~candice~ Posted June 4, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2011 We all live every day with consequences of our own sinful choices. Addicts choose to use. Many who have a mental illness choose not to use the medications that would allow them to be productive members of society. As heartless as it may sound, many who got caught up in the recent housing crash did so because they chose to buy a house they couldn't actually afford, generally because they couldn't be satisfied with something that merely met their needs. All of these poor choices can lead one to wind up on the streets. Not saying it applies to everyone there, but the fact is, the government isn't the one responsible for getting them off the streets. It falls to them personally to make better choices and to the ministry to help them once they make those choices. I can't help but draw the parallel here between Adam's sin and God's response, and the homeless sin's and our response. Adam intentionally sinned, and God's response was not "get yourself on the right path and I'll help you the rest of the way". God was merciful. Sometimes we just need to minister to people where they are at. Often it takes a fair amount of time and counseling and prayer before a homeless person gains a willingness to invest their time and effort and money into programs to get themselves back into society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted June 4, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2011 A large percentage of homeless people are veterans and 70% of the homeless vets are addicts. Addicts are addicted because they choose to be. It isn't the government's job to help them with their addictions. They're addicted because they chose to start using their drug of choice in the first place. I know plenty of vets that aren't addicted to anything. I know some who were addicted but chose to get clean - without government help. My pastor is one of them. The fact that people choose to get themselves in a mess doesn't negate our personal responsibility to minister to them and meet their needs . We all choose to sin. But I agree that it isn't the governments responsibility. That lies at our feet. I'm not saying we don't have a personal responsibility to minister to them. That's clearly a commandment. (Love our brother. ) I'm just saying that sin has consequences. They choose to sin by using drugs, they become an addict, they lose everything, they wind up on the streets. That's a consequence of their sin. Doesn't mean they don't deserve compassion or help from anyone who feels personally led to help them. I just don't see how the government is responsible for getting them out of the situation. I know you weren't arguing with me, I'm just trying to clarify my position. Right sis, we agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 One way to help the poor is government funded projects. I manage a few...... ... I have some wonderful success stories stemming from this government initiative. ... For all the things my government does wrong, this is one they are getting right. Well, dems fighting words in capitalist worthy, but I agree. We need not neglect what our government can do, while maintaining our own responsibility. Fez, it sounds like the American government could learn a few things from yours. I like hearing success stories wherever they happen. In the U.S. when the government gets involved they usually manage to screw things up worse than before the "help" arrived. First off: I've spent time homeless. I wasn't living for the Lord at the time, which was part of the problem too. I wasn't drunk or on drugs and just wanted to get a job and a place to call my own again. There is a place for government programs that are properly run, mainly because (in the U.S.) so many churches do nothing to help the homeless in my experience. As the churches have backed away over the years, different organizations and gov't agencies have stepped in to fill the void and that's a good thing -- up to a point. That point is when the program, shelter, or whatever it is becomes part of the problem or the rules/policies are such that its almost like they are "designed" to keep you homeless. I had to leave a shelter because they expected me to "take a day off" from a job I just got 2 weeks before to do a cleaning detail at the shelter. They would not reschedule for the next day when I was off work anyway and it wouldn't have been a problem. It became obvious that the shelter was more about keeping the shelter going than about helping us get work, get a place to live, and get out of there. The staff flat didn't care whether I kept a job or not. Taking a day off would have cost me the job -- so I slept in the field behind the place for a week until I had enough money to get a room somewhere. It was in the summer too. In Phoenix. I wanted to work. I was able to work. And the whole blasted world seemed determined to stop me from earning a living. Try a few months of that sort of thing -- and you earn a really nasty attitude. That's not an excuse. Its a reason, and they are different things. I found out about a church run homeless shelter because folks were handing out sandwiches in a park. There was some pretty decent fellowship, too. Part of the problem is the "normal" folks find the homeless frightening in a way. A homeless person is a reminder of where anyone can wind up after long enough without an income. Many "normal" folks are one, maybe 2 paychecks from being homeless themselves -- and don't want to be reminded of it. The homeless are unsightly, and most people just want them to go somewhere else, hence the laws and all being brought to bear. They even make benches with "anti-loitering" features (so you can't lay down on them.) Yeah, it's pretty much illegal to be homeless if you are dirty, and filthy looking. It's not too bad if you can stay clean looking - then you're just another person on the street. If you can make enough for a cell phone and a mailbox you've got it made . . . and can hide the fact you're homeless for a time. Why? Because most employers won't hire you if they thing you're homeless -- and they will fire you if they find out. Another wonderful case of "what they don't know doesn't hurt you." If I had the choice, I