The Glade 4.0

Let me make this really simple for you guys, then I'm gone and you can say whatever you want. I linked the article because it was by a Christian saying things that I thought sounded like the Christian way. My understanding of the religion is that it's about forgiveness and compassion and love toward imperfect people. There are those of you who apparently claim to be Christian, but the stance you project is not forgiving, or compassionate, or loving. Instead, you portray Christianity as judgemental, unloving, unforgiving, and uncompassionate to a man who lost a lot because he is imperfect. It's good to know, so maybe people won't waste their time.

This indicates you have not listened to one word of my position the entire time, and that you do not grasp Christianity beyond the most exceedingly simplistic version of it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As I stated before, and as you illustrated with your "homeless man" example, Farther, you have a penchant for being drawn toward "immediate" help, you apparently lack the foresight to realize things go on after the event. That may be contributing to why you're so vociferous about helping with the fire and how un-Christian-like everyone else is for considering all the larger consequences you have repeatedly ignored and avoided addressing. As for him getting all the help he needs, did you ask? Did you think maybe the man didn't have adequate insurance? His prior actions would lead one to believe that may be the case. How about paying for the damages, or starting a contribution drive, instead of him having to file a claim and possible not being able to afford the increase that will follow, or being dropped all-together. Saying "I would have helped" is completely weak, when you haven't even attempted to help, at all.


There's another little bit from the Bible you may be interested in (since you've been bringing that whole angle up), it has to do with splinters and planks.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

So then how can you compare this to the Good Samaritan at all? The man got help from his insurance agency; I doubt very much there was any robber insurance in ancient Israel. It just didn't come in the form of someone putting his fire out.. which, by the way, probably would have been futile anyhow since double-wides burn like a ****.



So because we don't think that a guy who doesn't pay for public services shouldn't get them then clearly we must never help anyone? Do you really not grasp the difference between individual charity and the actions of a government agency?



Hey, lets have a dick-measuring contest of our individual charitable actions! That's productive!



Well, it clearly didn't stop you, despite knowing zero about anyone else here or what they do.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There's also the bit about your right hand and left hand knowing what the other is doing....

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ahh, but that one require more than a cursory look in order to understand, it might be asking too much of one who's opinion is already formed.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Well, this will probably do no good since Farther is willingly remaining ignorant of what people's *actual* stances are so that he can be judgemental of them, but here's a couple of (admittingly out there) scenarios to try and make ya think.

A guy is driving a water truck, to a village that has suffered a drought. Without that truck of water, it's possible that crops will wilt and people will die of food shortages. The truck passes by a house that has caught fire, and he realizes he could put out the fire if he used the contents of the truck. Is it the "compassionate" thing to stop and put out the fire?

Okay, same guy, same truck. But this time the water is intended for some rich guy who paid to have it delivered to fill a swimming pool.

Personally I think what really happened falls somewhere in between those two extreme situations. The "compassionate" thing isn't always the best thing, when it can have further consequences down the line.

If it weren't for risk of those consequences, I'd be willing to bet just about everyone here would have agreed the firefighters should have stepped in...and I bet if those consequences weren't there, the firefighters would have been glad to as well. If the guy was in financial trouble and asked for help to cover the bill, I bet people would have chipped in; I would if I was his neighbor and he needed it.

"Compassion" is *NOT* the issue here.

I wouldn't have criticized the firefighters if they had helped, I just completely understand their decision to not protect the guys property. I'd also understand if the district would have taken exception to the firefighters committing district resources protecting property the owner refused to protect.

Making more of that than it is while simultaneously criticizing the position for lacking compassion is ignoring the compassion I have for the folks that actually help the people they are responsible for helping.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

What makes you think it deserves even a cursory look? How can you logically claim you're about love and forgiveness and compassion on one hand, then on the other hand let a man's house burn because he didn't pay up? You can't, and be believable.

And that's the problem. Some apparent Christians (such as the guy who wrote the article) agree with me. Other apparent Christians hold a view that's 180 degrees away. Why bother learning about a religion when you yourselves cannot agree on what it means?

But let's suppose you're right. I don't think you are, but let's suppose. Any religion that told me I had to stand around with my hands in my pockets while I watched another man's house burn down is not worth knowing anything about. Don't tell me you're about love and compassion etc, because you're not believable.

Sure you can. IT's been repeatedly explained how.



Why bother learning bout anything over which there are differeing views?



No one said you had to do anything. What we said was that the firefighters, in their official capacity as firefighters, did nothing wrong.

The fact that we're not believeable to you is because you're focusing on "house burning down" and ignoring everything else.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Concerning compassion...

