Nope. You're leaving off something a bit important. You attempted to narrow the focus of the scripture in question as though it was a code set out for that particular instead of an illustration of Christian practice. I noted your error, suggesting a further reading of Luke. I'll come back to it in a minute.
And you think you're not an idiot?
In context the verses in Luke are the same. They are not about those who are asking because they are in need, but rather those who are stealing.
Of course the argument still stands that even if the command is to give to those who ask because they are in need, the right thing to do is more than simply that.
Around post 19 I took on the concern of the OP with this:
"Feeding the hungry is an absolute moral good. What the fed do or fail to do with that assistance is another thing altogether."
Which contradicts the idea that we should certainly do more than just feed them.
Feeding them is not a moral good if that is all we do. So it is not an absolute moral good. You fail.
When Knight weighed in with the Thessalonian verse you later used, I responded:
"My understanding is that Paul is chastising lazy Christians, not proscribing a distinction at odds with Ps 41:1-3; Prov. 14:21; 19:17, 22:9, 14:31, 28:27; Isaiah 58:6-10.
And here you claim that if Paul meant his statement in regard to all people, and not just lazy Christians, that it would be contradicting those other verses, thus making the claim that those other verses were in opposition to that idea. But you have no way of knowing that. And in light of Paul's exhortation it is more likely that those other verses are in agreement with that idea.
And if God would spare a wicked city for the sake of a handful of good men, then how can we justify ending the means by which even that handful might be spared and treated justly for fear of the misuse of the wicked?"
And here your argument is that ending soup kitchens, which do nothing more than hand out food, would be ending the means by which the handful of good men might be spared, which is a false premise. The argument that we should stop just handing out food is that we should do more. That we should help those in need completely, by helping them help themselves. And we should not give them the means to be lazy and sit on their laurels, etc.
I noted you weighing in at post 95 with a singular argument of the poor should work if they needed something. You suggested no sort of assistance at all.
So?
My posts have borne out my argument, and to make an example out of post 95 is taking it out of context, as you did with Scripture.
At post 109, Delmar voiced concerns about charity potentially taking away the impetus for a man pulling himself out of difficult circumstances.
My response, in part:
"You can't alter good conduct on the chance someone will misuse the benefit you offer. That way lies disobedience wrapped in the disguise of virtue. Our obligations in love to one another aren't couched in that language and the master who forgave a debt to a man who then did not follow his example wasn't lessened or at fault for the second man's failure."
Again, a poor argument. You are assuming that we want to stop helping people altogether. And that is not our suggestion at all. True charity is not the act of a bleeding heart; but that of a clean heart, and a steadfast spirit.
Charity should challenge people to get out of their dire circumstances, not to stay in them because they are being handed everything for nothing.
At posit 129 you took exception to my use of scripture and I responded by pointing you to that further reading. "Give to everyone who asks of you." I also took note of your insistence that the poor earn their way, still nothing of that teaching/helping hand you assert I should have been aware of...I also took exception to your use of Matthew in such a way as would appear to preclude public works of charity. And I finished by reminding you that Christ, our example of love in action, died not for our merit, but for his desire/love.
I took exception to your misuse of Scripture.
The verses in question in Matthew may not preclude charity, but they do not command it either. You will find that elsewhere.
Feeding the hungry is not at all the same as dying for sinners.:nono:
And you are right. I should not have assumed that you were smart enough to understand the point being made. You need told rather than shown. I'll try to remember that.
No. That came long after the insults and a need to build something like a defense was necessary for you.
Whatever, Mr. Murdock.
Continuing, the next post you speak of people working for it...it being the means to survive being discussed. That's tantamount to the Thessalonian quote and no reason to suspect a charitable impulse is contained within it.[/quote]
So Paul was speaking against charity? You fail. Paul was explaining how charity should work.
No. He didn't say that. He said that soup kitchens discourage people from doing for themselves. He didn't say anything about teaching them or doing more, or anything at all. Here's the post he made after launching the OP, by way of clarification:
Why do they discourage them from doing for themselves? Because they don't encourage them to!:dunce::duh:
Exactly what I wrote in addressing, not the call to do other or more, but the complaint about the doing of this thing.
What thing?
Remind me never to ask you to draw up my will. A decent lawyer would tear it apart.
Bottom line: the argument from the OP was that Soup Kitchens create, or exacerbate, the problem; they do not solve it. You appeared to take exception to that. My fault for assuming you were smart enough to infer.
You should have known better and the charge you set out, that I'd altered opinion, backtracked, etc., was as odious as had you intentionally set out the falsehood. You're responsible in either event.
At most I misused the term, "backtracked".
Rather, you were wrong, as I noted in setting out the defining comment on the initial OP by its author.
If you have ever discussed welfare or any sort with Knight, or anyone else who agrees with him on the subject, you would have known the point of this thread is that soup kitchens do harm because they do not solve the problem, or even try to. They only exacerbate it, or may even create it.
Your manners and misstatements were atrocious and there was no softer way to address them. Your response to more civil and gentler cautions demonstrated the ineffectiveness of them. Sometimes you can speak with a child. Sometimes the rod.
Neither works if the child doesn't respect you.
If they gave awards for missing the point...
I can't speak to what you're like elsewhere or with others. I simply noted a distinction between this self impression and the fact of the matter as it relates to this and our discourse (see: your OP confusion).
There is no confusion. I know Knight. I know what the point of this thread is. If I should be sorry for anything it is that I assumed you were smart enough to take into account what you knew of Knight, Delmar and myself, as well as a few others.
Rather, it was a blow called for with a hope attached. A backhanded compliment isn't aimed at more than a delayed insult.
There was no delay in the insult. I'm not a moron.
lain:
