Who Would Jesus Let Starve?
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.
Proverbs 14:31
He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord,
and he will reward him for what he has done.
Proverbs 19:17
In yet another example of the hatred of the Lord exhibited by the inhabitants of the so-called Bible Belt, the State of Florida, which brought America fraudulent voter rolls and George W. Bush, has used the force of the State to arrest a man for feeding the homeless in Orlando.
Because feeding the homeless makes you a criminal in Christian America, Food Not Bombs charity group spokesman Eric Montanez was charged with violating a controversial law against feeding large groups of destitute people in the city centre.
"The Orlando law, which is supported by local business owners who say the homeless drive away customers...allows charities to feed more than 25 people at a time within 3.2 kilometres of the Orlando City Hall only if they have a special permit. " They are able to receive two permits a year.
As funny as it is tragic, Christianity in America is only tolerated by Christians when it begets hate of gays and abortion. Otherwise, keep your Jesus-like conduct to a minimum; that is, only twice a year. It might scare away the customers.
If Jesus returned today, America's Christians would be the first to denounce the renegade, hooligan, unpatriotic, liberal, law-breaker who hangs out with prostitutes and lepers and who does not respect the free market right of the money-changers to set up shop in the temple. Can you picture it now - Bill O'Reilly will invite the Son of God to his show to berate him for being a terrorist lover for his defeatocrat philosophy of turning the other cheek.
posted by Intellectual Insurgent @ 11:45 AM
41 Comments
41 Comments:
Stunningly true.
II is back on the block!
Every nation kills it's prophets and Jesus was no exception. It's seems like the struggle of the prophet never changes, no matter what the era or the society. Ganhi, King, etc. The people can't agree with them until they are safely dead.
What's amazing to me is that people who profess to read the Bible come away with such hateful interpretations. To me, the essence of Jesus is a "challenge." Simply going to church does not make you a Christian. You MUST serve the poor.
Big J
I agree, this is a horrible incident, but as you say... the State of Florida "has used the force of the State", so why are you criticizing Christians?? This is in actuality, a battle between “Church” and “State”. So to say that this is "an example of the hatred of the Lord”... I think you’re way off on that. The Christians (and other religious groups) are the ones fighting to feed the poor and oppose this ban.
According to another article on this incident, a city council attorney is “working with religious organizations that had protested the policy because it banned free assembly and worship.” So as you see, the “Church” is against this heinous act that the “State” has imposed.
Here’s a link to the other article:
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070320/NEWS0110/703200376/1085/NEWS0110
What is missing is the intent of this law.
What the State is wanting to happen is to have the Church Groups set up shop in a designated area so as to not encourage vagrancy in the wrong areas.
By the Church groups hanging out in the areas that they are now feeding the poor, they are encouraging them to stay in that area. But if instead they would "bus" the homeless to a shelter area and then help them, they would then "hang out" in the proper area. Is there anything wrong with that intent? Or do we have to just accept the idea that where ever the homeless want to congragate, then it will always be O.K. even if it destroys a business?
Just a thought. To me it sure presents a different paradigm when viewed with additional information such as intent.
FAR.
Anon,
I am accusing Christians because they are the voters and elected officials of Florida. They are the ones who, more often than not, dictate how the force of the State is used. Thanks for the link but, correct me if I am wrong, this has nothing to do with the ordinance referenced in my post.
FAR,
Please let me know if Jesus bused homeless people to areas where there were fewer businesses to encourage them to hang out in proper areas. Because if he didn't, your argument falls on its own weight.
What does intent have to do with anything? Last I checked, the streets are public property and, the homeless, as part of the public, have just as much right to be on the streets as anyone else. And anyone who wants to feed them has every right to be there. Amazing that you would defend this.
ii,
Just going by the "Golden Rule."
I am trying to see it from both sides.
The definition of a "fair" person is a person who when he puts him/hersel in the other persons shoes will keep the same stance/view/position.
In this case, I put myself in the position of the businesses that are being harmed and then said would I continue to think that the State was asking so much to ask them to be fed in another location.
I don't see why the "location" of the feeding is such a big deal if it helps both sides? It then becomes a win-win. The poor get fed and the businesses don't get harmed.
FAR.
P.S.
My understanding of the proper application of "freedom" is where neither party is being harmed...
The old saying...."My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
The homeless right to congregate in a location ends when it "harms" the nose of the business.
Make sense?
FAR.
I understand your point FAR, but perhaps then Christians should try to see things from the perspective of the money changers in the temple too. Maybe Jesus was too rough on them. I mean, geez, they were just trying to make a living.
