What is our obligation to the poor?

[sealybobo]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

What do you mean they work? Do they lower the number of people who are poor? Do they get people off poverty?

I think feeding the poor sends a message that they can have as many kids as they want. Maybe we should fix anyone who needs help feeding themselves.

Who are the poor people 20 years from now? I say they are fuck ups or children of fuck ups. Do you know what the kids will grow up to be? You guessed it. Future fuck ups.

Let's start calling the poor fuck ups instead of the poor because that's what they are. Either their parents shouldn't have had them or they shouldn't have had kids. Either way I didn't tell them to breed.

I don't have kids. Do you know why? I like having money.

I'm trying to be blunt to make a point Jake. Anyone who gets pregna nt next year did it to themselves. I didn't even get the pleasure of ejaculating so what is my obligation and who's fault is it that people are poor? Poor people are. Why do you defend fuck ups?

 

[ding]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

Why have welfare rolls continued to increase if these programs work?

Because economies go bad, people go out of work, and because the level of subsistence increases.

The programs work, but they need a works and training component, or they will be self-perpetuating.

Could you possibly have a greater external locus of control? The programs don't work. Throwing money over a fence never works. You are literally arguing for subsidiarity.

 

[ding]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

What do you mean they work? Do they lower the number of people who are poor? Do they get people off poverty?

I think feeding the poor sends a message that they can have as many kids as they want. Maybe we should fix anyone who needs help feeding themselves.

Who are the poor people 20 years from now? I say they are fuck ups or children of fuck ups. Do you know what the kids will grow up to be? You guessed it. Future fuck ups.

Let's start calling the poor fuck ups instead of the poor because that's what they are. Either their parents shouldn't have had them or they shouldn't have had kids. Either way I didn't tell them to breed.

I don't have kids. Do you know why? I like having money.

I'm trying to be blunt to make a point Jake. Anyone who gets pregna nt next year did it to themselves. I didn't even get the pleasure of ejaculating so what is my obligation and who's fault is it that people are poor? Poor people are. Why do you defend fuck ups?

Sounds like you are arguing for eugenics.

 

[sealybobo]

I think the poor need to try to not be poor. Or if you are poor and have kids your goal should be to get your kids out of poverty. Which means they shouldn't have kids till they are no longer poor.

The next generation of poor chose to be poor. They did it to themselves. No reason a person has to be poor in America unless he or she has children.

You wrote this 5 years ago. Anyone poor who read this back then, what have they done in the last 5 years to better themselves?

Do you believe it would be better to not be born at all than to be born poor?

No

Good answer. Better to have a shot, than no shot at all. Of course you are arguing for people to not have kids because their kids might end up being poor. That is your argument, right?

Yes. But I'm not concerned about the person that was never born because his or her mom was smart enough to take birth control until she could afford to have children.

Are you saying poor people shouldn't worry about being able to afford kids they should have as many as they can for the sake of giving those kids a shot at life?

Im not talking abortion. I'm talking about abstinence or birth control.

Now you tell me, what is your obligation to the poor? If your answer is none then shouldn't poor people think before they breed? Having and raising a kid is a big deal. They don't just raise themselves. So what is the Poor's obligation?

If people waited to afford kids, there wouldn't be many kids being born because it is human nature to push those things beyond the cognitive horizon. You meet your goals, now you have to set new goals. Money should not be the driver. Love should. Everything works itself out. They should have as many as they can afford to love.

Obligation to the poor should be handled in concentric circles. Family, friends, church, community, local government and federal government in that order.

They should have as many kids as they can afford to feed.

I would love to see the birth rate plummet. If it did we would be better off.

 

[ding]

Do you believe it would be better to not be born at all than to be born poor?

No

Good answer. Better to have a shot, than no shot at all. Of course you are arguing for people to not have kids because their kids might end up being poor. That is your argument, right?

Yes. But I'm not concerned about the person that was never born because his or her mom was smart enough to take birth control until she could afford to have children.

Are you saying poor people shouldn't worry about being able to afford kids they should have as many as they can for the sake of giving those kids a shot at life?

Im not talking abortion. I'm talking about abstinence or birth control.

Now you tell me, what is your obligation to the poor? If your answer is none then shouldn't poor people think before they breed? Having and raising a kid is a big deal. They don't just raise themselves. So what is the Poor's obligation?

If people waited to afford kids, there wouldn't be many kids being born because it is human nature to push those things beyond the cognitive horizon. You meet your goals, now you have to set new goals. Money should not be the driver. Love should. Everything works itself out. They should have as many as they can afford to love.

Obligation to the poor should be handled in concentric circles. Family, friends, church, community, local government and federal government in that order.

They should have as many kids as they can afford to feed.

I would love to see the birth rate plummet. If it did we would be better off.

You do realize that the dirty secret about the true motivation for amnesty is to add workers to the roll to keep social security solvent, right? Given that you are only 40 something, you might want to rethink your position.

 

[sealybobo]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

What do you mean they work? Do they lower the number of people who are poor? Do they get people off poverty?

I think feeding the poor sends a message that they can have as many kids as they want. Maybe we should fix anyone who needs help feeding themselves.

Who are the poor people 20 years from now? I say they are fuck ups or children of fuck ups. Do you know what the kids will grow up to be? You guessed it. Future fuck ups.

Let's start calling the poor fuck ups instead of the poor because that's what they are. Either their parents shouldn't have had them or they shouldn't have had kids. Either way I didn't tell them to breed.

I don't have kids. Do you know why? I like having money.

I'm trying to be blunt to make a point Jake. Anyone who gets pregna nt next year did it to themselves. I didn't even get the pleasure of ejaculating so what is my obligation and who's fault is it that people are poor? Poor people are. Why do you defend fuck ups?

Sounds like you are arguing for eugenics.

Nope. It's simple. Don't have kids while you are living in poverty. Can anyone in America get out of poverty? Then anyone can have kids, once they get out of poverty.

If there were no public schools how would poor people afford to pay for private school? So while we have public assistance poor people don't need to worry about feeding their kids just like they don't have to worry about educating them.

 

[ding]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

What do you mean they work? Do they lower the number of people who are poor? Do they get people off poverty?

I think feeding the poor sends a message that they can have as many kids as they want. Maybe we should fix anyone who needs help feeding themselves.

Who are the poor people 20 years from now? I say they are fuck ups or children of fuck ups. Do you know what the kids will grow up to be? You guessed it. Future fuck ups.

Let's start calling the poor fuck ups instead of the poor because that's what they are. Either their parents shouldn't have had them or they shouldn't have had kids. Either way I didn't tell them to breed.

I don't have kids. Do you know why? I like having money.

I'm trying to be blunt to make a point Jake. Anyone who gets pregna nt next year did it to themselves. I didn't even get the pleasure of ejaculating so what is my obligation and who's fault is it that people are poor? Poor people are. Why do you defend fuck ups?

Sounds like you are arguing for eugenics.

Nope. It's simple. Don't have kids while you are living in poverty. Can anyone in America get out of poverty? Then anyone can have kids, once they get out of poverty.

If there were no public schools how would poor people afford to pay for private school? So while we have public assistance poor people don't need to worry about feeding their kids just like they don't have to worry about educating them.

You do realize that all over the world people with a much lower standard of living are churning out kids, right? Would you like to implement forced sterilizations and abortions to control the undesirables?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Principle of Subsidiarity http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity

by David A. Bosnich
One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.

----
The principle, imo, removes statist control and delivers it to local elites, who tend to favor their own interests over others, in this case the poor. I think that a local program may work provided an independent group audits for best practices with a particular concern to where and whom the money flows.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ive been thinking about it this morning and I was wondering what our obligation to the poor is. Im not talking about what we should outsource to the government or what the government should do. But what do we as individuals have a responsibility to do?

I keep thinking of the words of a hymn:

"We'll go to the poor like our Captain of old. And visit the weary, the hungry, and cold. We'll cheer up their hearts with the news that he bore and point them to Zion and life evermore."

I believe we as individuals have a duty and privilege to serve the poor. And that when we try to outsource those responsibilities to the government and to others, than we fail to give and recieve the blessings we could otherwise have.

What do you think?

I believe that electing officials who have empathy for the poor, aged, infirm and children is to do the work for the many not the few, as implied in the scripture; I also believe that the Callous Conservative set lacks empathy and lives by, I got mine, fuck the rest of you. The evidence is loud and clear by too many on this message board.

 

[Wry Catcher]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

What do you mean they work? Do they lower the number of people who are poor? Do they get people off poverty?

I think feeding the poor sends a message that they can have as many kids as they want. Maybe we should fix anyone who needs help feeding themselves.

Who are the poor people 20 years from now? I say they are fuck ups or children of fuck ups. Do you know what the kids will grow up to be? You guessed it. Future fuck ups.

Let's start calling the poor fuck ups instead of the poor because that's what they are. Either their parents shouldn't have had them or they shouldn't have had kids. Either way I didn't tell them to breed.

I don't have kids. Do you know why? I like having money.

I'm trying to be blunt to make a point Jake. Anyone who gets pregna nt next year did it to themselves. I didn't even get the pleasure of ejaculating so what is my obligation and who's fault is it that people are poor? Poor people are. Why do you defend fuck ups?

There are many reasons to provide for the poor, some out of empathy and some out of self defense. Your question might be one for a blue book midterm: Why defend fuck ups?

Definition matters, and the premise all poor are fuck ups is simply not true. Simple answers to complicated issues never solve problems and usually exacerbate them.

When Clinton signed welfare reform, and AFDC was replaced by TANF, each state was allowed to create a system of aid as they saw fit. The homeless, the beggars and the petty thief are usually addled by drugs and or alcohol, mental illness. They exist today and have always existed. For some, there is no solution for, in effect, they have given up. But, they are a problem which cities need to resolve, and cities usually rely on LE to do so. Jail is the first and usually the only outcome most of them face.

Then there are are the working poor, who cannot prepare resumes, meet MQ's or secure jobs which allow them the time and income to better their situation. Some work two or three PT jobs, have no benefits, no retirement and no means of transportation beyond walking. Even a bus ride is too expensive (SF will raise its fare to $2.50 on New Years Day).

How they got to where they are needs study, but that simply kicks the problem down the road. Programs like the California Conservation Corp and Job Corp make sense:

Job Corps

I like money too, BUT, I like my money paid in taxes to go for worthwhile programs such as those provided by the Dept. of Labor, but also for alternative interventions to those who face jail as the only outcome. Law and order have a place, but not to be used for political advantage.

 

[sealybobo]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

What do you mean they work? Do they lower the number of people who are poor? Do they get people off poverty?

I think feeding the poor sends a message that they can have as many kids as they want. Maybe we should fix anyone who needs help feeding themselves.

Who are the poor people 20 years from now? I say they are fuck ups or children of fuck ups. Do you know what the kids will grow up to be? You guessed it. Future fuck ups.

Let's start calling the poor fuck ups instead of the poor because that's what they are. Either their parents shouldn't have had them or they shouldn't have had kids. Either way I didn't tell them to breed.

I don't have kids. Do you know why? I like having money.

I'm trying to be blunt to make a point Jake. Anyone who gets pregna nt next year did it to themselves. I didn't even get the pleasure of ejaculating so what is my obligation and who's fault is it that people are poor? Poor people are. Why do you defend fuck ups?

Sounds like you are arguing for eugenics.

Nope. It's simple. Don't have kids while you are living in poverty. Can anyone in America get out of poverty? Then anyone can have kids, once they get out of poverty.

If there were no public schools how would poor people afford to pay for private school? So while we have public assistance poor people don't need to worry about feeding their kids just like they don't have to worry about educating them.

You do realize that all over the world people with a much lower standard of living are churning out kids, right? Would you like to implement forced sterilizations and abortions to control the undesirables?

Are they collecting welfare? No one is forcing you to get sterlilized or have an abortion. But if you want that free money you need to get yourself fixed. And if you have another kid you aren't going to get any more money than what you already get now. People are free to do whatever they want.

People in 3rd world countries can raise a kid even though they are poor and they are not asking for welfare or foodstamps.

This thread is about our obligation to the poor. Really I have no obligation to the poor and if they didn't produce poor children we wouldn't have poor people in 20 years. They want to have things they can't afford. Doesn't that bother you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

What do you mean they work? Do they lower the number of people who are poor? Do they get people off poverty?

I think feeding the poor sends a message that they can have as many kids as they want. Maybe we should fix anyone who needs help feeding themselves.

Who are the poor people 20 years from now? I say they are fuck ups or children of fuck ups. Do you know what the kids will grow up to be? You guessed it. Future fuck ups.

Let's start calling the poor fuck ups instead of the poor because that's what they are. Either their parents shouldn't have had them or they shouldn't have had kids. Either way I didn't tell them to breed.

I don't have kids. Do you know why? I like having money.

I'm trying to be blunt to make a point Jake. Anyone who gets pregna nt next year did it to themselves. I didn't even get the pleasure of ejaculating so what is my obligation and who's fault is it that people are poor? Poor people are. Why do you defend fuck ups?

Sounds like you are arguing for eugenics.

Nope. It's simple. Don't have kids while you are living in poverty. Can anyone in America get out of poverty? Then anyone can have kids, once they get out of poverty.

If there were no public schools how would poor people afford to pay for private school? So while we have public assistance poor people don't need to worry about feeding their kids just like they don't have to worry about educating them.

You do realize that all over the world people with a much lower standard of living are churning out kids, right? Would you like to implement forced sterilizations and abortions to control the undesirables?

Are they collecting welfare? No one is forcing you to get sterlilized or have an abortion. But if you want that free money you need to get yourself fixed. And if you have another kid you aren't going to get any more money than what you already get now. People are free to do whatever they want.

People in 3rd world countries can raise a kid even though they are poor and they are not asking for welfare or foodstamps.

This thread is about our obligation to the poor. Really I have no obligation to the poor and if they didn't produce poor children we wouldn't have poor people in 20 years. They want to have things they can't afford. Doesn't that bother you?

You, my bobo, are part of a society that says we feed the poor. Your suggestion about limited supplies and sterilization has often been floated. I don't think they have a chance of passing. I do think that mandated public works and job training, wherever possible, might well work.

 

[Penelope]

Ive been thinking about it this morning and I was wondering what our obligation to the poor is. Im not talking about what we should outsource to the government or what the government should do. But what do we as individuals have a responsibility to do?

I keep thinking of the words of a hymn:

"We'll go to the poor like our Captain of old. And visit the weary, the hungry, and cold. We'll cheer up their hearts with the news that he bore and point them to Zion and life evermore."

I believe we as individuals have a duty and privilege to serve the poor. And that when we try to outsource those responsibilities to the government and to others, than we fail to give and recieve the blessings we could otherwise have.

What do you think?

I do agree with you , but since we are forced to pay taxes I want funding for the poor for health insurance , good schools, heat and food. We as a nation are to help them be self sufficient with good education and jobs.

 

[Penelope]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

What do you mean they work? Do they lower the number of people who are poor? Do they get people off poverty?

I think feeding the poor sends a message that they can have as many kids as they want. Maybe we should fix anyone who needs help feeding themselves.

Who are the poor people 20 years from now? I say they are fuck ups or children of fuck ups. Do you know what the kids will grow up to be? You guessed it. Future fuck ups.

Let's start calling the poor fuck ups instead of the poor because that's what they are. Either their parents shouldn't have had them or they shouldn't have had kids. Either way I didn't tell them to breed.

