Originally posted by twhiteheadWell if I didn't have a car I would lose the house, we would be living in government controlled housing living of government dole and would never see our kids again. I think its a fair trade. What do you do for a living if I may ask?
You are nevertheless richer than many other people in the world and have what many people would consider a luxury item. I come from a country where life expectancy is about 40, and most of my friends from high school will never drive a car in their lives.
At what point do we say 'this is essential' and therefore justified, whereas that (watch for example ...[text shortened]... g about the economy and how they might have to sell that second car we think 'spoilt brats'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIs there some society in which a $30,000 watch is not luxurious? The fact is there is none. That kind of watch is a status symbol of wealth in any society. And thats the reason why they removed it from the photo. They know that its is not acceptable by the standards in the Bible.
You are nevertheless richer than many other people in the world and have what many people would consider a luxury item. I come from a country where life expectancy is about 40, and most of my friends from high school will never drive a car in their lives.
At what point do we say 'this is essential' and therefore justified, whereas that (watch for example ...[text shortened]... g about the economy and how they might have to sell that second car we think 'spoilt brats'.
Originally posted by Rajk999Maybe it was a gift. Should he offend the giver bu refusing to wear it and
A defender of Catholic priests now?
There are different guidelines for leaders because they need to set an example..
Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, [b]not given to filthy lucre ..[/b]
display it in public as the giver apparently intended?
Originally posted by RJHindsIt wasn't so much the wearing of it, it was the botched coverup where you could see the reflection of the watch in the shiny table. That was a big part of the problem.
Maybe it was a gift. Should he offend the giver bu refusing to wear it and
display it in public as the giver apparently intended?
Originally posted by sonhouseMaybe, you should blame those that doctored the photo. I am sure those of
It wasn't so much the wearing of it, it was the botched coverup where you could see the reflection of the watch in the shiny table. That was a big part of the problem.
his faith would prefer he look more like a rich man than a pauper. When Jesus
returns to take His place as King, I would hope it is not in rags this time.
1 edit
Just a few points, the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church does not consider himself a pope. He is in communion with many other patriarchs around the world of various Orthodox churches. If anyone of them can claim papist pretension, only the Patriarch of Constantinople could plausibly do so, being primus inter pares. The patriarch has absolutely no ties to the Catholic Church although he is less hostile to Catholicism than his predecessor.
The Russian Orthodox Church certainly has the privilege of great wealth, a remnant of its close subservience to both the Tsarist and later Soviet regimes. Possibly Patriarch Kirill does use money lavishly but I would avoid reaching hasty conclusions. Perhaps the watch was a gift. It may have been doctored out of the picture because leaders must avoid association with brands. This is protocol for the Catholic pope as much as it is for Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps it was doctored out because it was not appropriate to the setting. I cannot say. But it needn't be a case of duplicity.
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThis is what is reported that Mr. Solovyov is reported to have said by the writer
It wasn't so much the wearing of it, it was the botched coverup where you could see the reflection of the watch in the shiny table. That was a big part of the problem.
of the article you linked:
After the rumors about the watch began appearing, “I started looking for it out of interest and horror,” Kirill said, according to Mr. Solovyov, who conducted the interview off camera and related the patriarch’s comments.
Sorting through gifts he had received over the years, the patriarch discovered that he did indeed own the Breguet, Mr. Solovyov said. But he insisted that he had never worn it and said he suspected that any photos of him wearing it had been altered with Photosho.
So it appears to me that the value of the watch is not exactly known, and even
if it is valued at an even greater value, what of it?
Jesus wa not angry with the woman who lavished him with expensive perfume,
but instead, rebuked his disciples for suggesting they sell it and give the money
to the poor.
P.S. We have no direct statement from the patriarch. It is hearsay and not
admissible evidence in a court of law.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is disgusting I am willing to bet that this hypocrite has preached about the evil mammon to the very people who have gone without so he can live his millionaire lifestyle, but like divegeester I am not surprised by it, I would be more surprised if the dons of organised religion did not adorn themselves like the cheap gangsters that they are.
I find it more disgusting that some one would complain about it. Perhaps
it should be against the law for someone to make watches and sell them
for $30,000. What do you think about that?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsdo you understand how disgusting it is to reply to somebody who is talking about financial hardship by talking about how good things are for you???? and then thanking god for your wealth, implying that he has bestowed you with money rather than somebody else? this does not seem very 'christian' or 'human' to me and suggest more than anything you suffer from a 'tiny penis' related psychosis.
At 68, the Lord has blessed me with total retirement, a good wife, who has given
me five wonderful children, three cars, two houses, and the money to buy all
the food and drink we could ever want to eat and drink. Praise the Lord!
Originally posted by RJHindsAlternative views are often interesting.
Maybe, you should blame those that doctored the photo. I am sure those of
his faith would prefer he look more like a rich man than a pauper. When Jesus
returns to take His place as King, I would hope it is not in rags this time.
See:
http://www.joyfulshepherd.com/2009/09/was-jesus-poor.html
quote:
What about Jesus? Was he poor? The answer is no. Mary and Joseph were poor, but not Jesus.
...
Jesus had to have a full-time accountant on his staff to care for his money, Judas Iscariot. Jesus had so much money that Judas was able to extort money from the till for years and no one noticed. If Jesus had only a few coins to his name, everyone would have noticed if Judas had taken even one cent!
unquote
Originally posted by kevcvs57Those that support them give freely. And if they do not wish the Patriarch to
It is disgusting I am willing to bet that this hypocrite has preached about the evil mammon to the very people who have gone without so he can live his millionaire lifestyle, but like divegeester I am not surprised by it, I would be more surprised if the dons of organised religion did not adorn themselves like the cheap gangsters that they are.
live well, it is up to them to stop giving. It is none of our business to be envious
of what someone else has, IMO.
Originally posted by RJHindsI have not displayed any jealousy, perhaps a certain amount of smug self satisfaction when religious leaders expose themselves and their organizations for the empty facade that I know they are.😏
Those that support them give freely. And if they do not wish the Patriarch to
live well, it is up to them to stop giving. It is none of our business to be envious
of what someone else has, IMO.