What responsibility do humans have toward one another?

Re: What responsibility do humans have toward one another?
neo:

Great topic.



I've never understood this insinuation because it makes an incredible assumption that I believe to be incorrect in most cases. (That pro-lifers have not spent efforts helping others...) Furthermore, as most pro abortionists believe that there is no human life present until birth, how can they consider hypocrisy when compared to those already born?



My family and I talk about this often. I am unsure if the Bible commands us to divest ourselves of all possessions. It does speak of greed and helping others (in Luke and maybe Acts).



Certainly we should teach. I do not feel it is an either/or situation, but both whenever possible.



Matthew 7:12 says it pretty well. There is also much in Proverbs, but I think you already knew that didn't you? :wink:

It is not sufficient merely to pray for them. Praying accomplishes nothing; in fact, recent studies have shown that those with heart disease are more likely to suffer complications if they know they are being prayed for.

If you want the world to change, you have to be willing to work for it. I have really strong feelings on this, so I apologize if I get a little dogmatic about it. This is why I hate Make-A-Wish; if they put the money they wasted on making these kids happy into research, some of those kids might still be alive today.

No responsibility-egoism takes care of everything. Want access to antibiotics if your stocks crap the bed and you get fired? Vote for higher taxes. Want people to be your buddies? Be nice to them. Want to fall asleep on a warm day relaxing next to your pool? Go to college and don't rob a liquor store.

You might say, what about people in a position I'll never be in again-like sentient fetuses, if such a thing exists? With 6-billion people in the world, suing for a separate peace is a losing strategy-if you can think a step ahead, you know you got to go with the flow a bit. It would be nice if keeping an overall strategy would work-but even if we could agree on one at a sovereign level, we'd still be soft-headed, like, euthanize the elderly, but give retarded kids a chance-have video poker machines and Kentucky Fried Chicken but no cock-fights.

The key to it working-not just being a squalid compromise is that dignity, even that of my enemies is commutable to me. Let my boss be an ass-kicker, if I'm as bad as I think I am I'll either get ahead of him and have a more meaningful victory or take off to another company and have had a better reason to do so. Let the fetuses get my tax money, cuz the little mistakes will rip theyz mommas a new one, and clean my toilets in 20 years. The important thing is not to get emotional and give of oneself nor to turn coat on oneself nor to do less than you can for yourself in favor of comfort-not to try to win for losing so to speak-because the self is to each and all his or her greatest asset. Buy the ticket-take the ride.

The Ten Commandments can be conveniently summarized in two simple groups --

Where are you? (In your relationship with God)
Where is your brother? (How well do you take care of your fellow man)

Cain flunked the test.

Interesting topic.

I've never agreed with giving away money to the poor - it just makes them dependent...and the result of dependancy, if you think about it, is that the person you are 'helping' becomes poorer still.

Nor have I ever agreed with giving away more than you can...that just makes you poor - ie one of the ones you are trying to help.

Even if you were inclined to give money to the poor - wouldn't it make more sense to invest the money you would otherwise give away, earning a return that you can then give away in perpetuity?

Now as to the poor, say in Africa...wouldnt it be better for charity organisations to, say, engage in concentrated economic building (so training people in an area in basic trade skills, building skills, teaching skills, admin skills, farming skills, crafts, manufacturing, and providing the infrustructure...ie a whole integrated network that would provide an environment where they could contribute to their own economic wellbeing) rather than handouts to all and sundry. So a charity/western country makes a single country in Africa a project (rather than the whole of Africa).

And of course there are our everyday interactions...we don't have a responsibility as such, but we do have within our own self interest, and our own concern for our fellow man, a need to be 'connected' to other people...and one way we can express this is through concern for others.

My stance right now is that we are responsible to respect others.

That's about it. The rest is gravy.

It's not so little when applied. It's enough. It's not easy.

Waitng for CI to step in here.

CI is traveling and will be gone for another week or so.

I noticed he had checked in here:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2946176#2946176

I was hoping he would come back.

Yeah, I just saw that....

As to our responsibility to each other, I think it falls under whatever version of the Golden Rule one chooses to follow. Each religion has its own version, but religion aside - each of us has the responsibility to be concerned about humanity and our planet.