I don't have kids. Do you know why? I like having money.

I'm trying to be blunt to make a point Jake. Anyone who gets pregna nt next year did it to themselves. I didn't even get the pleasure of ejaculating so what is my obligation and who's fault is it that people are poor? Poor people are. Why do you defend fuck ups?

Sounds like you are arguing for eugenics.

Nope. It's simple. Don't have kids while you are living in poverty. Can anyone in America get out of poverty? Then anyone can have kids, once they get out of poverty.

If there were no public schools how would poor people afford to pay for private school? So while we have public assistance poor people don't need to worry about feeding their kids just like they don't have to worry about educating them.

You do realize that all over the world people with a much lower standard of living are churning out kids, right? Would you like to implement forced sterilizations and abortions to control the undesirables?

Are they collecting welfare? No one is forcing you to get sterlilized or have an abortion. But if you want that free money you need to get yourself fixed. And if you have another kid you aren't going to get any more money than what you already get now. People are free to do whatever they want.

People in 3rd world countries can raise a kid even though they are poor and they are not asking for welfare or foodstamps.

This thread is about our obligation to the poor. Really I have no obligation to the poor and if they didn't produce poor children we wouldn't have poor people in 20 years. They want to have things they can't afford. Doesn't that bother you?

Really, I'll tell you what , the middle class and poor have no obligation to the elites . What is half the US suppose to live like 3rd world citizens , while the top elites live like Kings, not going to happen. I am so disgusted with the Trumpets of the world or US it can make one sick. He is a bottom feeder, and a scoundrel. His trump foundation was a scam, and he stiffed small businesses, and paid no income tax. This scum is now our president, and his family, unreal.

 

[sealybobo]

State solutions to feeding the poor do indeed work, as we have seen in the West.

They have not made the poor less fed, so, no, such solutions do not make the matter worse.

A program tied to a works component and a jobs training component would be better.

What do you mean they work? Do they lower the number of people who are poor? Do they get people off poverty?

I think feeding the poor sends a message that they can have as many kids as they want. Maybe we should fix anyone who needs help feeding themselves.

Who are the poor people 20 years from now? I say they are fuck ups or children of fuck ups. Do you know what the kids will grow up to be? You guessed it. Future fuck ups.

Let's start calling the poor fuck ups instead of the poor because that's what they are. Either their parents shouldn't have had them or they shouldn't have had kids. Either way I didn't tell them to breed.

I don't have kids. Do you know why? I like having money.

I'm trying to be blunt to make a point Jake. Anyone who gets pregna nt next year did it to themselves. I didn't even get the pleasure of ejaculating so what is my obligation and who's fault is it that people are poor? Poor people are. Why do you defend fuck ups?

There are many reasons to provide for the poor, some out of empathy and some out of self defense. Your question might be one for a blue book midterm: Why defend fuck ups?

Definition matters, and the premise all poor are fuck ups is simply not true. Simple answers to complicated issues never solve problems and usually exacerbate them.

When Clinton signed welfare reform, and AFDC was replaced by TANF, each state was allowed to create a system of aid as they saw fit. The homeless, the beggars and the petty thief are usually addled by drugs and or alcohol, mental illness. They exist today and have always existed. For some, there is no solution for, in effect, they have given up. But, they are a problem which cities need to resolve, and cities usually rely on LE to do so. Jail is the first and usually the only outcome most of them face.

Then there are are the working poor, who cannot prepare resumes, meet MQ's or secure jobs which allow them the time and income to better their situation. Some work two or three PT jobs, have no benefits, no retirement and no means of transportation beyond walking. Even a bus ride is too expensive (SF will raise its fare to $2.50 on New Years Day).

How they got to where they are needs study, but that simply kicks the problem down the road. Programs like the California Conservation Corp and Job Corp make sense:

Job Corps

I like money too, BUT, I like my money paid in taxes to go for worthwhile programs such as those provided by the Dept. of Labor, but also for alternative interventions to those who face jail as the only outcome. Law and order have a place, but not to be used for political advantage.

