I did not even get any farther than this first sentence in the post.Would you agree that it is difficult to assess their willingness to work until you try to help them take the steps necessary to get work?
For somewhere else - i.e. another section or thread -
in the original languages
I believe Yahuweh shows quite a difference , as well as the observable results, between those obedient and those not obedient, and sometimes if not often shows things in order as in "FIRST", "SECOND", "AFTER FIRST AND SECOND"..... (most obvious - do not neglect father and mother or family, and say korban instead of caring to be helping , or rather to appear to help, someone else).... likewise also "to the Jew first, and then the gentiles (even Yahuweh did this); and probably to "members of the assembly (of faith), first, then outsiders; and so on..... Yahuweh's Directions Always.
Sorry but that sounds too much like a (so-called) humanistic gospel, not in line with God's Word, and based on emotions and feelings and man's ways , instead of obedience to God, following Jesus, abiding with Him always.Hi YSJ,
So, let's just cut to the chase. You believe that Jesus didn't mean 'all' others when he said that we should treat 'others' as we want to be treated?
God bless,
In Christ, ted
As long as if someone has a need for $5.47 and asks for that , it is given freely expecting nothing back in return, that might be okay. But to say , "go and pretend you are helped (go and be warm)", yet not giving what is needed when it is already at hand available to be given, would be/is/ sinful as Jesus Says.
I did not read any further.But giving them $5.47 is pretending to help them. It is not helping them at all.
Until we can come up with some way to ensure that everyone has enough money to keep a roof over their head, or provide enough 'social' housing to just give such people a roof over their head, the problem will not be solved.
I did not even get any farther than this first sentence in the post.
I did not read any further.
Wasn't it obvious ?Is there a reason why you replied to it then?
When a post starts with a false premise, there is nothing of substance to engage. (I don't remember in this case)It was a very short post. I'm confused about why you are engaging on posts that you don't read.
Wasn't it obvious ?
When a post starts with a false premise, there is nothing of substance to engage. (I don't remember in this case)
So that seems to be where things in 'your'? mind think/ and that's not good.The only thing that seemed obvious to me is that you wanted to feel superior to the homeless or throw $5.47 at them instead of help them.
??What was the false premise?
For the mentally ill and incapacitated, yes.
For those who are capable of working, this is exactly what they don't want. It sucks the sense of ability and accomplishment out of their soul. The homeless we encounter want to provide for themselves. They don't want to be takers. They just can't function in a way that puts them on that path and need a brother or sister in the Lord to come beside them to show they are loved, and to mentor them on next steps.
We've found that being in a shelter for a while is kind of uncomfortable. The discomfort they experience motivates them to stay on the path to getting out into their own home. They know if they leave the shelter that is helping them, our material help is out as well. We'll still love on them, pick them up for church, etc. but until they make the choice to get back on a path to recovery, we have to take a step back.
Caring for someone's success more than they care for it (when they have the tools to be successful) is also a form of enabling and does not help them.
Sorry but that sounds too much like a (so-called) humanistic gospel, not in line with God's Word, and based on emotions and feelings and man's ways , instead of obedience to God, following Jesus, abiding with Him always.
You believe that Jesus didn't mean 'all' others when he said that we should treat 'others' as we want to be treated?
No good - it is what is called a loaded question - not meant to find an <honest, true> answer apparently.HI YSJ,
It was a yes or no question, so I'll ask it again:
God bless,
In Christ, ted
So, I'll ask you a similar question to what you've asked me. Are there no homeless in your city? I would assume that since you've found the 'answer' to the homeless problem, that there are no homeless people where you live.
Your comment doesn't seem very nice, but hopefully I have misunderstood your intent.
We minister to the neighborhood around our church. We are incapable of addressing a whole city.
Edited to add: I asked you what you have found that works; I did not ask if you had taken care of all of your city's homeless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?