would choose a church run shelter today. I'd just as soon steer clear of any more government "help" and just work for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsomebulldog Posted June 4, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 732 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 113 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/26/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/30/1971 Share Posted June 4, 2011 We all live every day with consequences of our own sinful choices. Addicts choose to use. Many who have a mental illness choose not to use the medications that would allow them to be productive members of society. As heartless as it may sound, many who got caught up in the recent housing crash did so because they chose to buy a house they couldn't actually afford, generally because they couldn't be satisfied with something that merely met their needs. All of these poor choices can lead one to wind up on the streets. Not saying it applies to everyone there, but the fact is, the government isn't the one responsible for getting them off the streets. It falls to them personally to make better choices and to the ministry to help them once they make those choices. I can't help but draw the parallel here between Adam's sin and God's response, and the homeless sin's and our response. Adam intentionally sinned, and God's response was not "get yourself on the right path and I'll help you the rest of the way". God was merciful. Sometimes we just need to minister to people where they are at. Often it takes a fair amount of time and counseling and prayer before a homeless person gains a willingness to invest their time and effort and money into programs to get themselves back into society. I agree. God is always far more merciful than we deserve. And again, I see no problem at all with ministries that reach out to the homeless. That's clearly a good thing, even a necessary thing. I just know that no one can be reached unless they want to be. Mostly, I was trying to respond to the notion that all homeless are victims that need to be coddled by the government. I don't think my brain is engaging as well as it should, though. I can't seem to get precisely what I'm thinking to come out in print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 true, candice. very true. but the original point in the thread was about how public feedings in city parks was not being allowed. i'd like to point out here that there are far more church locations than park locations in any city. mass feedings in public parks draws homeless to an area without regard to the safety and concerns of other citizens. where those people need to be drawn is to the churches. to the places where more than their temporary needs can be administered to. and where they'll feel welcome returning to. when our food bank at the church first started up, the homeless in the neighborhood were very uncomfortable coming there for help. and many of them told me WHY they were uncomfortable. they'd tell me, because these weren't just people who came to me at the church for a handout, they would tell me because i would go to them and meet them on their 'turf'. they weren't comfortable because they knew that while they might be allowed to come on THOSE days, they wouldn't be welcome on OTHER days. they had become accustomed to people turning up their noses at them. now our church loves to get together over anything that involves food, and we have frequent pot-lucks for the members. not a pot-luck goes by that we don't have homeless people show up to share in the bounty. not a sunday goes by that we don't have a homeless person stop in between services to share a donut with us, and very often they come inside for the sermon. most of the time they sleep through the sermon, but nobody judges them. we wake them up when it's over and send them off with a hug and an invitation to come back next week. people will come where they feel welcome. and sadly, when ministries take the food to the parks and invite the homeless to eat, THAT is where the homeless start feeling comfortable and hanging out. they don't feel comfortable going to churches because the churches don't want them dirtying up the place. it might put a damper on the tithes i suppose. if churches would open their arms, their hearts, their doors to the homeless and not expect the homeless to meet them on "neutral territory", then their spiritual needs could be met a whole lot more efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted June 4, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2011 We all live every day with consequences of our own sinful choices. Addicts choose to use. Many who have a mental illness choose not to use the medications that would allow them to be productive members of society. As heartless as it may sound, many who got caught up in the recent housing crash did so because they chose to buy a house they couldn't actually afford, generally because they couldn't be satisfied with something that merely met their needs. All of these poor choices can lead one to wind up on the streets. Not saying it applies to everyone there, but the fact is, the government isn't the one responsible for getting them off the streets. It falls to them personally to make better choices and to the ministry to help them once they make those choices. I can't help but draw the parallel here between Adam's sin and God's response, and the homeless sin's and our response. Adam intentionally sinned, and God's response was not "get yourself on the right path and I'll help you the rest of the way". God was merciful. Sometimes we just need to minister to people where they are at. Often it takes a fair amount of time and counseling and prayer before a homeless person gains a willingness to invest their time and effort and money into programs to get themselves back into society. I agree. God is always far more merciful than we deserve. And again, I see no problem at all with ministries that reach out to the homeless. That's clearly a good thing, even a necessary thing. I just know that no one can be reached unless they want to be. Mostly, I was trying to respond to the notion that all homeless are victims that need to be coddled by the government. I don't think my brain is engaging as well as it should, though. I can't seem to get precisely what I'm thinking to come out in print. Hey sis I know what you mean. I agree with you. I don't mean to sound like I don't . The homeless need to be reached but often it takes time to chip away at them until they desire help. You need to earn their trust, there are huge trust issues in homeless people, and that is not developed overnight. Sometimes the church doesn't do as much as they should, in these cases I am OK with the government offering a program, but I know this is far from the ideal and also is not sustainable long term. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted June 4, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2011 true, candice. very true. but the original point in the thread was about how public feedings in city parks was not being allowed. Sorry for taking the topic off OP. FWIW, I agree with you about the location issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 true, candice. very true. but the original point in the thread was about how public feedings in city parks was not being allowed. Sorry for taking the topic off OP. FWIW, I agree with you about the location issue. and no apology necessary, i don't think it was really off topic, it was just expanding the topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 5, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 5, 2011 One way to help the poor is government funded projects. I manage a few...... ... I have some wonderful success stories stemming from this government initiative. ... For all the things my government does wrong, this is one they are getting right. Well, dems fighting words in capitalist worthy, but I agree. We need not neglect what our government can do, while maintaining our own responsibility. Actually, if the gov't programs were designed and this way, we would have no complaints against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking truth Posted June 6, 2011 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 21 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/22/2011 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) that's all you got out of everything i've said? that there was a homeless guy that i honked at? and then you twist everything i've said, and all the work i do FOR the homeless, into being something i do from selfishness and resentment? you really trip me out. and you're WAY out of line. it sickens me that there are people in this world that think the rights of one group should supercede the rights of another group. i'm advocating balance. you're not. i'm advocating helping the downtrodden while keeping society safe for EVERYone, the homeless and homed alike. you're advocating letting the homeless take over and destroy quality of life for others. and yes, that kind of attitude sickens me beyond belief. THAT is a selfish attitude. it's a hateful attitude. and i'm done talking with you. LadyC, I want to apologize to you. I am sincerely sorry for anything I said that was hurtful to you. I wasn't expecting this topic to turn into a debate and I let myself get carried away with my emotions and my pride. I am very, very sorry. Anything I said that called into question the work that you do for the homeless or your motives was wrong of me. Again, I am sorry. I've taken a day to step back and to try to get my emotions in check. I've also reread things that we have said here and would like to make an attempt to clarify a few things, hopefully applying better communication skills than I have shown so far. You are right that it is the obligation of the church to help the needy. Absolutely right. This is the ideal situation, to draw them to Christ, to minister to their physical needs and more importantly to their spiritual needs. But let us just consider for a moment that Jesus did not call people to come into a specific building or designated area in order for Him to minister to them, feed them or heal them. He took the Gospel to them, to the places where they lived or gathered. As we know, His church is not a building made with hands. His harvest is not limited to certain specified areas. I think a lot of people who feed the homeless in the parks do so simply because that is where many homeless tend to be. Now, if some of the homeless are engaging in criminal activities in the park, then yes, those individuals should be dealt with accordingly. Just as anyone who commits crimes in the park should be dealt with. But for those who are not engaging in criminal activities, then I think they should be allowed to hang out there and eat there like anybody else. To me, that seems more fair and balanced. You may not agree, but that is just my opinion. Now, as far as the responsibility of the government is concerned. I should clarify that I do not think it is the governments obligation to fix everyones problems. I am not a fan of big government that gets into everyones personal business. Which is why I don't think the government should be in the business of restricting or regulating an individuals personal effort to give charity. However, at the same token, I have no problem with the government offering a helping hand and spending money to help people get on their feet. Not because I think it is their obligation, but more so because I would much rather see tax dollars spent doing good and helping to lift up the poor than being wasted on so many other things. But again, that is just my personal opinion. These ordinances cause me to reflect on what Christ would have done if He were told that He cannot feed people in certain areas, or that He cannot feed more than a specified amount of people, or that He cannot feed anyone without preparing His food in a certified kitchen. I am hoping that this gives a more tempered understanding of where I am coming from and without me engaging in emotional and immature little snipes. If we cannot agree, that doesn't mean we have to be angry with each other for it. I am hoping we can repectfully agree to disagree. I am also hoping that you can forgive me for any personal offence toward you that I may have caused. Sincerely in the Blessed Name of Jesus our Lord, ST Edited June 6, 2011 by seeking truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts