toldailytopic: "Soup kitchens": Do they help or hurt the homeless?

[Nick M]

stripe, what if they had to do some work to eat, would that not help them work and eat?

Some research shows they won't work for food. Despite what the sign says. Try it sometime. Offer foor for work around your house. See what he says.

 

[doodlebug]

Some research shows they won't work for food. Despite what the sign says. Try it sometime. Offer foor for work around your house. See what he says.

i dont believe i will, but i see your point and some do not want food as much as money for booze? i think the people who are really hungry would work as long as thy do not have to provide information?

 

[Delmar]

o.k. what should we do?

i.e. please note the only persons to say we should let the homeless starve have been Christians

is that a teaching of Jesus?

It is simply not true that anyone here has suggested starving people.

 

[doodlebug]

It is simply not true that anyone here has suggested starving people.

not real Christians right? we give what we can and some expect others to help themselves and work to that goal.

 

[Butterfly]

God commanded the nation of Israel to feed its poor:

"During the seventh year, let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove." Exodus 23:11

"Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:10

"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11

"Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns." Deuteronomy 24:14 (this would fit the illegal alien issue/debate that is raging today)

 

[PyramidHead]

It is simply not true that anyone here has suggested starving people.

true, i took it too far

but a lot of people would starve if you closed all soup kitchens in an effort to help the hungry, and that's just a given fact

 

[rexlunae]

Can and will do not mean the same thing.

Not the question.

But the truth is there is no such thing as cannot work for those who are do not need to be in the hospital.

I'll be sure to tell my grandmother that if she gets down on her luck, she better just get off her butt and get a job. Or go to a hospital. That's a great use of health care resources too.

Got any more stupid assertions?

There is always someone willing to give them some kind of job.

Do you live in a plastic bubble?

 

[rexlunae]

In that case the government is most likely throwing money at them already.

Which you support whole-heartedly?

 

[Lighthouse]

Ahhh but it requires you to fill out forms such as - contracts, health & safety forms, equal opportunities and the like. These are simply needed to get the job, not to do it.

Does every job always require such information? Do you think I would ask you to fill out an application to mow my lawn?

I'm saying that they don't get hospital treatment.

But I specifically stated this was in regard to those who did not need to be in a hospital. I said nothing of those who need to be there but are not.

Brilliant and that is genuinely pleasing to hear.

That person is part of a community that knows him and is willing to help. How many homeless people have this? How many people with serious mental health issues actually have this support network?

How many people out there would actually let some random stranger regardless of his or her issues mow there lawn for a meal or a couple of quid, not many. Yet we would quite happily pay strangers with business cards to do the same for a lot more.

Do you really think he only mows the lawns of people who know him?

I think you are suggesting that anyone is capable of work, what I am suggesting is that many are not capable of getting or holding down a job.

I think your definition of job is limited.

I have a job because of my skills and experiences and that I take a lot more care when writing anything for an application.

Have you ever done a job where you didn't need to fill out an application? I have.

Mainstream business does not have those morales, it wants the worker who is going to be secure and able to work all the time. He cannot waste money on the chance that this person has nothing and will maybe turn it around and be a valued contributor over someone who has security and a higher percentage of becoming a valued contributor.

Who says they have to go to mainstream business?

Because they broke the law.

:dunce::duh:

What law, twit?

Sadly the box is not little.

Your definition of job is very small. Maybe even smaller than your mind.

If you say anyone is capable of work who isn't in hospital, then yes that is not entirely correct but more accurate.

Maybe you could look back and see the phrase "...need to be in a hospital..."

Not everybody is capable of getting and holding down a job.

Define job.

Christ didn't say that if a man asks for your cloak you should first make darn certain that he won't sell it to buy strong drink.

A cloak isn't money.

However there's a bigger problem with your argument.

