Why do you think people are starving and have no clean water in places? (believers, Adam)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, why don't we get to the bottom of this issue? Get it all out...the spiritual ideas, the intellectual ideas. The atheist ideas and the believer's ideas....cuz does anyone really know? I dunno. We all might learn something and open to new thoughts! "The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open."
At the bottom of this issue, at least in the US, is that eliminating hunger and ensuring clean water for everyone is the function of government. And the necessary existence of government is under attack by some very self serving individuals.
At the bottom of this issue, at least in the US, is that eliminating hunger and ensuring clean water for everyone is the function of government. And the necessary existence of government is under attack by some very self serving individuals.
There's a huge difference between clean water and adequate water and many, many people in the US do not have 'safe' drinking water (yes, I can provide links)
In almost any circumstance "you" can provide, it has little to do with 'nature' but almost always the governing controls of the specific area
I think the phrase is "Follow the money'
And trying to place blame on any religious or non-religious group is a fool's effort
There's a huge difference between clean water and adequate water and many, many people in the US do not have 'safe' drinking water (yes, I can provide links)
In almost any circumstance "you" can provide, it has little to do with 'nature' but almost always the governing controls of the specific area
I think the phrase is "Follow the money'
And trying to place blame on any religious or non-religious group is a fool's effort
This is not necessarily a religious question. Necessarily. It's a question of those who favor less governmental restrictions. Which happens to be largely a right wing conservative position. Which coincidentally also happens to largely be a conservative Christian position.
Feeding people isn't a primary government responsibility
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
At the bottom of this issue, at least in the US, is that eliminating hunger and ensuring clean water for everyone is the function of government. And the necessary existence of government is under attack by some very self serving individuals.
I'm not sure that eliminating hunger is a government function. The US had moved to a commodity foods program (guaranteeing minimum floor prices - to finagle our way out of the Great Depression agricultural production collapse), & as a result, government stockpiled cheese, peanut butter, canned chicken, powdered milk, lard (?), flour, & some other basic food items. However, the price of stockpiling, transporting, storing, distributing the food to families who qualified for the aid were prohibitive. That has mostly switched to electronic funds transfer cards, I believe, & mostly got the federal government out of the commodity foods program business. I can see federal government inspecting foodstuffs, to make sure they're wholesome, nutritious, unadulterated, as advertised. US government still takes an interest in nutrition, especially for K-12 students, pregnant women (WIC), TANF, SNAP - but note that that interest is supplemental to helping ensure healthy kids & mothers & babies, not a general interest in feeding everyone.
The Clean Air & Clean Water Acts make more sense - they were established to enforce standards for clean air & water - which is beyond the testing capability of most families in the US. (Although clean water was a concern in the US back in the late 1940s - the farming connection?)
That's the US - countries with more socialist orientations would have an easier time justifying feeding everyone a minimum nutritious diet, for instance.
I'm not sure that eliminating hunger is a government function. The US had moved to a commodity foods program (guaranteeing minimum floor prices - to finagle our way out of the Great Depression agricultural production collapse), & as a result, government stockpiled cheese, peanut butter, canned chicken, powdered milk, lard (?), flour, & some other basic food items. However, the price of stockpiling, transporting, storing, distributing the food to families who qualified for the aid were prohibitive. That has mostly switched to electronic funds transfer cards, I believe, & mostly got the federal government out of the commodity foods program business. I can see federal government inspecting foodstuffs, to make sure they're wholesome, nutritious, unadulterated, as advertised. US government still takes an interest in nutrition, especially for K-12 students, pregnant women (WIC), TANF, SNAP - but note that that interest is supplemental to helping ensure healthy kids & mothers & babies, not a general interest in feeding everyone.
The Clean Air & Clean Water Acts make more sense - they were established to enforce standards for clean air & water - which is beyond the testing capability of most families in the US. (Although clean water was a concern in the US back in the late 1940s - the farming connection?)
That's the US - countries with more socialist orientations would have an easier time justifying feeding everyone a minimum nutritious diet, for instance.
