I think you should stop baiting the HI Forum with subjects like this which are totally unrelated to the subject at hand, and stick with khukuri talk. Having said that, since you asked, I'll take your bait. Just remember, I didnt initiate this, and I am perfectly content to stick with khukuri talk only. This thread is destined to be locked because it provokes people like me to write what I'm about to write.
I think there's a HUGE difference between the type of "homeless" person Jesus was and the type we are plagued with today. I may be wrong, but I don't think Jesus went around hitting people up for money, refusing to work, expecting handouts or to live off of other people, and lying through his teeth with some made up tearjerk hard luck tale about how he lost his job after 28 years, his wife & little kids are hungry, and they were on their way to some other state to look for work or visit relatives when they ran out of gas, all through no fault of his own. I've heard slight variations of this BS story countless times. How does the verse in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 fit into your one-sided and rather naive concept of Christian charity? If you wanted to draw a parallel between the "homeless" people of today and Christians, then you should have chosen televangelists like Bob "Prayer Rag" Tilton as your example, who make a living fleecing suckers in the name of God, rather than smearing Christ's name and reputation by associating Him with today's "homeless." How dare you. Do you not hold Christ in any higher regard than that? Perhaps I should judge you and your level of Christianity by your comments here just as you have judged your coworkers by theirs.
Lastly, you desperately need to distinguish between the true "homeless" and bums, and not use the term "homeless" so indiscriminately. I think you already know this but everyone needs to hear this again and again until we have freed our minds from this subtle but twisted way of thinking and speaking. The label of "homeless" is neutral, carrying with it no negative or critical implications. When you use the term "homeless," you are telling your listeners that you are reserving any judgment of right and wrong.
The term "bum" presumes a state of homelessness, so to call a bum "homeless" is unnecessary and incomplete--it makes you sound very sensitive and PC but it is intellectually dishonest speech because it does not tell the whole story. "Bum" means more than just homeless; it means homeless by choice rather than by a series of misfortunes (despite what they would have you believe), and it describes a person who "bums" off of other people (hence the name). They are the parasites of society.
For example, a mother and full time housewife who's husband ran off with his mistress, leaving her with the children to take care of and no source of income, would truly classify as "homeless". A person who chooses to live under an overpass while the local churches supply him with coats, blankets, canned food, and kerosene out of charity, pity, or a works mentality, who holds a sign saying "will work for food," but when offered a job for the day, refuses on the grounds that "I've got a bad back" or more honestly, "I can make more money just standing here taking handouts", has fully earned the title of "bum" and should not be denied it; he should be called what he is. When you indiscriminately lump the former together with the latter by referring to all of them as homeless, you are actually telling your listeners that the deadbeat who refuses to earn his way through life is the moral equivalent of the person who actually has suffered genuine setbacks but who desires and is trying to recover. To associate the former with the latter is an insult to the truly homeless everywhere, who are in genuine need of and deserving of our help and compassion. Bums are not. The reason no one feels comfortable using the term bum anymore is because the PC counterculture which has dominated our popular culture has purposefully caused us to subconsciously feel ashamed to use words like that which carry implied connotations of disapproval.
I should also point out that in my real life example above of a bum, the churches who support him in that way are aiding and abetting him to continue in that lifestyle, which he has chosen for himself. They are helping him to escape the consequences of his actions (or lack thereof), and thus they are doing him a disservice by helping him to avoid reality. These churches are undermining the ancient biblical maxim of 2 Thessalonians 3:10 which, when implemented by Captain John Smith, became the turning point for the colony of Jamestown and the foundational ethic of this nation: He who will not work shall not eat. Paradoxically, this maxim actually saved the colony from starvation, rather than causing it. Perhaps no work = no eat is the true soul of compassion, rather than from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, which we see practiced every day by the do-gooders on the street corners and by the government on our paychecks.
Just in case youre a Christian, the Bible makes a clear and consistent distinction between the bums described in 1 Timothy 5:8 and the true homeless such as the orphans and widows. It also has a lot to say about freeloaders and bumsand it isnt nice or flattering. Compassion is an indispensable trait of humanity; misplaced compassion is actually harmful, as I have explained.
You said you hesitated to post this thread but decided to post it anyway. Next time go with your first instinct; it was trying to warn you.