[Jesus]If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.[/Jesus]
-Matthew 5:40

[Jesus]To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.[/Jesus]
-Luke 6:29

No one is asking for anything in these statements. They are taking them against your will.

There are all sorts of problems with your line of thinking. By way of example, let's say your kindly pastor (or you) offers a prayer in public one of these days. A passerby, embittered and angry with God, hears that prayer and is driven into a rage. He vents his rage by going to his truck and getting his rifle...BAM...so we shouldn't pray in public. Who knows the damage a kind and good act will do? Another man gives a homeless man a job and the ability to leave that life behind him. He becomes a serial killer. Absurd? Again, who knows?

[jesus]And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.[/jesus]
-Matthew 6:5-6

That's the point. 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.

What makes you think it is good conduct to simply give people money when they've done nothing to earn it? The Bible certainly doesn't give that impression.

Not the question.

Your question is flawed because I made no reference to those who are truly unable to work.

I'll be sure to tell my grandmother that if she gets down on her luck, she better just get off her butt and get a job. Or go to a hospital. That's a great use of health care resources too.

You're an idiot. The discussion is about those who need to be in a hospital, not those who are "down on their luck."

And why shouldn't she get a job? Does she have absolutely no skills, whatsoever?

Also, was she not smart with the money she earned when she had a job?

Got any more stupid assertions?

You've got stupid covered.

Do you live in a plastic bubble?

Apparently you do.

 

[bybee]

I'm thinking....

I'm thinking....

Does every job always require such information? Do you think I would ask you to fill out an application to mow my lawn?

But I specifically stated this was in regard to those who did not need to be in a hospital. I said nothing of those who need to be there but are not.

Do you really think he only mows the lawns of people who know him?

I think your definition of job is limited.

Have you ever done a job where you didn't need to fill out an application? I have.

Who says they have to go to mainstream business?

:dunce::duh:

What law, twit?

Your definition of job is very small. Maybe even smaller than your mind.

Maybe you could look back and see the phrase "...need to be in a hospital..."

Define job.


A cloak isn't money.

However there's a bigger problem with your argument.

[Jesus]If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.[/Jesus]
-Matthew 5:40

[Jesus]To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.[/Jesus]
-Luke 6:29

No one is asking for anything in these statements. They are taking them against your will.

[jesus]And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.[/jesus]
-Matthew 6:5-6

What makes you think it is good conduct to simply give people money when they've done nothing to earn it? The Bible certainly doesn't give that impression.


Your question is flawed because I made no reference to those who are truly unable to work.

You're an idiot. The discussion is about those who need to be in a hospital, not those who are "down on their luck."

And why shouldn't she get a job? Does she have absolutely no skills, whatsoever?

Also, was she not smart with the money she earned when she had a job?

You've got stupid covered.

Apparently you do.

Food shelves and free meals help those who desperately need such services. The people who milk the system are going to continue to con people until someone gets wise. Then, they move on.
BUT! The fact that there are people unfairly taking advantage of these services ought not to cause them to be made unavailable to those who are truly in need.
There are people on the fringes of society for many reasons. I'd rather err on the side of feeding some unworthies along with feeding the indigent who are in need.

 

[yokefellow]

I have volunteered at homeless shelters for the past seven years in two large cities and have always enjoyed doing so. I currently volunteer at a shelter for women and children. It is part of a Christian organization that offers everything from emergency shelter care, job training, family development programs, and mental illness and addition counseling/programs. I know every person involved in these programs must help with various tasks in the building (cooking, dishes, cleaning, etc.) and also attend Bible study.

Unfortunately, I know that despite the opportunities offered there, there will always be people who will not make any effort to change their circumstances. They will complain about having to work, complain about what's being served for dinner, complain about having to follow rules. (I specifically remember one evening when I was serving dinner when the cook would not allow dinner to be served without volunteers to help to dishes. We sat around for at least 10-15 minutes before someone relented.)

