2 unrepentant about selling Katrina gift

[Nova]

...And, these people (in my opinion) don't owe this church a thing (legally). Morally, they should've passed this house along to one of the other 49(!) families who applied for it, if they didn't want to live there.

Don't get me wrong, Karole. From the little we know, it strikes me that the recipients have been ungracious at least.

But if the intention was to provide housing for people who had lost their house to the hurricane (assuming, of course, they in fact did), then why must the recipients give up the right to live where they choose?

Do we know they do not intend to use the proceeds to purchase a house elsewhere? (If, say, they sold the house and used the proceeds for gambling, then I might agree they had betrayed the spirit of the gift.)

(BTW, I appreciate the distinction you are making between legal and moral obligation. I know we are discussing the latter.)

 

[southernpixie]

And at the end of it all, Nova turns it into another attack on Christianity and our "self-pity" and "whininess." Your insults against Christians is getting old, and is irrelevant most of the time, such as on this topic, which is about fraud against what happens to be a church. You have such hatred within you towards Christians, and yet you want tolerance? Stick to the topic at hand, for once, PLEASE. :slap:

Sorry - I don't think it is a hatred toward Christians. IMO (and DK I have read many of yours and respect them completely!!!!!) Christians take great offense to anything that goes beyond them or in any way questions their beliefs or differs from their beliefs in any way shape or form and they take it as a personal attack against Christianity. It simply isn't. It is another point of view made to make people think. In no way were Nova's comments an insult.

As for fraud, no, these people don't owe the church a thing. It is a pity as mentioned before that the church will have to do more screening but isn't that the way it is with everything in today's world?

 

[Nova]

And at the end of it all, Nova turns it into another attack on Christianity and our "self-pity" and "whininess." Your insults against Christians is getting old, and is irrelevant most of the time, such as on this topic, which is about fraud against what happens to be a church. You have such hatred within you towards Christians, and yet you want tolerance? Stick to the topic at hand, for once, PLEASE. :slap:

You brought up Christianity, DK, as you almost always do. That was MY objection, that the denomination of the generous church is irrelevant and nobody else has mentioned it.

(ETA: to be clear, I don't object to any poster bringing up his/her religious beliefs and, most of the time, I am quite grateful to DK for his generous explication of Catholic traditions and beliefs. My point here was the way Christianity and its supposed "enemies" were invoked.)

YOU SAID POSTERS DEFENDED THE RECIPIENTS ONLY BECAUSE THOSE POSTERS HAD IT IN FOR THE CHURCH. See? Get it?

But yet again you twist words so that you are the poor, offended "victim." Since your every post fills my computer screen with Christian iconology (which is fine with me, BTW), it's hard to believe you are so terrible stifled.

 

[Dark Knight]

Sorry - I don't think it is a hatred toward Christians. IMO (and DK I have read many of yours and respect them completely!!!!!) Christians take great offense to anything that goes beyond them or in any way questions their beliefs or differs from their beliefs in any way shape or form and they take it as a personal attack against Christianity. It simply isn't. It is another point of view made to make people think. In no way were Nova's comments an insult.

As for fraud, no, these people don't owe the church a thing. It is a pity as mentioned before that the church will have to do more screening but isn't that the way it is with everything in today's world?

While I disagree with your assessment, lol, in this thread, it isn't about Christianity, it's simply happens to be a Christian church involved. Yet it becomes, once AGAIN, about our alleged self-pity and whininess. Rightfully offensive and irrelevant to the situation.

 

[southernpixie]

While I disagree with your assessment, lol, in this thread, it isn't about Christianity, it's simply happens to be a Christian church involved. Yet it becomes, once AGAIN, about our alleged self-pity and whininess. Rightfully offensive and irrelevant to the situation.

Actually - I find most religions (that I have studied) rely on self-pity and whininess.......so, trust me, from my stand point, not just Christianity.

DK - you rock :crazy: You always take the high road - even though it be rocky!!!!

 

[Karole28]

But if the intention was to provide housing for people who had lost their house to the hurricane (assuming, of course, they in fact did), then why must the recipients give up the right to live where they choose?

Do we know they do not intend to use the proceeds to purchase a house elsewhere? (If, say, they sold the house and used the proceeds for gambling, then I might agree they had betrayed the spirit of the gift.)

Well, in my opinion, selling this gift for a house in an area where they choose or for gambling, it's all the same.

These people were given a house, not a sum of cash. If given cash (like the evacuees were from FEMA) and they chose to spend it on gambling or a house, I'd be fine with either. (Remember, I'm Libertarian, if you wanna gamble your money away, fine. Spend it on strippers, no problem. Buy diamonds, or a house, whatever, it's your choice)

But they weren't given cash. They were given a house and they had to know they were expected to live there when they accepted this rather extraordinary gift.

They should've passed it along to another family.

Watch the video. They're complete asshats.

(BTW, that's not a bad house for the money, I'm thinking about investing in housing around Memphis)

 

[Nova]

It isn't about showing gratitude, it's the pretenses under which the house was procured. Their actions would make ME suspicious of their motives, as well. It would most people. They were less than honest with the church about their needs/wants. But, some people will never have sympathy for a church, either. Sad but true.

