To care

[deorro 1]

Christ Messiah tells us to care.. But He also tells us to be wise. To care and be wise. To not cast the pearls before 'swine'; lest they turn and tear you apart for the pearls' sake. Where do wars arise from? They arise from 'wanting' but not 'having'.. It is covetousness. Christ Messiah tells us to care and to be wise.

Here in the U.S., we were brought up with this ideal. While in school we were taught to care for one another and if there was any trouble to take it the proper authorities. Principles, teachers, etc.... That is what we were taught.

And so after having graduated and moved on to higher education, this early and secondary education remained with us. We were to care and to be wise and college had us learn that not every person, even still at a younger than legal age for alcohol purchase, were caring. Wise maybe, but not all were caring... And so many thought from where, from what State, from what part of the U.S. these 'wise' but non caring still teens came from that they were more brutish than the 'jocks', no pun intended, than the jocks back 'home'.

But still. In grade school we were taught to care and to be wise.

And here in the U.S the same somewhat applies with that past generation. That 'caring and being wise' is not something that a person can take out of his pocket and discard of. It is not a used piece of high school memorabilia. It was instilled. In school, in family, in neighborhood, in respecting towards elders, in respecting to those 'proper authorities'.


And when and if these caring and wise ones are no more, there will be another kind of 'caring and being wise'.

And to this I write.

If after showing 'care' towards another that other turns to play 'mind games', what does that mean? The boy who cried wolf is a perfect example.

And are you certain that that person who says 'I don't need help', or 'I don't want help', really understands what he/she is saying? Does that person really believe that his or her life can exist as it is without others caring and being wise enough to be as acquaintances; as neighbors; as the citizens to which 'life' is around. Caring and wise citizens to whom the 'less' privileged live among for safety's sake.

So what might it mean if a 'well to do' person were to sincerely see how I might be 'helped' by him or her and then for me to use that concern to manipulate their minds to the point where their 'care' became their 'trap'?

And if this is a 'bad' thing, does it NOT occur where you live? In those neighborhoods you are familiar with? With those others; maybe even 'coworkers' who use your care to your disadvantage and to their own inner laughter for their own concept towards others being so gullibly 'loving'.

 

[deorro 1]

An incident in New York, I think.

A man with crutches beaten for offering to assist some whom he overheard 'murmur' that they were 'short' on 'cash' for a McDonald's purchase.

The man sitting at a McDonald's table within the establishment overhears some who enter in murmur that they were 'short' on 'cash'. To this the man sitting asks, suggests, tells ... whatever it may have been, them that he has that 'extra cash' and was willing to 'give' them it. On the video itself the dialogue is not heard but by reports taken, although they might not be all true, the man offered to assist. Still, with only 1 man eating alone, with crutches for more than 1 to assault him, regardless of what might have been spoken, is overdone.

Would that news have gotten mainstream if only 1 male or female 'assaulted'? Probably not...

So even though the 'newly' arriving customers walk around the man lying on the ground beaten to go to the register to order as if him lying there was not too concerning to them might show a light on how that man was viewed upon in that neighborhood, all the other viewers around the Country might not have agreed to a multiple beating towards 1 man.

Obviously that man is in an environment that is dangerous to his well being and he seems to not budge or move himself away for whatever reason(s) he might have... just as how the assailants might not have been 'understood' as to why they did what they did...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Your post is almost indecipherable and as a result. I dont care.

 

[deorro 1]

Take a broader, wider picture.

Retired familied citizens unable to enjoy their own front porch by being told they are NOT allowed to have any 'religious' portrayals on their own property.

How might this be taken by themselves when all of a sudden they are told they are 'living' wrongfully on their own property on which they lived for many decades?


Again, I do not understand the full scope of each perspective, but, Where are their children and/or grandchildren to 'defend' their right to live peacefully?

Having sent their children through schooling and beyond and maybe having helped send their grandchildren through school... surely they would have 'helped' back, right?


YOU are on your parents' and grandparents' side, right?


So what do you do when your 'care' towards another turns into a 'trap'? Tell that other one who is manipulating to 'take a hike'? And how would this be seen as 'bad' or 'hurtful'?


For the sake of community 'well being' the retired family home took down their religious portrayals. Because of their 'care'.

Because of their care.. What about towards their 'wisdom'? Their 'understanding'? Has the local Leaders of the Churches defended or not to these 'cares'?


Here is something to keep in consideration.

Churches and the IRS: The Johnson Amendment explained



The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954.

In the early 21st century, some politicians, including President Donald Trump, have sought to repeal the provision, arguing that it restricts the free speech rights of churches and other religious groups. These efforts have been criticized because churches have fewer reporting requirements than other non-profit organizations, and because it would effectively make political contributions tax-deductible.[1] On May 4, 2017, Trump signed an executive order "to defend the freedom of religion and speech" for the purpose of easing the Johnson Amendment's restrictions.

Johnson Amendment - Wikipedia



So, maybe it might become easier to speak 'freely' in Church pertaining to 'secular' agendas?

2017.. that was 3 years ago... Why no Church outcry as of yet?

Maybe they do not want to repeat their pain(s) of relinquishing The Truth for and to the sake of brawn.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Trust but verify.

 

[deorro 1]

Many read that Christians are against Muslims and that Muslims are against Christians. This however is not altogether true.

Those whom are 'against' one another are the 'teachers' within each 'faith and walk'.


What is the difference between:
A pastor and a shepherd?
An evangel and a teacher?
A disciple and a saint?
A prophet and an apostle?
A deacon and a bishop?
A Church and its members?
A prophet and a prophetess?

Why? Why is Mrs. Ellen G. White still being referred to as a prophet and not a prophetess, still?
Why are pastors still being expected to 'teach' and do the 'job' of a 'teacher'?
Why are bishops still only being referred to within the Catholic Church?
Why are 'ministers' still thought of as being Ministers without the actual physical 'ministering' aspect?