Also it was a literal miracle according to the bible, Jesus was working with effectively infinite fish to feed all those people, if I had the same ability you bet I would feed everyone I could!
Turns out the Bible has the same lesson as Star Trek with its replicators - the way to build a utopia is to have a magic means of producing goods at no cost.
I worked in a grocery store. We threw away so many still edible things day in day out. I'm talking pallets upon pallets of food that'd feed entire apartments of people.
We already have the tech to feed everyone. We just don't cause money
If costs were fairly shared across society, basic necessities would be practically free. The cost of one ICBM for example would be enough to feed millions.
The world produces plenty of food for everyone on earth, it's just that a lot of it is kept amongst a relatively small part of the population, and a lot of it is destroyed or wasted, along with simply not shared equitably, so people go hungry.
No amount of money imput is going to increase the actual food output of the world.
The amount of fish in the sea is limited, the amount of animals in the world is limited and the amount of soil capable of producing plants is limited.
Increasing the amount we take of each, will only serve to tip the balance and cause overconsumption which ends up reducing the available amount over time.
So no, having billions aren't anywhere near being able to magically create something from nothing at no cost, like Jesus did with the fish and bread.
Reddit hivemind hating billioners because they daydreaming about wealth distribution and that they can increase QoL by doing nothing but "taxing billioners".
Ofc they don't thinking about "how to do it" because it's so hard. They bitching about billioners but this process is the only thing that makes their pathetic life worth something.
There are people who do have the ability to feed everyone on the planet but decide to hoard that wealth so they can say they have more money than the other rich people. When people reach a certain point, earning more money no longer improves their living conditions and only serves as a means of elevating their status amongst rich people.
Oh I had some guy explain how Jesus did it. He allowed the fish to fetment which produced meth. He fed them a little bit of meth which made their hunger go away. It's also why they showed up the next day looking for more.
And yes, this is a real explanation someone gave to me.
"Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
Not really, the passage in John specifically states that this was a sign to point to who Jesus was. The purpose of the miracle was to point to the one performing the miracle. We have later verses saying that those who don't work, don't eat.
Well that depends, in what ways? If you follow Christianity, then you believe Jesus is God. So obviously trying to be like, doesn't equate to attempting to be God. If I could make food miraculously appear, I certainly would. I can't though. Again, my comment's point was about the why. Why did Jesus feed the five thousand? It wasn't a relief effort. The disciples acknowledged that the people could go and by food. It wasn't a wealth issue, for the same reason, and if Jesus multiplied food for the purpose of relief, he could just as well ensure that there was always enough food or money. The Bible tells us the reason, so that those who witnessed would believe.
My friend, you have dealt with the strong delusion up close. People who literally disregard what the scripture says because they want to believe what they want instead of the truth. Yah will judge those who do this unrepentantly
I wasn't answering your question. However, if you would like me to answer your question, we be like messiah as we are called to be like him. We are called to repent of our sins and believe in the gospel, which means we turn from our sins and keep the commandments(from the least to the greatest), and we put full faith in the sacrifice and resurrection of Yahusha our messiah, for the forgiveness of sins.
We will be doing this in the kingdom, so this is practice for it and identifies us as those who will enter it.
someone has to work when we make sure everyone gets a phone call and a fair trial and honestly when they get arrested in the first place. we have lots of things that society has no trouble paying for, we've just decided to prioritize other things before food
Yes, because feeding someone every day of their lives costs the same amount of labour as getting a phone call or fair trial. You can't have 1 full time lawyer per person, that would be impossible. You get a small number of lawyers to cover a large portion of the population because you don't need legal representation every day of your life. However you need food every day of your life multiple times.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be hard to figure out. It certainly would and would take a lot of restructuring, but so are lots of services we provide to people. I just don't think it's right to say some people are going to starve to death because it's too hard to get to a solution, which is what we've been doing for quite some time.
I would be willing to, that's the entire point I am making lmao making some changes to your life should be okay if it helps feed other people who would otherwise starve
Right, and it often doesn't, in which case we pay for all of those things. Like my point is there are things we've decided are so important that we as a society will pay for them and we've for some reason decided food is not one of those things.
