Joel Olsteen, Is it Just about the Money?

[Horace]

There is a lot of hate in this country. Too much. People are gettin to the point that they do not need much of a reason to hate someone. Either way, I don't care what is in people's hearts as long as they do good deeds. I don't care if a billionaire gives $100K to feed the poor because it is a tax writeoff or because he wants to feed the poor---just so somebody gets fed in the end.

Well said sir.

 

[sangha]

You said Olsteen goes home to his multi million dollar home and that he owns more than one. You were wrong, try not to let it fry your noodle.

You should keep an eye on your own noodles
After move to $10.5 million River Oaks mansion, Joel Osteen offers ... - CultureMap Houston

The couple has moved to a $10.5 million mansion in River Oaks, while keeping their former Tanglewood residence, valued at $2.9 million.

They are, however, selling a vacant lot next to their former home. Asking price for t

Joel Osteen's House in Houston, TX (Google Maps) - Virtual Globetrotting

The televangelist owns this 17,700 sq. foot mansion. In 2011, the property tax assessor valued the property at $10.6 million. The home features a guest house, a pool house, and three elevators.

Osteen's Lakewood mega-church collects over $70 million in donations per year. He also makes tens of millions more through sales of his highly-popular books.

Another of Osteen's homes is also featured on this site.

 

[Declan]

You should keep an eye on your own noodles
After move to $10.5 million River Oaks mansion, Joel Osteen offers ... - CultureMap Houston


Joel Osteen's House in Houston, TX (Google Maps) - Virtual Globetrotting

I believe one of those two houses is owned by a trust.

 

[Horace]

You should keep an eye on your own noodles
After move to $10.5 million River Oaks mansion, Joel Osteen offers ... - CultureMap Houston


Joel Osteen's House in Houston, TX (Google Maps) - Virtual Globetrotting

LOL. You should read your own links.

I believe one of those two houses is owned by a trust.

Yeah I checked the public records before I posted the first time. They still only own one home. However it looks like they only actually live in the home owned by the trust. The new one. Ironically that detail is contained in Sangha's first link. Of course this still amounts to a hill of beans IMO. But this is a really pertinent detail. Or something. Owning more than one home and some property is a sure sign of.................uhm what? I know. Multiple NY Times best sellers?

 

[sangha]

LOL. You should read your own links.


Yeah I checked the public records before I posted the first time. They still only own one home. However it looks like they only actually live in the home owned by the trust. The new one. Ironically that detail is contained in Sangha's first link. Of course this still amounts to a hill of beans IMO. But this is a really pertinent detail. Or something. Owning more than one home and some property is a sure sign of.................uhm what? I know. Multiple NY Times best sellers?

Owning more than one home is a sign that I was right when I said they owned more than one home.

And one home being in a trust makes no difference. I don't suppose you know how a trust works, do you?

 

[Hari Seldon]

I believe one of those two houses is owned by a trust.

Who controls the trust?

 

[sangha]

Who controls the trust?

And who's the beneficiary?

And I wonder how much in taxes the Olsteens saved by putting the house in a trust while being able to continue residing there?

It looks like some people think putting something in a trust is just like giving it away

 

[Hari Seldon]

And who's the beneficiary?

And I wonder how much in taxes the Olsteens saved by putting the house in a trust while being able to continue residing there?

It looks like some people think putting something in a trust is just like giving it away

Just the opposite really. We put my mom's condo in a trust after her stroke so she wouldn't lose it. She lives there with a full time aid and it gives us the ability to handle her affairs.

 

[sangha]

Just the opposite really. We put my mom's condo in a trust after her stroke so she wouldn't lose it. She lives there with a full time aid and it gives us the ability to handle her affairs.

When my mom had Alzheimer's, she put her money and home in a trust for similar reasons. All perfectly legal as I'm sure you're aware.

 

[Horace]

And who's the beneficiary?

And I wonder how much in taxes the Olsteens saved by putting the house in a trust while being able to continue residing there?

It looks like some people think putting something in a trust is just like giving it away

I'm sure they are the beneficiaries. I do know they won't be eligible for a homestead exemption on the trust home. And will pay an estimated $260,000.00 in property taxes on it.

When my mom had Alzheimer's, she put her money and home in a trust for similar reasons. All perfectly legal as I'm sure you're aware.

