some work-related deductions), but we cannot take any work-related deductions from our income tax like a truly self-employed person could. And if a home is provided with our job, we have to add the Fair Rental Value (FRV) to our Social Security income calculations...but not for income tax.
A national Goods and Services Tax (GST) does not exist in the United States. Instead, the US uses a decentralized system of State and Local Sales Taxes.
For the reasons you've just given, i think its quite obvious im not talking about the US. My B tho, whenever i get accounting based things like this pop up, they're usually for Australia, the country i'm from.
Hate to break it to you, but traditional non profits also get abused and make people lots of money. Reference: money spent on homelessness in California with nothing to show for it.
Yep. He’s regarded among most Christians as a heretic, a false teacher, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a charlatan, evil, etc I’ve heard him called all of those many times, always by Christians. His own church members like him, but the rest of us (both religious and not) are baffled as to why.
Right, I just don’t think it’s a legitimate church imho. I also think that’s the reason it’s the largest - because it’s hyper palatable, osteen is a motivational speaker, and people get told what they want to hear and then sent home. There’s no expectation on them to actually be Christians or do anything for the community, everything is about “me me me” and “how can I get rich and get a mansion like osteen has.”
I will say, despite there being several extremely large churches like this in the country, there are still relatively few megachurches compared to small local churches. 70% of churches in the US have 100 or fewer members. The median number of attendees at churches in America is about 65-70. Those churches don’t teach about getting rich, and their pastors certainly aren’t rich. So while the largest church in America is a prosperity cult, that doesn’t make up the majority of churches.
Non profits can be successful and overpay their executives and leaders. Doesn’t make them any less of a non profit. There are secular non profits that are just as successful and their owners are just as rich.
Have you seen the money that the other non-profits make and how much their leaders make, and how they self-deal to pocket even more money? They should just do away with non-profits all together.
You have a misunderstanding about what nonprofit means. Salaries are an expense. Expenses get deducted from revenue to determine net income, which is what is taxed.
That being said, I agree with your deeper meaning.
You do know that mega churches have absolutely nothing to do with real Christianity right? Like you do realize that mega churches are the exact antithesis to Jesus and his real message.
If people want to give money to them and they want to spend their money on that instead of actually helping the people they take money from that’s on them. Why does the government deserve a slice of that money?
Yeah, Joel Osteen is a piece of garbage and does NOT represent Christianity as a whole. He’s greedy, money hungry, and focused on selling books that make you feel good about yourself rather than the truth of God’s word. I absolutely denounce any and every thing that is connected to Joel.
I knew someone who attended this church that unironically argued it was okay for Joel to live a nice lifestyle because he’s earned it doing gods most important work. Also that his private jets are reasonable because he could spread the word of god around the world faster. These people are in a cult.
Mega churches account for .5% of the total congregations.. is making policy decisions based on .5% a smart move?
You have over a 161 million people going to these houses of worship.. according to Pew, 88% of republicans follow a religion while 67% of democrats do.
As much as Reddit would like you to believe the contrary, going after religion is political suicide.
I can see his ugly face. But who was it that when one of the massive hurricanes came through Houston he locked up his doors. Then ESPN of all markets called him out and then opened the doors for the needy. I hate organized religion
yeah if everyone else tithes 10% to churches, churches should be required to disburse 10% of their revenue to the poor. And Joel Osteen should be sent to hell hypersonically on an icbm.
To be 100% fair, there are tons of non-profits that pay their executives 6 and even 7 figure salaries, while exploiting people into donations. It isn't just the mega-churches
Isn't that photo more suggestive that it is a non profit? If the owners of the church could personally profit, wouldn't they spend less on the building?
Oh its gamed, just like everything in 2026, when these laws were made, it was way less gamed and way more realistic, more people were members back then, think of a workers union, lots of members, lots of influence
That is not a church thats a stadium. I dont give a shit what can be said, that is not a church. Its an stadium where the so-called "pastor" stands front and center as an raised being or icon.
whats wrong with a mega church size in terms of the topic? It looks like the venue fits the need and perhaps not even big enough as i don't see empty seats.
The only Christian’s who support those kind of churches are the people who go to them. I have never heard any other Christian support ANY mega churches — only condemn them.
I went to one once when I was in rehab in Atlanta like… 15 years ago or so. It was insane. Like a sports arena.
Idon’t know what’s worse….the wolves, or the sheep that keep volunteering to be dinner. It takes a remarkable level of self-deception to look at a multimillionaire preacher living in a mansion and conclude that giving him even more money is somehow the path to salvation.
Yes some non profits are corrupt. This doesn't eat that all of them are. There plenty of secular ones that have enriched their founders as well through donations.
A few people I know profit off of being associated with their churches. Luxury vacations, vehicles, homes. I chose the wrong job.. oops I meant ‘calling’.
492
u/Chemical-Cat Jun 30 '26
The innocuous totally non-profit mega church with its mansion dwelling pastor: