Can a person be a good Christian & be mean spirited toward their fellowman?

[imreallyperplexed]

I have a feeling that you are making comments without having read the entire (and relatively civil) sub-thread between ORR and me. Here is the post where I talked about my mother's experience.

https://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?21188-Can-a-person-be-a-good-Christian-amp-be-mean-spirited-toward-their-fellowman&p=301569#post301569

To understand my response, you would have to read the article from the NY Post that ORR posted and that I responded to. The article described a situation in which the NYC Department for the Homeless (or something like that) decided to no longer accept private donations of food for their facilities for feeding the homeless. Now, I am glad that you are well enough to keep an eye on your salt and that you have a physician. My mother was in the same situation and decided to move. My guess is that the bulk of the homeless do not have physicians and have not had their salt level checked. I also doubt that the homeless are going to be driving drunk. Based on what I have seen in Seattle, my guess is that organizing services for the homeless - even with help from non-government agencies - is quite complicated and that - as with a cafeteria or restaurant - some standards apply. It may well be that accepting well meant donations is disruptive rather than helpful and ends up costing more money rather than less to feed the homeless. If the NYC department for Homeless Services is turning down donations for that reason, I have no beef with the decision. I think that the Orthodox synagogue should understand. There are other ways and avenues for them to provide food for the homeless. This would include feeding the homeless in their synogogue rather than in the government facility. That would involve more work on their part than just handing it off to the government department. As a taxpayer, I am not for accepting charitable donations that end up costing rather than saving the taxpayer money.

What I really object to is this "knee jerk" - government officials are always stupid attitude and associating that with liberals (which is BS). Conservative government officials have to address the same issues. And they are neither smarter or stupider than liberals.

And tell me, do you REALLY care whether homeless people have food that "tastes good" or have nutritious food that might keep them alive. A truly charitable person would probably prefer the later. The Orthodox Jews have their heart in the right place. But I know from sad experience that many Orthodox Jews do not recognize the "salt" problems with kosher food and assume that it is healthy for everybody. This is a Jew critizing other Jews.

Depends on the person. The salt level in my blood at my last physical was slightly below the minimum recommended. That's why government should stay out of it and let each person decide for himself.

And it never heard of anyone getting arrested for driving under the influence of salt.

And yes, liberals want to either ban or tax out of existence salt and sugar and soda and happy meals and everything else they deem is bad for us. They need to quit poking their noses in everybody's business.

Just 'cause liberals are miserable doesn't give them the right to make everyone else miserable too.

Live your lives and quit trying to mess with ours.

As I said, only screwy people would propose banning salt and legalizing the big H.

Whattabuncha messed up people.

 

[Jen]

You asked the question, then seemed to blame Christians acting badly for your friend leaving here.
Not everyone here, not even every Conservative here is a Christian. So to blame Christians because someone from the right offended the person that left is a bit disingenuous.

And I would like to call attention to the thoughtful response I made up higher in this thread. A few people chimed in and said some nasty things about my intent and my personality. I neither know nor care if those people claim to be "Christian", but they are liberals. And you chimed in your "amen" of their negative response so I have to assume you agreed with their assessment of me as a person.

So, after this sort of response to my well-intentioned response to you, I don't understand how you can lay the blame for someone leaving at the feet of PJ Christians. If I had thinner skin, I would consider leaving due to your disrespect. Exactly how do you come to your conclusions? It's okay........don't answer..... I like you anyway.

 

[JackDallas]

Was I the one who ran your friend off of PJ?

 

[Jen]

Wonder who the friend was?

 

[PACE]

Cot, no, one cannot be a Christian and be mean spirited towards their fellow man, one can be a Christian who sins and be mean spirited towards their fellow man.

You did a great service, you got a lot of people to respond Cot, this is a sign of respect in itself, and of course, there are folks who make it about themselves, because focus is limited.

This wasn't an attack thread nor was it a bait, it was an honest question, I know you Cot, you are a good man,

Tell your friend hello from Pace, he's a good man also.

Tell him, I am thinking of him, and hope he's well.

Regards
Pace

 

[wookie-leeks]

bla bla

Was I the one who ran your friend off of PJ?

Oh waaaa. Imagine if this were Slate. Fewer rules, then what?


Btw Justified has grown on me. Did you catch Breaking Bad or Hell on Wheels?

 

[JackDallas]

Probably his "imaginary" friend

 

[JackDallas]

No, didn't see either. Good stuff? Justified is addictive. I know it's all bullsh!t but it's fun bullsh!t.

 

[JackDallas]

How do you know the guy was a good man? He might have been an [Unwelcome language removed].

 

[wookie-leeks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpoGisBzHiE

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

Thanks! And a happy Easter to you.

