I understood you the first time. Your explanation is exactly what I believed you to mean. I fully understand your point, and it is a good one. So stay with me here because this is where the disconnect is:
You believe that people with great wealth and resources should be obligated to house and feed those with misfortune and circumstances that leave them destitute. I agree. So does Christ and decent Christian folk. We are still in the same page, no?
Now scale that out and up. You still with me? Or do arbitrary boundaries and nationalistic ideologies begin to weaken your simple and astute conviction that those with more should assist those with less? Where does that principle break down, for you?
I understood you the first time. Your explanation is exactly what I believed you to mean. I fully understand your point, and it is a good one. So stay with me here because this is where the disconnect is:
You believe that people with great wealth and resources should be obligated to house and feed those with misfortune and circumstances that leave them destitute. I agree. So does Christ and decent Christian folk. We are still in the same page, no?
Now scale that out and up. You still with me? Or do arbitrary boundaries and nationalistic ideologies begin to weaken your simple and astute conviction that those with more should assist those with less? Where does that principle break down, for you?