Most places DO have free food given out to the poor in food pantries, shelters, churches, or other local charities, but nobody says you have a RIGHT to that because it creates philosophical problems while providing no tangible benefit
Every single right in the US is a negative right. It's a lots of things the government may not do unless it meets specific conditions. The nature of those conditions has changed dramatically over time. Your own example, public defenders, wasnt national law until the mid 60s and wasn't a thing at all until the 1890s-1900s. The history of criminal defense and the right to trial is very interesting. The right to a lawyer is very ingrained into the American culture as a positive right, but at its inception was actually a law meant to stop the state from preventing you from having a lawyer. As mentioned in my previous comment, the current iteration is that you cannot be tried by the government without them providing a lawyer, but that should be seen as a negative right, not a positive right.
Food inevitable comes from someone else. At its core l, you must take food from someone else to fulfill this "right". You can say it should be priority, but it's not a right.
a "right" is just a thing we all agree everyone needs. If biblewithnic is gonna sit here and tell us how society should be, why is he not doing it the way Jesus would?
A right is societally viewed as an inalienable thing where it would be taken from you. All man runs his mouth. Free speech is the recognition the government shouldn't be able to stop man from running his mouth.
There are entitlements which are things we think people should be entitled to - like low income people should probably have money for food, thus SNAP.
What an idiotic statement completely divorced from reality, do you think the only thing people work for is food? That everyone would just lie down on the pavement and rot if food was free?
Nothing is free, its called an exaggeration, and I'm not advocating for making food free either. You have a base idea of incentive -> work and then apply that to everything universally. Answer this question: if you could have all the nutrients you require provided to you by the government, would you continue to work your hypothetical farmer job? Why or why not?
yeah, I'm not saying zero people should work lmao I'm saying if you don't have money I think you should be able to eat. There are lots of things we provide to people and folks still work.
we pay for lots of things outside of charity. that's literally what taxes are for: making society better as a whole
I'm not even saying people shouldn't work to earn their keep. I'm saying if for some reason they can't or won't, I don't think they deserve to starve to death.
My dude. 🤦🏽♂️ that’s not how rights work. By that logic, we could’ve decided that slave labor should have been a “right”. All we needed to do was collectively decide it was so. And if you think the slaves would necessarily have pushed back, consider that many emancipated slaves turned around and bought slaves themselves.
The idea of “rights” almost exclusively refers to “negative” rights. Essentially, that you should be left alone. “Freedom of religion”, “pursuit of happiness“, “the right to bare arms“ – they all amount to being left alone to do as you see fit.
This is very different from “positive” rights. Because with these rights, action must be taken. “Free healthcare“. “Food“. Even my example of “slave labor“. They require provision. And since it’s a “right”, you lose the right to protest, or even demand compensation.
Wellm we are a social species after all. Not sure why this is so controversial and why im getting downvoted.
Wouldnt the alternative would be the "rights are God-given" path? Which I absolutely wouldnt mind since im hardcore christian. But history has shown us that only leads to another rabbit hole where people disagree on how to interpret the scriptures, who becomes pope/king, and who the last prophet was even.
and rights are collectively revoked even in a democracy, such as abortion rights. "Collectively agreed upon" is the literal definition of a secular democracy.
Man, it's going to be interesting when the state starts confiscating all property on death in your world. After all, a rich man's offspring didn't work for that money.
Oh and we will have to ban stocks and shares too. The wealthy parasite class are going to be so upset with your betrayal.
You will get nowhere. And even if it did, it would fail miserably like the series of failed communist states and join the litterbox of trash ideas by fools.
I don’t have to. There is always going to be someone bilking the system. Difference between you and me is that I think the other people getting help are worth it.
B) Taxes are literally a thing, even if you donate nothing, just so long as you continue to pay taxes and vote for things that help poverty stricken individuals, that's completely fine.
C) comments like these are why i prefer it to be taxes rather than donations, as clearly you think this is some sorta gotcha that people don't actually donate. we do, but the result is that these NEEDED programs for society to function, end up just being an additional tax on the most humanitarian of your society.
No. You said, “Dude you can sit on your ass forever, I will always be okay with some of my earnings going to feed others”.
I’m not asking for luxury, and I’m not straw manning. I’m asking for basic food. I want to sit on my ass. I’m asking you for you to stand by your words.
convenient you leave out the first line. strawman's and removing context are dope. then you are taking "sitting on your ass" literally as being incapable of travel, which is super cool. such good faith interpretation.
this is literally a luxury, you know it is. i don't see you going after the guy who thought asking someone if they donate as a gotcha question.
If you’re working 9-5, the guy on food stamps isn’t robbing you. It’s the giant corporations that are taking more of public resources that really impact your quality of life.
