This says it all right here, folks.

[Major Nikon]

60. It sounds as if you are reading more into statements so you can refute them

I have read on this thread and others such nonsense as claims that churches only require people to believe something but not to do anything.

Here I'll simply direct you to arguably the most quoted verse in all of Christianity, John 3:16 which says quite explicitly that the only entry fee for the conveniently unverifiable promise of infinite reward is to believe in something. So it's not really the people here who are making this claim, but rather the majority position of Christianity from a theological standpoint.

Now do I think that's all most congregations demand of their membership? Absolutely not. Religion is a tool of control and unless it's being used toward that end, there's really little point. Almost without exception all of organized religion seeks to control it's adherents. Where we differ is you seem to think there is almost exclusively benevolent motives for this control, where I see more nefarious motives which leads me into your next strawman rhetoric.

In fact, I am often amazed at the authoritative statements about churches coming from people who do not know how they function or what they do. Or, who ascribe nefarious conspiracy theories to the motives of church sponsored aid.

It's pretty much impossible to absolutely determine what anyone's motives are for anything. We can see what's going on in people's minds and make factual statements. So while you are free to describe a claim of nefarious motives as "conspiracy theories" the claim that purely benevolent motives exist is equally as conspiratorial. However, what we can do is follow the money and the money paints a very clear picture. First of all churches aren't required to report financial statements, so as far as "how they function or what they do" is really a very secretive matter because no church that I'm aware actually publishes those figures. We can also derive quite a bit with the reality that few if any churches are the least bit transparent in these matters. At least in the US and pretty much everywhere else in the world, churches operate under very special tax rules which only require them to comply with qualification of a religious entity and so long as they do not grossly violate prohibited activities they are free to do as they wish with the monies they collect. No other charitable entities that I'm aware enjoy such freedom from regulation. What should not be a point of contention is pretty much all churches have tremendous overhead compared to the vast majority of other charitable entities.

I have read silly claims that churches exist only to make their members or leaders rich.

I'd be surprised to see if anyone has actually made that claim here as I haven't seen it and I've been around here a few more years than you. I would never make this claim which you seem to imply I did since you directed it at me. What I will say is that it's pretty much impossible to ignore that some churches most certainly exist exclusively to make their leaders rich and any church that collects money has an obvious and significant corrupting influence.

For example, you said that Jewish self government killed Jesus, not the Romans. How absurd. Jews did not use crucifixion.

Kinda like saying because the Jews didn't nail Jesus to the cross, they weren't responsible for the outcome, which is most definitely absurd. The Jews had the power of self-governance, but they lacked the standing army the Romans had for carrying out death sentences. Certainly their traditional method of execution was stoning, but under Roman rule this really wasn't an option so it shouldn't be at all surprising the Romans would be performing the actual act of execution using their own traditional methods.

If you actually do have any genuine interest in a historical, secular view of Jesus and how Christianity got established, I recommend an old PBS documentary titled "From Jesus to Christ." It takes a neutral, factual approach. It gives good historical background on Judea and Rome, tells what early Christians reported that they believed about Jesus, but also points out discrepancies in Gospel accounts and how early Christians dealt with their initial beliefs versus the real world realities of their lives. It ends with Constantine's conversion and the establishment of Christianity as the official Roman religion. If you are going to make claims about something, it is a good idea to know something about it first.

I take this response to be more than a little condescending. You are implying I don't have a genuine interest in a "historical, secular view of Jesus and how Christianity got established." As evidence you provide a one sided source of information that is far from comprehensive. I can provide a number of sources that establish my assertions, but clearly you have no interest in even inquiring if they exist. I find that approach more than a little arrogant at best and willfully ignorant at worst. I suggest taking a more open minded approach free from the assumption everyone else who disagrees with you is ignorant and wrong.

As you say it's a good idea to know something about the subject you are speaking to first. The self-described "apostle", Paul (who never actually met Jesus), arguably had more to do with the foundation of Christianity than Jesus himself. He managed to pull this off by recruiting the more affluent Greeks and Romans. The sticky point here is Jewish law has a circumcision requirement which Paul abolished with the conveniently unverifiable claim that a holy poltergeist whispered into his ear and instructed him to do so. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer of Christian history there was a clear profit motive from the very beginning. If your one-sided source doesn't have at least some mention of this, I can't imagine it paints a very clear picture of what was really going on at the time.