Do Not Occupy Wall Street; Occupy Church Instead!
LKL wrote:
Ruveyn will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's pointing out that the universe exists completely independently of human perception and thought. To posit otherwise might be fun, but basically amounts to intellectual masturbation.
For the most part. Humans can make minor changes in the parts of the cosmos in which they dwell or can reach. But human alterations are limited in scope. The largest part of the cosmos is out of human reach (other than just to look) and the changes humans can make are limited by physical laws.
In order to make things be what we WISH them to be, we must first deal with thing as they ARE.
ruveyn
Joker wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It seems to me that this whole "Occupy Wall Street" effort (and its various me-too spinoffs) is stuck in neutral.
I mean, there is not one, single billionaire that has given his or her money to the poor, yet the movement seems to be spreading to places where the wealthy live and work.
But the Occupiers are missing something.
What about those places where the wealthy go to worship?
Think about it: look at all of those glass and steel monuments to human greed and gullibility, and ask yourself, "How much did that cost?"
Then ask yourself, "Why didn't they spend the money on the poor instead?"
It is my opinion, that any religion that spends money on prime real-estate and builds anything* that is not for housing the homeless is - in reality - stealing land, housing, and money from the very people that need it the most.
Thus, I urge all of those who feel that withholding wealth from the poor is unfair, unethical, and immoral to go down to the nearest religious facility and occupy it as soon as it opens its doors. Stay there until the religious leaders start forking over some of the wealth that they should have given to you already - money that they've stolen from their believers and kept from you under the guise of Worship.
The wealthy may be inaccessible, but their Sabbath-Day Country Clubs* are not.
(*Churches, mosques, temples or other religion-based facilities that are considered tax-free)
I mean, there is not one, single billionaire that has given his or her money to the poor, yet the movement seems to be spreading to places where the wealthy live and work.
But the Occupiers are missing something.
What about those places where the wealthy go to worship?
Think about it: look at all of those glass and steel monuments to human greed and gullibility, and ask yourself, "How much did that cost?"
Then ask yourself, "Why didn't they spend the money on the poor instead?"
It is my opinion, that any religion that spends money on prime real-estate and builds anything* that is not for housing the homeless is - in reality - stealing land, housing, and money from the very people that need it the most.
Thus, I urge all of those who feel that withholding wealth from the poor is unfair, unethical, and immoral to go down to the nearest religious facility and occupy it as soon as it opens its doors. Stay there until the religious leaders start forking over some of the wealth that they should have given to you already - money that they've stolen from their believers and kept from you under the guise of Worship.
The wealthy may be inaccessible, but their Sabbath-Day Country Clubs* are not.
(*Churches, mosques, temples or other religion-based facilities that are considered tax-free)
Most millionaires and billionaires worship money, not God, so they don't go to church. More politicians claim a denomination than actually go to church. You also need to consider that most churches are not the grand cathedrals of the middle ages, but are simple and often not worth what they paid for it. Churches with a mortgage are usually upside down right now and the bank would get first pick if any claim was made against them. My church occasionally makes a public announcement about where the money is going so I don't worry about that. I wish more churches were that open about their budget.
Fnord wrote:
Why?
Would regular church-goers have heart attacks from being under the same roof as homeless and unemployed people?
Would regular church-goers have heart attacks from being under the same roof as homeless and unemployed people?
For most of them no, and every church has unemployed people in it these days, so no on that point as well.
Fnord wrote:
Would it really hurt so much for religious institutions to be shamed into doing what they have promised to do?
Depends if you can find any promise in writing.
Fnord wrote:
Would the extra publicity be any worse for homeless and unemployed people than it is already?
Unemployment is either on or not far from most people's minds these days, and my experience with the large homeless population around here is that they are not interested in non-monetary aid. I gave up on it because all they care about is anything that can be converted into smokes, a drink, or a fix.
Fnord wrote:
Or do you simply hold churches as such "sacred" institutions that you believe they should be allowed to practice fraud, theft, and usury on a weekly basis?
Are you assuming that that idiot TV preacher from the '80s that wanted you to send him $1000 is representative of Christianity? There is no usury in mainline Christian churches, and there is no fraud or theft unless someone on the payroll has their hand in the cookie
jar.
