Good Day Everybody
So which one of the two men showed compassion or did both men show compassion? Well let us closely examine the situation and the actions of both individuals so that we can come to the correct judgement.
Here is the story again along with questions and the explanation.
There is a well known addict who roams a particular neighborhood everyday begging for alms. One morning he walks up to a young man who resides in the neighborhood and begs for money. The young man talks to the addict for a while, but he refuses to give the addict any money and continues on his way. Some time later another young man who is on his way to work walks by. The addict walks up to him and begins to beg once again. The young man reaches into his pocket and gives the addict some money. The addict takes the money and goes on his way. That evening he is found dead from an overdose.
Now I have two questions.
Question #1 Who killed the addict ?
Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?
If you will closely examine the story you will notice some important facts which would help you make a correct judgement of the two individuals. First you need to notice that the addict was well known. This means that it was most likely that every one in this neighborhood knew him or they were aware of him.
Some may think that the first individual was the least compassionate, but this is wrong. Now if you will continue to examine the story you will see that the first individual stops and has a conversation with the addict for a while before refusing to give him money. During this conversation we can assume that they were not talking about the weather. Also during this conversation he may have gained some additional insight into the addicts situation, character and mindset. This insight would have allowed him to make a more accurate judgement on what type of assistance he should give the addict. The act of taking his time out to speak to the addict is in itself a show of compassion.
At first sight someone who does not closely examine the situation might conclude that the second individual was the most compassionate because he gave the addict some money. But in actuality he is less compassionate and causes more harm than good.
The second individual is the least compassionate of the two and this is why. If you will notice the second individual did not even stop and talk to the addict. He was on his way to work and to stop and talk to the addict might have made him late. Secondly to give a man who is a known abuser the ability to continue his abuse and to eventually kill himself and possibly others is cruel, irresponsible and inexcusable.
So what made the second individual give the addict money even though he new that he had an addiction? There are a couple of reasons. The second individual like most people are overcome by sight, emotion and a misdirected sense of compassion or duty. Even though he new that the person was a known addict he probably allowed his emotions, the sight of the addict and his sense of duty to overcome his ability to reason and judge correctly. Most people feel that the correct solution to begging or most problems is the giving of money. People do not understand that not given money can also be an act of compassion or a correct solution.
The first individual by walking away actually helped the addict more than people realize. . What most people do not realize is that a habit is a living thing . And like any other living thing if it is not fed, it dies. If it is fed it will continue to eat, grow, and strengthen. You see without money the addict could not feed his habit. Without money the addict could not continue on the path to self-destruction. Without the money the addict is now provoked to make a decision. Does he decide to get the real help that he needs or does he sit there and die with the habit. The first individual helped to start the addicts habit on the way to its death and also helped to start the addict on the path to make a life saving decision, but the second individual came along and reinvigorated his habit and delayed the life saving decision.
Secondly who killed the addict. Well a number of people are responsible for killing the addict. But in this story the second individual and the addict are the focus. By giving the addict the money the second individual gave him the tool or the means to kill. Then the addict after receiving the means made the conscious decision to purchase and use the drugs. If the addict did not have the money that was given him by the second individual then he would not have been able to purchase the drugs which killed him. So the instant the second individual gave the addict the money, he became a root cause for whatever actions transpired.
Now if you want to expand the list of roots or those who are guilty for the addict’s death you can. You can expand the list to include any and all who gave the addict the means to feed his habit. The drug dealer who sold the addict the drugs. The parents who didn’t instill in the addict the proper moral character. The society which allowed the habit and the character to flourish etc…….
Finally to say that the second individual is not responsible for whatever the addict accomplished with the money after it was given to him is a cop out. It was the individuals money so it was his responsibility to make sure it was given to someone who would use it responsibly. To give a known addict money is like giving a gun to a known murderer and then abdicating responsibility after he has killed someone. If the second individual did not know or if he was not aware of what the individual was going to do with the money, then he should have kept it. You see money is just like a gun but even more powerful. It is a very very powerful tool which possesses the ability to do harm as well as good. In the right hands it can do wonders, in the wrong hands it can cause great misery and harm. In the right hands it can build homes, schools, hospitals, and buy food. In the wrong hands it can pay for drugs, weapons for murder, and crooked justice. So every individual is responsible for his or her money. Whatever harm or good that your money has accomplished or will accomplish is partly your responsibility. To assume ignorance or to say that you are not responsible is not an excuse for the harm that your money has or will accomplish.
John 7:24: Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement.
Full Version: Whose Compassion (explanation)
QUOTE(Mindonfire @ Oct 13 2005, 08:40 AM)
Good Day Everybody
So which one of the two men showed compassion or did both men show compassion? Well let us closely examine the situation and the actions of both individuals so that we can come to the correct judgement.
Here is the story again along with questions and the explanation.
There is a well known addict who roams a particular neighborhood everyday begging for alms. One morning he walks up to a young man who resides in the neighborhood and begs for money. The young man talks to the addict for a while, but he refuses to give the addict any money and continues on his way. Some time later another young man who is on his way to work walks by. The addict walks up to him and begins to beg once again. The young man reaches into his pocket and gives the addict some money. The addict takes the money and goes on his way. That evening he is found dead from an overdose.
Now I have two questions.
Question #1 Who killed the addict ?
Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?
If you will closely examine the story you will notice some important facts which would help you make a correct judgement of the two individuals. First you need to notice that the addict was well known. This means that it was most likely that every one in this neighborhood knew him or they were aware of him.
Some may think that the first individual was the least compassionate, but this is wrong. Now if you will continue to examine the story you will see that the first individual stops and has a conversation with the addict for a while before refusing to give him money. During this conversation we can assume that they were not talking about the weather. Also during this conversation he may have gained some additional insight into the addicts situation, character and mindset. This insight would have allowed him to make a more accurate judgement on what type of assistance he should give the addict. The act of taking his time out to speak to the addict is in itself a show of compassion.
At first sight someone who does not closely examine the situation might conclude that the second individual was the most compassionate because he gave the addict some money. But in actuality he is less compassionate and causes more harm than good.
The second individual is the least compassionate of the two and this is why. If you will notice the second individual did not even stop and talk to the addict. He was on his way to work and to stop and talk to the addict might have made him late. Secondly to give a man who is a known abuser the ability to continue his abuse and to eventually kill himself and possibly others is cruel, irresponsible and inexcusable.
So what made the second individual give the addict money even though he new that he had an addiction? There are a couple of reasons. The second individual like most people are overcome by sight, emotion and a misdirected sense of compassion or duty. Even though he new that the person was a known addict he probably allowed his emotions, the sight of the addict and his sense of duty to overcome his ability to reason and judge correctly. Most people feel that the correct solution to begging or most problems is the giving of money. People do not understand that not given money can also be an act of compassion or a correct solution.
The first individual by walking away actually helped the addict more than people realize. . What most people do not realize is that a habit is a living thing . And like any other living thing if it is not fed, it dies. If it is fed it will continue to eat, grow, and strengthen. You see without money the addict could not feed his habit. Without money the addict could not continue on the path to self-destruction. Without the money the addict is now provoked to make a decision. Does he decide to get the real help that he needs or does he sit there and die with the habit. The first individual helped to start the addicts habit on the way to its death and also helped to start the addict on the path to make a life saving decision, but the second individual came along and reinvigorated his habit and delayed the life saving decision.
Secondly who killed the addict. Well a number of people are responsible for killing the addict. But in this story the second individual and the addict are the focus. By giving the addict the money the second individual gave him the tool or the means to kill. Then the addict after receiving the means made the conscious decision to purchase and use the drugs. If the addict did not have the money that was given him by the second individual then he would not have been able to purchase the drugs which killed him. So the instant the second individual gave the addict the money, he became a root cause for whatever actions transpired.
Now if you want to expand the list of roots or those who are guilty for the addict’s death you can. You can expand the list to include any and all who gave the addict the means to feed his habit. The drug dealer who sold the addict the drugs. The parents who didn’t instill in the addict the proper moral character. The society which allowed the habit and the character to flourish etc…….
