Zone1 Three Temptations

[Ace Nova]

Why aren't we able to provide for our children? By the way, I am talking about the great majority of people. Do we make it too easy for those who can provide but don't or won't provide? If they had to provide for themselves, would they be happier?

Are you speaking in a Spiritual sense or in terms of politics/governments?

 

[BULLDOG]

We are at cross purposes here. I am speaking of people who, if left alone, could provide for themselves, or would provide for themselves it they had to. Is it better to have confidence that we can take care of ourselves and our loved ones, or is it better to go around wrapping people bubble wrap. Would you rather take care of yourself, or would you rather someone else take care of you?

You MAGAs think everyone who needs help is just too sorry to do it themselves. That's not true. **** you.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure, but if the numbers of drowning people are ever increasing then that's not the problem, and can't be the solution to the problem.

No wonder why they call you dickhead.

 

[Ace Nova]

You MAGAs think everyone who needs help is just too sorry to do it themselves. That's not true. **** you.

I believe Meriweather was asking people's opinions on the subject. Which way would benefit people the most?

 

[Ace Nova]

If someone is drowning, is it better for someone to yell about how he should have learned to swim, or to actually help him?

You save him. Then teach him how to swim. If he still can't swim, then you continue to help him (don't let him drown) until he A. Learns how to swim. or B. No longer goes into deep water.

 

[ding]

No wonder why they call you dickhead.

Why is that? You don't like hearing the truth?

 

[BULLDOG]

I believe Meriweather was asking people's opinions on the subject. Which way would benefit people the most?

In the guise of some religious context, he is implying someone needing help is less moral than someone not needing help. Somehow not living up to his religious ideal.

 

[ding]

In the guise of some religious context, he is implying someone needing help is less moral than someone not needing help. Somehow not living up to his religious ideal.

Or possibly that subsidiarity is a better solution to the problem than centralized government.

 

[Meriweather]

Do you believe the only reason for hunger in the US is laziness? I've been broke, and desperately looking for a job, back when regan killed the unions. Of course it would have been better if I had a good paying job, but I didn't, and my family still had to eat.

Keep in mind this topic is about it being better for the human soul for people (who can) to provide for themselves; to encourage independence, not dependence, in people, their families, and their immediate community.

The topic is not about how to provide for people who cannot provide for themselves. This is not to downplay hard times and people who for any number of good reasons cannot provide for themselves.

At one point in my life, I was down to a box of oatmeal that would last me for the week until I got paid. After three days I was sick of oatmeal, and I asked my brother if he could loan me some money. He did and it is one of my favorite memories. However, I treasure even more all the times I could take care of myself, my family, and a friend and her family. I was going through tough times then, as well--just not as tough as my friend and her daughter. Family and friends taking care of family and friends. That is good for the human soul and (in my opinion) better than not making the effort when that is at all possible.

So, I get what you are saying that what about when we need help--it's just a somewhat separate topic from what I introduced.

 

[Meriweather]

"Feed a man a fish and he will eat for one day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

Perfect quote for this thread! I thank you.

 

[Meriweather]

Are you speaking in a Spiritual sense or in terms of politics/governments?

Both. I started wondering if government--no matter how well the intentions-- was doing more harm to its citizens, and the country, by providing for them too soon and too easily.

 

[Meriweather]

You MAGAs think everyone who needs help is just too sorry to do it themselves. That's not true.

I am not talking about people who need help. You keep changing the topic from the one I introduced. Are people happier and more confident when they can provide for themselves?

Not that it matters, I wasn't a part of MAGA, but that's not the issue, either. However, I am about ready to start a group here who are against everyone who responds to someone being oh so certain of who they "really" are and what they are "really" thinking. Why the need to brand me and drag MAGA into this thread?

 

[Meriweather]

believe Meriweather was asking people's opinions on the subject. Which way would benefit people the most?

Yes, thank you. And especially when it comes to their souls/spirits.

 

[BULLDOG]

Keep in mind this topic is about it being better for the human soul for people (who can) to provide for themselves; to encourage independence, not dependence, in people, their families, and their immediate community.

The topic is not about how to provide for people who cannot provide for themselves. This is not to downplay hard times and people who for any number of good reasons cannot provide for themselves.

At one point in my life, I was down to a box of oatmeal that would last me for the week until I got paid. After three days I was sick of oatmeal, and I asked my brother if he could loan me some money. He did and it is one of my favorite memories. However, I treasure even more all the times I could take care of myself, my family, and a friend and her family. I was going through tough times then, as well--just not as tough as my friend and her daughter. Family and friends taking care of family and friends. That is good for the human soul and (in my opinion) better than not making the effort when that is at all possible.

So, I get what you are saying that what about when we need help--it's just a somewhat separate topic from what I introduced.

Ok, then I'll ask again, do you think the great majority of hunger, or other need for help is just from being lazy? What percentage would you say is just because the person is lazy?

 

[Meriweather]

In the guise of some religious context, he is implying someone needing help is less moral than someone not needing help. Somehow not living up to his religious ideal.

You misunderstand. I am noting in today's Gospel reading, Jesus refrained from thinking the solution to the human condition was free bread. Morality isn't the topic, but what might be best for the human soul. Perhaps this will clarify:

A person (who can work) has two choices available: The first is to do the work to earn his own bread. The second is to be handed bread free of charge.

Can you understand I am not adding the variable that someone was not able to work, or no work is available. All things being even--is it better for the human soul to provide for him/herself or better to take a hand-out?

If someone believes a hand-out for those who can work is better for spiritual reasons, that would interest me.

 

[BULLDOG]

You misunderstand. I am noting in today's Gospel reading, Jesus refrained from thinking the solution to the human condition was free bread. Morality isn't the topic, but what might be best for the human soul. Perhaps this will clarify:

A person (who can work) has two choices available: The first is to do the work to earn his own bread. The second is to be handed bread free of charge.

Can you understand I am not adding the variable that someone was not able to work, or no work is available. All things being even--is it better for the human soul to provide for him/herself or better to take a hand-out?

If someone believes a hand-out for those who can work is better for spiritual reasons, that would interest me.

I understand you didn't answer my question.

 

[Meriweather]

Ok, then I'll ask again, do you think the great majority of hunger, or other need for help is just from being lazy? What percentage would you say is just because the person is lazy?

Why do you want to take this thread off topic?

Have you ever watched mothers trying to feed their children mud because there was nothing else available? No work, no food. If you have, I am certain you tried to do what you could to alleviate their suffering. What about people who are hungry to do a natural disaster?

This is not a thread about taking care of the poor. This thread has a very narrow focus addressing those who can provide for themselves, but don't and those who can provide for themselves and do. Guess what, I haven't a clue as to how many who CAN or how few may choose the easy way. My interest is in those who CAN but don't. Let's say there are only two people who don't. Would their spirits benefit from providing for themselves over accepting hand-outs?

 

[Meriweather]

I understand you didn't answer my question.

And I understand you aren't addressing the topic.

 

[Ace Nova]

Both. I started wondering if government--no matter how well the intentions-- was doing more harm to its citizens, and the country, by providing for them too soon and too easily.

Good question.

If you want to compare it to faith/spirituality, for a few, it may come naturally - their faith is unshakeable and they go through life without any doubts. For a few others, it can be much more difficult - they need constant reminders, studies, services, etc. But for most, it's usually somewhere in between.

How does that translate to society? The few that it comes naturally to are the most successful people in our society. The few that it's much more difficult for could be the underprivileged, less fortunate, folks with disabilities, mental or physical health issues, etc. Everyone else is the middle class.

In terms of "social safety nets" don't let the events of the past 3 years influence your opinion. The events of the past 3 years are unprecedented on a worldwide level and the amount of money the government distributed was also unprecedented. Also keep in mind that a large portion of that money went out to small and medium sized businesses.

Now the pushback comes because a lot of folks started getting used to:

A. Working from home
B. Working less
C. Not working

It took a good three years but it seems as if people are finally getting back to reality.

That said, so should people's opinions about social safety nets. Capitalism in the United States works well partially because of the safety nets that it can afford. Are there people that abuse the "safety net" system? I'm sure there are. Just like there are people that abuse the deregulation and business freedoms they get because of capitalism. But for the most part, people that are in need of social safety nets, do indeed need them. And most business owners do not abuse the freedoms they get from deregulation. So it works - let's keep it working.

Long story short:

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for one day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. If the man doesn't learn how to fish right away, feed the man a fish until he learns how to fish.

 

[BreezeWood]

I believe Meriweather was asking people's opinions on the subject. Which way would benefit people the most?

no, they claimed jesus was meant to lead them, 4th century christianity - not for them to free their spirit and control their own destiny.