Don't Feed the Homeless

[Axxman]

Well daisy to you. Wanna know why your dad had to smuggle in Bibles to Russia? The reason is Christians stopped caring and helping the poor, which made the poor feel alienated. The Church aligned itself with the Government (due to the sacralism that was left over when the Orthodox church went to Russia) which allowed for Lenin to deny the government and the Church. By allowing small steps in, the Church alienated itself from the people.

This is what I am talking about. I am not concerned with persecution or suffering. I have never ONCE said it would lead to that. If you keep with this line, quote me on where I said it. I am talking about becoming irrelevant to the culture. When you become irrelevant, they no longer beat you, they no longer throw you in jail - they simply pass you, on a daily basis, ignoring what you have to say and look upon you with apathy. The salt ceases to be salt.

Boy-oh-boy...I'll sure bet God was surprised when Russia went to crap! Your understanding of Russian history is kinda flawed. It wasn't the Christians who stopped caring that was the problem. It was when the Russian Empire along with the Tsarist gov't was overthrown and the Bolsheviks took power. The Bolsheviks then declared "separation of the Church and state" and for the first time in its history the church had to stand on its own. Thats where the Russian church went wrong. Then when Russia erupted in civil war...the Orthodox church picked the wrong side. When that side lost...the church lost. By the time the civil war ended and the Soviet Union was established (with its militant atheism) it was too late. The gov't of the USSR took control of the church and outlawed religion as "counter-revolutionary."

Overall...it is VERY shortsighted to say the problems in Russia happened because Christians "stopped caring." Most of this happened in a two-year period and had very little to do with ANYTHING Christians were doing. It would also be wrong to assume that God's hand wasn't involved.

In regards to irrelevancy. I am not being side-lined. In fact, I don't believe that these common sense laws regarding the care and feeding of the homeless are leading to irrelevancy. The best way to avoid becoming irrelevant is to stay active. If we stop helping the homeless...we could be irrelevant. But NOBODY is advocating that we stop helping the homeless. In fact...I will deal with the homeless tonight (I work tonight) and I suspect that the laws of our city will NOT be a deterent in that regard. However, if I stopped working every time the gov't came up with another scheme I'd get no work done.

[Guest lnj]

You can always feed homeless people in your own home and avoid being fined.

[Giaour]

ak,

so far you have said that I am "trumping the words of Christ"

( I said there was a correlation)

You said

I believe "that a person without work, who suffers from a mental illness, that is struggling to overcome drugs, that is down on their luck, etc is to be denied food.

(I said able bodied)

You Said "

"Man, Christians will make any and every excuse to stop helping those they don't desire. "

(I clearly stated that I do help the needy)

You said"

"you assume that if they deny to work for you it's because they're lazy. They could be unskilled, or realize it only opens the door for a temporary job."

( I believe able bodied people who can work but chose not to ARE lazy)

you said

"Again, if the person can work the job, knows how to do it, but won't do it....then yes, according to Proverbs, they don't eat.

(This is all I was saying to begin with before you made it an issue to attack my character)

You said "However, it is quite the dangerous assumption on your part..."

(I said, I ask them, I assume nothing)

You said

"This is a logical fallacy. You cannot take the limited experience of a few and apply it to the majority, in any case."

(I never once said the majority)

you said

"Regardless, do you realize how you minimized them? This is the problem with American Christians. "They can pick up trash!" What if that is not what God has called them to?

(How is asking them to do the same job that I do daily, minimalizing anyone? I cant see God telling them go hungry because picking up trash is beneath you)

you said

"we're quickly becoming irrelevant to the needy because of our bias. "

(my only bias is to the lazy)

you said

"You're so pragmatic in your approach...you fail to look at the Biblical approach to the issue."

(I clearly showed where my approach was Biblical")

Now, let me ask you a question.

Would it hurt you to reevaluate how you speak to people?

You make assumptions and see only bad.

Your posting style is very accusatory and comes across as mean spirited.

I say again ABLE BODIED people who do not work when offered a job , should not eat.

[apothanein kerdos]

AK, i think if you want these laws reversed, you need a better strategy than sitting on your thumbs doing nothing but typing out your complaints to those who are actively working at helping the poor and downtrodden.

Where did I say I wasn't addressing the issue? Where did I say I don't work with the homeless or help the problem?

Boy-oh-boy...I'll sure bet God was surprised when Russia went to crap!

Your theology is off. You seem to think that if God allows something or has foreknowledge of an event, it must be okay. This is not the case. Again, I point you to Israel choosing Saul - God knew Israel would do this, God allowed Israel to do this, but God punished Israel, was against Israel, and allowed Israel to suffer because of this. Foreknowledge of an action does not mean God supports it or ordained it.