However, the number of lives that have been changed with the assistance of places like this far outweighs the people who refuse to change. So I will continue to volunteer and give my support there.

 

[Town Heretic]

...A cloak isn't money.

No, it isn't. But it illustrates a principle that relates to any good of value.

However there's a bigger problem with your argument.

[Jesus]If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.[/Jesus]
-Matthew 5:40

[Jesus]To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.[/Jesus]
-Luke 6:29

No one is asking for anything in these statements. They are taking them against your will.

Try Luke for a different slant on the same moment. Specifically Luke 6:30-38. Now we are to do good to those who hate, despise and strike us and your response is that we're to do less for those who simply need? :squint:

[jesus]And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.[/jesus]
-Matthew 6:5-6

I agree a man shouldn't posture for public reward. Has nothing to do with the current argument though, unless you're suggesting any good and public act becomes by its nature this very thing...in which case you're going to have a problem with gathering together.

What makes you think it is good conduct to simply give people money when they've done nothing to earn it? The Bible certainly doesn't give that impression.

Well, sure it does. The Jews were commanded to leave whole parts of their crops to people who had done nothing to earn it. The good Samaritan helped someone who had done nothing to earn his assistance.

And here's the kicker: Jesus Christ died for you. Are you under the impression that you merited it?

 

[doodlebug]

Food shelves and free meals help those who desperately need such services. The people who milk the system are going to continue to con people until someone gets wise. Then, they move on.
BUT! The fact that there are people unfairly taking advantage of these services ought not to cause them to be made unavailable to those who are truly in need.
There are people on the fringes of society for many reasons. I'd rather err on the side of feeding some unworthies along with feeding the indigent who are in need.

I believe in helping people and it is not a few cons who will cause me to pause in my doing what i thinks is right. i so agree with you.

 

[doodlebug]

I have volunteered at homeless shelters for the past seven years in two large cities and have always enjoyed doing so. I currently volunteer at a shelter for women and children. It is part of a Christian organization that offers everything from emergency shelter care, job training, family development programs, and mental illness and addition counseling/programs. I know every person involved in these programs must help with various tasks in the building (cooking, dishes, cleaning, etc.) and also attend Bible study.

Unfortunately, I know that despite the opportunities offered there, there will always be people who will not make any effort to change their circumstances. They will complain about having to work, complain about what's being served for dinner, complain about having to follow rules. (I specifically remember one evening when I was serving dinner when the cook would not allow dinner to be served without volunteers to help to dishes. We sat around for at least 10-15 minutes before someone relented.)

However, the number of lives that have been changed with the assistance of places like this far outweighs the people who refuse to change. So I will continue to volunteer and give my support there.

I agree with you, we help because it is right to do so, even if some we help are ungrateful. it is our helping that is important.

 

[Lighthouse]

Food shelves and free meals help those who desperately need such services. The people who milk the system are going to continue to con people until someone gets wise. Then, they move on.
BUT! The fact that there are people unfairly taking advantage of these services ought not to cause them to be made unavailable to those who are truly in need.
There are people on the fringes of society for many reasons. I'd rather err on the side of feeding some unworthies along with feeding the indigent who are in need.

They should make the people work for it. Then no one would take advantage of it.

No, it isn't. But it illustrates a principle that relates to any good of value.

As I said there is a bigger problem with your argument, rendering it false.

Try Luke for a different slant on the same moment. Specifically Luke 6:30-38. Now we are to do good to those who hate, despise and strike us and your response is that we're to do less for those who simply need? :squint:

No, moron. My response is that we should do more for those who are in simply in need.

I agree a man shouldn't posture for public reward. Has nothing to do with the current argument though, unless you're suggesting any good and public act becomes by its nature this very thing...in which case you're going to have a problem with gathering together.

Read further.

Well, sure it does. The Jews were commanded to leave whole parts of their crops to people who had done nothing to earn it. The good Samaritan helped someone who had done nothing to earn his assistance.

