Whose Compassion (Explanation)

[Mindonfire]

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.

[gr8ridejester]

So, you're saying the "addict" has no responsiblity for his own actions. The second guy "made" him use that money to buy drugs, the drug dealer "forced" him to buy the drugs, his life growing up "made" him turn to drugs and I suppose the devil "made" him take too much of the drugs and overdose too? The addict was a "victim" of circumstance, right? :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is, no one "makes" you do something you do not want to do or choose to do. Taking the responsibility away from the individual is societies gr8est downfall.

I would call blaming others for one's lack of decision making skills as a "cop out".


"But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. "
- Matthew 6:3 -

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: gr8ridejester So, you're saying the "addict" has no responsiblity for his own actions. The second guy "made" him use that money to buy drugs, the drug dealer "forced" him to buy the drugs, his life growing up "made" him turn to drugs and I suppose the devil "made" him take too much of the drugs and overdose too? The addict was a "victim" of circumstance, right? :rolleyes: The fact of the matter is, no one "makes" you do something you do not want to do or choose to do. Taking the responsibility away from the individual is societies gr8est downfall. I would call blaming others for one's lack of decision making skills as a "cop out". "But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. " - Matthew 6:3 -

Read the explanation again no one absolves the addict from his responsibility but at the same time the individual who gave him money is also not absolved

[gr8ridejester]

Quote by: Mindonfire Read the explanation again no one absolves the addict from his responsibility but at the same time the individual who gave him money is also not absolved

Am I my brother's keeper? Should the second guy have given the addict the money? No. However, are those who voted for Bill Clinton absolved for him cheating on Hillary? I mean, he was the elected president and, without those votes, he would have never been in office and been caught with Monica.

[brien]

Quote by: Mindonfire 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? John 7:24: Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement.

Ok I'll bite. The addict killed himself. And furthermore, the addict should have been hospitalized to treat the disease he was afflicted with in his life. It is a disease just like cancer and we don't ignore cancer patients unless of course they choose not to treat themselves. The addict chose not to treat his disease so he killed himself.

As far as compassion, I don't equate money with compassion nor do I equate abdication with compassion. Both individuals probably had many oppportunities to help the addict but the addict chose to ignore his own treatment. They both had compassion but it fell upon fallow ground.

[Son of Belial]

My biggest problem here is you say that the addict must be well known, yet the first man didn't seem to realize this person was an addict, hence stopping to talk. And suppose your theory that the second man gave him money and didn't stop to talk because he would be late for work is true. So he's less compassionate because he didn't take the time out and possibly lose his job? I disagree with this. If you have a job, you don't risk losing it for some begger on the street.

[FFT]

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.

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: Son of Belial My biggest problem here is you say that the addict must be well known, yet the first man didn't seem to realize this person was an addict, hence stopping to talk. And suppose your theory that the second man gave him money and didn't stop to talk because he would be late for work is true. So he's less compassionate because he didn't take the time out and possibly lose his job? I disagree with this. If you have a job, you don't risk losing it for some begger on the street.

So a job is more important than someones life? An individual who gives money to an addict because he doesn't want to lose his job is considered compassionate? Wow

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: FFT 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.

You are missing about 25 other places. Keep looking. They don't pay you to be lazy.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: Mindonfire So a job is more important than someones life?

Yes, my job is more important than some homeless drug addict's life. Correct.

An individual who gives money to an addict because he doesn't want to lose his job is considered compassionate? Wow

Perhaps he was compassionate for the family he had to feed. No, let's let him lose his job and maybe him and his kids get thrown into the street for one homeless drug addict.

[Sonart]

Since you can't be bothered to respond on the same damn 'Whose Compassion' thread that you started, I'll simply have to follow you here and paste up my last post...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

--"Well... now that our benefactor, after a suitable amount of time, with a patient nod here and correction there to make sure his scenerio is appropriately defined to suit his lesson, has consented to share >>The Truth<<, let's return the favor with a question of our own.

Exactly what is the difference between Mindonfire's compassionate non-enabler and someone who refuses to help simply because he doesn't give a rip and doesn't want to part with his cash? None that I can see. In fact, the way I see it, Mindonfire has given himself a free pass never to give money to anyone in need if he doesn't feel like it, all with a clear conscience.

