Zone1 Three Temptations

[Meriweather]

That said, so should people's opinions about social safety nets. Capitalism in the United States works well partially because of the safety nets that it can afford. Are there people that abuse the "safety net" system? I'm sure there are. Just like there are people that abuse the deregulation and business freedoms they get because of capitalism. But for the most part, people that are in need of social safety nets, do indeed need them. And most business owners do not abuse the freedoms they get from deregulation. So it works - let's keep it working.

I don't fit any political party well--Libertarian may come close. I was mulling over the spiritual aspect--as if government is even equipped to handle that..

The first part of the question is whether people are better served by having a spiritual life, or a strong philosophy they live by. If that answer is yes, who supplies it? But say a government thinks the spirit should be nourished. That brings us to a situation where a government that agrees "man does not live by bread alone" still needs to eat. Isn't it reasonable to imagine that government--instead of handing out free food/stuff--would be handing out jobs?

I can easily imagine a President thinking, "What a great idea!" Except when he thinks about it, he needs jobs for people of all kinds of abilities--including disabilities. Travel down this road and all its forks, what would a reasonable ruler say, "It would just be easier to hand out food/stuff than to match all these people to work!" But what if what is easiest for the government to provide is harmful to the individual spirit?

 

[Meriweather]

In terms of "social safety nets" don't let the events of the past 3 years influence your opinion. The events of the past 3 years are unprecedented on a worldwide level and the amount of money the government distributed was also unprecedented. Also keep in mind that a large portion of that money went out to small and medium sized businesses.

I am probably more influenced by family stories handed down by the Depression than by the Pandemic. Picture a small town where it was the residents, not the government, who got people through. Back then, people did not want charity (now called entitlements) and there wasn't much money, for anyone, anyway. People worked and then shared in the family meal. Shelter was wherever was out the weather--a corner in the house, the basement, a barn, or shed. As my grandparents (probably where I got my Libertarian leanings) said, "We didn't need help from government, we helped each other."

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Is it better to provide for ourselves or is it better to depend on someone else to provide for us?

NEVER depend on anyone else for anything. When it comes down to "between you and me", they are going to take care of themselves and no one else.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

President Putin came to mind as I was thinking about this one. He wants to expand his empire. Would it be better for people if he did this, or if he left the smaller countries to themselves?

You have to take the stance of the mentality of the person in question.
Putin is extremely "old school" Russian. He believes Russia should be whole, and that includes getting back all the territories that have removed themselves from Russian dominance over the past decades.

But in this case, the Democrats initiated this "war" to enrage Putin, full well knowing what he would do. They needed "war" in order to cover up their bio-weapons labs, money laundering facilities, and Hunters involvement in all of it that were being discovered by self-employed journalists.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

I was trying to tie it in with what Jesus said about not testing God. I like what Concerned American said about God providing us with a planet...and each other, for that matter. I remember my grandparents talking about the days even before radio was common. People would stroll around or sit on their front porches in the evening, talking with those they that came by. Radio made a dent in that activity, with TV removing it entirely.

Humans are humans' worst enemy. 99% of humans refuse outright to learn from their mistakes and stupidity.
Greed, avarice, and ego are the things this number of humans worship the most.

I can sit outside and just love looking at trees, listening to the birds, watching the squirrels, and feeling the breeze.
Not many can be bothered with just having nature entertain them.

 

[Meriweather]

NEVER depend on anyone else for anything. When it comes down to "between you and me", they are going to take care of themselves and no one else.

Perhaps, with the likely exception if the 'you' were a child.

 

[Meriweather]

You have to take the stance of the mentality of the person in question.
Putin is extremely "old school" Russian. He believes Russia should be whole, and that includes getting back all the territories that have removed themselves from Russian dominance over the past decades.

Yes...but was his action what was best for his people, or was it merely for personal and historical gain?

 

[Meriweather]

I can sit outside and just love looking at trees, listening to the birds, watching the squirrels, and feeling the breeze.
Not many can be bothered with just having nature entertain them.

I enjoy walking outdoors for the same reason. It may also be why I putter so much in the garden even though I am not much good at it. I just like being out there.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Every time I saw them perform there were 4 of them.

 

[Meriweather]

Every time I saw them perform there were 4 of them.

The fourth must have been the one being tempted.

 

[Donald H]

We are at cross purposes here. I am speaking of people who, if left alone, could provide for themselves, or would provide for themselves it they had to. Is it better to have confidence that we can take care of ourselves and our loved ones, or is it better to go around wrapping people bubble wrap. Would you rather take care of yourself, or would you rather someone else take care of you?

You went wrong when you said: Is it better to provide for ourselves or is it better to depend on someone else to provide for us?

It's much more complicated than that and you should appreciate why it's impossible for people to provide for themselves in a modern society. That wasn't even possible in a primitive society.

You're not talking at cross purposes with her. She's talking from a deeper perspective and understanding.

I don't have to tell you how people depended on each other even when they lived in caves!

Can Americans of the left and the right ever come together to build consensus and more fuller understanding that both sides can be right? It's an opportunity for Christians!

 

[Meriweather]

It's much more complicated than that and you should appreciate why it's impossible for people to provide for themselves in a modern society. That wasn't even possible in a primitive society.

I am setting the stage of one of Jesus' temptations.

