has anyone else seen time magazine's

[pepperbear]

cover story this week....

DOES GOD WANT YOU TO BE RICH?


OK, so now I am pissed off. Christianity has been reduced to nothing more than a shill for big business and a political excuse to bully.


Fuck you, fundamentalists. When you get what you want, I 'll be in the foxhole across from yours ready to defend myself against YOU & YOUR "GOD".

Think I am kidding? It's obviously what they want. How can a legitimate news magazine even give this the time of day? I am tired of them. so very tired of them.

I want them to find an island somewhere.

Really.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448,00.html

[Warpy]

1. Just vote with your wallet

I haven't read that rag in years. If there's something absolutely earthshattering, I'll read the article online. I am invariably disappointed in the quality of the article, especially since it rarely matches the headline.

Their editorial bias is 100% neocon and now they're pandering to the religious crazies. Anything for a buck, I guess.

Well, they're not getting any of mine.

[mattomjoe]

2. Man, you'd think every so-called "Christian" out there was missing

the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from their Bibles.

You know, the parts that emphasize social justice and are centered around that "Christ guy".

[Syncronaut Seven]

3. Your harshing my mellow, man

God WANTS us to be rich! Didn't you hear the good news?











Somewhere,
Jesus is weeping.

[mattomjoe]

4. You're right, God does want us to be rich....

That is why He sent ... Supply Side Jesus!

[DaveJ]

5. Why Not?

Maybe it will put them to good use.

Think about it.

Better they try to make something of themselves, something they might not bother trying unless God tells them to....

:shrug:

[redqueen]

6. I don't get it...

It's an article about an issue that seems relevant in a culture so church-obsessed as ours.

It doesn't seem they take sides... what's the big deal here?

[pepperbear]

7. uh the issue isn't with the article...

they can write whatever they want. unless of course you like the idea that we're trying to espouse the concept of "millionaires for Jesus".

gee every now and again, I 'll bitch about ther content of an article not the fact that it was printed.

plus the cover..."does God want you to be rich?"

misleading and manipulative.

SORRY BUT THAT'S THE BIG DEAL.

[redqueen]

8. Who's this "we"? Who's espousing what, where?

Did I say the problem was with the fact that it was published? :wtf:

The cover is intended to grab the reader's attention. This one did a good job, I think. Did you even read the article?

[pepperbear]

10. oh booboo....I think I see what's wrong here....

ok for the cheap seats

"It's an article about an issue that seems relevant in a culture so church-obsessed as ours."

it's the issue I am raving about, not the fact that they published it.

"It doesn't seem they take sides. what's the big deal here?"

I don't care if they take sides, I don't like THEIR side. I have that right.Uh I do have that right. why you're trying to turn this into some kind of quasi-free speech issue I have no idea. funny noone else posting in the thread is, so I guess your brain works differently. you come off like one those folks who just has to see the "other side" because you think it makes you more worldly and even keeled...nope. In this instance, falling for this malarkey would make you an ass hat (THAT IS, if you fell for it.

Oh and it's the perpetrators who espouse this way of thinking. Never said it was the article.


Did I say the problem was with the fact that it was published?

The cover is intended to grab the reader's attention. This one did a good job, I think. Did you even read the article?

Yes it does grab...but what if it had said something like...

FAITH AND MONEY or FAITH VS MONEY rather than does "god want you to be rich?" yep, attentionn grabbing, haughty, manipulaitve, and very tabloid considering the "evenness" of the article. That's just me, but catchy and attention grabbing are not always good things.

I have a problem with your entire premise. I don't care what time magazine writes. the hyperbole of "I don't even know why they give this kind of stuff the time of day" is legitimate, and I don't think for a minute that this isn't some kind of placation article. I don't need to put on a tin fucking hat to know that these guys want nothing More than to change us into the USJ.

These churches have press organizations too. if you can't se that it is just giving them publicity despite the "fair portrayal", well, here have a bridge.

Oh and yeah, I read the article. Still feel smug?

so basically you almost hijacked it, but ya didn't.

why so mean? because you're trying to embarrass me and make yourself look good. nothing constructive, nothignn wrthwhile, just bile.

bye.

[redqueen]

12. Me? Mean?

I think thou dost project too much.

:rofl:

See, here's the thing... I think it's pretty pathetic that TIME does stories like this, but I just didn't see that it was such a big deal, on balance.

Why you took my questioning your outrage as some kind of direct insult... well I just don't even know what to make of that.

The hyperbole is amusing, though... so thanks for the giggles. :)

Just wondering... is it hijacking if you're discussing the subject in the OP? Hmmmmmm...

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. Is this the War on Iran issue?

Oh, ther irony.

[Poiuyt]

11. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a

rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven