Occupy: What Would Jesus Do?

[Helloimandrewyo]

I think Christ would be down there talking to people. He was seen as a rebel because he spoke truth though, not because he held up traffic and destroyed public property.

Having a conviction is a lot better then being convicted.


I think the occupiers could come up with a much better way of spreading their conviction.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I think Christ would be down there talking to people. He was seen as a rebel because he spoke truth though, not because he held up traffic and destroyed public property.

Having a conviction is a lot better then being convicted.


I think the occupiers could come up with a much better way of spreading their conviction.

Have you met any Occupiers? If so, have any of the occupiers you've met actually destroyed public property? I would be a little surprised if you answered yes to the first question, and very surprised if you answered yes to the second.

The reason for that is, very few of the "real" occupiers have actually destroyed public property. The cases of this happening at the hands of the protesters can be counted on my two hands, and in all cases they were in response to violent attacks from police. (I'm not saying that it's okay to destroy public property as a justified response to violence ... two wrongs don't make a right; however, the fewer than a dozen cases where this happened, I do understand why an individual would lose his cool. I've been pepper-sprayed, and it ain't fun.)

What better way would you recommend to spread one's conviction than peacefully assembling? I'm sure the occupiers would be happy to hear your words of wisdom.

 

[Helloimandrewyo]

I will have to answer yes to both questions good sir. I have met, and currently have friends all over the country out protesting with the occupy movement. Yes, some of them have gloated about throwing rocks at police and stuff like that, but I know that is not what the heart of the movement is all about. I am referencing some of the more peaceful scenarios though, because i know it would be quite unjust to label them all as anarchists, or anything of the sort.

Causing loss of public transportion due to the streets being flooded, and causing other people to be late for their jobs is not a great way to jump start the ecconmy though is not the best way of going about your movement. especially when your movement is targeting mainly the economic situation at hand.

 

[Helloimandrewyo]

I too have been pepper sprayed and tasered. i can not think of a single instance where that has happened to me, and i was being peaceful.

Food for thought.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I too have been pepper sprayed and tasered. i can not think of a single instance where that has happened to me, and i was being peaceful.

Food for thought.

I can think of plenty of instances where violence has been handed down to peaceful protesters. That you personally have never been involved in such a protest is irrelevant to this conversation, and as nutritious "food for thought" as cool-whip.

 

[Helloimandrewyo]

Damage control is damage control. Do you handle a wildfire when it gets out of control, or try to get on it when its still little.

Maybe they didn't deserve it personally, but you are judged by who you associate with. If they are willing to protest for it, they should be willing to suffer for it, just like any movement should.

The 70's were great and all, but society should move forward. Sticking flowers in gun barrels just won't cut it these days. It's not radical enough. As matthew lillard said in the movie "SLC Punk", sometimes the best way to change the system is to make the difference inside the system, instead of sitting around protesting everything you don't like.

 

[tribesman]

Would you not say that all humans are equally incapable of saving themselves? And would you not agree that God is equally able to save all humans? Do you not believe that God is capable of saving ALL people equally? That is what I mean by "equal opportunity." Of course, it is God's work, not mine, that gets me into heaven. But I have no better -- and no worse -- a chance of getting there than any other person on earth.

I believe the words opportunity and chance falls short of approaching the issue at hand. God has elected a covenant people, whose timely and eternal well He will safeguard. This then is already accomplished and nothing can stop this, it's above and beyond possibility and chance since it is already said and done. This saving grace is not based on any foreseen merit in man, therefore it cannot be said that one has any advantage above any other.

 

[rainacorn]

Have you met any Occupiers? If so, have any of the occupiers you've met actually destroyed public property? I would be a little surprised if you answered yes to the first question, and very surprised if you answered yes to the second.

The reason for that is, very few of the "real" occupiers have actually destroyed public property. The cases of this happening at the hands of the protesters can be counted on my two hands, and in all cases they were in response to violent attacks from police. (I'm not saying that it's okay to destroy public property as a justified response to violence ... two wrongs don't make a right; however, the fewer than a dozen cases where this happened, I do understand why an individual would lose his cool. I've been pepper-sprayed, and it ain't fun.)

What better way would you recommend to spread one's conviction than peacefully assembling? I'm sure the occupiers would be happy to hear your words of wisdom.

Maybe the "real" occupiers haven't destroyed any property (other than the natural byproduct of a massive group camping out in one location for months on end), but it's a false assumption to think the only people attending these protests have any interest in the meaning behind it. Especially in the major cities, these protests have attracted homeless people, addicts and recently released convicts with nowhere else to go. That's not to mention the large number of people who just show up where things are happening (younger folk). They don't care what the protests are about, they just like being a part of things.

That's really their own doing, though. They put up posters and ads all over the city trying to draw people to an unnamed, unspecified event with no declaration of purpose. A web address on a poster is not a mission statement.

It's unfortunate that things have worked out this way and the message has largely been lost, but these protests haven't been as peaceful as people probably intended. There have been a sickening number of stories about women being beaten and raped at these things. Large group of people + no leader/unity + drugs and alcohol = chaos.