We can agree to disagree. BTW, I might change my mind about the food donations. However, I would have to know more about the reasoning that went into the decision. Obviously, you want to have as much good food as possible within "reasonable" safety, health, and budget issues. I really don't think that you would want people eating rotten or unhealthy food. You also would not want the city to take donations if it made providing the needed food more - rather than less - expensive. (You need to factor in the total cost of providing food services. That is more costly than just the cost of the food itself.) And I do want the poor to be feed as cheaply and as well as humanly possible. So our goals are probably pretty similar.

Are these city soup kitchens owned by the city government? I thought that the food that was donated, was donated to privately (religious & non-religious) owned kitchens. In either case I think it would have behooved the mayor to plead for less salt in the foods than to reject the donations from an organization that had been feeding the homeless for years. IMO, it seems like a slap in the face to those groups that donate the food, to reject it.

 

[lilly]

Tell your friend hello from Pace, he's a good man also.

Tell him, I am thinking of him, and hope he's well.

Tell him for me as well Cotton, I wish he would come back.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

ORR,

Well, we can look at the article again but it was definitely my impression that these were city-owned and city-run facilities. My guess after reading the article and having some insight into how synagogues sometimes work is that the synagogue organized events at which kosher food was served. However, their customary way of planning was to buy more food than they needed with the assumption that they could just "donate" what was left over to the city. It sounds like that was what used to happen. It also sounded to me like the city was attempting to standardize and make their soup kitchen operations more efficient and that the "donations" element fell askance of that effort - partly for food safety reasons, partly for health reasons, and partly for efficiency. What they didn't do was explain to the synagogue why the old system had to go. (My story about my mother's experiences was meant to highlight some of the possible communication problems.)

Anyway, both my parents grew up in NYC and my sister has lived on Manhatten for thirty years. Mayor Bloomberg is a very. very successful businessman worth multiple billions of dollars. (I believe that he is in the top 20 richest people in the world.) One of his claims to fame in NYC is bringing business efficiency to running government operations. And my impression is that he has been pretty successful. But the NY Post likes to sell papers and everyone likes to complain about bureaucrats. Not sure that this is what is going on with this story. But I suspect that there is some truth in my "reconstruction of events." But we'll never know without going beyond what was in the news story.

Are these city soup kitchens owned by the city government? I thought that the food that was donated, was donated to privately (religious & non-religious) owned kitchens. In either case I think it would have behooved the mayor to plead for less salt in the foods than to reject the donations from an organization that had been feeding the homeless for years. IMO, it seems like a slap in the face to those groups that donate the food, to reject it.

 

[zzigzzag]

You got the "meddage" from a Bible verse. I didn't translate it for you.

"I never suggested that you stated that greed is good or that people who needed help were parasites."

This passes for a clever response in winger world? Pretending you can't read?

So you can't reconcile your Christian faith with your Republican religion. Got it.

 

[Sgt Staples]

private donations of food

The food that came from those 'private donations' was inspected by the same government agencies as the food provided by the "Department of the Homeless.

There are at least three agencies that inspect food that is sold, the USDA, the FDA and the NHS (National Health Service.)

The the publicly provided food is inspected in exactly the same say that the privately labeled food is. As a matter of fact, the amount of money the federal government spends inspecting food exceeds the total National net farm income for the entire United States. Any additives put in food have to be clearly printed on the packaging. That includes SODIUM and any other preservative.

And if individuals aren't smart enough to decide what they eat, why don't we just ban all private food purchases and let the government decide what we should eat, how much we should eat, and when we should eat. We could built giant mess halls for the entire population where we each be served the proper food, in the proper amount, at the proper time with the proper nutritional value, each and every day.

As a taxpayer, I am not for accepting charitable donations that end up costing rather than saving the taxpayer money.

Private donations to charitable organizations REDUCE the tax burden, as these organizations provide services to many people who, at one time or another, struggle through tough times. Especially people who don't want to get on the public dole.

Eliminating these organizations will INCREASE the cost to the government and increase taxes. We need more privately funded charities, not fewer.

And, Charitable organizations, (Contrary to New York City government,) do not try to poison the people they are helping.

As a matter of fact, they are far more more effective than government as they are more closely tied to the people of their community.

We need more charity and less government, with regards to feeding the poor, providing medical care for the poor, clothing for the poor, etc. That's what a successful free independent civil society does.

My guess is that the bulk of the homeless do not have physicians and have not had their salt level checked.

Salt is not a major health factor since foods that contain potassium, (bananas, potatoes, beans, etc) offset blood sodium.
And a certain amount of sodium is beneficial to health.

And it's up to the individual, not government control of the individual through control of food or anything else via high taxation or outright banning, to be FREE to decide what activities he engages in, regardless of how healthy or unhealthy those activities are.

Informed individuals make correct choices, or at the least know of the dangers or risks when they choose to engage in an activity that is deemed 'unhealthy.'

That is why an informed individual is a Democrat's worst nightmare.

 

[Cotton2226]

Probably his "imaginary" friend

Nope.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Sarge,

Two comments.