DK, I quoted your post correctly in the first place and do so again here (but with emphasis added).

At least be honest enough to admit you raised the subject of attitudes toward Christianity and how those supposed attitudes influence posters' opinions.

 

[Dark Knight]

You brought up Christianity, DK, as you almost always do. That was MY objection, that the denomination of the generous church is irrelevant and nobody else has mentioned it.

(ETA: to be clear, I don't object to any poster bringing up his/her religious beliefs and, most of the time, I am quite grateful to DK for his generous explication of Catholic traditions and beliefs. My point here was the way Christianity and its supposed "enemies" were invoked.)

YOU SAID POSTERS DEFENDED THE RECIPIENTS ONLY BECAUSE THOSE POSTERS HAD IT IN FOR THE CHURCH. See? Get it?

But yet again you twist words so that you are the poor, offended "victim." Since your every post fills my computer screen with Christian iconology (which is fine with me, BTW), it's hard to believe you are so terrible stifled.

Yes, you're right, I did make the point that it seems to be the same posters who attack Christianity elsewhere that don't have much sympathy for this church. But I still don't like your assessment of us.

 

[Nova]

Well, in my opinion, selling this gift for a house in an area where they choose or for gambling, it's all the same.

These people were given a house, not a sum of cash. If given cash (like the evacuees were from FEMA) and they chose to spend it on gambling or a house, I'd be fine with either. (Remember, I'm Libertarian, if you wanna gamble your money away, fine. Spend it on strippers, no problem. Buy diamonds, or a house, whatever, it's your choice)

But they weren't given cash. They were given a house and they had to know they were expected to live there when they accepted this rather extraordinary gift.

They should've passed it along to another family.

Watch the video. They're complete asshats.

(BTW, that's not a bad house for the money, I'm thinking about investing in housing around Memphis)

I'm happy to take your word about their asshattedness. I'm not really defending them.

Why were they given title to the house rather than just being allowed to live there, I wonder? If they weren't to sell, they didn't need the title.

 

[Nova]

Yes, you're right, I did make the point that it seems to be the same posters who attack Christianity elsewhere that don't have much sympathy for this church. But I still don't like your assessment of us.

I don't wonder. For the record, I know perfectly well that not all Christians share the weird persecution complex. But it's a very vocal minority of late and, yes, the whining gets boring.

By the same token, what you view as "attacks on Christianity" is often just disagreement with your own rather rigid and narrow view of the Faith. IMHO, of course.

ETA: I am actually quite sympathetic if the church members feel advantage was taken. We can discuss whether the feeling is fair and still understand that the feeling is very human. We'd all like to feel our generosity is appreciated and put to good use.

wind has been pointing out, however, that perhaps we ought to give for its own sake, rather than because doing so produces good feelings. I rather think Jesus would agree.

 

[Karole28]

I'm happy to take your word about their asshattedness. I'm not really defending them.

Why were they given title to the house rather than just being allowed to live there, I wonder? If they weren't to sell, they didn't need the title.

I really don't know the answer to that. But, I'm sure that mistake won't happen again.

 

[Nova]

I really don't know the answer to that. But, I'm sure that mistake won't happen again.

I imagine you are right. It's unfortunate, perhaps, but I guess we all need to think about where our contributions are going. (ETA: or adopt wind's philosophy of simply giving for its own sake.)

 

[Karole28]

I imagine you are right. It's unfortunate, perhaps, but I guess we all need to think about where our contributions are going. (ETA: or adopt wind's philosophy of simply giving for its own sake.)

Well, I feel better now!

I just gave 5,000.00 to a Nigerian Prince who is trying to get to Free Land of America (I had to straighten him out on that little mistake) so that he can move to Hollywood and become a great businessman!

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Nova]

Well, I feel better now!

I just gave 5,000.00 to a Nigerian Prince who is trying to get to Free Land of America (I had to straighten him out on that little mistake) so that he can move to Hollywood and become a great businessman!

Happy Thanksgiving!

You, too, Karole. Next year you can take us all out for turkey on your Nigerian returns.

 

[Karole28]

You, too, Karole. Next year you can take us all out for turkey on your Nigerian returns.

Well, heck yeah!

I'll even provide all the boxed wine you all can drink!

 

[Polynomial]

Can someone please post the link to the interview video. I can't find it.

Thanks!

 

[philamena]

I think the gift was procured under false pretenses, which is where the problem lies. Obviously the church feels scammed.

That's exactly what it sounds like.
IMO, they scammed the church and its members.

 

[Karole28]

Can someone please post the link to the interview video. I can't find it.

Thanks!

Here you go!

Click

 

[Polynomial]

Here you go!

Click

Wow, that's so crazy. Thanks for the link Karole28.

 

[windovervocalcords]

I did not see the TV interview. The information for this story is pretty sketchy.
The realtor did say that she hopes the next family they help are "more grateful."

"Take it up with God". Why would this be a rude thing to say if the couple were NOT scam artists?