Now of course, Mindon has set up his fiction for maximum permission to be judgemental. The guy's not simply a panhandler, he's a drug addict!. OOoooOooo. And we know this, of course, because Mindon made a point that our compassionate non-enabler "talked to him for a few minutes", knowing that addicts invariably share their addictions with anyone that asks. And, of course, the final condemnation on anyone thinking that simply helping someone in need is compassionate, the addict promptly OD's and dies, the ultimate vindication for the compassionate non-enabler.

Thus armed with a worst case scenerio, how can Mindonfire go wrong? So what if the guy wasn't a... OOoooOOOooo ...drug addict. Maybe just an alcohalic. Or mentally ill. Or medically disabled. Down on their luck. Whatever the cause, surely there's some vice that help will simply enable... they'll just buy more booze. They're dangerous. They're lazy. They should have worked harder in school.

Compassion is not about judging people, Mindonfire. This is the same attitude that's made such a mess of our 'War on Drugs'. Addicts are victims, not criminals. You can either help them, without judgement, or not help them, and simply walk away. But don't think you can salve your conscience by rationalizing that walking away is actually compassion."--

.

[FFT]

Quote by: Mindonfire You are missing about 25 other places. Keep looking. They don't pay you to be lazy.

I'm not getting paid to show people what you are. And I'm not going out of my way to do so, either. So far, 3 places show in a google search. If more show up later, I'll be posting there as well.

Grow up, please.

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: FFT I'm not getting paid to show people what you are. And I'm not going out of my way to do so, either. So far, 3 places show in a google search. If more show up later, I'll be posting there as well. Grow up, please.

You are hilarious. You are telling me to grow up but you are the one who is following me around trying to smear me. I hav'nt done you any wrong. That's okay you can only do what your boss has taught you. Your attempted smear campaign will not work though. The truth is still the truth and people are wakingup from you and your cronies deceptions.

In just a little while.

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: gr8ridejester Am I my brother's keeper? Should the second guy have given the addict the money? No. However, are those who voted for Bill Clinton absolved for him cheating on Hillary? I mean, he was the elected president and, without those votes, he would have never been in office and been caught with Monica.

This is true. This then shows you that all of your actions are important and not to be taken for granted.
You are responsible for the actions of your elected officials. They are your representation.

[Sonart]

This is true. This then shows you that all of your actions are important and not to be taken for granted. You are responsible for the actions of your elected officials. They are your representation.

By that criteria, anyone who voted for Dear Leader owes the rest of us... big time. :rolleyes:

.

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: Sonart Since you can't be bothered to respond on the same damn 'Whose Compassion' thread that you started, I'll simply have to follow you here and paste up my last post... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --"Well... now that our benefactor, after a suitable amount of time, with a patient nod here and correction there to make sure his scenerio is appropriately defined to suit his lesson, has consented to share >>The Truth<<, let's return the favor with a question of our own. Exactly what is the difference between Mindonfire's compassionate non-enabler and someone who refuses to help simply because he doesn't give a rip and doesn't want to part with his cash? None that I can see. In fact, the way I see it, Mindonfire has given himself a free pass never to give money to anyone in need if he doesn't feel like it, all with a clear conscience. Now of course, Mindon has set up his fiction for maximum permission to be judgemental. The guy's not simply a panhandler, he's a drug addict!. OOoooOooo. And we know this, of course, because Mindon made a point that our compassionate non-enabler "talked to him for a few minutes", knowing that addicts invariably share their addictions with anyone that asks. And, of course, the final condemnation on anyone thinking that simply helping someone in need is compassionate, the addict promptly OD's and dies, the ultimate vindication for the compassionate non-enabler. Thus armed with a worst case scenerio, how can Mindonfire go wrong? So what if the guy wasn't a... OOoooOOOooo ...drug addict. Maybe just an alcohalic. Or mentally ill. Or medically disabled. Down on their luck. Whatever the cause, surely there's some vice that help will simply enable... they'll just buy more booze. They're dangerous. They're lazy. They should have worked harder in school. Compassion is not about judging people, Mindonfire. This is the same attitude that's made such a mess of our 'War on Drugs'. Addicts are victims, not criminals. You can either help them, without judgement, or not help them, and simply walk away. But don't think you can salve your conscience by rationalizing that walking away is actually compassion."-- .

First of all no cursing please. It have not cursed you so please do not curse me.

Secondly the issue is not about “never to give money to anyone in need if he doesn't feel like it, all with a clear conscience.” The issue is about making wise judgments.

Thirdly An addict is not in need of money. He or she is in need of treatment. So does an alcoholic and so does a mentally ill individual. A person that is an upstanding productive citizen that has fallen on hard times may be in need of money. So you need to be able to judge correctly so that you can see what an individual really needs.

Fourthly I don’t know what world you live in but this is not fiction. This “worst case scenario” happens everyday. Maybe you need to get out more.

Fifthly you are right when you state that addicts are victims. The problem is that they are victims of their own actions. You are wrong when you state that they are not criminals. They are criminals. Here is the definition of Criminal just in case you might have forgotten and also the definition of Crime.


Criminal (noun)1 : one who has committed a crime 2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime

Crime: 1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law 2 : a grave offense especially against morality
3 : criminal activity *efforts to fight crime* 4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful *it's a crime to waste good food*
synonyms see OFFENSE

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: Sonart By that criteria, anyone who voted for Dear Leader owes the rest of us... big time. :rolleyes: .

You are right.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Mindonfire First of all no cursing please. It have not cursed you so please do not curse me.

What, because I said "damn... thread"? Sorry, although it strikes me as fairly tame and it wasn't directed at you personally but to your thread, but if you're that sensitive I'll try to refrain.

However, I was trying to make it very clear that I thought it was incredibly rude of you to leave posts on your own thread unanswered while starting a new thread with the same soapbox lecture on the same .... darn... subject. Was there some reason for that beyond simple arrogance in controlling the conversation?

Quote by: Mindonfire Secondly the issue is not about “never to give money to anyone in need if he doesn't feel like it, all with a clear conscience.” The issue is about making wise judgments.

No, it's about making judgements, period. That's not what compassion is. Compassion is simply about being aware of suffering in others and wishing to relieve it.

Quote by: Mindonfire Thirdly An addict is not in need of money. He or she is in need of treatment. So does an alcoholic and so does a mentally ill individual. A person that is an upstanding productive citizen that has fallen on hard times may be in need of money. So you need to be able to judge correctly so that you can see what an individual really needs.

Well obviously what they don't need is for people to turn and walk away. Perhaps giving money is not the best way to help or the only way to help, but walking away does nothing whatsoever to help. And I'm not condemning walking away, I do it all the time... real life doesn't permit us to be compassionate every minute of every day. But don't think you can rationalize turning away as compassion.

Quote by: Mindonfire Fourthly I don’t know what world you live in but this is not fiction. This “worst case scenario” happens everyday. Maybe you need to get out more.

I'm quite aware that such things happen, thank you. But your specific scenerio was a fiction - and you know it - specifically tailored to support your conclusion. As most agenda-driven fiction writing is. Just read anything by, say, Ayn Rand.

Quote by: Mindonfire Fifthly you are right when you state that addicts are victims. The problem is that they are victims of their own actions. You are wrong when you state that they are not criminals. They are criminals. Here is the definition of Criminal just in case you might have forgotten and also the definition of Crime.

Don't play word games with me. Y'know, America used to have things called debtors-prisons, since it was a criminal (adj.) offense (noun) to incur a debt you couldn't repay. It used to be a criminal (adj.) offense (noun) to marry someone of a different race, for a Jew to own property in certain areas or a non-Christian to run for public office in certain states. Just because our current miguided drug laws makes criminals out of victims doesn't make those victims unworthy of our compassion. For someone trying to define what compassion is, you certainly seem guided by a dogmatic set of judgements about who is worthy of compassion and who isn't.

Now if you're up for it, I have a little ficticious scenerio for you, and anyone else who's interested. But first, I need to ask....