Finally to say that the second individual is not responsible for whatever the addict accomplished with the money after it was given to him is a cop out. It was the individuals money so it was his responsibility to make sure it was given to someone who would use it responsibly. To give a known addict money is like giving a gun to a known murderer and then abdicating responsibility after he has killed someone. If the second individual did not know or if he was not aware of what the individual was going to do with the money, then he should have kept it. You see money is just like a gun but even more powerful. It is a very very powerful tool which possesses the ability to do harm as well as good. In the right hands it can do wonders, in the wrong hands it can cause great misery and harm. In the right hands it can build homes, schools, hospitals, and buy food. In the wrong hands it can pay for drugs, weapons for murder, and crooked justice. So every individual is responsible for his or her money. Whatever harm or good that your money has accomplished or will accomplish is partly your responsibility. To assume ignorance or to say that you are not responsible is not an excuse for the harm that your money has or will accomplish.
John 7:24: Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement.
[right][snapback]17291[/snapback][/right]
So which one of the two men showed compassion or did both men show compassion? Well let us closely examine the situation and the actions of both individuals so that we can come to the correct judgement.
Here is the story again along with questions and the explanation.
There is a well known addict who roams a particular neighborhood everyday begging for alms. One morning he walks up to a young man who resides in the neighborhood and begs for money. The young man talks to the addict for a while, but he refuses to give the addict any money and continues on his way. Some time later another young man who is on his way to work walks by. The addict walks up to him and begins to beg once again. The young man reaches into his pocket and gives the addict some money. The addict takes the money and goes on his way. That evening he is found dead from an overdose.
Now I have two questions.
Question #1 Who killed the addict ?
Question #2 Which one of the two men showed compassion?
If you will closely examine the story you will notice some important facts which would help you make a correct judgement of the two individuals. First you need to notice that the addict was well known. This means that it was most likely that every one in this neighborhood knew him or they were aware of him.
Some may think that the first individual was the least compassionate, but this is wrong. Now if you will continue to examine the story you will see that the first individual stops and has a conversation with the addict for a while before refusing to give him money. During this conversation we can assume that they were not talking about the weather. Also during this conversation he may have gained some additional insight into the addicts situation, character and mindset. This insight would have allowed him to make a more accurate judgement on what type of assistance he should give the addict. The act of taking his time out to speak to the addict is in itself a show of compassion.
At first sight someone who does not closely examine the situation might conclude that the second individual was the most compassionate because he gave the addict some money. But in actuality he is less compassionate and causes more harm than good.
The second individual is the least compassionate of the two and this is why. If you will notice the second individual did not even stop and talk to the addict. He was on his way to work and to stop and talk to the addict might have made him late. Secondly to give a man who is a known abuser the ability to continue his abuse and to eventually kill himself and possibly others is cruel, irresponsible and inexcusable.
So what made the second individual give the addict money even though he new that he had an addiction? There are a couple of reasons. The second individual like most people are overcome by sight, emotion and a misdirected sense of compassion or duty. Even though he new that the person was a known addict he probably allowed his emotions, the sight of the addict and his sense of duty to overcome his ability to reason and judge correctly. Most people feel that the correct solution to begging or most problems is the giving of money. People do not understand that not given money can also be an act of compassion or a correct solution.
The first individual by walking away actually helped the addict more than people realize. . What most people do not realize is that a habit is a living thing . And like any other living thing if it is not fed, it dies. If it is fed it will continue to eat, grow, and strengthen. You see without money the addict could not feed his habit. Without money the addict could not continue on the path to self-destruction. Without the money the addict is now provoked to make a decision. Does he decide to get the real help that he needs or does he sit there and die with the habit. The first individual helped to start the addicts habit on the way to its death and also helped to start the addict on the path to make a life saving decision, but the second individual came along and reinvigorated his habit and delayed the life saving decision.
Secondly who killed the addict. Well a number of people are responsible for killing the addict. But in this story the second individual and the addict are the focus. By giving the addict the money the second individual gave him the tool or the means to kill. Then the addict after receiving the means made the conscious decision to purchase and use the drugs. If the addict did not have the money that was given him by the second individual then he would not have been able to purchase the drugs which killed him. So the instant the second individual gave the addict the money, he became a root cause for whatever actions transpired.
Now if you want to expand the list of roots or those who are guilty for the addict’s death you can. You can expand the list to include any and all who gave the addict the means to feed his habit. The drug dealer who sold the addict the drugs. The parents who didn’t instill in the addict the proper moral character. The society which allowed the habit and the character to flourish etc…….