Having cared for my grandparents and their estate in the final years of my grandfather's alzhiemers? And also having set up a trust for another family member, I know few things about them.

Owning more than one home is a sign that I was right when I said they owned more than one home.

And one home being in a trust makes no difference. I don't suppose you know how a trust works, do you?

Seems like you are really agitated, did I hurt your feelings by saying you were wrong? Here let me help, technically Olsteen only owns one home. Now here is the really obvious question sangha. Let's say Olsteen has purchased three, no make it five homes with the profits from his NYT best sellers and public speaking engagements. This is relevant to.......what? For clarity, here are the comments of yours I quoted:

I didn't quote him. But what he does say is that God will make them rich if they use their money to help other people. Then he asks them for money to help other people

And then he goes home to his multi-million dollar mansion.

And it's not the only home he owns.

What is the relevance of how many homes Olsteen owns? Also, since you are out there searching the web for info, can you provide a citation for your claim that Olsteen tells "them" God will make them rich if they use their money to help other people? When you find that, can you check and see if he is speaking in the financial sense or in a spiritual one?

 

[sangha]

Seems like you are really agitated, did I hurt your feelings by saying you were wrog?

Don't you know that the "You're getting upset" is one of the oldest and most transparent ploys on the internet. Surely you can do better than that?

Well, maybe not "surely"

Here let me help, technically Olsteen only owns one home. Now here is the really obvious question sangha. Let's say Olsteen has purchased three, no make it five homes with the profits from his NYT best sellers and public speaking engagements. This is relevant to.......what? For clarity, here are the comments of yours I quoted:

What is the relevance of how many homes Olsteen owns? Also, since you are out there searching the web for info, can you provide a citation for your claim that Olsteen tells "them" God will make them rich if they use their money to help other people? When you find that, can you check and see if he is speaking in the financial sense or in a spiritual one?

Ahh, so now that I've proven that I said nothing untrue, you're going to move the goalposts and try to pretend your objection was about relevancy as if you never said that I was wrong about the facts?

Gee, I'm sure no one will notice that dodge!! :roll:

 

[Declan]

Who controls the trust?

Whoever is the trustee :shrug:

 

[CrabCake]

If you are now admitting that some of the criticism is legitimate, then you are admitting that there are legitimate grounds on which to criticize him.

I admitted that on my very first post on the topic. See the sentence that begins with an asterisk.

Maybe I should have also bolded it in addition to beginning it with an asterisk?

Maybe I should have included a picture with an arrow pointing to it that says READ THIS DISCLAIMER?

My first post on the topic already said what you claim I am only now admitting. There may be legitimate concerns about Osteen, but that's not what my post is addressing. I'll copy and paste the disclaimer again here for you:

*There may be legitimate concerns about Osteen in particular. I don't know enough about him to defend his practices. I am speaking against the general concept of questioning a minister's sincerity based on how much money they make to a greater degree than you question anyone else's.

 

[sangha]

I admitted that on my very first post on the topic. See the sentence that begins with an asterisk.

And in the post I first responded to, you denied that anyone had criticized him on those grounds even though several had.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Whoever is the trustee :shrug:

I deserved that. Probably O'Steen or his church which means he effectively owns it.

 

[Horace]

Don't you know that the "You're getting upset" is one of the oldest and most transparent ploys on the internet. Surely you can do better than that?

Well, maybe not "surely"



Ahh, so now that I've proven that I said nothing untrue, you're going to move the goalposts and try to pretend your objection was about relevancy as if you never said that I was wrong about the facts?

Gee, I'm sure no one will notice that dodge!! :roll:

You do seem agitated, often. In any case, I have already stated that technically, what with the beneficiaries no doubt being the Olsteens, he has two homes. Serious question, is your wounded ego in need of some kind of press release that says the same thing? You dodging my question as to the relevance of this detail is supposed to equate me doing the dodging? Because the question still stands about what the relevancy of how many homes Olsteen own is.

 

[Declan]

I deserved that. Probably O'Steen or his church which means he effectively owns it.

Depends on the trust terms. If it is revocable, then yes; but if not or a charitable trust, then no.

 

[sangha]

You do seem agitated, often. In any case, I have already stated that technically, what with the beneficiaries no doubt being the Olsteens, he has two homes. You dodging my question as to the relevance of this detail is supposed to equate me doing the dodging? Right.

