“It’s about me purchasing what I want to purchase,” Mr. Whitehead said. “It’s my prerogative to purchase what I want to purchase if I
workedreligiously grifted hard for it.”
Jesus wept heaved.
Correct my spelling if you wish, but the passive-aggressive implied slur at the end is unwelcome.
Ah, insurance fraud?
The difference is: for them their vestments are a sign of office and they don’t belong to them.
They don’t spout libertarian nonsense about having earned their money.
If there’s one takeaway from the Gospels, it’s that Jesus’ Apostles should spend their lives in historically unprecedented comfort.
It’s also a problem when he doesn’t pay taxes…
So far, the funniest thread ever!
He’s going to say that the $1 million was a gift, and that they shouldn’t have neglected to take the other $1 million in jewelry that they didn’t notice in their haste. That’s how these things go, innit?
Easier for him to get into heaven now.
Act of God?
Never mind the pricetag. It’s got sentimental value!
I wonder if their necks and backs feel better now that they’re not walking around carrying a half million dollars of rocks and gold.
Aim higher. A pastor should not have this kind of money. It’s making a mockery of Christianity. To paraphrase Jesus, it would be exceedingly difficult for this man to get into heaven.
“Even the pope…?”
What we do know is that Vatican Bank, officially titled the Institute for the Works of Religion, manages €5.9bn ($7.3bn, £4.64bn) of assets on behalf of its 17,400 customers. And it manages €700m of equity which it owns. Another titbit to emerge is that it keeps gold reserves worth over $20m with the US Federal Reserve.
If you couldn’t tell from my comment that I disagree with the bling but am trying to maintain empathy for the people who chose this guy as their pastor, even though I’m not one of them, then it’s you who needs the behavioral directive:
Read better.
It wasn’t really directed at you. I think people should not have a pastor who flaunts excessive wealth like that. So I suppose I should have worded that as “they should aim higher”.
Thanks for clarifying. It was hard to tell, since you replied to me directly with an imperative statement, and quoted from my post.
I think I understand. English isn’t my first language, so my use of idiom isn’t always appropriate. I now see it came across as overly aggressive, and for that I’m sorry. I think we’re actually in agreement on the important parts in regard to this story.
Me, too.