If I have this right, in Orlando you can only be a Christian and feed

the homeless in the same park two days a week. the other days, these people who apparently chose to be homeless and jobless have to go even hungrier...
Fuck you, Orlando Fl. If there ever was a sign of the second coming, your ordianace would be one of them.

Can you help them each day then? Or do just Christians help the poor in Florida?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which, to pretty much anyone reading it, implies that it would only be Christians that help feed the homeless, and, somehow, this is MY problem. You might want to make your wording a little more clear if you meant what you just posted in reply to me.

But as rustydog said, he obviously hit your button, so you couldn't consider what was being said.

"He who loves money shall never have enough. The foolishness of thinking that wealth brings happiness! Eccl. 5:10"
http://eclecticsite.com/financialverses.html

"There is desirable treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise, but a foolish man squanders all he has. Prov. 21:20"
http://eclecticsite.com/financialverses.html

"The plans of the diligent lead surely to advantage, but everyone who is hasty comes surely to poverty. Prov. 21:5"
http://eclecticsite.com/financialverses.html

From the same link:
=========================================================================
Take heed and beware of greed, for one's life does not consist of the abundance of things he possesses. Luke 12:15

He who loves money will not be satisfied with money; nor he who loves abundance with increase. This is also foolishness! Eccl. 5:10

You ask and do not receive because you ask amiss that you may spend it on your pleasure. James 4:3

A faithful man will abound with blessings, but he who makes haste to be rich will not go unpunished. Prov. 28:20

Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself said, "I will never leave you or forsake you." Hebrews 13:5

Better is a little with righteousness than vast revenues without justice. Prov. 16:8

Having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. 1 Tim. 6:8
==============================================================================

So it's a bad thing to accumulate wealth but it's a bad thing to be pissed off because some jerk has wealth (do not be "covetous"). If you have food and clothing then you should just shut up.

It looks like some of the authors of the bible were sitting on a little nest egg, while others were the true followers of Jesus.

"in Orlando you can only be a Christian and feed homeless in the same park two days a week."

My response indicates that the wording of that does not exclude atheists from feeding the homeless more often. Please explain how the wording of the OP indicates anything differently. Because it doesn't. And the subtext, I would argue from the wording, is that only Christians feed the homeless. NOW, if the intent was to talk about hypocrisy, then perhaps some use of that word or indication of that concept might have been good to include. But what do I know; I'm just an English teacher.

The assumption is that people are doing the "Christian" thing by feeding... so you can't even be a good Christian is the natural follow...

We all need to take exception and find insults every now and then... even imaginary ones will do if no others are available. :P

and explain it to me then.

Please read again.

But here goes:

"You" is the noun phrase/subject.
"can only" is the first part of the predicate. The coordinating conjunction "and" is connecting two additional portions of the predicate.
"be a Christian" is the first and
"feed the homeless" is the second (the rest of the sentence doesn't matter to this discussion).

The use of the coordinating conjunction indicates that "be a Christian" and "feed the homeless" are on equal standing and importance and function in the sentence. That does NOT indicate any level of hypocrisy (as the OP tried to say was the intent) or some level of "true Christian" as you indicated.

Great lenghths to go for nothing.

I edit and proof as part of my job... and I don't push hard rules on myself here at all. I bet few do.

That said, I understood it at first read.

That took me about 1 minute. If you edit, you know it goes that quickly. I teach 150 kids a semester and help them with an average of about 6-8 papers a semester. I can break down sentences pretty quickly.

To even go there is the great lengths... far too far and unnecessarily so.

Amid claims that the OP was clear and did not say what I indicated, I'm not sure why a 60-second analysis (including typing) is going too far.

That it didn't need all this.

My question was also "are non-Christians allowed to feed the homeless more often, or not at all"?

See, the thing is, Goblinmonger and I don't think unconsciously that feeding the homeless is limited to being a Christian. So we don't see the restriction on feeding the homeless as a religious restriction. When we see 'be a Christian' in a title, we actually take that to be part of the actual story, rather than the assumed worldview of the writer. It was only when I got to reply #4 that I saw that some Christians were taking this as a restriction on themselves, rather than an attack by the authorities on the homeless.

Seriously, this is more telling of reading comprehension than it is of writing skill or the lack thereof.

You tell me that my grammar analysis was "too much" but then you dish out this BS. So, editor and proofer, address what I had to say and show me where I was wrong. And if you SERIOUSLY do proofing and editing for a living, tell me that the OP is 1. well written and 2. gets the point across that they want clearly. And do that with a straight face. Because the OP is unclear at best and a trainwreck at worst.

The coordinating conjunction indicates that "being Christian" and "feeding the homeless" are on equal footing and function. Please indicate how that is not the case grammatically.

That you didn't get it is more telling of you than anything else. That you continue to beat a dead horse is telling further still... that I've made myself a promise to put you on ignore the next time I see you splitting ridiculous hairs like this is the final act of mental rebellion.

And that someone calls a discussion of wording and grammar "splitting ridiculous hairs" puts a little bit of a damper on how much you actually are involved in the editing and proofing biz. Nobody who teaches writing or edits for a living would just let that sentence pass. Sorry, they just wouldn't.

I let it go all the time... ALL the time. This is a discussion board consisting of the public at large... if I were to correct every error I've seen, that's all I'd do. And I don't feel the need to convince you of anything, nor do I think you add value to the discussion.

I also make plenty of simple grammatical errors, too, because I am often posting during my prep or while grading and don't stop to edit/proof what I am writing. But as I read the OP, it struck me in a very specific way. I didn't go to the grammar until after you and others made claims that the sentence was fine and clear. I asked a question giving the OP a chance to clarify their position in the OP. You will notice that the jerkish response to me was deleted and not my questioning of the OP. I asked for clarification. YOU (the great editor and proofer) made the claim that the sentence was fantastic and clear to which I responded with the more in-depth grammatical analysis. But yes, please conflate my point about how the OP is unclear with people using the wrong "your" or some other minor error. You and I have been on enough threads that you know I am not the grammar nazi patrol on DU.

was the intent. A well-written sentence would have been obvious to all reasonably competent English readers...this one wasn't as we easily see from the responses.

"you can only be a Christian and feed", which you see before the rest, sets up an expectation that something is limited to Christians only. I was expecting something like a ruling that a Muslim charity was not allowed to feed the hungry, while a Christian one was to be allowed to continue. And again, the words in the title are emphasised - so 'Christian' seems to be more prominent in the story than 'homeless'. So many of us took 'Christian' to be a part of the story, rather than being a throwaway indicator of the thread starter's mindset. The restriction to 2 days a week indicated something else was going on, but, unless you approach it with the assumption that 'being a Christian' and 'feeding the homeless' are connected, it's confusing.

And I am no slouch.

"in Orlando you can only be a Christian and feed the homeless in the same park two days a week."

Why is the Christian part in there? Is that the OP's viewpoint of Christianity or part of this ordinance? Knowing nothing of Orlando, I'm not sure how it is supposed to be read. I really would never think the former, because I don't think that it has anything to do with being a Christian, only a good person.

NOT to ask for proof someone was REALLY needy or just lazy... if someone is lazy, they have a need too, and it seems to me that being treated well by someone out of love has a chance to influence the lazy too.

I'm sick of all these asshats using the Lord's name in vain.

I have Fundy cousins who do the same shit... sickening.

I had no problems with it at a discussion/debate level and can handle myself just fine.