Neither. Those are extremes on each end of a personal involvement spectrum. Each of us are in unique circumstances but unless one is infirmed and destitute, each of us has the capacity to give at some level. Some have time, some have possessions, some have both. There is no one-size-fits-all, but it falls to each of us to find a size that fits.


Sure, and for those who don't have time to teach someone to 'fish' they can support organizations such as Heifer International which does just that. Those who have varying amounts of time can volunteer for organizations such as Habitat for Humanity or other hands on organizations.

We can't just teach the able bodied to 'fish' without realizing a responsibility to the elderly and infirmed. Religious organizations tend to do a good job of this within their own congregations (and sometimes beyond), but those not affiliated with religious organizations can also look at ways to help.

I'm talking about Personal Responsibility above and beyond whatever humanitarian considerations are done by one's government agencies. The idea that one pays taxes and is satisfied with that is as insufficient (imo) as one who says a prayer and takes no further responsibility for the plight of others.

Before I became a painter, I thought I knew what painting was all about and quickly found myself to be lost in my new found occupation.

It was'nt easy for me to ask at times, though I had to in order to do the job right.

I asked one of the experienced painters a question regarding whether it was best to take one approach or another regarding spraying stain.

He said "I don't get paid enough to babysit you"!

Another gentlemen with even more experience and further along in his years said "don't worry about him...let me show you".

His wage was the same as the other.

I asked why he helped and he said "Someone had to show me this stuff too at one time and someone at one time gladly showed the guy who does'nt like to babysit."

It did'nt seem to bother him when another had to "babysit" him.

When speaking about giving our "possessions" most will first think of material possessions.

There are possessions we have been blessed with that far exceed the value of any material possessions.

Give what you can....for much has been given to you. Whether you realize it or not. It can be as simple as a hug...a smile...or a hello for some.

It could be your company for those who are lonely......

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach a man to fish and he eats every day.

I believe that it is our responsibility to assist others to help themselves. Otherwise they become dependent and will be unable or unwilling to help themselves and, therefore unwilling or uncapable of helping others.

A hand up is better than a hand out.

Our greatest responsiblity is to the planet the future generations (pro abortionists would limit the numbers of the future generations) will still have fresh water and food to eat.

Help is not always monetary. Time is also a meaningful way to help the less advantaged. No matter what our socio economic status is, there is always somebody worse off than we are.

Many are against the bible, but the bible is a great resource as to how we are to treat others.

Just a thought... Mother nature has tried for thousands and thousands of years to control population of us animals ( humans) to no avail. If you look at the rate of word population increase over the last 200 years and if you agree it'll increase at the same rate... Global warming should solve all our problems, in more ways than one.

it's been tainted by years of abuse, though. first of all, i don't think the bible is the very last word on the subject, but even though i think it would be good to continue studying it, the fact is that people bring it out just as frequently to excuse bringing harm as they do to advise bringing humanity. it may be a blessing, but a mixed one.

Not the fault of God or the bible. The fault is man's

Like it or not, humanity is a community. Few can exist as islands seperate unto themselves. The ones that can, I have no quarrel against. But, to have infrastructure and a quality of life, we must pull together. I have never advocated socialism or capitalism, exactly, but an amalgum of the two. Free enterprise with restrictions; no power unchecked. I believe the poorer segments of society should be helped to raise themselves up. Most only need a temporary boost, either in the form of education, such as trade schools, or some form of pointers in the right direction. A smaller fraction will need a form of monetary assistance for the long haul, but not unregulated or unrestricted. We have an obligation to end armed conflicts, the world over.

Nobly and eloquently stated, edgar.

i knew someone was going to make that point. actually fault is irrelevant to my point, the thing is, getting people to see the bible as a legitimate source of ideas is tricky these days.

even i don't agree with a lot of it, but i've been studying from different angles and seeing how much i can view in a light that isn't just a prescription for crusades.

you can make the point that the bible is perfect and man is not. okay, you can blame that on man and absolve god. but god is going to suffer as long as people fall short, and people are going to suffer as long as they're violently divided, and pointing out that it's not god's fault doesn't bring very much to the table. we were already aware that god professes to be perfect.

not that i mind you bringing it up, as i said, i knew someone would.

Very well stated, edgar.