Without government intervention this is what we end up with.
It's a tall price to pay for the unilateral rejection of all things smacking of socialism. Sometimes it's better to embrace what directly works.
Direct government intervention is a hard sell in the US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Without government intervention this is what we end up with.
It's a tall price to pay for the unilateral rejection of all things smacking of socialism. Sometimes it's better to embrace what directly works.
The closest I recall of direct US intervention in hunger issues @ home is rationing during the Great Depression & WWII. There were also food lines, CCC work projects, Victory Gardens, various recycling efforts, restrictions on non-war related production. But that wasn't, as I recall, the government directly trying to feed everyone individually.
I think a lot of customary arrangements were upended, to make sure that war production met or exceeded quota & quality standards. So there was a lot of pragmatic tinkering with the various economic & social/political systems - but it was done quietly, with no fanfare whatsoever - & it was recognized as a necessity in time of war; it was never held up as the forerunner of things to come once the war was over & we demobilized again.
The only other comparable case I can recall offhand would be rebuilding the South's economy after the Civil War - & the Northern economy was producing to beat the band - food, manufactured goods, clothing, cloth, leather goods, machinery. The problem in the South was - I imagine - getting the soil back into productive use. That was more of a finance issue - & later, a political issue, as Jim Crow laws began to be passed. & the social structure of the South was remade again, up until the 1960s.
Calling someone an idiot doesn't make you seem intelligent.
WEll let's see shall we.
Quote:
It is not the universe's job to make sure people get enough rain wherever they happen to decide to live, and no matter how over-populated they are.
Saying things like this is why I think you are an idiot. Do you really think, even in your wildest dreams that people that are starving and dying of thirst in these places 'choose' to live where they do? Do you really think, even in your wildest dreams that these people could simply pack their belonging into a van and move to some place where there is food and water, contact a realtor, buy a house in some other part of Africa and catch a plane to a new life perhaps?
Now do you see why you come across as an idiot?
As for overpopulation. You can place most of the blame for that on the Church for forbidding the use of contraception.
No...not quite so Simples.
There IS a God: ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (ALL/The Universe). It possess all the attributes known to define a God Entity...and, thus, merits the title "God".
Humans are part of that which comprises God. And are thus to "blame" and may feel "guilty" to whatever degree they feel it for not helping the starving to the reasonable degree they may be able.
Some have great ability to influence how "the ebb and flow of life" goes for the desperately less fortunate...and there is a "rhyme and reason" to how they handle that.
You can call it 'god', if you like.
You can also just call it 'the universe' or put any name to it you like.
The does not mean there is any conscious force behind any of it or that we are beholden to any of it.
For millennia, before people formed into societies, before government, before the advent of television/radio/media etc you'd never have even known about the starving masses, apart from those who lived in your own backyard. As human beings we have only had this awareness very recently.
Before that, billions of people over millennia died through natural disaster, through starvation, through disease, through accident, through disability, through natural selection and so on.
It's the force of nature and it's the circle of life. We are responsible for none of that.
In contemporary society, as an individual, you can help out a few starving people if you like, as far as you can, meanwhile millions / billions of others will go hungry regardless. You can scratch the surface but almost all of it is out of your control. There is no reason to feel guilty about that which you cannot control.
In the modern age Big government CAN take some responsibility for human-caused starvation and for climate change. In that case you can make a change by voting the right way. You influence though, is still infinitesimal, unless the masses do the same.
You can call it 'god', if you like.
You can also just call it 'the universe' or put any name to it you like. The does not mean there is any conscious force behind any of it or
that we are beholden to any of it.
.
You are correct, it does not mean there is any conscious force behind any of it...
But, I will tell you and others here can tell you...when you experience a
consciousness in everything...
you will have your socks blown off!
Many of us did nor become believers because of any 'blind faith'......we done got zapped.
And no one is an idiot for not having this experience.
There is truly something wrong when there are groups of people that do not have enough water to drink or enough to food to live on...Jesus made enough food to feed 5000 people once... surely he would have no problem doing the same thing again in our times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.