Finally to say that the second individual is not responsible for whatever the addict accomplished with the money after it was given to him is a cop out. It was the individuals money so it was his responsibility to make sure it was given to someone who would use it responsibly. To give a known addict money is like giving a gun to a known murderer and then abdicating responsibility after he has killed someone. If the second individual did not know or if he was not aware of what the individual was going to do with the money, then he should have kept it. You see money is just like a gun but even more powerful. It is a very very powerful tool which possesses the ability to do harm as well as good. In the right hands it can do wonders, in the wrong hands it can cause great misery and harm. In the right hands it can build homes, schools, hospitals, and buy food. In the wrong hands it can pay for drugs, weapons for murder, and crooked justice. So every individual is responsible for his or her money. Whatever harm or good that your money has accomplished or will accomplish is partly your responsibility. To assume ignorance or to say that you are not responsible is not an excuse for the harm that your money has or will accomplish.
John 7:24: Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement.
[right][snapback]17291[/snapback][/right]
Thank you FFT. How will the little sheep know but for such as you. Thank you for your help guarding the flock.
Mindonfire, we have indulged you not knowing, but now are aware. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.
Leia
QUOTE(FFT @ Oct 14 2005, 12:19 PM)
Enough, Mindonfire. How many forums do you plan to post this in?
Bible-Discussion post 1, Bible-Discussion post 2.
Christian-Forum post 1, Christian-Forum post 2.
Minuteman Message Board post 1, Minuteman Message Board post 2.
Volconvo board post 1, Volconvo board post 2,
Give it a rest, your ridiculous story has no merit.
[right][snapback]17541[/snapback][/right]
Bible-Discussion post 1, Bible-Discussion post 2.
Christian-Forum post 1, Christian-Forum post 2.
Minuteman Message Board post 1, Minuteman Message Board post 2.
Volconvo board post 1, Volconvo board post 2,
Give it a rest, your ridiculous story has no merit.
[right][snapback]17541[/snapback][/right]
FFT,
You are a newbie, yet you are not a stranger to roaming cyberspace! Welcome. Are you a cyber angel?
Leia
QUOTE
The young man talks to the addict for a while, but he refuses to give the addict any money and continues on his way
if we must nit-pick... what did they talk about?
Hey FFT,
I KNEW you were a cyber angel! I knew it! I knew it! I knew it!
My uncle Bob Bills says "hi", my dad James Bills says "hi", let's see....I guess that is all I care to mention. Tell the guys Leianne Inwood-Bills (Andrews) (Wright) said hey! Mindonfire....I am up to my neck in them and I ain't scared.
Leia
I KNEW you were a cyber angel! I knew it! I knew it! I knew it!
My uncle Bob Bills says "hi", my dad James Bills says "hi", let's see....I guess that is all I care to mention. Tell the guys Leianne Inwood-Bills (Andrews) (Wright) said hey! Mindonfire....I am up to my neck in them and I ain't scared.
Leia
Childish game. Sounds to me like you all need to cut the strings from one another and move on. You all are not growing....just merely bickering back and forth. But don't be ticked off at me or anything. It was simply an observation.
FFP and MINDONFIRE what is really the deal?
Try to ignore each other because your growth is stunted! Is that how God would want us to act towards one another?
Just my opinion.
FFP and MINDONFIRE what is really the deal?
Try to ignore each other because your growth is stunted! Is that how God would want us to act towards one another?
Just my opinion.
Thank you FFT, we are warned.
Thank you Marta, you are correct.
Leia
Thank you Marta, you are correct.
Leia
QUOTE(Marta @ Oct 14 2005, 05:58 PM)
Childish game. Sounds to me like you all need to cut the strings from one another and move on. You all are not growing....just merely bickering back and forth. But don't be ticked off at me or anything. It was simply an observation.
FFP and MINDONFIRE what is really the deal?
Try to ignore each other because your growth is stunted! Is that how God would want us to act towards one another?
Just my opinion.
[right][snapback]17589[/snapback][/right]
FFP and MINDONFIRE what is really the deal?
