Originally posted here by |3lack|ce ah, hep-c... oops. ya got me on that one - but on the other hand and more to the topic, the (admittedly very few) folks I know who have hep-c didn't smell...
i've known three (but then again i don't know anybody with aids.) which isn't allot, but when they get near the end their breath and their body stink. the body's poisons try to come out threw the skin and lungs because the liver can no longer process it. First they smell like hot-dogs, then they smell like ****.
most who have it don't know it untill they have pain in their stomach and go to a doctor...too late. junkies know it right away, but usually die from aids first so they're pretty much out of the picture.
BTW: when someone is diagnoisd with Hep-c they ususlly lose their job no matter how they got it...(homeless)
March 9th, 2005, 04:23 PM
The reason churches bolt their doors these days is because people come in and destroy them. The last church I remember staying open around here was a catholic church down town. Then one night someone defecated on the virgin marry and then another night they completely destroyed her. The door is now locked at night. Too bad but what are the options? Show me a city library without a couple of shelters near bye? Maybe we should intall showers? :D I use my library constantly, they outloaw large backpacks and bedrolls. But they just toss em in the bushes, of which I don't care because they are reading stuff and learning.
March 9th, 2005, 04:50 PM
I realize that the reason why churches began to lock their doors is primarily to prevent vandalism...the seventies was a major turning phase for alot of things ( eg. remember what halloween was like before the razor blade and pin stories of the seventies? ), and don't even get me started on disco and seventies style...
but...we are talking about church ideology and religious responsiblity to live up to their creed...by christian theology there is no reason at all whatsoever to turn away the homeless from the shelter of the church...
if they don't like the responsibility then it's simple...if they're not willing to accept the responsibility of the code as laid down by Yeshua called Rabbi ( Jesus in Hebrew...and refered to as Rabbi, teacher ) then they should choose an easier religion that they can live up to and have more flexibility with...and stop calling itself a christian church.
As much as mormons and jw's annoy me and practically everyone else but themselves I give them credit for at least having the balls to practice what they preach...which is something mainstream churches haven't done for quite some time...if ever.
As Ignatius said: better for a man to keep his peace and just be, than to call himself a christian and be found not to be.
Early christians interpreted the bible very clearly in this respect that those calling themselves christians were responsible for not only their own behaviour but also the behaviour of those who copy said behaviour. Therefore it was imperative for your own salvation and those around you that you did not behave in such a way as would put christianity in a bad light...bringing shame upon the church and defaming the name of jesus. A christian was each the church and therefore was held responsible to uphold it's every morality even at the cost of death.
Despite what they preach today...the real doctrine of the christians is not an easy one...in fact it is one of the hardest and most demanding of religious doctrines...what they teach today has little to do with the thought of the early christians who followed their messiah's teachings as they were laid down to them. The path was very narrow and very hard.
March 9th, 2005, 07:35 PM
I don't place any responsibility on the church. It's up to them weather they wish to deal with the creatures of the night, or go home to bed. I don't think "the man" meant they were forced to stay open 24 hours. Besides the shelters are almost always christian organizations. The church is open, so to speak. Hmm in fact I can't think of any around here that aren't Christian based. I think they do a smack up job. In fact "the man" doesn't even stand for a temple, a place. Oops there I go interpreting. :D
People tend to lose the original message after 2000 years. Even among the other world religions and philosphies, there are open interpretations based on mans increasing knowledge and influence of others.
March 11th, 2005, 07:40 PM
For some reason "Stinky, stinky britches, you got them stinky britchaas!" Keeps circulating in my mind.
However for the topic at hand, the quoted librarian was right. What is considered bad smelling? Although out of context "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet " - but in this case instead of referring to "A suggestion that a thing is what it is, not what it is called", source (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/305250.html), the question here is what a librarian thinks reeks, may not to another person. Of course - there are some smells which could be on a general list of "Smelly smells you make/have that make me want to retch and throw you out." :rolleyes:
I can see it all now, a smell-o-meter that tests you when you come in with armed guards ready to toss you if the meter goes off. Or you are given a range of smells that can contribute to your overall stink/stank factor. The mind reels at the possibilities. :D
March 11th, 2005, 07:42 PM
I would seriously like to see such a device - but it should nail folks wearing too much stink-um (perfume, cologne, etc) too; they being as much an offense to the nose as those with severe body odor.