I think Jesus was against the Money Changers in the Temple because of the "Location" and that even more fits the point.
Temples are for worship and not for making a living.
The Christians are almost unanimous in wanting to help the poor, and I would not be suprised if many, if not most, of the business owners are all for helping them, but would love to see them being helped in shelters where they can get more than just food, but medical care and proper beds as well.
By giving them food in the "wrong" location, it uses positive reinforcement that says to them to come back to the same "wrong" place.
Very thought provoking post though and that is why I love the way you make people think.
FAR.
Ok Mr. Big Government,
Let me make sure I've got your argument straight. It is okay for Christians to use the force of the State to encourage people to accept Christian help in "proper" places?
Perhaps it was okay for the Romans to move Jesus out of the way because he was ruining business. If only he would have taken his ministry to "proper" places, the Romans would have been okay with him.
If that's your argument, it is laughable. Come on.
ii,
Said: "Ok Mr. Big Government,
I am for small government. :)
"Let me make sure I've got your argument straight. It is okay for Christians to use the force of the State to encourage people to accept Christian help in "proper" places?"
I don't think it is the Christians that are wanting the State to do anything other than protect the rights of Businesses to not be harmed.
"Encouraging" people to get help in the proper place is not using force, by definition of the word "encourage."
"Perhaps it was okay for the Romans to move Jesus out of the way because he was ruining business. If only he would have taken his ministry to "proper" places, the Romans would have been okay with him.
If my memory serves me Jesus did his thing in the outskirts of the city and I think if a business was to ask him to "preach" in a different location, I think he would have been "nice" about it.
If that's your argument, it is laughable. Come on.
Your understandinf of it might be laughable, but my paradigm is different based upon the above positions.
It comes back to "protecting the rights of the one being harmed," which is the businesses, unless you say that by "asking" them to move to a "better" location is "harming" them in some way?
FAR.
Passing a law criminalizing feeding the homeless is not defensible. If the businesses were so worried about homeless people, they should be the ones setting up the shelters to encourage the homeless people to be in "proper" areas (whatever that means).
I don't think it is the Christians that are wanting the State to do anything other than protect the rights of Businesses to not be harmed.
Of course, because Christians prioritize making money over the right of people to feed the homeless. You said it. Because this law isn't about the homeless people. It is about the people who feed them. You are saying it is criminal to do so.
"Encouraging" people to get help in the proper place is not using force, by definition of the word "encourage."
Correct me if I am wrong, but this statute says nothing about "encouraging" anything. You're the one who pulled that out of thin air to defend the non-Christian conduct of Christians.
If my memory serves me Jesus did his thing in the outskirts of the city and I think if a business was to ask him to "preach" in a different location, I think he would have been "nice" about it.
LOL!!!! This is hilarious FAR.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)
Yeah, I am sure he would have been really nice to comply with the requests of the business owners.
ii,
Said "Passing a law criminalizing feeding the homeless is not defensible."
Your right, if that is what the law said, but won't your agree that the above is taken out of context? Come,on.
Doesn't it really say that it is about the "Location" of the feeding and not the "feeding" itself?
I am suprised that you would not see this gross misrepresentation of the law by taking the subject of this law out of context.
Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
And as far as the Matthew quote, there is a lot to say about "context" on this one as well, and I may come back and comment on this if you are interested.
Without context, we can make many, many statements often look anyway we want, depending on our agenda.
Of course, I don't suppose anyone has quoted scripture out of context before the other way? :)
FAR.
P.S.,
What if the State passed a law saying the homeless could not urinate on your front pourch.
Would you then say that the "Passing of a law against the homeless urinating is indefensible?"
FAR.
Bad analogy FAR. I have the right to regulate who enters my PRIVATE property and what they do there. The homeless people and those who feed them are on public property.
Why do I need to put the law in context? You are bending over backwards to justify using the power of the State and the money of the taxpayers to protect businesses from losing money. Those businesses are perfectly free to do what they need to do to protect their own businesses.
ii,
O.K., Make it the sidewalk in front of your home.
Any diff?
FAR.
"Christians are almost unanimous in wanting to help the poor" ...
"Christians prioritize making money over the right of people to feed the homeless. "
Both true -- and the statement point to the bigger point: there are no "Christians" in America -- and likely none in the world.
A Christian is someone who follows christ and believes in (the non-sense of) the bible: esp the new testament. If folks really believe in that stuff, they should not even be worried about themselves:
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? ... Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Shouldn't "christians" forsake everything and help the poor, and preach the "good news"? Come'on -- they're gonna live in paradise for ETERNITY with god... what the hell difference does 60-70 years on earth make? A christian's time-on-earth is NOTHING right?