Given the circumstances, we can show compassion for folks that contribute to society or a fool who tried to game the system.

I'll take the side of the firefighters, thanks. Let the fool fend for himself. Hopefully he'll be a good object lesson for others who may feel inclined towards foolishness.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

See, there's no consistency in your arguments. Which is it? They have to obey Caesar, or they were free to do what they choose, because no one said they "have to" do anything?

1) Non sequitur.
2) The Biblical passage you're referring to wasn't about "obeying Caesar", which is one reason your choice fails; hence #1.

Farther, here's the way I see it:

As a Christian, yes, I believe that we have a moral obligation to help our neighbors, even if they don't deserve it. If you're asking "WWJD", then my personal opinion is that he would probably have had the compassion to try to help the man. And, were I this man's neighbor, I would have done the same.

However, as a Christian, I also believe that what I just discussed is a personal conviction. And however true I might feel that it is, it would be wrong of me to force that personal conviction on others. In other words, what I would do myself and what I would have the government do -- which has always behind it the threat of force -- are two entirely different things. And yes, as you've pointed out, it was also Jesus who said "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's." These words were given in refutation to men who wanted to politicize Christ's message, which was far from what God had in mind. In my opinion, that's a far more compelling argument for separating your personal beliefs from government policy than any supposed "separation of church and state" arising from the 1st amendment.

It's amusing -- I don't believe that the Constitution calls for any such thing. It prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and ... that's it. It has nothing else to say on the subject of religion. Nevertheless, I actually take the principle of separation of church and state quite seriously. More seriously, frankly, than do its secular proponents who argue (mostly incorrectly) from a Constitutional platform. That is: I don't think that Christians have any business enshrining their beliefs in law, period.

Or to point it more pointedly: are you sure that you really want to encourage Christians to pursue conformity between their personal beliefs and the law? Will you still feel that way when your beliefs collide with theirs?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Dude, you said:



To which I responded that YOU don't have to do anything. I wasn't referring to the firemen. You're just strawmanning my arguments in order to make it appear I'm being inconsistent.

So it's both. Firemen working in their official capacity have to abide by the decision of their chief. You, as an individual wanting to help can do as your conscience dictates although frankly, untrained people have no business trying to involve themself in firefighting.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No offense, and thank you for the reply, but I think you miss my point. I think the compassion of humanity should have over-ruled strict legalistic adherance to the law. People have used "I was just doing what I was told" as an excuse for all manner of atrocities in the past. Even on such a small scale, people with common decency should not go there, period. I find it especially strange that Christians would use the same sort of argument as justification to stand aside and allow a man's house to burn down. If your belief is love and compassion and forgiveness for your fellow man is an important part of your religion, why make such arguments?

But whatever

Because, as stated out, the argument doesn't stop there.

You may have noticed, government funding is hurting right now. Doing something that can jeopardize that funding might mean a lot of people in the future not having a fire department at all available to assist if needed.

I'd bet it was a hard choice for the fire department to make...but applying some logic one can see why it might have been a necessary choice to support the fire department being able to stay open to help in the future.

You're trying to change the issue to one of compassion, when that's not the issue you're arguing against.

I do not agree. If that were the case, they had ample justification to change their minds when he offered to pay the costs himself. No, I believe it was a calculated decision to send a message to any other county resident, in much the same way thugs will burn a business as a message to the rest in the neighborhood, "Pay up or this is what will happen to you." The difference being that the dept. didn't start the fire. But just as thuggish.

In which case, it still sends the message to everyone else, "Hey, I can stop paying the fee and hope I can bargain with them when the time comes!"

It's already been explained why that would be bad.

Did you actually read the article I linked?

I have no interest in the contents of that article after seeing the discussion after.

Hence why I'm not discussing any of the points in the article either though.

Which is why you don't understand my argument. I recommend that you read the article, rather than rely on what people here are saying.

I'll pass. :p

I understand what you're saying quite well. Disagreement isn't the same as misunderstanding.

Then how about not accusing me of being willfully ignorant.

When you stop being willfully ignorant, sure.

Here's the thing, and I bet most of the others will agree with me, as I've said before:

If I were a neighbor, and had the means to help put out the fire, I would.

If someone were trapped in there, and I somehow had the means as a neighbor to save him, I would.

If as a neighbor, he came to me and said "I can't cover the 75, can you help?" I would.

Compassion would encourage me to go out of my way to help when I could in the situation.

But as a firefighter, in that case, it's a different story, and we've explained why.

So if you continue to claim that there's no compassion, then that's willful ignorance on your part.