Why do you assume they had done nothing to earn what they received?

The Good Samaritan is irrelevant to this discussion. No one is talking about people who have been beaten nearly to death.

And here's the kicker: Jesus Christ died for you. Are you under the impression that you merited it?

Apples and oranges.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I see LH is still calling people twits and morons. Be suitably chastised folks!

 

[Granite]

They should make the people work for it. Then no one would take advantage of it.


As I said there is a bigger problem with your argument, rendering it false.


No, moron. My response is that we should do more for those who are in simply in need.


Read further.


Why do you assume they had done nothing to earn what they received?

The Good Samaritan is irrelevant to this discussion. No one is talking about people who have been beaten nearly to death.


Apples and oranges.

Treating TH like this is totally out of line, even for you.

 

[Town Heretic]

As I said there is a bigger problem with your argument, rendering it false.

You can say anything. Demonstrating it is something else altogether. You narrowed your focus to attempt to support something that really wasn't found in the text. I pointed you to Luke and a little common sense reflection.

No, sir. My response is that we should do more for those who are in simply in need.

No. You didn't say anything like that. You answered,

No one is asking for anything in these statements. They are taking them against your will.

As though the generosity commanded were only related to the thief. Hardly a call for greater.

As for that mouth of yours...unless you want me to correct you at every turn, I'd suggest you find a better way to address a brother old enough to be your father. It's time for you to stop acting like a child who wasn't taught manners. It reflects poorly on your maturity and upbringing. Until you figure that out I'll help you out as I did supra.

Read further.

I read you entirely.

Why do you assume they had done nothing to earn what they received?

Because I understand the passage, history of practice, and you've done Butkus to provide any other reading.

The Good Samaritan is irrelevant to this discussion. No one is talking about people who have been beaten nearly to death.

Seriously? I gave you credit for more intelligence. As with Christ (our example) the Samaritan offered help out of the abundance of his heart. What did he owe to the injured man? What did Christ owe you? What do we owe those in need?

Apples and oranges.

Another declaration in lieu of support. Have you anything like an argument, child?

 

[nicholsmom]

BUT! The fact that there are people unfairly taking advantage of these services ought not to cause them to be made unavailable to those who are truly in need.
There are people on the fringes of society for many reasons. I'd rather err on the side of feeding some unworthies along with feeding the indigent who are in need.

I agree except for the "unworthies" part - how do we know who is unworthy? Who are we to decide that? And who, but God, knows which of the 101st meals to an ungrateful man will change that man's outlook forever? We never know what good we do in serving our fellowman, however unworthy he may seem to our human eyes.

I have volunteered ...

Great credentials for making comment here in this thread, yokefellow :thumb:

Unfortunately, I know that despite the opportunities offered there, there will always be people who will not make any effort to change their circumstances. They will complain about having to work, complain about what's being served for dinner, complain about having to follow rules.

I have family members who are among this sort

However, the number of lives that have been changed with the assistance of places like this far outweighs the people who refuse to change. So I will continue to volunteer and give my support there.

Bravo! We never know what God has in mind when He guides us to help someone in the way. Let's just be obedient and leave the details and plans to Him

 

[bybee]

My friend

My friend

No, it isn't. But it illustrates a principle that relates to any good of value.


Try Luke for a different slant on the same moment. Specifically Luke 6:30-38. Now we are to do good to those who hate, despise and strike us and your response is that we're to do less for those who simply need? :squint:


I agree a man shouldn't posture for public reward. Has nothing to do with the current argument though, unless you're suggesting any good and public act becomes by its nature this very thing...in which case you're going to have a problem with gathering together.


Well, sure it does. The Jews were commanded to leave whole parts of their crops to people who had done nothing to earn it. The good Samaritan helped someone who had done nothing to earn his assistance.

And here's the kicker: Jesus Christ died for you. Are you under the impression that you merited it?

My impression is that I needed it.