If folks REALLY believed this stuff then owning a home, a car and worrying about your "business" would be truly meaningless compared to the god's edicts...
RoR,
Said: "...Take no thought for your life..."
Boy I love responding to "out of context" stuff.
You see, if you study the Bible in depth, you are able to understand so much better than just reading a little here, and a little there or even reading the whole thing without really studing it.
God would be putting us all in jeopardy if it was a "no-brainer" because then we would have no excuse like..."I just didn't get it", like we now have if we choose to not study it. So, it helps not condem those who choose to poo-poo it. "Where much is given, much is expected." And vice versa.
Could it be Christ was talking to the Apostles and just to them? Often we must distinguish which group or individual he is talking to, because otherwise things don't make sense and seem conflicting.
For instance if he was talking to all of us, then how would he explain this other "out of context" scripture....
" But if any aprovide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Tim. 5: 8
So, if he doesn't work, then he is an infidel.
We are also commanded to work six days.
There is a lot more, but I must get back to my budget.
Be back later.
FAR.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ii,
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father,...
Does the Gospel Bring Peace on the Earth?
Matthew 10:34-37 along with Luke 12:49-53 is talking about how those who accept the Gospel and live it's standards will have peace in this life and in the world to come.
But as far as men generally are concerned, peace is taken from the Earth, and Satan has gained dominion in their hearts, and there will be no peace in the world generally until the Prince of Peace returns.
Those who are the truth seekers will be hated, persecuted and their family will dis-own them for accepting the Gospel. Many will be driven from their homes and as many who are not Christian who come in contact with them will make fun of them and will put them down as fools.
That is what is meant by the passages quoted and it can be found by diligent study or even reading a few New Testament Commentaries by Bible Scholars.
Context is King and there is no substitute for years of study as opposed to a superficial reading without a contrite heart and prayerful spirit.
FAR.
II: your command of the scriptures is incredible - and so is your ability to intepret.
You might also add from the book of James, where (and I'm paraphrasing, but it's an accurate paraphrase,) "Don't have all the well-dressed in the congregation sit up front, and don't let those people who don't have nice clothes - don't force them in the back, or under a bench during the service."
Also from the book of James: "Who are the rich? Aren't they the ones who drag you to court and violate the good name by which you are called?"
If you believe the Bible, then you've got to believe that God could have had Jesus choose any profession He wanted. After all, He's the Son of God. Why was He a blue-collar worker?
Jesus could have been a senator, a conquerer, an owner of a bank (yes, they had banks back them!)
But why a blue-collar worker?
Because I honestly feel that God has a special place in His heart for the poor - and by the Lindsey Lohan, Anna Nichol standards, blue-collar workers are poor as church mice.
Would Jesus engage or support this type of law? I can't speak for Him, but I honestly feel He wouldn't. Just read the entire book of James - it takes about 5 minutes or less. It's a real eye-opener for the rich - which is why you hardly ever hear the book of James preached on Sunday mornings, unless it's an obscure passage that supports something that doesn't slam rich people.
FAR,
The same analysis applies for the sidewalk in front of my house. It's public property. Indeed, going back to your post about why we need anymore laws, nuisance laws are quite sufficient to cover any disruptions that might occur if, for example, homeless people decide to use my front lawn as a urinal.
Not only are you defending the criminalization of Christian behavior, you are justifying the addition of yet another law to the books when existing ones address any concerns about conduct on public property that might affect private property.
ii,
"Not only are you defending..."
Not really defending as much as just trying to present the other sides paridigm.
I think that in almost all hot issues, they are usually not quite as "black and white" as we may think.
I think the owners would probably be happy with the "nuisance" laws that are already on the books.
I read about this same thing happening in Seattle and the homeless were urinating and deficating on the sidewalks in front of the stores and my compassion goes for both parties in this instance. I am not "store owners bad, homeless people good" in every instance.
As usual you make a good case for one side....hmmm maybe you should be a lawyer... :)
I enjoy your intellect and always respect you.
FAR.
P.S.
I am convinced you could take either side and present a good case.
If I ever need a lawyer....
FAR.
Is not Christ the example in all things for a christian?
Yes, some part of scripture exhorts the believer to work and be self sufficient, but the over-ridding message is to give all you have to others (the poor). This is precisely why jesus praised the woman who gave her last two cents to the poor while he chastised those who made a show out of giving from their excess...
