New Church Statue: "Jesus the Homeless"

[Spartacus]

Your last post was lacking in any point

The point was petty derision. You criticized DDW for not caring about the details when you apparently glossed over the text itself only barely less than she did.

Even if that last post was pointless, the one before it certainly was not. Feel free to deal with that instead.

[Obsidian]

Saying that we should love our neighbors as ourselves doesn't mean the same thing as saying that if anyone is homeless then Jesus is homeless. For one thing, not all of them should be helped. I think that the great majority of them are homeless due to their own indulgence in sin. Although it does not apply to every case, the principle that if a man will not work then he should not eat has some application.

[Spartacus]

Saying that we should love our neighbors as ourselves doesn't mean the same thing as saying that if anyone is homeless then Jesus is homeless. For one thing, not all of them should be helped. I think that the great majority of them are homeless due to their own indulgence in sin. Although it does not apply to every case, the principle that if a man will not work then he should not eat has some application.

When's the last time you volunteered at a homeless shelter and heard their stories from their own mouths? Or looked up statistics about homelessness?

Even if it were the case that they're depraved sinners--even more than Wall Street bankers-- would you expect them to believe in the gospel of love which you endorse if the only love you're willing to show them is tough love?

[Darth Xena]

Saying that we should love our neighbors as ourselves doesn't mean the same thing as saying that if anyone is homeless then Jesus is homeless.

For one thing, not all of them should be helped. I think that the great majority of them are homeless due to their own indulgence in sin.

My oh my. The majority of us are screwed up due to our own indulgence in sin, good things God didn't require us to clean ourselves up first.

Although it does not apply to every case, the principle that if a man will not work then he should not eat has some application.

Funny enough THAT one is speaking of believers...

[Darth Xena]

The point was petty derision. You criticized DDW for not caring about the details when you apparently glossed over the text itself only barely less than she did.

Even if that last post was pointless, the one before it certainly was not. Feel free to deal with that instead.

Excuse me I didn't gloss over the text. I got a freakin' word wrong, scuse me. I had the principle spot on, and in getting the word wrong actually undersold my case. Some people don't have the best memories, that doesn't mean they should be accused of glossing over the text because of a very easy word confusion.

[KingsGambit]

Excuse me I didn't gloss over the text. I got a freakin' word wrong, scuse me. I had the principle spot on, and in getting the word wrong actually undersold my case. Some people don't have the best memories, that doesn't mean they should be accused of glossing over the text because of a very easy word confusion.

He was directing that toward Obsidian, not you...

ETA: Never mind, I get it now

[Obsidian]

Funny enough THAT one is speaking of believers...

Do you think we should subsidize unbelievers who won't work?

[Spartacus]

http://www.portlandrescuemission.org...-homelessness/

http://wnyhomeless.org/myths-and-facts/

Obsidian, do some research before you accuse homeless people of laziness. You are accusing them of sinfulness from the very beginning, and that sort of uncharitable attitude is hardly worthy of a Christian. Even before we look at the statistics, if we decide to make assumptions about the poor, it ought to be that they are victims of circumstance rather than vice.

[Sparko]

[Spartacus]

Ah, yes, but you see, when the goal is to free myself from having to actually care about the poor and so not feel obliged to offer any help whatsoever, it doesn't matter what Bible verses you present, because I've already decided that they're not worthy of my help.

[Paprika]

Do you think we should subsidize unbelievers who won't work?

We are supposed to help the poor. Whether this should be done in through a specific schemes by governments is separate issue.

[KingsGambit]

We are supposed to help the poor. Whether this should be done in through a specific schemes by governments is separate issue.

That in itself is a worthy discussion to have, though probably not in this thread... and it's only fair to add that the situation is a little different in many countries today than in 1st century Palestine where there was no social safety net.

[Sparko]

Ah, yes, but you see, when the goal is to free myself from having to actually care about the poor and so not feel obliged to offer any help whatsoever, it doesn't matter what Bible verses you present, because I've already decided that they're not worthy of my help.

There will always be scammers who pretend to be homeless to beg money they don't need. And lazy people who could work but don't, or even criminals hiding out or worse. but in general nobody wants to be homeless and live on the streets. Most homeless people are alone, afraid, and need help. They either have no prospect for a job, have a mental problem, or drug addictions they can't shake.

[KingsGambit]

There was a notorious panhandler in Kansas City for years who would hang out in an affluent outdoor shopping area with a sign that said "Need a down payment for a cheeseburger". It was eventually discovered he was middle class. People like that ought to be shamed or in some cases imprisoned for fraud, but we also must keep in mind that the vast majority of panhandlers are not doing this.

[seanD]

There was a notorious panhandler in Kansas City for years who would hang out in an affluent outdoor shopping area with a sign that said "Need a down payment for a cheeseburger". It was eventually discovered he was middle class. People like that ought to be shamed or in some cases imprisoned for fraud, but we also must keep in mind that the vast majority of panhandlers are not doing this.

In downtown Los Angeles, they panhandle for a hit of crack cocaine (you can actually buy small hits for like a couple of bucks). How do I know? I've lived here for about 20 years and I know all the ins and outs of LA street life. They have missions on Skid Row that feed three times a day. And I'm talking about full course meals, three times a day with each mission (about five of them concentrated in about a three block radius), not to mention the individual street churches that come down to Skid Row and serve the public meals (there are dozens of them, especially on the weekends). If timed right, a person could literally eat about five or six full course meals a day. Trust me, they aren't panhandling here because they're hungry, even though that's the line they give to get money. So if you ever visit downtown LA and get accosted by a panhandler, just know what you're doing if you give them money.