I support this message.
I do as well.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
shrox wrote:
Joker wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It seems to me that this whole "Occupy Wall Street" effort (and its various me-too spinoffs) is stuck in neutral.
I mean, there is not one, single billionaire that has given his or her money to the poor, yet the movement seems to be spreading to places where the wealthy live and work.
But the Occupiers are missing something.
What about those places where the wealthy go to worship?
Think about it: look at all of those glass and steel monuments to human greed and gullibility, and ask yourself, "How much did that cost?"
Then ask yourself, "Why didn't they spend the money on the poor instead?"
It is my opinion, that any religion that spends money on prime real-estate and builds anything* that is not for housing the homeless is - in reality - stealing land, housing, and money from the very people that need it the most.
Thus, I urge all of those who feel that withholding wealth from the poor is unfair, unethical, and immoral to go down to the nearest religious facility and occupy it as soon as it opens its doors. Stay there until the religious leaders start forking over some of the wealth that they should have given to you already - money that they've stolen from their believers and kept from you under the guise of Worship.
The wealthy may be inaccessible, but their Sabbath-Day Country Clubs* are not.
(*Churches, mosques, temples or other religion-based facilities that are considered tax-free)
I mean, there is not one, single billionaire that has given his or her money to the poor, yet the movement seems to be spreading to places where the wealthy live and work.
But the Occupiers are missing something.
What about those places where the wealthy go to worship?
Think about it: look at all of those glass and steel monuments to human greed and gullibility, and ask yourself, "How much did that cost?"
Then ask yourself, "Why didn't they spend the money on the poor instead?"
It is my opinion, that any religion that spends money on prime real-estate and builds anything* that is not for housing the homeless is - in reality - stealing land, housing, and money from the very people that need it the most.
Thus, I urge all of those who feel that withholding wealth from the poor is unfair, unethical, and immoral to go down to the nearest religious facility and occupy it as soon as it opens its doors. Stay there until the religious leaders start forking over some of the wealth that they should have given to you already - money that they've stolen from their believers and kept from you under the guise of Worship.
The wealthy may be inaccessible, but their Sabbath-Day Country Clubs* are not.
(*Churches, mosques, temples or other religion-based facilities that are considered tax-free)
Most millionaires and billionaires worship money, not God, so they don't go to church. More politicians claim a denomination than actually go to church. You also need to consider that most churches are not the grand cathedrals of the middle ages, but are simple and often not worth what they paid for it. Churches with a mortgage are usually upside down right now and the bank would get first pick if any claim was made against them. My church occasionally makes a public announcement about where the money is going so I don't worry about that. I wish more churches were that open about their budget.
Fnord wrote:
Why?
Would regular church-goers have heart attacks from being under the same roof as homeless and unemployed people?
Would regular church-goers have heart attacks from being under the same roof as homeless and unemployed people?
For most of them no, and every church has unemployed people in it these days, so no on that point as well.
Fnord wrote:
Would it really hurt so much for religious institutions to be shamed into doing what they have promised to do?
Depends if you can find any promise in writing.
Fnord wrote:
Would the extra publicity be any worse for homeless and unemployed people than it is already?
Unemployment is either on or not far from most people's minds these days, and my experience with the large homeless population around here is that they are not interested in non-monetary aid. I gave up on it because all they care about is anything that can be converted into smokes, a drink, or a fix.
Fnord wrote:
Or do you simply hold churches as such "sacred" institutions that you believe they should be allowed to practice fraud, theft, and usury on a weekly basis?
Are you assuming that that idiot TV preacher from the '80s that wanted you to send him $1000 is representative of Christianity? There is no usury in mainline Christian churches, and there is no fraud or theft unless someone on the payroll has their hand in the cookie
jar.
I support this message.
I do as well.
I dont know why they dislike religious people who do no harm.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
i want to eat a wall /j |
14 Feb 2024, 3:41 pm |
Woolworths could make a return to the British high street |
27 Jan 2024, 12:07 am |
Should You Bring Your Autistic Child to Church? |
07 Mar 2024, 3:27 pm |
Thieves break into church for... tea and biscuits |
20 Jan 2024, 8:17 pm |