First, I don't think that you read what I wrote very carefully if at all. That is not unusual. It seems like a lot of righties make a habit of never listening to ANYTHING said by a preson that they consider to be "liberal." C'est la vie. (Happily ORR does not fit in that category.)

Second, after not reading what I wrote, I think that you regurgitated a bunch of platitudes that are factually questionable and are grounded in a lot "anti-government" bias that is connected to your emotions and not to reality.

Sorry, that is the way that I see it.

The food that came from those 'private donations' was inspected by the same government agencies as the food provided by the "Department of the Homeless.

There are at least three agencies that inspect food that is sold, the USDA, the FDA and the NHS (National Health Service.)

The the publicly provided food is inspected in exactly the same say that the privately labeled food is. As a matter of fact, the amount of money the federal government spends inspecting food exceeds the total National net farm income for the entire United States. Any additives put in food have to be clearly printed on the packaging. That includes SODIUM and any other preservative.

And if individuals aren't smart enough to decide what they eat, why don't we just ban all private food purchases and let the government decide what we should eat, how much we should eat, and when we should eat. We could built giant mess halls for the entire population where we each be served the proper food, in the proper amount, at the proper time with the proper nutritional value, each and every day.



Private donations to charitable organizations REDUCE the tax burden, as these organizations provide services to many people who, at one time or another, struggle through tough times. Especially people who don't want to get on the public dole.

Eliminating these organizations will INCREASE the cost to the government and increase taxes. We need more privately funded charities, not fewer.

And, Charitable organizations, (Contrary to New York City government,) do not try to poison the people they are helping.

As a matter of fact, they are far more more effective than government as they are more closely tied to the people of their community.

We need more charity and less government, with regards to feeding the poor, providing medical care for the poor, clothing for the poor, etc. That's what a successful free independent civil society does.



Salt is not a major health factor since foods that contain potassium, (bananas, potatoes, beans, etc) offset blood sodium.
And a certain amount of sodium is beneficial to health.

And it's up to the individual, not government control of the individual through control of food or anything else via high taxation or outright banning, to be FREE to decide what activities he engages in, regardless of how healthy or unhealthy those activities are.

Informed individuals make correct choices, or at the least know of the dangers or risks when they choose to engage in an activity that is deemed 'unhealthy.'

That is why an informed individual is a Democrat's worst nightmare.

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

ORR,

Well, we can look at the article again but it was definitely my impression that these were city-owned and city-run facilities. My guess after reading the article and having some insight into how synagogues sometimes work is that the synagogue organized events at which kosher food was served. However, their customary way of planning was to buy more food than they needed with the assumption that they could just "donate" what was left over to the city. It sounds like that was what used to happen. It also sounded to me like the city was attempting to standardize and make their soup kitchen operations more efficient and that the "donations" element fell askance of that effort - partly for food safety reasons, partly for health reasons, and partly for efficiency. What they didn't do was explain to the synagogue why the old system had to go. (My story about my mother's experiences was meant to highlight some of the possible communication problems.)

Anyway, both my parents grew up in NYC and my sister has lived on Manhatten for thirty years. Mayor Bloomberg is a very. very successful businessman worth multiple billions of dollars. (I believe that he is in the top 20 richest people in the world.) One of his claims to fame in NYC is bringing business efficiency to running government operations. And my impression is that he has been pretty successful. But the NY Post likes to sell papers and everyone likes to complain about bureaucrats. Not sure that this is what is going on with this story. But I suspect that there is some truth in my "reconstruction of events." But we'll never know without going beyond what was in the news story.

I would agree. I didn't know what a big city was until I was around 8 years old and my father moved us to Washington, D.C., after loosing his job on the railroad up here. I never like the city much. I prefered the mountains we came from. That's why we moved back, I wanted my kids to grow up like I did, running to hills and playing and swimming in the streams. We been back homw where I grew up for 21 years now and have never regretted leaving the city.

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

You got the "meddage" from a Bible verse. I didn't translate it for you.

"I never suggested that you stated that greed is good or that people who needed help were parasites."

This passes for a clever response in winger world? Pretending you can't read?

So you can't reconcile your Christian faith with your Republican religion. Got it.

I reconcile better than you think. got it, good.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Well, believe it or not, though my parents are from NY originally, I grew up in Asheville NC which I suspect is in your neck of the woods. But I got an engineering degree and moved to Seattle. West Coast cities are a bit different from East Coast cities but big is big. My wife is a city girl. But Seattle is surrounded by lots of beautiful mountains (and water) so you can get away. But I definitely understand the allure.

I would agree. I didn't know what a big city was until I was around 8 years old and my father moved us to Washington, D.C., after loosing his job on the railroad up here. I never like the city much. I prefered the mountains we came from. That's why we moved back, I wanted my kids to grow up like I did, running to hills and playing and swimming in the streams. We been back homw where I grew up for 21 years now and have never regretted leaving the city.