Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
Nowhere in the article does it say that the church expected them to attend services, nor raise a little family blah, blah blah. Nor does it it state there were any other expectations of the "victim". The church has every right to have hurt feelings especially if it does indeed turn out that the "victims" are not victims at all.
The couple's excuse was lame. They didn't like the area? Then they should have said so and ask the church to buy them a house in the area they wanted to live in. The couple sounds way to shady here. We'll have to see though cause we still don't have all the facts.
If anything, there church was naive and too trusting by not doing the background checks and taking the couples word for it that they were victims of Katrina. It seems there's a lot of anti-church bias here. If this was the Red Cross that got scammed would people feel differently?
|
But what's the "scam"? Nothing has said that the couple WASN'T actually destitute. What's the church "out" here? They helped some people! Isn't that enough? Wasn't that the whole point? What more do they want?
The absurdity of this... The church watches the house they bought for this couple get sold, and suddenly, oh my god, we could have helped somebody really needy. Were they even a couple? Did they even need a house? Oh my god. We've been HAD!
Now, this couple... they've got an attitude, now that God, Jesus, and the TV News are all chasing them around scolding them for doing what they did. I'd probably have an attitude too, at that point! The only thing I can fault them for (in the absence of evidence of actual wrongdoing) is poor self-control in front of the media. But, frankly, the 99.9% of us with no media training probably wouldn't do much better.