Ok so not all poor people are fuck ups. Maybe their parents were fuck ups. And I know about all the different circumstances and while all that might be true you are still looking at this issue from a victim mentality, not an ownership mentality. Own it! A victim says, "yea but the reason/excuse I'm poor is because...." where an owner says, "I was poor but I did this to better myself and now I'm getting better"

I have a plan. Everyone has to have a plan. So you first addressed the fuck ups. You say "what are we going to do we have to feed them and that's that", but that doesn't have to be the way. If the GOP eliminates or makes cuts to programs or makes people have to be accountable, maybe they'll hit rock bottom faster and realize sooner they need to change. I have a bum friend he plays poker with us but he doesn't have a dime to his name. So he gets foodstamps and people seem to take him in after someone else throws him out for not paying rent. I know, what are we going to do let him starve? No. But if he were hungry enough maybe he'd stop drinking and clean up his life. You are enabling people like him.

I'm sick of being a bleeding heart liberal. I've made every argument you are making. But when the GOP cuts these fuck ups off, maybe we will see people aren't starving. My buddy will just have to buy food instead of beer with his under the table money. Right now he buys food with his foodstamps and beer with his under the table money. He will figure it out. He's a grown ass man. You don't want to cut off the kids but someone needs to micromanage this guys life and tell him where he's going wrong. Because it's costing us.

Right now Republicans are planning to raise my fucking retirement age to 70 and I work hard and have worked hard for a long time. I fucking can't wait to reach 65 and retire. These poor people who collected foodstamps and welfare for years are also going to retire at 65. Why? Why not make their retirement age 70 since they sucked off the system when they were young? If you want a year of welfare you can have it. But then you retire at 66. Do you want 5 years of welfare? Then you retire at 70.

I like Job Corps type programs.

 

[Mudda]

Your obligation to the poor is more than your obligation to give money to a wealthy church.

 

[sealybobo]

Ive been thinking about it this morning and I was wondering what our obligation to the poor is. Im not talking about what we should outsource to the government or what the government should do. But what do we as individuals have a responsibility to do?

I keep thinking of the words of a hymn:

"We'll go to the poor like our Captain of old. And visit the weary, the hungry, and cold. We'll cheer up their hearts with the news that he bore and point them to Zion and life evermore."

I believe we as individuals have a duty and privilege to serve the poor. And that when we try to outsource those responsibilities to the government and to others, than we fail to give and recieve the blessings we could otherwise have.

What do you think?

I do agree with you , but since we are forced to pay taxes I want funding for the poor for health insurance , good schools, heat and food. We as a nation are to help them be self sufficient with good education and jobs.

And what sucks is when the GOP cut programs that help the poor they aren't going to lower middle class taxes or pay down the debt with the savings. They're going to give rich people and corporations more tax breaks.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive been thinking about it this morning and I was wondering what our obligation to the poor is. Im not talking about what we should outsource to the government or what the government should do. But what do we as individuals have a responsibility to do?

I keep thinking of the words of a hymn:

"We'll go to the poor like our Captain of old. And visit the weary, the hungry, and cold. We'll cheer up their hearts with the news that he bore and point them to Zion and life evermore."

I believe we as individuals have a duty and privilege to serve the poor. And that when we try to outsource those responsibilities to the government and to others, than we fail to give and recieve the blessings we could otherwise have.

What do you think?

I think the poor need to try to not be poor. Or if you are poor and have kids your goal should be to get your kids out of poverty. Which means they shouldn't have kids till they are no longer poor.

The next generation of poor chose to be poor. They did it to themselves. No reason a person has to be poor in America unless he or she has children.

You wrote this 5 years ago. Anyone poor who read this back then, what have they done in the last 5 years to better themselves?

Holy thread resurrection Batman! I think we've had almost as many posts today as we did back then.

We are obviously first responsible for doing what we can to get ourselves out of poverty. And also to assist our family in doing so.