Try to ignore each other because your growth is stunted! Is that how God would want us to act towards one another?
Just my opinion.
[right][snapback]17589[/snapback][/right]
You see he is upset because I have asked this question on other websites. So he is going around joining the websites where I post for the express purpose of trying to sabotage my posts. He works for an oganization which I will not revealz at this time.
That is alright because the truth will still be revealed.
I am angry that, despite the harsh criticisms of your "story," you continue to post it elsewhere, without bothering to answer said criticisms. When I point this out to these other forums, you threaten to post ad hominem attacks.
You're making this big deal out of the fact that I'm an atheist, in an attempt to evade the questions I'm asking. When you grow up, and actually answer the questions, then you can cast as many aspersions on my character as you wish. They still won't matter, but at least they won't be outright evasions any more, just mindless bickering.
Yes, I am an atheist. This does not make me wrong about Mindonfire's post. It does, however, make Mindonfire's threats fallacious and empty. Answer the criticisms.
Who ARE you people?
FFT,
All that aside...you know you can't come in here and call yourself an athiest and go home without being preached at. It's our job. So...
my father was athiest. Great man. Very smart. Mensan top .999of their top 2%. But he got smarter. Know how? 'Cause now he is happy. He thought he was happy until one day, once upon a time, I don't really know what happens when that door opens and soemthing says "wow" and he understood. He understood the Jesus died to set him free from chains he didn't even know he was fettered with. And you may not know it either, but you are. I can hear it when you write. Do you know that you are God's child? And that he wants you here?
Leia
FFT,
All that aside...you know you can't come in here and call yourself an athiest and go home without being preached at. It's our job. So...
my father was athiest. Great man. Very smart. Mensan top .999of their top 2%. But he got smarter. Know how? 'Cause now he is happy. He thought he was happy until one day, once upon a time, I don't really know what happens when that door opens and soemthing says "wow" and he understood. He understood the Jesus died to set him free from chains he didn't even know he was fettered with. And you may not know it either, but you are. I can hear it when you write. Do you know that you are God's child? And that he wants you here?
Leia
FFT,
Seems to me that MINDONFIRE doesn't owe YOU any explanations...for YOU are not his/her CREATOR.
Good luck with the whole atheism thing. Atheists waste their entire life on the concept of trying to refute theistic arguments.
Their work here on earth is to continue their disbelief in God; and continue to walk as dead flesh in the world with only their skeletons to hold them up; not the power of God. That which is flesh is FLESH...that which is spirit is SPIRIT!
Nietzsche and Darwin did that their whole lives; it’s not exactly pretty how sicknesses consumed their entire bodies by refuting the existence of God.
Read up on them.
The issue of salvation is serious, because eternity is a long time to be wrong.
Warning against Wisdom:
Proverbs 1:7; 1-22-33
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." ~Proverbs 1:7
"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD" ~Proverbs 1:22-29
Seems to me that MINDONFIRE doesn't owe YOU any explanations...for YOU are not his/her CREATOR.
Good luck with the whole atheism thing. Atheists waste their entire life on the concept of trying to refute theistic arguments.
Their work here on earth is to continue their disbelief in God; and continue to walk as dead flesh in the world with only their skeletons to hold them up; not the power of God. That which is flesh is FLESH...that which is spirit is SPIRIT!
Nietzsche and Darwin did that their whole lives; it’s not exactly pretty how sicknesses consumed their entire bodies by refuting the existence of God.
Read up on them.
The issue of salvation is serious, because eternity is a long time to be wrong.
QUOTE
"God is dead" - Nietzsche
"Nietzche is dead" – God
~anonymous author~
"Nietzche is dead" – God
~anonymous author~
Warning against Wisdom:
Proverbs 1:7; 1-22-33
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." ~Proverbs 1:7
"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD" ~Proverbs 1:22-29
QUOTE("Marta")
Seems to me that MINDONFIRE doesn't owe YOU any explanations...for YOU are not his/her CREATOR.
I didn't ask for explanations. I asked Mindonfire to argue logically rather than fallaciously. Regardless of my personal beliefs, am I wrong about his post? Because that's the important thing here. We can debate and discuss my personal beliefs elsewhere, that's fine with me. I am not going to do so in this thread.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.