 

[Helloimandrewyo]

Maybe the "real" occupiers haven't destroyed any property (other than the natural byproduct of a massive group camping out in one location for months on end), but it's a false assumption to think the only people attending these protests have any interest in the meaning behind it. Especially in the major cities, these protests have attracted homeless people, addicts and recently released convicts with nowhere else to go. That's not to mention the large number of people who just show up where things are happening (younger folk). They don't care what the protests are about, they just like being a part of things.

That's really their own doing, though. They put up posters and ads all over the city trying to draw people to an unnamed, unspecified event with no declaration of purpose. A web address on a poster is not a mission statement.

It's unfortunate that things have worked out this way and the message has largely been lost, but these protests haven't been as peaceful as people probably intended. There have been a sickening number of stories about women being beaten and raped at these things. Large group of people + no leader/unity + drugs and alcohol = chaos.

Well put! Any movement without structure is still a riot. A good breeding ground for chaos..

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Maybe the "real" occupiers haven't destroyed any property (other than the natural byproduct of a massive group camping out in one location for months on end), but it's a false assumption to think the only people attending these protests have any interest in the meaning behind it.

This is very true, and important to remember: Almost all of the damage and violence has been done either by the police or by people who are not involved in the protests, but are just hanging around. In some cities, the protesters have realized this, and have taken precautions by hiring their own security at their own expense (some members from within the loose-knit organization volunteered to serve in that role), and at these events things went more smoothly.

Especially in the major cities, these protests have attracted homeless people, addicts and recently released convicts with nowhere else to go.

I'm not so sure that to protests "attract" these elements, as the elements are already there, and the thousands of additional people make it harder to control those elements. They discovered this too late in NYC, the first city, and later cities took precautions.

 

[rainacorn]

I'm not so sure that to protests "attract" these elements, as the elements are already there, and the thousands of additional people make it harder to control those elements. They discovered this too late in NYC, the first city, and later cities took precautions.

Yeah, those elements are already in every city, but when a big group pops up offering free food and a place to sleep, it attracts those elements like a moth to a flame.

 

[violakat]

I think Jesus would pity them. He would see all the anger, disillusionment, and disappointment in them. He would realize that they were placing their trust in man and not in God. To some, he might bring healing. To others, He would show grace and mercy. And to others, Jesus would show judgement. Basically, what He did hear on earth during His ministry, Jesus would do now.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I think Jesus would pity them. He would see all the anger, disillusionment, and disappointment in them. He would realize that they were placing their trust in man and not in God. To some, he might bring healing. To others, He would show grace and mercy. And to others, Jesus would show judgement. Basically, what He did hear on earth during His ministry, Jesus would do now.

Well said. (Except that it's "here" not "hear" ... but I knew what you meant)

 

[violakat]

Well said. (Except that it's "here" not "hear" ... but I knew what you meant)

Sigh, TheGrungeDiva, one of these days I'm not going to have any typos. lol But until that day, I'm the TYPO QUEEN.

 

[HhhLGA89]

Would God sit with down with the occupier? Yeah, he would sit down with anyone. Would Jesus sit there while people were rioting, raping, taking LSD and God knows what? Absolutely not! Think about it when God was hanging with the tax collectors and sinners does it say they were carousing and dancing with harlots? No. If they were, he would be there rebuking them and calling them to repentance.

I suppose in a fairtale world one might think that the occupiers would LOVE having Jesus around. Perhaps for a few minutes, until he told them to stop drinking and fornicating in sleepingbags and that famouse verse: " If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Which goes against all they stand for.

I think we should ask, rather, would they want him around? If they didn't choose to repent, to say that they wouldn't crusify him would be show a disproportioned view of God's holiness and mans sinfulness.

 

[iamsoandso]

in Jeremiah 51;46,,,,,,,,,rumors in one year and then in another year and violence,,,these are the prophecies in the new Babylon

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Would Jesus sit there while people were rioting, raping, taking LSD and God knows what?

Some (most, depending on your definition of the word "riot") of the occupiers were rioting. However, to my knowledge, there have been ZERO cases of rape and ZERO cases of LSD involved in any of the Occupy movements. So I will ask you kindly to provide evidence to support your claim, or apologize to the people you have slandered and repent for bearing false witness. (As a Christian, it is my duty to hold my sisters and brothers accountable.)

Think about it when God was hanging with the tax collectors and sinners does it say they were carousing and dancing with harlots?

Again, the occupiers have not been "carousing" or "dancing with harlots," either. Do you think the occupy movements are a party? By no means! First, you call them riots, then you say it's a party. Although a protest can devolve into a riot (and many of these have), and some protesters try to keep a positive attitude rather than just being ticked off (which is a good thing, I think), neither word really describes what the Occupy movements are: protests.

I suppose in a fairtale {sic} world one might think that the occupiers would LOVE having Jesus around.