First, let's take a look at another stage. In the Bible (James 2:16) talks about running into a person who is cold and hungry. He points out that merely saying "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but doing nothing about physical needs, what good are words and well wishes?

That is definitely a fine idea for another thread that you and/or Bulldog may be interested in starting. It might fit equally well in a political forum.

However, this thread is about a temptation Christ had. He lived at a time where poverty among his people was the norm. Should he go around from village to village and feed all the hungry people by turning stones into bread? But Jesus remembered his particular mission, "People do not live by bread alone..." and he returned his focus to their spiritual lives.

My question is does any government care just as much for the spiritual souls of the people as their physical bodies? Can we be too quick to extend hand-outs? The issue is not to stop feeding, sheltering, clothing those in need, but to also keep in mind the citizens' spiritual health. Jesus placed a high value on spiritual health. (That's the stage I set and the one I am on.)

 

[Donald H]

I am setting the stage of one of Jesus' temptations.

First, let's take a look at another stage. In the Bible (James 2:16) talks about running into a person who is cold and hungry. He points out that merely saying "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but doing nothing about physical needs, what good are words and well wishes?

That is definitely a fine idea for another thread that you and/or Bulldog may be interested in starting. It might fit equally well in a political forum.

However, this thread is about a temptation Christ had. He lived at a time where poverty among his people was the norm. Should he go around from village to village and feed all the hungry people by turning stones into bread? But Jesus remembered his particular mission, "People do not live by bread alone..." and he returned his focus to their spiritual lives.

My question is does any government care just as much for the spiritual souls of the people as their physical bodies? Can we be too quick to extend hand-outs? The issue is not to stop feeding, sheltering, clothing those in need, but to also keep in mind the citizens' spiritual health. Jesus placed a high value on spiritual health. (That's the stage I set and the one I am on.)

I don't have to be a Christian to know that your interpretation of what your bibles say that Christ said are too limited to reflect reality.

I would suggest to you that your political based opinions are interfering with a sense of compassion toward others and in that it is sinful. (sinful being against compassion toward others in this case, in an atheist's POV

Yes, there are some instances in which all people need to accept responsibility for their own wellbeing. Even the most debilitated people among us might be expected to at least try.

 

[ding]

Yes, there are some instances in which all people need to accept responsibility for their own wellbeing. Even the most debilitated people among us might be expected to at least try.

Some cases? Which category has the most instances in it? The instances when people don't have to accept responsibility for their own well-being? Or the instances where people do have to accept responsibility for their own being?

I'm trying to determine what you think the rule is and the exception is.

Is it the rule that people don't have to accept responsibility for their own being and the exception is they do sometimes have to take responsibility for their own well-being?

Or is it the rule that people do have to accept responsibility for their own being and the exception is they don't sometimes have to take responsibility for their own well-being?

 

[Likkmee]

All you have to do is open your eyes in the morning. Look around you. God has gifted you with the most spectacular events known. The universe is unfolded around you. The world is a beautiful and unquestionably the most spectacular place. How can you be so ungrateful. Thank the Lord for these blessings and ask his forgiveness everyday. It is the most we can rightfully ask for.

This world is a piece of shit like it was in the days of Noah. I wish for Yeshuas return to clean up again for he is "not of this world". I prefer not to be either. Satan runs the show. Please close the curtain.

 

[Donald H]

Some cases? Which category has the most instances in it? The instances when people don't have to accept responsibility for their own well-being? Or the instances where people do have to accept responsibility for their own being?

I'm trying to determine what you think the rule is and the exception is.

There's no rule that suits all.

Is it the rule that people don't have to accept responsibility for their own being and the exception is they do sometimes have to take responsibility for their own well-being?

There's no rule that can be applied to suit all situations. That's precisely what I said and that which will be understood by Meri.

Or is it the rule that people do have to accept responsibility for their own being and the exception is they don't sometimes have to take responsibility for their own well-being?

As I've stated for Meri, there's no rule that suits all situations.

I didn't need to mention to Meri that individuals can't be held responsible for all their own needs. For 'him/her' it will be as simple as understanding that we're not expected to all grow our own vegetable gardens.

 

[Concerned American]

it will be as simple as understanding that we're not expected to all grow our own vegetable gardens.

And so you think it acceptable for the government to take from those who do grow a garden without compensation so that it can be GIVEN to those who won't grow a garden? As usual that is ridiculous commie logic, duck.

 

[ding]

There's no rule that suits all.

There's no rule that can be applied to suit all situations. That's precisely what I said and that which will be understood by Meri.

As I've stated for Meri, there's no rule that suits all situations.

I didn't need to mention to Meri that individuals can't be held responsible for all their own needs. For 'him/her' it will be as simple as understanding that we're not expected to all grow our own vegetable gardens.

Statistically there are what we would call rules and there are what we would call exceptions. It sounds like you don't want to go on record saying which one you believe it is. Beliefs not worth stating are beliefs not worth having.

 

[Donald H]

Statistically there are what we would call rules and there are what we would call exceptions. It sounds like you don't want to go on record saying which one you believe it is. Beliefs not worth stating are beliefs not worth having.

Meriweather understood what I said.

 

[Concerned American]

Meriweather understood what I said.

So now you speak for Meriweather? I think he/she is more than capable of speaking for him/herself as he/she has clearly exhibited, duck. Unlike you, Meriweather is quite articulate.