Mindonfire, are you a devout and compassionate Christian? And if so, do you believe in eternal damnation?

.

[Mindonfire]

Quote by: Sonart What, because I said "damn... thread"? Sorry, although it strikes me as fairly tame and it wasn't directed at you personally but to your thread, but if you're that sensitive I'll try to refrain. However, I was trying to make it very clear that I thought it was incredibly rude of you to leave posts on your own thread unanswered while starting a new thread with the same soapbox lecture on the same .... darn... subject. Was there some reason for that beyond simple arrogance in controlling the conversation? No, it's about making judgements, period. That's not what compassion is. Compassion is simply about being aware of suffering in others and wishing to relieve it. Well obviously what they don't need is for people to turn and walk away. Perhaps giving money is not the best way to help or the only way to help, but walking away does nothing whatsoever to help. And I'm not condemning walking away, I do it all the time... real life doesn't permit us to be compassionate every minute of every day. But don't think you can rationalize turning away as compassion. I'm quite aware that such things happen, thank you. But your specific scenerio was a fiction - and you know it - specifically tailored to support your conclusion. As most agenda-driven fiction writing is. Just read anything by, say, Ayn Rand. Don't play word games with me. Y'know, America used to have things called debtors-prisons, since it was a criminal (adj.) offense (noun) to incur a debt you couldn't repay. It used to be a criminal (adj.) offense (noun) to marry someone of a different race, for a Jew to own property in certain areas or a non-Christian to run for public office in certain states. Just because our current miguided drug laws makes criminals out of victims doesn't make those victims unworthy of our compassion. For someone trying to define what compassion is, you certainly seem guided by a dogmatic set of judgements about who is worthy of compassion and who isn't. Now if you're up for it, I have a little ficticious scenerio for you, and anyone else who's interested. But first, I need to ask.... Mindonfire, are you a devout and compassionate Christian? And if so, do you believe in eternal damnation? .

Good Day
How are you supposed to relieve the suffering of an individual without making the correct assessment of what type of relief that individual needs. You have to first judge correctly so that you can give the proper treatment or the proper help. If a person is a drug addict you are not relieving his suffering by giving him the means to continue in his addiction.
You are increasing his suffering. An addict is suffering from an addiction. He is forced to endure or experience the distresses that are associated with an addiction. To give him the means to continue in that addiction only increases the distresses that are associated with that addiction.

Suffer: (trans vrb) 1 a : to submit to or be forced to endure *suffer martyrdom* b : to feel keenly : labor under *suffer thirst* 2 : UNDERGO, EXPERIENCE

Secondly to walk away from an addict does not make one uncompassionate. To walk away sends the message to the addict that “Society does not accept your criminal and destructive lifestyle.” This then forces the addict to make a decision. Does he continue on this path and eventually die with this addiction from starvation. Or does he change his life around and become a productive citizen.

Thirdly my specific scenario is not fiction. This happens everyday in the world.

Fourthly Once again, who is a drug addict a victim of? Who forced the drug addict to take drugs? Did someone put a gun to his or her head to make them shoot up? You all need to stop making excuses for those who have chosen their lot in life.

Fifthly Who is talking about drug laws. Is a person who steals a thief before or after the law is passed that makes stealing a crime? It is criminal for an individual to alter his state of mind and put others in possible danger. It has nothing to do with written law. A murderer is still a murderer irregardless of whether your law stipulates it or not.

Sixthly yes I am a Christian and yes I believe in eternal damnation.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: Mindonfire Fourthly Once again, who is a drug addict a victim of? Who forced the drug addict to take drugs? Did someone put a gun to his or her head to make them shoot up? You all need to stop making excuses for those who have chosen their lot in life.

You're saying he's a criminal, he's a filthy addict, there are no excuses to be made for what he chose to do to himself... but if we give him money and he overdoses, we're murderers. By your own admission, we "didn't put a gun to his head and make him shoot up, so you need to stop making excuses for those who have chosen their lot in life."

Sixthly yes I am a Christian and yes I believe in eternal damnation.

Here comes the Hell question, I just know it.