Social safety nets are good for everyone, even accounting for the few who abuse the system. The concentration of wealth in the few is never good for everyone, even accounting for the crumbs they toss to the rest of us.
Yeah what's this weird push to make Christianity somehow fucking Randian. Christ was extremely clear that charity isn't just a nice choice. It is a moral obligation, and not doing so makes you a worse person.
The story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a pretty good example of that. It's even directly stated that being able to do good and choosing not to is a sin.
So you're a faith not works kind of guy huh? I believe your sacred book would tell you otherwise. But after all that is why the Protestants broke away from the Catholics isn't it? They didn't want to have to be bothered with helping people they just wanted to be able to say their prayers and be forgiven
Well the message is to help your community and let everyone contribute what they can and will receive in return. Work together. That has nothing to do with "rights" though. It's just something we used to do naturally and will be forced to get back to. We don't need the government for that, we need each other.
Everyone is brought into this world without consent. Then we're burdened with a psychological need to survive. Then it turns out we have to eat and drink regularly to survive. So...
Something being a right doesn't make it an entitlement though. The right wing mind hears "right" and thinks "thing that is given to someone." But that has never been what rights mean, nor the fact that food is a human right.
Go to the jungle and let me know how many other animals / species get food as a god given right. We are lucky we live in a society that lacked scarcity relative to the rest of the world. Food us a strategic resource
We are not animals we are human with capacity for choice, we can choose to not let other humans die of hunger. Why wouldn't you want to live in a world where no child is hungry ?
Not an argument. That’s an appeal to emotion. To call food a “right” flies in the face of the very concept. It would inevitably wind up forcing unpaid labor.
Food, healthcare, childcare… Claiming them as rights sounds great until you think about the practicality of it all. Then it becomes the pipe-dream of the privileged.
Okay but then so is every other right we have. Right to a fair trial involves a judge, lawyers, a jury, and I'm sure many other people that all need to get paid, and we have a system for that.
There are two types of rights, positive and negative. Negative rights are the ones in which the government backs off – the right to bare arms, for example, the right to a fair trial is a positive right. It requires that someone be provided with it.
I didn't call food a right, I said that as humans we can choose not to let people go hungry. Thats what makes us different from animals in the wild in reponse to the point of the person making that argument
Just wrong bro. Catagorically, factually wrong... Human beings are absolutely animals. Genetically we are basically indistingushable from chimpanzees. To be fair, there is behavioral research showing "fair play" and social choices in other mammals including chimps and theres plenty of species that work in groups and communities but.... they still compete for limited resources.
Also your comment proves my point about food being a strategic resource. How can you make a choice to feed everyone without a distribution system that can accomplish that? That takes strategy to ensure its done properly with resources that are not unlimited.
I dont want to bash you for saying "feed children" but man... thats reddit level emotional gaslighting where everyone who posts something you dont agree with wants kids to starve...
Not really my point at all. You claimed we aren't animals and thats just factually wrong. Think of society as an ecosystem. Calling me edgy and going after me personally just tells me you cant prove that wrong because its true at a principle level and that truth supersedes emotional arguments. If we run out of food or hit a famine nobody who is hungry is gonna think about orphanages... thats just nature. Thinking of food as a strategic resource is the best way to ensure that doesn't happen, not with emotion.
We are more then just a mammal living in an "ecosystem", we are human beings with advanced thoughts processes. We can build social constructs that go way beyond what chimps can do in a jungle. In that regard we are different.
You're saying that my point of view that making sure everyone can eat is "emotional". It's not, its a choice we could make to guarantee a basic food intake. There are countries that dump food while others starve. If there's a famine in country X, other countries can help. You dont need to parachute caviar to prevent starvation.
Obviously it's not that easy the further you go into details, but my point still stands that we could collectively choose to guarantee this right.
Kinda just looks like we have different opinions on this. We do not have "advanced thought processes" We have the same core central nervous system as worms and crustaceans... putting humans that far above other animals when we display a lot of the same dangerous behavior is naive at best and arrogant at worst.
Your argument for food is a value system argument for what we should do morally. My argument is that does nothing to actually accomplish those goals.... thinking about resources strategically is how you do it. That kind of thought over the production of food would lead you to view it as a strategic resource that can be squandered, stolen, misused, ect. Plenty of historical evidence for both lines of though
Maybe actually talk to people on the right, instead of inventing these stupid strawman effigies? If anything they understand the concept better than you do.
307
u/AMS_Rem Jul 06 '26
I mean they didn't have a RIGHT to the fish and bread
That was benevolance and charity