Subject: Re: Better Use
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Sat Mar 04 2000 - 11:31:48 EST
In a message dated 3/4/00 10:27:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu writes:
<< Think of the great number of lives and ways of life you would affect
adversely if you were to succeed in taking the money and gold used
to build churches and having it "put to better use."
--
Matt Kozusko >>
You need to go even beyond this.
If we seize all the wealth and redistribute it equally among all the peoples
of the earth, given about a year to five years most of the previously wealthy
would be wealthy again and most of the previously poor would be poor again.
And going beyond even this, we see the churches and think, because they are
all we see, that that's all that the churches are doing with their money.
Jimmy Swaggart's ministry, for example, sent tens of millions of dollars
overseas every year for missionary support, which in turn financed schools,
medical clinics, poverty relief, etc. Some people said that the worst thing
about the guy's "fall" was that all this money dried up. But the point is
all anyone "saw" was his church and his television show. So we think that's
all there is.
A church is a group of people committed to a certain view of the world and a
certain range of activities. They need a geographical focal point -- a
building -- for their community to be fully realized. Once that community is
realized, from there money comes in for poverty relief, education, medical
clinics, etc. Get rid of all the buildings and you get rid of the base of
support for all the good things that are being done.
Things that you, of course, do not see because you are not involved.
Jim
P.S. It's always easier to criticize what you think someone else isn't doing
than to go out and do something yourself...
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Apr 01 2000 - 10:11:39 EST