I have a hard time with sympathy for these people.

By
I have a hard time with sympathy for these people. You're paying for prayers? Why not just go online and beg social media to send you prayers for free? Paying for prayers shouldn't be like like "getting thousands of followers for free."

Originally shared by Betsy McCall

Paying for prayer... isn't that something the Reformation was supposed to get rid of?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/20/pay-to-pray-scam-washington-christian-prayer-center-online

Comments

Bodhipaksa said…
I have sympathy for anyone who pays for a service and doesn't get it.
March 20, 2016 at 12:56 PM
Jason ON said…
How can you prove if you received "prayers" or not?
March 20, 2016 at 6:38 PM
Bodhipaksa said…
The fee was to get people to pray for them, and that's perfectly quantifiable. They didn't get what the paid for, and so they were cheated.
March 20, 2016 at 6:41 PM
Jason ON said…
How do they know no one prayed for them?
March 20, 2016 at 8:07 PM
Bodhipaksa said…
Because that was the scam. The company was promising a kind of "social network" of people to pray for petitioners, but they weren't actually doing anything.
March 20, 2016 at 9:49 PM
Jason ON said…
How do you prove a prayer?
March 21, 2016 at 6:17 AM
Bodhipaksa said…
The company promised to get their "massive online congregation" to pray in return for payment. That congregation didn't exist. Is the purpose of your question to suggest that non-existent people can pray? I'm confused.
March 21, 2016 at 6:24 AM
Jason ON said…
I"m asking how you prove a prayer exists. If you can't prove one exists or can't prove the results of one, then does it matter if "mass congregations" didn't exist?
March 21, 2016 at 2:47 PM
Bodhipaksa said…
I don't know what it means to "prove a prayer exists." But that's hardly relevant, since the point is that this company was fraudulently claiming they had people who would pray. The fact that prayer (had it been done) would have achieved nothing isn't relevant either: people paid for a service and didn't receive it.
March 21, 2016 at 3:55 PM
Jason ON said…
The point is, unless they can prove a prayer is quantifiable, they can't prove any harm was done. If they can't prove any harm was done, then how can any judge rule for them? I certainly hope the Christian Prayer Center appeals the verdict.
March 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM
Bodhipaksa said…
The family doesn't have to prove any harm was done. All they have to do is prove that they weren't provided with the service they paid for.

If you advertise a tinfoil hat that you guarantee will protect me against alien radio transmissions, and don't actually provide me with a hat, you're in breach of contract. I wouldn't have to prove that alien radio transmissions exist, and you couldn't offer their non-existence as a defense. This is pretty basic stuff, contract-wise.
March 21, 2016 at 4:47 PM
Jason ON said…
But the hat is a product. A prayer is not. A prayer is a thought, a wish. Nothing more. Can this couple show they were harmed by the deception? No. They would have gotten the same result if all 4 Billion people on this planet had been asked to pray.

Remember those little fun gifts places would sell a long time ago? Things like "canned sunshine" and whatnot?

Your argument would say if a person opened their canned sunshine and didn't see sunshine they have the right to sue to manufacturer.
March 21, 2016 at 6:23 PM
Bodhipaksa said…
It doesn't matter whether the "product" is physical or non-physical (in this case, relational). If it's not supplied (and was never intended to be supplied) by the person who promises it, then there's fraud involved.

Anyway, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. Feel free to have the last word, but I won't be replying any more.
March 21, 2016 at 6:57 PM
Jason ON said…
Okay.

In the United States we require proof in our courts of law. Proof that harm was sustained by the plaintiff at the actions of the defendant. We also have a thing called standing where you must prove you are personally afflicted by the actions you're in court against.

It's that simple.

Last word.
March 22, 2016 at 10:54 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to...

By
So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to remove me from whatever Circle he has me in where he posts the animated gifs and cat pictures. It was either that or unfollow him and I didn't see any reason to unfollow him. Me asking https://plus.google.com/112885755521259735422/posts/78dwnvvgh4p <==edited to add the correct link Then he plusses me onto Public posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/EuuR1tnU3vJ https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/8r6Grcm2Jpj https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/74PgSu6iL2s Then one of his friends (or Circlers) starts plussing me into posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/107120198886093172821/posts/gRW9JhWLs5T Don't get me wrong, I'm all about sarcasm and messing with people, but this seems sort of childish to me. Am I the only one who thinks so? So far I have only blocked
Read more

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.

By
I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend. Why? This stupid #gifwars thing people are so proud of. This Adam Black guy said he doesn't like gifs and now everyone is mass trolling him. Having been mass trolled like this I can relate to him easily enough. Have an opinion and the collective might of Google+'s lower class denizens jump on a bandwagon. I just saw a post where someone wanted to jump on board and had to get clarification she was tagging the proper Adam Black. She wasn't even connected to him ! Nor was she a part of the original discussion. She just wanted to follow the herd. When I called her out of it she claimed, "one gif doesn't make a troll." Perhaps not, but she's contributing to a larger troll effort. One straw doesn't break the camel's back, but thousands will. So, tonight, Google+ disgusts me. It probably will tomorrow as well. And possibly Sunday. I gave up Google+ for two months this spring
Read more