(I have "studied" the bible -- I once 'believed' in it - but after you study it for a while, many come to the conclusion that its no different than any other work of fiction)
You can cherry pick all you want, but the main message of christ (the NT) is to forsake this world and put stock in the next... to help others to the detriment of yourself.
Besides, you never addressed my main point: if you're gonna be in paradise forever what difference does a few years of hard work, poverty (because you give most of it away) and humbleness really "cost" ...
Nothing -- but only if you REALLY believe you have eternity ahead of you.
FAR,
I wasn't saying store owners bad, homeless good. Not in my post, not in my comments. My point is that in a part of America where we hear all this bullshit about war on Christians, Christmas and all that nonsense, they pass a law that criminalizes Christian conduct. It's not the atheists persecuting Christians it seems.
ii
You sure get a lot of responses to your posts... that's a good thing since you're making people think. The bad thing is that you can never admit when your wrong...(many previous posts prove that, not only this one).
It seems your strategy is just to debate an issue until the other side gets tired of debating with you, and listening to your insults and condescending remarks. I sure am tired.
(I'm sure you'll have a quick response for this too, "putting me in my place" somehow. So go ahead, shoot, let's have it, so you can show everyone how smart you are.)
Anon,
I will happily admit when I am wrong. If you believe that I am wrong with regard to this post, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you honey. You obviously keep coming back for more.
RoR,
Said: "You can cherry pick all you want, but the main message of christ (the NT) is to forsake this world and put stock in the next... to help others to the detriment of yourself."
Nope. The main message to me is the "Golden Rule."
The Greatest Commandment has that same tone and so does the second greatest commandment.
Show me that the letters to the memebers of the church were "all" told to do that.
In every case I can think of when Christ said to "Give away all you own" it was directed at a specific person or group...words like "he said unto him..."
He wants us to all be well rounded people and to help people with our resources.
There is a big difference in "studying" the Bible and really "doing a lot of investigating" into what "appears" to be a fair number of contridictions in the Bible.
Have you resolved many of them?
If not, I would say that you did not do enough studying.
I could tell you of some things that have happened in my life that have convinced me of the fact that the Bible is a book with a lot of wisdom in it and it tells us how to act so as to have a better life in the next one.
If a person studies it enough, they will become more convinced it is not a fairy tale.
If a person studies with a contrite spirit and humble heart, it will be eye-opening just how much truth is in it, but if pride is allowed to creep in, the spirit withdraws and the book becomes difficult to figure out.
That is why he says the "meek" will inherit the earth, because the ones who have "pride" are ripe for "Pride goeth before the fall."
It is clear that you did not know that Christ was just talking to the 12 Apostles and that to me shows a lack of understanding of the importance of knowing when Christ is talking to all of us and when he is talking to specific people.
Another is the "turn the other cheek." If a man breaks into your house and shoots one of your sons, should you offer him your other son?
There is micro and maco truths. It is important to understand the difference. And the answers are in the Bible for those who really study it.
FAR.
ii,
"...they pass a law that criminalizes Christian conduct."
If I remember correctly we have a "secular" government but have a nation full of people with a Judeo-Christian value system.
It would seem to me the "they" above are the "secular" passing a law to protect a segment (business) of the population that is being harmed (loss of bussines) by a group of people (homeless) who by definition don't have a "particular" place to call home, or in other words a particular place to "congregate."
It is the Christians who are opposing this ban by saying, "it doesn't matter if the businesses are being harmed, let them congregate where ever they please."
So, how is it the Christians who are doing the "wrong" thing?
I certianlly see both sides and feel that the state "asking" the homeless to "congregate" in another location is certianlly a reasonable request and a good compromise, since then the "feeding" can continue without "anyone" being "harmed."
I fail to realize how "asking" them to be fed in another location is causing any harm.
FAR.
P.S.,
I do agree with you that they should be able to do it without passing any new laws. :)
We certianally have more than enough laws, but I was just speaking to the core of the view/idea of who was being harmed, the business or the homeless?
FAR.
"...you are justifying the addition of yet another law to the books when existing ones address any concerns..." - II
Great point. Not only about the homeless in this situation, but the Matthew Shepard law has always bothered me: you know, the one about making "hate speech" a crime.
Matthew Shepard was murdered, and the people who killed him were prosecuted as murderers - so what was the "necessity" of throwing in another law for good measure?
I'm convinced that it's PC run amok. In other words, those who say they're the most tolerant, and the most enlightened, want to put a strangle-hold on even our thoughts (because that's where our speech comes from) if we don't walk in absolute lock-step with their ideologies and opinions.
I look at people who push the PC agenda, and see them as nothing more than modern-day Nazis.
In fact, after looking at how the PC crowd operates, it doesn't take much to understand how the people of post WWI Germany were able to fall for the propaganda of the Nazi party - the PC crowd emulates the "success" of the Third Reich very well.
It will get to the point where kids will turn their parents into the police if they happen to utter the "N" word, but if anyone of color utters that word, they're "hip."
When Al Sharpton was chewing Don Imus a new you-know-what, telling Imus that nothing short of him quitting wasn't a sufficient apology, I thought to myself, "you hypocrite!"
You can chant, "Down with whitey" all day long, and talk about "crackers," and "honkeys," and that's OK, but because Don Imus is an old white guy, he's held to a different standard.
I say to Al Sharpton, watch your hypocrite tongue, or someday, you'll be in Imus' shoes.
Boris Yeltsin:
Boy do I agree with everything you just said.
I know, lets fire everyone who ever makes an insensitive comment.
Never mind the suffering it will cause the familes of those who slip up and "offend" someone, just fire them all. If you are at work and say a remark about anyone "except" a white, Christian Male, you should be fired.
Remember you can say anything you want about anybody as long as it is about white Christian Males, and nothing will happen.
FAR.
FAR -
I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon notion that we have a secular government but, even if I were, Florida is hardly the model of that secularism. The Christian community is incredible strong and, although you try to disassociate it from the business community, I suspect there is a great deal of overlap between the two.
In addition, the fact that groups are only entitled to get two permits per year to feed the homeless illustrates that this law has ZERO to do with encouraging anything. My guess is that it would have been struck down outright as unconstitutional if they didn't allow any permits, so they had to give something to withstand suit. Nevertheless, the terms of the law belie your suggestion that this is about encouraging behavior modification.
With regard to Imus, it's trivia. Why anyone cares about what he says or whether he remains employed or not is beyond me. Our economy has big question marks and our mentally deranged president wants to play cowboy in Iran and Imus is what gets people worked up?
that this law has ZERO to do with encouraging anything....
My understanding is that there are places in the city that you don't even need any permit to feed the homeless, so by only allowing two permits for that one area "encourages" them to to to the other areas to be fed.
I do see your point, but I just think it is not so black or white.
FAR.
P.S.
It is not about Imus, it is about free speech.
When the time comes that none of us can say what we really feel without fear of being fired, then this instance will be germane and we will then say..."Oh, I see what I should have talked about more back then."
I think Imus was stupid and deserved to be reprimanded/fined/suspended without pay/etc. by his boss, based upon how his actions hurt the company, but not fired because of what some other public figures demand. It is setting a dangerous precedence.
Does anyone else see this?
FAR.
No disagreement that this is about free speech. I don't think he was fired because of what Jackson and Sharpton, those two circus clowns, did for their 10 seconds in the sun. Rather, the imbecile was fired because the sponsors started leaving his show and, without sponsors, there is no show.
Business is business. Imus is free to say whatever he wants whenever he wants it but once sponsors start running, he hurts the company.
But did the sponsers leave because of thhose two clowns and their influence on the "sheep" that follow them?
You know the old saying in the entertainment bussiness..."any pub is good pub, even if it is bad pub." or words to that effect.
Imus became more visible and would have brought more people's attention to his show and in a few weeks/months the listnership may be greater than ever.
Anyway, the Imus family and Imus may windup with even more income than before since his wife will now get the check he was getting (it would seem), since she supposedly will be doing the show while he probably will follow his shock jock "Stern" to sat radio.
FAR.
polo ralph lauren, prada outlet, oakley vault, christian louboutin shoes, cheap oakley sunglasses, tory burch outlet online, true religion, michael kors outlet, coach outlet, prada handbags, michael kors outlet online, chanel handbags, louis vuitton outlet, tiffany jewelry, gucci handbags, burberry outlet online, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet online, coach outlet store online, michael kors handbags, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet online, tiffany and co jewelry, longchamp outlet online, ray ban sunglasses, michael kors outlet store, louis vuitton, nike air max, longchamp outlet, red bottom shoes, true religion outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, jordan shoes, michael kors outlet online, nike outlet, ray ban outlet, christian louboutin, nike free, nike air max, burberry outlet online, kate spade outlet online, louis vuitton outlet, coach outlet, longchamp handbags, louis vuitton handbags, coach purses, christian louboutin outlet
ugg boots
nike huarache
michael kors handbags
yeezy shoes
pandora outlet
ugg outlet
michael kors outlet
ugg boots
ugg boots
coach outlet online
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home