The Homeless.

quatona said:

It seems to me that we need two solutions, for two different challenges.
1. How can we prevent people from becoming homeless? (more important on the long run; possibly requires some major paradigm shifts in society)
2. What can we do to support people in getting out of this mess once they are in it (crisis management)
The absolute minimum, however, would be: Don´t let´s make their lives even harder than they are, anyway.

Click to expand...

StephanieSomer said:

The question is parallel to this one..... Are rectangles squares? The answer is no they aren't. However, ALL squares ARE rectangles. So, how can one characteristic be equal to another while the other is NOT equal to the first? Because one set is a subset of the other. In similar fashion, all homeless are not criminals. Neither are all criminals homeless. But, there IS an overlap between the set called "homeless" and the set called "criminal" which seems to be inordinately large as compared to the greater population. The reason should be readily apparent to most thinking people. They are in need. Need demands a solution. For some, the best solution they can arrive at is breaking the law to satisfy their need.

Before people get too all up in arms about a person in need breaking the law, they should consider how THEY might react if in the same predicament. Consider a scenario where society has a major collapse and all that we now know is gone. And you have children. How are you going to feed them? Will you let them starve? Probably not. Would you steal food to feed them? Maybe not the first few days. But, after a week goes by, I can tell you, as a parent, I would GLADLY steal food to feed my kids. What if the circumstances get REALLY dire? How far WOULD you go to prevent your own children from starving to death? Anyone who has any honesty would have to admit, that if the circumstances got bad enough, that they would even resort to murder, if it was necessary to take food from another to feed their children. We are NOT as spiritual as we like to believe.

Click to expand...

Poor Beggar said:

Yrp, the Heinz dilemma.
Jesus solved the Heinz Dilemma with the story of david and the show bread.

Click to expand...

Poor Beggar said:

The Heinz Dilemma is too difficult to explain, but can be googled. Jesus showed that the rules existed to serve us, and not us to serve the rules. He wasn't advocating throwing law out the window, but when it came to life itself he advocated going against the rules to ensure people's survival. His detractors thought holiness was keeping the rules. He showed that it meant keeping ALL the rules. Not just the ones you like. If you keep all the rules it may put you in an untenable situation because rules arent flexible. When life was on the line David had eaten the temple bread, which represented Jesus and had been considered off limits.

Click to expand...

seekingsolace said:

I was thinking more about Heinz beans and how they were relevant

Click to expand...

Poor Beggar said:

Sin will mess with this rdvrlation too. People use it as an excuse for deconstructionism when Jesus wasn't advocating that at all. He was advocating for the spirit of the law as you said. That's the opposite of deconstructionism!

Click to expand...

Poor Beggar said:

It's the postmodern concept that ideas and words don't have definite meanings so everything is up to interpretation. They redefine everything to win. You can't debate them because plainly written laws are subject to interpretation. Obama has appointed a number of deconstructionist judges. It's the approach used in almost all universities now for in class debates and textual criticism.
"Does this really mean...?"

Click to expand...

toLiJC said:

unfortunately, some of them turned out, coincidentally, to be criminals, while thank God others of them stayed/remained clean/clear to the end

Blessings

Click to expand...