It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Absolutism doesn't really work.
Originally posted by AKARonco
tithing is supposed to be for food programs, outreach programs, and building congregations, and churches.
Originally posted by AKARonco
reply to post by Aggie Man
I agree, it is something I would not want to do unless absolutely needed. From what Ive heard they do a full financial analysis, and then decide what to give to you...I think its a little intrusive, but could be very much worth it, if you have hungry kids!
Originally posted by AKARonco
I did specifically ask about the food programs though.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Absolutism doesn't really work.
ABSOLUTELY!
Please don't dock me MODS...that one liner had to be made. Oh, never mind, it looks like I'm on my 3rd sentence now. Well, 5th if you count this sentence right here along with my closing line.
Just sayin'
Stealing is wrong. PERIOD
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Absolutism doesn't really work.
ABSOLUTELY!
Please don't dock me MODS...that one liner had to be made. Oh, never mind, it looks like I'm on my 3rd sentence now. Well, 5th if you count this sentence right here along with my closing line.
Just sayin'
Kind of odd that shortly before, you said...
Stealing is wrong. PERIOD
That's absolutism. Sometimes, stealing is right. Sometimes it has no moral countenance. And yeah, sometimes it's wrong. it depends on the situation.And even when it's wrong it may be necessary, or any other list of mitigating factors.
It's easy enough for those of us who have the dough to waste on computers and internet subscriptions to pass moral judgement on stuff like this, but truth is, until you're there, you can't really make those kind of judgments, and even then, they really only apply to yourself either way. Y'dig?
Originally posted by thecrow001
nothing wrong with helping the poor, would those rich companies miss such a little loss, nope would it help the poor 100 times more yes.
Steal from the rich to give to the poor nice story of robin hood comes to mind
I knew someone would make this about guns: ROFL!
Of course if you had a few guns...
Originally posted by lpowell0627
Originally posted by thecrow001
nothing wrong with helping the poor, would those rich companies miss such a little loss, nope would it help the poor 100 times more yes.
Steal from the rich to give to the poor nice story of robin hood comes to mind
Keep in mind, the original purpose of the US was in essence the same idea. The problem of course with this idea is how to define 'needy' and how to define 'rich'. Everybody's personal viewpoint is different based on what they have experienced. Sorting of like looking for WMDs that don't exist but then saying -- "Oh well, they are a terrible regime and we should topple it anyway."
It is at this point that greed begins to take shape. And with greed, comes power.
Today they take food. Tomorrow they take food and drink. The day after they decide they are also entitled to dessert.
Are the poor entitled to everything the rich have? And whom exactly is going to draw that line? The ones that have nothing and want for everything or the ones that have everything and want for nothing?
That is the problem with the justification of misdeeds.
Again, i would have encouraged the church to share with the community what was needed. If people are encouraged to simply take whatever they want from whomever they think has more, we will end up killing each other and the NWO will be the least of anyone's problems.
[edit on 21-12-2009 by lpowell0627]
Originally posted by Pellevoisin
There are a number of issues that arise when the question of a sermon is posed. First, there is the sermon as conceived by the preacher. Second, there is the sermon as actually delivered by the preacher and possibly recorded or filmed. Third, there is the sermon as each person hears it -- by which they participate through the subconscious in 'writing' the sermon that they are hearing.
And then fourth there are news reports about sermons which are usually part of an entirely different agenda than the ecclesiastical context. And fifth, we have the lot of commentary from blokes what wasn't there in the first place and have an axe to grind because it is religion, or politicised religion or what have you.
Somewhere in all of that one needs to take a deep breath and ask sincerely what was the priest's intention in terms of the Christian nous in which it was conceived. The desperate poor are a constant scandal to Church & State or Crown & State ... and are the main indictment of unfettered capitalism as well as the variations of corporatist fascism and the control-freaks of all-invading socialism.
The priest proposed an answer to the needs of the poor which heretofore neither crown nor political party nor ideology have been able to address. Even the priest's own Jesus threw up his hands at the question of the poor i.e., "They will always be with you." -- which was not a prophecy by Jesus but an indictment of humanity and its unwillingness to convert their way of thinking and embrace unity, Oneness and the responsibilities that come with this 'new' way of thinking and living with the stranger now one's sister, one's brother.
[edit on 21/12/09 by Pellevoisin]