And many of them do love having Jesus around. You see, many of the occupiers are devout Christians who have Jesus in their heart, and love him dearly, and Jesus loves them. Sure, some of the occupiers are not Christian, and I pray for them, too.

Perhaps for a few minutes, until he told them to stop drinking and fornicating in sleepingbags

And once again, you slander. You need to repent of all this false witness.

and that famouse verse: " If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Which goes against all they stand for.

No, the occupiers are not trying to get something for nothing. In fact, one of the things they are fighting for is jobs. Now, if someone didn't want to work, why would they be fighting for a job? That just makes no sense. Use your brain, man.

I think we should ask, rather, would they want him around?

Some would, some wouldn't. Those of the occupiers who believe in him would absolutely want him around. Those who didn't, well, some would probably repent and come to believe, and some would remain stubborn, just like what happened 2,000 years ago.

Though from what you have written here, I think it's fairly clear that you wouldn't want Jesus around. You would consider him a nuisance, and probably call him a sinner to his face without realizing it.

 

[violakat]

Some (most, depending on your definition of the word "riot") of the occupiers were rioting. However, to my knowledge, there have been ZERO cases of rape and ZERO cases of LSD involved in any of the Occupy movements. So I will ask you kindly to provide evidence to support your claim, or apologize to the people you have slandered and repent for bearing false witness. (As a Christian, it is my duty to hold my sisters and brothers accountable.)

Again, the occupiers have not been "carousing" or "dancing with harlots," either. Do you think the occupy movements are a party? By no means! First, you call them riots, then you say it's a party. Although a protest can devolve into a riot (and many of these have), and some protesters try to keep a positive attitude rather than just being ticked off (which is a good thing, I think), neither word really describes what the Occupy movements are: protests.

Grunge, I'm sorry that I have to support him in this. While it may not be happening at the site of occupy movement, some of them occupiers are leaving to do drugs. Recently this week, one man in TX was found dead at a campsite, where it was supposed that he died of a drug overdose.

-

 

[systemdown101]

Some (most, depending on your definition of the word "riot") of the occupiers were rioting. However, to my knowledge, there have been ZERO cases of rape and ZERO cases of LSD involved in any of the Occupy movements. So I will ask you kindly to provide evidence to support your claim, or apologize to the people you have slandered and repent for bearing false witness. (As a Christian, it is my duty to hold my sisters and brothers accountable.)

Well, we have THIS story about the Occupyhilly movement where you did have an alleged rape take place. Or THIS interview here about Zuccotti Park.

As far as LSD, well, we do have at least one drug overdose HERE and HERE although I'm not sure what drug was involved. Or the two people dealing heroin in their tent with a six-year old present which you can find HERE. But then you get to a description of several deaths at the Occupy camps HERE and ... well, I think you get the picture. And that was just a cursory search, I could dig deeper as someone did HERE but I think the point has been made.

Again, the occupiers have not been "carousing" or "dancing with harlots," either.

WELL ...

Want to know something really scary about the Occupy Protests? LOOK who supports them. And yes, it has links to back it up.

Look. The initial idea of the Occupy Movement was a good one, there are clearly problems that need to be addressed, but it quickly spiraled into a "Me First" kind of bizarre collection of people. I think Jesus would look for individual people who He could save, much as he would in Wall Street. But when you have chants in Zuccotti Square that I can't even link here without facing a banning, well ...

But at least there's some humor to be found in it!

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Well, we have THIS story about the Occupyhilly movement where you did have an alleged rape take place. Or THIS interview here about Zuccotti Park. {snip}

In all of the cases you have linked, the illegal activities were not linked to any of the actual protesters.

In other words, in Philadelphia, a woman was raped in the city during Occupy: Philly. Gee, I wonder how many women are raped in that city normally. I'm not saying that it's okay that women are raped. Of course it's horrible that a woman was raped. But it is not the fault of the O group that it happened, and is in no way connected to O.

The same pattern can be found in all the cases you linked, and in similar stories. "Oh my goodness. The Occupy:Fill-In-The-Blank Protesters have cause so much crime. There were X lootings." Of course, what they don't tell you is that that is actually a lower rate than usual in many of the cities, or the stores that were robbed were in a totally different area because the mayor chose to have all his police at the rally instead of ignoring the protesters and keeping the usual beat, and stupidly announced such plans, so would-be thieves knew what areas would have lower protection. In many cities, in fact, the presence of the protesters has actually decreased crime, because the streets are being occupied 24 hours a day, and the protesters are doing their own policing as well as policing the cities.

And how many stories about the violence done against the protesters by the police have you read? Again, I don't think that makes it okay. Two wrongs don't make a right. I personally don't think that it's okay to return violence with violence. But it angers me that the reporting on these things is so one-sided. Everyone talks about the crime as if it's all done by the protesters, and the only reporting about the police brutality has been underground sources: blogs from people who are actually there, cell-phone cameras that catch it in action, etc. It's almost as if all the main-stream media are owned by big business... oh, wait, never mind.