No, there's nothing "technical" about it. I was right all along.

As far as relevance, my post you originally responded to explains the relevance so I'm dodging nothing. I just have a policy prohibiting the explanation of the obvious to the oblivious

 

[Horace]

No, there's nothing "technical" about it. I was right all along.

As far as relevance, my post you originally responded to explains the relevance so I'm dodging nothing. I just have a policy prohibiting the explanation of the obvious to the oblivious

Actually there is a technicality to it. I was too was right all along. Before I challenged your comment I checked public records and found that the Olsteens names are on only one house title in Harris County. It is obvious that when you made your initial claim you had no idea how many homes Olsteen owned. After I challenged your presumption there was a list of multiple homes owned by Olsteen, you went out and found the article that spoke about the Olsteens moving from their old home to their new one in 2010. That article points out that the new home belongs to the trust in question. Since we don't know who the beneficiaries are, but assume it would be the Olsteens, technically it could be argued that the Olsteen own two homes. But that can't be proven without knowing who the beneficiaries are. So the technicality is that the house title is in the name of a trust, and in some ways both of us are right. Technically. Thing is that my ego is not wrapped up in who is "wrong" or "right" technically or otherwise. You seem very agitated and focused on solely how supposedly right you have been all along.

So the Olsteens have been living in a new home for four years that we all agree technically is likely theirs. Prior to 2010 they owned one home that they now no longer live in, but still own. And this means what? You never said and now refuse to clarify a very ambiguous and open ended claim. You are seriously committed to arguing that the number of homes Olsteen owns is supposed to have some kind of meaning. OK, what's the meaning is the obvious question. You made a big show out of how I was supposed to be "dodging" twice now, but aside from repeating how right you were all along, you keep dodging. Ironic isn't it?

 

[sangha]

If you want to be naive enough to believe that putting the house in a trust is anything but a manipulation of the legal system, that's your choice

 

[Horace]

If you want to be naive enough to believe that putting the house in a trust is anything but a manipulation of the legal system, that's your choice

Is that the best dodge you could come up with this morning? Looks like you are still coming up empty on what the relevance of Olsteen owning more than one home is. It's OK. And obvious.

 

[sangha]

Is that the best dodge you could come up with this morning? Looks like you are still coming up empty on what the relevance of Olsteen owning more than one home is. It's OK. And obvious.

Since I proved that I was right all along and you were wrong, all you can do now is act out.

 

[Horace]

Since I proved that I was right all along and you were wrong, all you can do now is act out.

I thought you understood how trust work? So in addition to me being right all along, I'm able to speak to other issues brought up by your initially incorrect presumption. As well as your claim to having superior knowledge of how and what trust are for and about. Let's test your knowledge and see how much you really do know. What would you say the chances are that the beneficiaries of the trust in question while named last named Olsteen, might in fact be the Olsteen children? You mentioned having to set up a trust when you dealt with alzhiemers, yourself. So you were doing that so you could manipulate the legal system? So what you are saying is that you take issue with Olsteen acting within the law as you have done yourself? In addition to hypocritical that is rather.........silly.

 

[sangha]

I thought you understood how trust work? So in addition to me being right all along, I'm able to speak to other issues brought up by your initially incorrect presumption. As well as your claim to having superior knowledge of how and what trust are for and about. Let's test your knowledge and see how much you really do know. What would you say the chances are that the beneficiaries of the trust in question while named last named Olsteen, might in fact be the Olsteen children? You mentioned having to set up a trust when you dealt with alzhiemers, yourself. So you were doing that so you could manipulate the legal system? So what you are saying is that you take issue with Olsteen acting within the law as you have done yourself? In addition to hypocritical that is rather.........silly.

Your tears will spoil the taste of your morning coffee so just accept the fact that I was right all along and your nonsense about who donates money for the homeless was irrelevant.

 

[Horace]

Your tears will spoil the taste of your morning coffee so just accept the fact that I was right all along and your nonsense about who donates money for the homeless was irrelevant.

And is that the best dodge you can come up with? It does not look any more clever than the ones from last night. Or the first one this morning. You really can't articulate what the relevance of how many homes Olsteen owns is supposed to be. If in fact you do understand how trust work and what they are for, you are not articulate enough to not make a hypocrite of yourself by crying about Olsteen taking advantage of the same manipulations of the law that you did. That's OK. And obvious.