Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Mindonfire · Oct 13, 2005, 01:37 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.

Oct 13, 2005, 01:37 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Mindonfire Molten Ash Posts: 28	Whose Compassion (Explanation) 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.