I don't care what you think, but you still need to be told your stand is not a biblical one.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Cracker Barrel Fires 73-Year-Old Veteran Who Gave Food To 'Needy' Man
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
- Status
I don't care what you think, but you still need to be told your stand is not a biblical one.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I agree Jon. But this board is funny because the same folks who are saying that CTB is trying to justify stealing didn't have a problem with all the justifying they did of supporting a man who rejects Jesus Christ. Now naturally it'll be said those are not the same thing because of whatever reason.
But from my POV there is no difference in justifying stealing to meet a need than there is supporting a man who rejects Jesus Christ to meet a need.
People tend to "ends justify the means" when it meets their need. :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
No one, including my employer, is responsible for supplying me the means to care for the poor.
That is my responsibility.
That is my responsibility.
Not so. His intent was to feed a person he thought might be hungry and without money.
Why he did not go ahead and pay for the muffin himself I do not know.
Is there any situation where you would break a law?
The customer wasn't fired, the employee was.
So if you job was on the line you would do anything your employer ask you to do as long as it was legal or as long as it was a company rule?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
And you still need to be told that you're confused and ain't got a clue as to what you're talking about as I didn't speak to anything but CTB's character in the referenced post.
So what's unBiblical about giving CTB kudos for showing the love and compassion of Christ for the poor and needy?
In your world, should CHristians not be concerned about the poor and those in need?
Not so. I think there are laws that are immoral and should be opposed, even if opposing them cost a person their job.
If you job were on the line would you accept any rule to keep the job?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
No matter what CTB, God's blessings upon you and you continue to be concerned about the poor and those in need.:thumbsup:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
It is not an immoral rule to tell restaurant employees that they cannot give away food. It is a logical and sensible rule.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Is it immoral to lock the door of your home? After all, a hungry person might walk by while you are away or a benevolent citizen might want your food to feed the hungry.
I haven’t kept up….oh well, guess I’m out the humor. My…er….loss? :laugh:
Rather strange question C4K. But I'll answer anyway. It is prudent to lock the door most places in our country. However, if a hungry person knocked on my door I would, and have fed them.
I have bought food for people that I met while sitting at a sidewalk cafe and a homeless person ask for food. I would and will do it again if the situation presents itself. If I were low on funds I would give them from my own food.
Would you?
Not familiar with Godwin's law. I'll look it up. Ah, looked it up. No, not invoking Godwin's law. Simply showing that the defense of many Nazis and many Germans in general was "I was simply obeying the law."
There were those who opposed the laws and many paid with their life.
Should they have opposed the laws the considered immoral?
PS - You do realize that Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zaac
Well-Known Member
It is indeed if you have the means of doing so.
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Matt. 25:41-45
I see CTB is going to do his best to avoid calling what the vet did "stealing."
The sad part is, everyone here agrees with him about immoral laws; just not that disagreeing with an immoral law means you can act immorally yourself.
C4K has done the best at boiling the crux of the matter down to one sentence.
The sad part is, everyone here agrees with him about immoral laws; just not that disagreeing with an immoral law means you can act immorally yourself.
C4K has done the best at boiling the crux of the matter down to one sentence.
So in light if what this thread is about, was the vet right for taking his employer's food and giving it to the homeless?
You do not steal from one to give to another. You use your own means. The Vet should have paid for the meal himself. There is no justification for what the vet did.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Of course not. But like I said, I don't see any difference between what he did and what folks did during the election cycle.
The ends justifies the means seemed to be the rule of the day then, so why not now?
Why is it that an exception can be made about politics but we seem to be so hardline when it comes to an old man helping a hungry man?
THIS is how the church gets to be known for everything but love. We will support that which seemingly benefits us and our politics no matter what the compromise, but we become stiffnecked and unmoving when it's about someone else.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. Thanks.
- Status