A question for libs

[Arthur Brain]

I had to do the same to my younger brother back at the end of May.

He was living with me in the house I was renting from my parents, and had been for nearly 10 months. Not once did he ever seek a job or try to find somewhere else to live, yet he was constantly complaining about not having gas in the car my parents were letting him use, but of which he did not have any ownership.

At the beginning of May, I bought the house from my parents, and gave him an ultimatum, that within 4 weeks, if he did not find a job so that he could start paying me rent and utilities and internet (which I had been paying for for the past several months), or find another place to live and move out, that I would kick him out.

Within two weeks, he found a job. But then, the first night he went to work, he quit the same day, and then gave up on trying to find another job. I kicked him out only two weeks in to my ultimatum, because I was sick of his attitude and of having him in my house, and because he was unwilling to work.

Oh, but you might ask, did he have any medical conditions.

According to him? He had pain in his groin from a past surgery and the mesh that was used was coming undone or something along those lines.

According to medical professionals? There's nothing wrong with him.

So no, no medical conditions preventing him from working, yet somehow he's still getting disability payments.

His attitude is why I kicked him out.

And guess what?

He now has a stable job and is paying rent to my uncle who now lives in my town.

All because I kicked him to the curb. And yes, he was sleeping in the car my parents were letting him use for a few nights.

So, one anecdote is applicable to all?

There's plenty of homeless people who suffer from severe mental illness including war veterans that has been highlighted over the last coupla years. Many have fallen through a safety net already in place and have been let down by the system. Your constant quoting of a verse that was attributed to communal tribes has been explained to you more than once. If people refused to work for whatever reason, then the survival of people in those times would have been put at risk as a result so the withholding of food as punishment would make sense.

Attempting to use such a verse and apply it to the present where many people are willing to work but are unable, between jobs, competing for jobs etc just doesn't hold up. Not if you live in the actual world anyway. There's nothing to suggest that people who are unemployed per se should be denied any provision.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, one anecdote is applicable to all?

Why on God's green earth would you think that?

There's plenty of homeless people who suffer from severe mental illness

And?

including war veterans that has been highlighted over the last coupla years.

And?

Many have fallen through a safety net already in place and have been let down by the system.

A normal person would think that that's a good sign that the system as a whole is a failure.

Your constant quoting of a verse that was attributed to communal tribes has been explained to you more than once.

Sorry, but Paul wasn't talking to Israel in 2 Thessalonians.

If people refused to work for whatever reason, then the survival of people in those times would have been put at risk as a result so the withholding of food as punishment would make sense.

And so that changes things... How?

Hunger is still, to this very day, a strong motivator to work.

Or do you think that what God said in Genesis 3 no longer applies either?

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.” - Genesis 3:17-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis3:17-19&version=NKJV

Last I checked, people still have to work to obtain food... Why should it be any easier for people who are unwilling to work to obtain food?

Attempting to use such a verse and apply it to the present where many people are willing to work but are unable,

See posts #32 and #45.

between jobs, competing for jobs etc just doesn't hold up.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Arty.

Everyone has the ability to plan for disaster, and any sensible person would do so.

Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.

And Paul isn't talking about that group in the first place. He's talking about those who ARE UNWILLING to work.

Not if you live in the actual world anyway.

Are you asserting I don't? If so, just come out and say it, so I can tell you that you're wrong.

There's nothing to suggest that people who are unemployed per se should be denied any provision.

Again, Paul isn't talking about that group. Haven't you been paying attention at all?

Go read post #59.

 

[ok doser]

Why on God's green earth would you think that?

:think:

Haven't you been paying attention at all?

:thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why on God's green earth would you think that?

Because of how many times you've dismissed people as "bums" who are out of work despite having no knowledge of their life as to why they might be in such a position or destitute. You do have a posting history on here ya know.

And?

"And"? That's it? Just what, left to rot?

And?

"And"? Again, that's it? People who have served their country, been through such an ordeal whereby they've suffered incredible emotional trauma and maladjustment on return to civil life and ended up on the streets?

A normal person would think that that's a good sign that the system as a whole is a failure.

A normal person would want improvements made to a system that at its core, makes provision for those destitute and starving, to eradicate the holes within it whereby people can still fall through that safety net, not eradicate such altogether.

Sorry, but Paul wasn't talking to Israel in 2 Thessalonians.

My turn. And? Was his address to sprawling modern day cities thousand of years in the future?

And so that changes things... How?

Hunger is still, to this very day, a strong motivator to work.

Because there's no longer tribes of people relying on each other to fulfil their role in order to survive. Nowadays, we have everything from ghettos and council estates to upper middle class areas and it's not like everyone who is out of work isn't trying to find it no matter what echelon they fit into. Their next door neighbour isn't relying on them to be employed in order for them to remain living. You talk as if there's such a thing as full employment for everyone who is even willing to work. There isn't, even with the most menial jobs.

Or do you think that what God said in Genesis 3 no longer applies either?

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.” - Genesis 3:17-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis3:17-19&version=NKJV

Last I checked, people still have to work to obtain food... Why should it be any easier for people who are unwilling to work to obtain food?

Funny, there's plenty of people who don't have to toil at all to have bread, wine, the full thanksgiving dinner put on the table, nor do many find the ground so cursed as they're unable to make bread from it these days either so it's not like this is entirely literal is it?

People in work are better off and rightly so. Those who are out of work are hardly affluent to any degree and while there may be some who are happy enough to get by on subsistence living, the majority aren't and under your former proposals should just rely on charity, or family and friends. A sure fire way to increase the poverty level. Never mind those who are too sick to work full stop.

See posts #32 and #45.

Seen them and seen Usernames responses. Guess which ones made the more sense?

Saying it doesn't make it so, Arty.

Everyone has the ability to plan for disaster, and any sensible person would do so.

Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.

Sure it does, for a normal, rationally thinking person. Trite soundbites as the above are just that JR...

And Paul isn't talking about that group in the first place. He's talking about those who ARE UNWILLING to work.

Hmm, that seems to be a bit of a modifier from earlier positions although if you're willing to concede that there's people that are willing to work who are unemployed and those unable to do so, then okay. How you ascertain that in the modern age is hardly foolproof but hence the provision so that the poor and the vulnerable are catered for.

Are you asserting I don't? If so, just come out and say it, so I can tell you that you're wrong.

On some levels, yes, not all obviously as we're both inhabitants of the same planet after all. Some of your ideas are "out there", however...

Again, Paul isn't talking about that group. Haven't you been paying attention at all?

Go read post #59.

See above.