I remember reading this somewhere; it was a while back and I'm not sure whether it was in one of LaVey's works or from someone else, but they spoke of seeing rich Christians leaving their big houses; driving in their big SUVs/4WDs past all the cold and hungry homeless/poor people in the streets; going to church; praying for them, and then doing it in reverse on the way home, it was something along those lines. They'd then speak of how much they "care" and how much they "help" the homeless. It was something along those lines.
I'm not a religious person (duh), but when I catch the train into my city, in the big central train station there are a lot of homeless who "live" there, sheltering from the blistering heat and freezing cold; and I go down to the local supermarket and buy about a kilo (or a few pounds) of fruit and then go, on my own merit, and give them some breakfast, something to get them going because it might be all they have all day; and I keep going until I have run out of food.
It's not much, but it helps, and it shocks me that once I told a religious friend and they said "what? you go near them?"
Prayer does jack shit. Your money, goes mainly to the collectors. Do something yourself, because, as corny as it sounds, it does give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
$3 is all it takes, and you can feed 10 people for a day. I doubt that $3 I would donate to a religious organisation would do that. Especially because, they're only obligied to give away 35c of that money in reality.
Sign In
False Christians/Religious types- You don't need God to Care! | Forum
Anna
May 12 '15
It has less to do with religion than simple indifference and prejudice against the homeless people. The prevailing opinion is that most homeless people are lazy stinking drunkards and it's better not to give them money as they spend it all on alcohol. This opinion is not without any merit. Actually, many homeless people spend the money they get on alcohol. I suppose it makes their life more bearable.
Personally, I don't give them money. I prefer to buy them some food. Some of them are so accustomed to other people's unwillingness to give them money that they don't even ask anymore. Instead, they ask to buy them some hot meal or ask for something to drink. I don't refuse them. As you wrote, helping others makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Besides, I believe that if we help others, people can help us if we, ourselves, are in need.
I don't know how it is in your country, but in Poland there are Catholic charities which help the homeless. Usually, they are administered by nuns. There are also shelters run by the Church. And no, they don't take the money for themselves. They actually help these people more than the state. The government doesn't give a shit. On the contrary, it tries to make these people's lives more difficult by placing more and more silly and pointless obligations on charities.
Personally, I don't give them money. I prefer to buy them some food. Some of them are so accustomed to other people's unwillingness to give them money that they don't even ask anymore. Instead, they ask to buy them some hot meal or ask for something to drink. I don't refuse them. As you wrote, helping others makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Besides, I believe that if we help others, people can help us if we, ourselves, are in need.
I don't know how it is in your country, but in Poland there are Catholic charities which help the homeless. Usually, they are administered by nuns. There are also shelters run by the Church. And no, they don't take the money for themselves. They actually help these people more than the state. The government doesn't give a shit. On the contrary, it tries to make these people's lives more difficult by placing more and more silly and pointless obligations on charities.
...
May 14 '15
Yeah it might be a bit different here. I'm in the Oceania/Australasia region, and with some things the churches have done here in the relatively recent past has left me with a deep distrust.
but yes, I do give them food, firstly, I never carry much cash, and secondly, at least then I know that they are getting food, rather than spending it on alcohol or substances.
but yes, I do give them food, firstly, I never carry much cash, and secondly, at least then I know that they are getting food, rather than spending it on alcohol or substances.
LeVi Lockwood
May 25 '15
This reminds me of thoughts I was having just the other day about the concepts of stratification and natural selection vs. empathy and charity.
As a Satanist I understand that stratification is prevalent in all things. There will always be varying degrees of poor, middle, and upper classes. So what's this mean for me personally?
I like helping people (because of the before mentioned warm and fuzzy feeling). It's an indulgence for me. The difference between Satanic and white light charity is that Satanists understand that the act is not selfless. If charity were selfless than nobody would do it.
Somehow this is seen by society as less "genuine" than the idea of giving completely out of a sense of piousness. I've never understood that. When the Satanist gives charity two people are made happy, the Satanist and the person receiving the gift. In the pious model only the receiver of the gift is allowed happiness while the giver is expected to remain emotionless and stoic.
Secondly, I like giving because then I'm owed a favor. When it comes to loyalty...it can be bought. If you give a homeless guy a cheeseburger what will he do for you in return? Sometimes is pays to have friends in low places.
This all seems very clear cut to me, but to some Satanists, the concept is lost. All they can see is the black and white dichotomy of strength vs. weakness. In their heads, you shouldn't give to the homeless because they are weak, which of course is why they are homeless to begin with. I've run across quite a few of these short sighted individuals.
To exemplify what I'm talking about, take a look at Nicholas Shrek in this 1988 interview with Bob Larson. Every time I watch it I cringe at Shrek's responses...for many reasons, but for this post I'll focus on his idea that all homeless and people less fortunate than himself should die off without exception.
(I should state that I'm very aware the Shrek now considers himself to be a Buddhist...and isn't a good example of satanic thought...which kind of feeds my point).
-LL-
Video Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WcKrdFHTds
...
May 26 '15
I watched the first ten minutes of this. It began to aggravate me so i let it be at that point. It was never going to be a fair interview, given the bias of the interviewer. Wouldn't it have been fairer to have interviewed Karla instead of Zeena? For a start, Karla is significantly older (I think it's like 12 years) So while Zeena was two when the COS was opened, Karla would have been 14. When he asked her about the church back in '66 I would've gone "I was born in '64; how much do YOU remember when you were two?"
I don't know, maybe they did request for Karla to come on the show and maybe she declined. But as far as I know, isn't Zeena separated from the COS now? I always thought it was Karla who was more involved?
Oh well, it was a long time ago. And if he's saying that kind of stuff, he wouldn't make a good Buddihist either! Aren't Buddhists about helping people?
I don't know, maybe they did request for Karla to come on the show and maybe she declined. But as far as I know, isn't Zeena separated from the COS now? I always thought it was Karla who was more involved?
Oh well, it was a long time ago. And if he's saying that kind of stuff, he wouldn't make a good Buddihist either! Aren't Buddhists about helping people?
LeVi Lockwood
May 30 '15
@TheSatanicPrincess
The bias of Larson (interviewer) is annoying, but that should have been expected by Shrek and Zeena to begin with. What gets me is that Zeena played second fiddle to Shrek. She starts to talk and Shrek cuts her off. She makes a point and Shrek changes the subject.
Basically what's going on (in my ever so humble opinion) is that Shrek is trying to use the interview, which by it's very nature and title, is supposed to be about Satanism to springboard his own "werewolf order" ideas...which was basically Neo-Nazism in a bonnet.
From that you get the whole "death to the weak" attitude.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about stratification, but the idea that all weak people should die (a concept that both Shrek and Zeena advocates many times in the interview) is just moronic. The weak are useful. They can be manipulated to make your own life a lot easier.
...
Jun 1 '15
Hahaha that sounds right!
"The weak ones are there to justify the strong" - Marilyn Manson.
"The weak ones are there to justify the strong" - Marilyn Manson.
