And since it's a church, as an organization, you'll be eligible for tax breaks and such!

Edit: also, some reddit love -- http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8kjxi/this_morning_i_became_an_ordained_minister_of/

tax breaks ? why and how so

Churches in Canada(and the US) are exempt from paying taxes. Basically, the idea is that religions help people, like charities, so it makes no sense to tax these organizations. The tax exempt status has been abused, by plenty of organizations, like scientology.

It may be a slap in the face but i will be diffrent and say it is a well deservred one. You will be studying fairy tales for 3 years and in the end it will be equivlent legealy to filling out that online form and for good reason.

Simply studying anything for a long duration is not atuomatly worthy of respect. I think this is esptaly true when you study it in a horaibley basied and slated way like you would get from training to become a prest or minsiter in most relgiones rather then studying it form a socilogalical and pyscoglical stand point in the humanaites at a real university.

The point here that i think theses online relgiones seem to make is that there is no diffrence between somthing i just make up on the spot and the doctoron of the larger relgiones. There is no more value in studying the doctron of chirsitanity and chatlotish then there is of studying the doctron of the flying spegity monster and personaly i don't think studying the flying spegity monster for 3 years should have as much repsect as the batchlers degree (well maybe outdoor rec ).

Don't get me wrong tho, i do think there is value in studying relgion form an unbasied stand point as a form of socilogly, psycology and anthropology (for lost and achenent ones) but doing it form the point of a persest in a basied way with out much or any consideration given to other relgions and it's implcations is pointless and aucataly harmfull to your undserstanding of the world.


Edit: Aucatly i think the real slap in the face here is that being a ordained minister grants you any more periveiges in socity then any other member of it. Any one should be able to perfome a mariage if the two persons adgree to it and fill out a marage lincese (or there should not even be a need for some one to do it if they have the paper work). Persoanly i am getting a mariage cominsioner to do my wedding and it's not going to be in a church (not that they would allow me to have it in one any way but thats another rant).

Studing religion is a lot more than just the beliefs it has a lot of sciences aswell

Dan, you really don't understand what it takes to be an ordained minister in most churches, do you?

Lets examine what the courses are, shall we? You harangue religious people for not knowing science... someone should show you, you don't know religion.

But being religious does not preclude someone from doing good science, either. Its a logical fallacy. Now, the courses:

* Old Testament Theology and History
* New Testament Theology and History

* Interpreting and Applying the Biblical Text

* Elementary Greek I [NEWT 0321] or Hebrew Grammar I [OLDT 0611]
* Elementary Greek II [NEWT 0322] or Hebrew Grammar II [OLDT 0612]

* Greek Exegesis I [NEWT 523] or Hebrew Exegesis I [OLDT 0711]
# Systematic Theology I
# Systematic Theology II

# History of Christianity I
# History of Christianity II

# Gospel, Church, and Culture

# Leadership Development
# Spiritual Formation

The theology and history courses examine the sociological and archaeological information about the areas, peoples, and societies those portions were written in.

This is serious study, undertaken by secular authorities as well.

It examines the theological basis for what the Old/New Testaments talked about, again, a difficult subject. As well, the students are required to learn either Hebrew or Greek, so they can read works in their original form.

Further courses treat theology as a rational philosophy, with history, debate, analysis behind it.

Then, there is intensive historical studies, using sciences like sociology, archeology, and so on, to put the ancient in perspective.

Then there is leadership training, cultural and sociological analysis of contemporary cultures, ranging from North American teenagers to the Hopi Indians.

It is cross-denominational, but still christian-focused.

It is intensive hard work, requiring a lot of intelligence, logic, and effort. It is as intensive and as broad-ranging of a degree as one of humanities at a secular university.

You honestly do not understand what it takes to be a good minister.

So don't you dare show your hypocrisy by condemning someone that is attempting to learn and become a good minister.

Its not about parroting beliefs as you so blindly assume.

Its about understanding the beliefs others have had, their spiritual frameworks, their reasoning and analysis, and coming up with your own.

This is followed up with a real-world internship, where they try to help people. They do look at other religions, though you assume they do not.

To be a minister does not require a closed-mind, but one that is willing to analyse another religious framework, and accept it for what it is.

Again, I'll say it, until you've examined for yourself the course-load of seminary, you cannot condemn someone, and say its easier. Until you understand religion, you come off as one of as one of those "wacky" atheists that have no idea what they're talking about, because obviously you don't.

I find it offensive to the extreme, that you cannot accept religion in other's lives, like most religious people accept and work with science.

You don't believe. That is 100% perfectly fine. But to condemn others for undertaking...

...what now appears to be an absolutely grueling course-load, and say its "easier"... Dan, you're hypocrisy is showing.

You know you are a freak when the Pope himself, that bastion of catholicism, is perfectly fine with science and other religions. When the leader of the largest religion in the world is more accepting than you are, there is something genuinely wrong with your world viewpoint.

You will be studying fairy tales for 3 years and in the end it will be equivlent legealy to filling out that online form and for good reason.

Dan, you are conflating people that really do push their beliefs on others with the large majority of people.

Sure you could say that it's only a few fundmentalists but the magority of peoleop voting for reperstives that have theses extrem views are just noraml moderate relgisues folks. You are not keeping relgion to your self if you go out and vote for some one that want to ban gay mariage, stop steam cell research, teach creationism in school or have prayer in school.

I would never vote for some one who wanted to ban relgion or censor relgion in any way. I also would not vote for some one who would want to remove rights from persons based on there relgion, view point or anything else. However the same can not be side for the magority of the "modertly" relgiuses peoleop who the orginizaed relgions do greatly influence.

You are ascribing motivations and reasoning that don't fit, if you had any actual experience of most religious leaders.

You didn't even go to the link I provided, so you could double-check what I was saying. I provided proof, you provided an alternate definition that fits your world view, with no proof.

Here, take a look at what you actually did say:


That is a strawman, if we're going to go line by line. But I won't. Its silly.

To YOU, they are fairy tales. This is perfectly okay to believe in. It doesn't matter how you came to it, but you came to a decision, whether logic, philosophy or whatever.

But to discount other people's opinions, because they do not fit your world view is the height of hypocrisy.

What I'm trying to say is, that you're so proud of yourself for not being fooled by the "church", that you scorn those that have these "false" beliefs.

You and many other avowed atheists are the same way, and it does nothing but hurt your cause. It makes you appear arrogant, and elitist.

You really have no understanding of what it takes to be a good minister, and you prove it with a whole list of assertions not backed up by any data. For someone so hellbent on proving that data, reason, science, are superior, you don't use any.

While I too disagree on religion's validity, I don't think its a very mature or enlightened action to make fun of it.