I contend that the selfish ones are the ones playing the system. And I see them on a daily basis. There is a line as to how much help to give when bad choices are concerned. If you are ok with being played, thats fine. But I choose to draw a line. I refuse to be an enabler for those that choose to not help themselves. And we will agree to disagree.

But there’s a difference between saying “what can we do to get these people to help themselves? and then supporting them while they learn it…and saying “we shouldn’t help them because they won’t help themselves.” Even lack of initiative should not be an automatic death sentence because they are “too lazy” to help themselves.

Sometimes it’s like dealing with a child who has only known being beaten to make them behave. Too often they literally don’t believe you mean what you say if you don’t hit them. And if they are not taught a different way to interact with people, they will grow up to beat THEIR children because they don’t know any other way to deal with children,

People stuck in a cycle of poverty can have the same problem. They don’t help themselves because they literally don’t KNOW any other way to deal with life. So we can support them while we teach them there ARE other ways to get through life.

But just to say “why should I give up MY hard earned money to THOSE “lazy” people” is nothing more, or less, than trying to find a way to justify selfishness. “I got mine…I don’t have to help anyone else get theirs” It’s selfish, and if that person professes to be a Christian or a Moslem, it’s unChristian and unMoslem. And un-any-other-belief-system that adjures it’s adherents to help the poor.

We are not that far apart if you believe in what you say. We do need to provide a social safety net to help. But there are many out there that refuse to help themselves, and constantly rely on others to care for them, when they are capable of helping themselves. And why are they not required to better themselves in exchange for asistance? Many dropped out of school and could easily choose to go back.

My point, it is a choice.

Everything we do is a choice.

So no, that is where I draw the line. If one chooses to not better/help themselves when they are able, then they should be made to suffer the consequences. Only then will they choose to motivate themselves to do better.

No different to giving a child everything vs teach them how to care for themselves. Which is the better alternative?

American contributes more pollution per capita than China esp. some pollution is caused by manufacturing for global consumers.

We can build carriers powered by two nuclear generators and we accuse China of building helicopters. What a joke!

Despite all the differences, treat China as a friend and you got a friend, and vice versa.

Neither does yours. If you have nothing against gay marriage, then why quote the “traditional” definition of marriage? Traditions can change. It used to be traditional to hold others in slavery…it’s no longer the tradition.

“Traditional” marriages are not going to go away if same sex marriages are made legal. The only difference is that 2 loving partners of whichever sex, can marry the person they love. Which has nothing to do, as you so astutely pointed out, with minors. Though you are wrong, minors over a certain age (depends on the state) can get married with their parents consent.

The opposite can be said also: find where he DIDN’T. In his time, and in his society, he was speaking primarily to people who had NO power to change the governmental structure they lived under. So he instructed them to help each other. But he also advised the rich young man to give up ALL HE HAD to the poor and that rich young man was not able to do it.

As Christians (and actually Moslems too) we are instructed to help the poor. How that is done does not matter, it is the HELPING that matters. So you can go out and individually give alms to the poor…or you can work to change your existing governmental structure to make the help more effective, more widespread, and less of a burden on any one individual.

There’s nothing about “helping” the poor that means we have to let them live in luxury and do nothing for it…BUT, there will ALWAYS be those who can’t be helped and who DO need to be “cared” for. We have a responsibiltiy to ALL of them.

And it’s not much use training someone to do a job, if there are then NO paying jobs to be had. We must still CARE for them, because for all we have helped them…they still need to be cared for, until the jobs are available to allow them to help themselves.

And there’s always SOMETHING that can be done. No one has said to give them money and walk away. There’s litter to be picked up, public areas to be kept neat and clean, roads that can be swept, others that need even MORE help. If we must, and sometimes we MUST, give them the means to help sustain themselves and their families, then give the able-bodied among them SOMETHING to do.

If you are able to find among those quotes -anywhere- that Jesus suggested his followers abdicate their obligation to help others in need to elected officials and government whereby their participation largely became “writing a check” (or “paying ones taxes”), then, by all means, go chapter and verse. I am waiting to hear it!

On the flip side, if you recognize that Jesus’ intent was for his followers to be “among the sheep” instead of “employing shepherds” to do on their behalf what he called them to do, then you will realize that bogus misapplication of theology is the sham that it is.

Sorry, attempting to equate his teachings in some defense of the collectivist ideals of redistributionism is patently dishonest. It is especially so when one recognizes that under the collectivist ideal attempting to overlay charity to government; it is government – not God – to whom much of that credit is given.

Glad to help!

-SD

You contended:
Belief: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
Fact: “There are more than 12,000 firearm homicides in the USA every year.”

Actually, in each and every one of those 12K homicides -I will assume for a moment that you are simply referencing those occasions where one individual was killed by another with malice and / or intent-, they indeed represent instances of -people- using -guns- to kill -people-. If it was as I assumed (you are referencing homicides), they were occasions where -people- killed -people-.

In this case, -both- are factual!

If you instead were using an incendiary term (”homicides”) lumping in those deaths resulting from accidents with firearms in an attempt to make a political point, then, unless those firearms (aka inanimate objects) took action of their own volition, initiating their own firing mechanisms while targeted at some unfortunate, unsuspecting individual, there is still some -person- involved and likely responsible.

In that event as well, -both- are factual!

Personally, I miss the intelligence and logic of many individuals (arguably you may not be a member of this group) who ascribe evil to inanimate objects (like guns) as greater objects of derision and attack than other animate individuals acting as free agents (like criminals or terrorists).

Maybe we should institute “criminal / terrorist-buy-back” programs whereby individuals could bring in criminals and / or terrorists, exchange them for cash or goods, and then would would toss them into a slag furnace never to threaten peaceful society; thereby removing them permanently of their obligation to exchange oxygen to carbon dioxide.

Of course, that would represent an occasion where we are resolving the problems instead of trying to mask or cover up the symptoms!

-SD