The church wanted to help someone affected by Hurricane Katrina, so they gave, free and clear, a house in Memphis, to a 'worthy' couple. The couple never moved in and sold the house for a profit. What are you opinions about this?
I think it was morally wrong for the couple to do this, if they didn't think they'd like Memphis, then don't take the house. Or if it was a deliberate scam, well really, it is a 'needless to say'...of course that is wrong!
I feel bad for the church, this is a hard lesson for them to learn...
Comments?
Here's the article-->http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101124.html
2006-11-24 06:51:03 · 19 answers · asked by a_delphic_oracle 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I can't choose a best answer so I'm putting it to a vote. Good answers everyone.
2006-11-25 04:42:55 · update #1
You are right, although it was legal, it was morally and ethically wrong. especially if it was for profit.
Now if they were planning to leave the area before they got the house, (which sounds like the case). It would have been OK if they asked the church if they could just sell that house so they could get one in another city. Then it's entirely the churches decision, and they would be in control of their charity.
2006-11-24 06:53:07 · answer #1 · answered by Coool 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hi Delphic,
I feed bad for them also. I guess they will learn the wrong lesson.
Anyway
“People are often unreasonable, illogical and self-centered: Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives: Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies: Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you: Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone can destroy overnight: Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous: Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow: Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough: Give the world your best anyway.
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God: it was never between you and them, anyway” – Anonymous
--------------
If they learned their lesson, they will not help the next truly needy couple. Though I agree they were naive, maybe it should have been like a homestead: live there and keep it up for 5 years and you get the deed. However, I feel they will not do this again at all.
2006-11-24 07:12:56 · answer #2 · answered by Cogito Sum 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Acts 5:1-11 Ananias and Sapphira
2016-05-22 22:44:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not much of a question here.
But as for the article, I agree with you. I find this situation extremely offensive and I wish the church had written conditions into the deal that would assure legitimate use of the property. If they did not want it, the property should have reverted back to the church so someone else could benefit. Shame on them!
2006-11-24 06:56:04 · answer #4 · answered by The Grand Inquisitor 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The church is totally wrong. When you truly give someone something in the love of Christ there can be no strings attached. If they were ripped off it is to their glory. If the people didn't want to live in Memphis then the house was theirs to sell, Sounds like they are more upset that they can't boast about their so called good deed.
2006-11-24 08:26:33 · answer #5 · answered by Roberto 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
On the face of it it does sound unethical.
But because this is a small church, which means the financial sacrifice was probably substantial for the congregants, I'd consider this damned slimy to boot. What bothers me most is that good people's generosity was abused. If they did it to the Vatican it would be wrong, but to do it to a community church makes several notches lower.
2006-11-24 07:01:09 · answer #6 · answered by JAT 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Amid good intentions, all people, at the very depths of their souls, are sinners:
A man was walking along a dusty path. He came upon an injured snake which asked for his help. The man replied, "I'd love to help you but you are a snake and everyone knows that a snake cannot be trusted. If I help you I fear that once you are better you will bring great harm upon me." The snake assured him that he would not do so and would be forever grateful.The man against his better judgment decided he would help the snake. He cared for him and nourished him back to health. Each day he would bring food to the snake and they would share time together. One day the man came to the snake who was now fully recovered and upon approaching him to provide food, the snake attacked him with a deadly and death assured bite. The man looked upon the snake and asked "But why? I helped you, I nourished you, I trusted you. Why did you do this terrible thing to me?" The snake replied "But my foolish man, you knew I was a snake when you picked me up!"
2006-11-24 06:58:02 · answer #7 · answered by kjbopp 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sad when you loose faith in humans. I have long time ago.
Someone should have explained to the church - the real world they live in.
Keep the help simple and under watchful eyes.
I am sorry they (the church) got taken in by these people, as this will affect donations and help to others.
"Once - shame on you; Twice - shame on me." is the old saying - right? Only many people have NO shame.
2006-11-24 22:14:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yep, that was wrong. This could really screw things up for some other needy People. I generally don't bother with the moralizing but the couple who did that are scum! No, they're lower than that, they are the scum under the mat that is under the spittoon full of scum. What a shame when People respond to generosity this way!
2006-11-24 06:56:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps the couple did not want to live there, and had a better place with a better job offer. When you give something, it no longer belongs to you, but to the recipiant who you gave it to.
If those people were in the wrong in the eyes of God, He will make things right in His own time. Pray for the church and for that family in question.
Turning your problems over to the Lord are handled much in the same way. People say that they handed their needs over to the Lord when they pray to Him, but in reality they don't actulally let go and let God have their problem. If they actually did let go of their need when they "gave it over to the Lord', then why would they still worry about them. Dont they trust the Lord to do with their need that He promised to do? Where is their faith?
This Chruch needs to turn this over to the Lord, and then let it go.
2006-11-24 06:55:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