Your understanding of Russian history is kinda flawed. It wasn't the Christians who stopped caring that was the problem. It was when the Russian Empire along with the Tsarist gov't was overthrown and the Bolsheviks took power. The Bolsheviks then declared "separation of the Church and state" and for the first time in its history the church had to stand on its own. Thats where the Russian church went wrong.

If you're a historian, you shouldn't be make such statements. No one just begins to have a problem within a decade. If something collapses or moves away from its original foundation, there is always something that caused it prior. Think about it this way, the Russian people willingly let the church fade into the background and have regulations placed on it. The fact is, if you are a revolutionary you cannot oppress the people immediately, especially by removing something they love, the moment you take power. There has to already be alienation for the people to so willingly depart from it.

Look to how the Church allowed, or at least was silent, due to the oppression that Russia wrought upon the lower class, the Jews, and other groups. Consider that in during the Reformation, when the Catholic churches and German princes attempted to remove Zwingli as the "pastor" of Zurich, the people threatened revolt. The reason is that during the plague, unlike other priests at the time, he lived among the people, helped the people, etc. This story is not unique at all - it has never failed that whenever the Church has acted out against the poor, oppressed, etc., or at least been apathetic toward their plight, the church has disappeared in that area along with the Gospel.

Another example is, I bet your father was very effective in Russia. The reason is I'm guessing he didn't drive in on a Cadillac, live in a mansion, and try to avoid the poorer people. He probably helped whoever needed it, correct? That is the only way the Church can survive in any area - relating this back to the topic, we are allowing the government to come in and tell the Church, "Hey, it's okay if you feed this amount of people where we allow you to, but beyond that...no." Again, even if this does not initially hamper the Church (and it won't, initially), it opens the door and allows the Government to begin to limit the Church. As it is, we are already as irrelevant as we could possibly be in America, such laws would only push us further into irrelevancy.

Then when Russia erupted in civil war...the Orthodox church picked the wrong side. When that side lost...the church lost.

You mean it obeyed the government dogmatically as you are saying we should?

Overall...it is VERY shortsighted to say the problems in Russia happened because Christians "stopped caring." Most of this happened in a two-year period and had very little to do with ANYTHING Christians were doing. It would also be wrong to assume that God's hand wasn't involved.

I never said that. What I did say is that the Church became irrelevant because it did nothing to relate to the people and allowed itself to be controled by the government (both the Czar and later Communist government).

Also, most of this happened in a two year span (if you can name a historian that will say this, that the reasons for this occurred really over a two year span, I'll be very surprised)? Try that the seeds of the revolution were laid when Russians Czars began to no longer care how they treated the Russian people and they lost the threat of the Turks (common enemy). The Russian people were just tired of being oppressed and having no one (including the Church), to turn to. Marxist doctrine was merely something different that arrived at the right time...unfortunately it led to further oppression.

In regards to irrelevancy. I am not being side-lined. In fact, I don't believe that these common sense laws regarding the care and feeding of the homeless are leading to irrelevancy. The best way to avoid becoming irrelevant is to stay active. If we stop helping the homeless...we could be irrelevant. But NOBODY is advocating that we stop helping the homeless. In fact...I will deal with the homeless tonight (I work tonight) and I suspect that the laws of our city will NOT be a deterent in that regard. However, if I stopped working every time the gov't came up with another scheme I'd get no work done.

I agree that if we stop, we become irrelevant. But please, I beg you, be a realist with me for a moment. Historically, you cannot deny that when the government begins to tell the Church what it can and cannot do, it doesn't stop. This is true of all governments - no matter what form the government takes, it will eventually lead to tyranny. The reason is no matter what, fallen men are at the helm, and fallen men will always bring about the destruction of a government. This is not to say we shouldn't follow them, merely we should accept the fact that as time progresses, the government becomes more corrupt and more oppressive (think, "ethical entropy"). We are seeing this with America - we give up ethical parts of the law because "it makes sense."

I'm all against terrorism, and I want to stop it, but anyone honest with themselves knows that we have violated certain ethical standards by allowing the full Patriot Act. This law that we are discussing, though might have practical implications, is still unethical because it tells the Church what it can and cannot do in a certain area. The government will not stop unless the Church fights it. If the church doesn't fight it, then we begin to become limited. Again, being realistic, how many Christians do you think will help the homeless and poor when it becomes harder if they don't do it now when it's easy? Again, it doesn't move us toward persecution (maybe except for the "zealots" that break the law), but overall it will just move Christianity toward obscurity.

You can always feed homeless people in your own home and avoid being fined.

Which my family has done. I'm not debating the pragmatics of this law (i.e. "can we still work with this law in place"). I'm debating the ethics of this law. There's a HUGE difference.

I say again ABLE BODIED people who do not work when offered a job , should not eat.

And that's not what the Bible says. As for how I come across to you...I don't care. I can't find a topic where you haven't gone out of your way to disagree with me on something. Your opinion of me just doesn't matter.

[followerofjesus]

A good study of history always helps mankind to avoid making the same mistakes again.