We often hear "mind your own business" it's usually used to mean but out of my life. But originally it also had the meaning that we need to take care of our own business. We have to fulfill our responsibilities in taking care of ourselves.

But our obligation to the poor goes beyond taking care of ourselves. But its a good first step

 

[Avatar4321]

newby, I never said that I think I am following Jesus' commands by SIMPLY paying my taxes. That is following ONE of Jesus' demands but it certainly does not stop with only one command. I don't think Jesus' commands stop at an individual and do not include (me as an individual in) society, but if you have some scripture that has Jesus' stating that our own good will towards others should stop when I am in a society that I am a part of...please do so!

Those are your rules Newby, NOT the Lord's, in my humble opinion. You may think this is following Christ, but I believe it is the complete opposite of what you say Christ wanted us to be and do. When he asked the rich man to give up everything, there was no one individual that this rich man was asked to give up his riches for, he was asked to do such for SOCIETY, for the poor and needy in their society specifically. He was not asked or told to go out individually and help them with his own hands in this sermon....so, I truly do not know where you get your opinion above on what Jesus taught....but if there are specifics in scripture, then I would love to read them! Please share!

As it stands, we will have to agree to disagree sweetie!

care

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree because I don't understand your point or where it is coming from at all. What are 'my rules'? You lost me on that completely? I'm not making up any rules at all. Do you believe a society as a whole can find salvation in Jesus Christ? Or is it the individual that finds salvation in Him? If you think that a society as a whole is able too, then we definitely see things very differently.

I saw this posted by someone in another thread, and I believe it to be very true...

Christianity is a religion where the actions of the heart and mind are most important.

Society or government representing a collective does not have a heart or a mind or a soul, only an individual does.

Or, let's put it another way. Let's say you lived in a society where there was no government safety net and there were poor and hungry and ill, and there were many in that society that didn't lift a hand to help, nor did any representatives of that society as a collective (i.e. government) help those individuals. Do you think that you living in that society would be condemned because the society as a whole was not charitable as long as you personally did all you could do to help those people? What society does has no bearing on that day when you stand in front of God on the judgement day, only what you yourself have done or not done will matter.

Yes and no. You must also do whatever you can to change society for the batter, not live in your own little corner and ignore the rest o of the world.

I never said you should sit in your own corner and ignore the world, you make society as a whole better by following your heart and helping those in need. But, it's something that comes from within, not at the point of a gun. If I morally mandate that my neighbor has the same obligations of charity that I do and use the force of government to compel him to do the same whether he wants too or not, that's not making society better, nor is that helping my neighbor find salvation. That's not what it's supposed to be about, that's not what Jesus taught.

Agreed. It is not virtuous if one is forced to be virtuous. Nor has throwing money over a fence been proven to help his neighbor at all. Far from it... it destroys the spirit of man. Even FDR admitted to this.

I think that concept Is lost on many. They seem to think like scrooge did that if the government pays for programs using their tax money they are compassionate and have no further obligation

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive been thinking about it this morning and I was wondering what our obligation to the poor is. Im not talking about what we should outsource to the government or what the government should do. But what do we as individuals have a responsibility to do?

I keep thinking of the words of a hymn:

"We'll go to the poor like our Captain of old. And visit the weary, the hungry, and cold. We'll cheer up their hearts with the news that he bore and point them to Zion and life evermore."

I believe we as individuals have a duty and privilege to serve the poor. And that when we try to outsource those responsibilities to the government and to others, than we fail to give and recieve the blessings we could otherwise have.
obligation to feed the poor.
What do you think?

Personally, I feel an obligation to feed the poor. I've walked a mile or two in their shoes.I know how it is. All help is appreciated, but pride can make them pretend like they don't want help.

Go to a homeless camp and leave a couple buckets of KFC. Grab a leg and walk away. Biscuits, gravy, smashed potatoes, corn... the whole shebang.

It feels good when you've performed a good deed.

You can't feel bad doing good. You can't feel good doing bad.