The core point that is sound is that if we all spent that money on someone other than ourselves, we could make a major impact. So as you suggest, I'm going to think and pray about what I'm going to do about it.
The part that bugs me is in the details. "If our country wanted to, it could eliminate world hunger this year simply by reducing this “economic stimulus package” from $150 billion to $137 billion." I don't know if she really believes that or if she's just using a rhetorical device, but you can't eliminate world hunger until you eliminate or pacify the despotic governments that create and encourage it. She makes it sound like we do nothing to end poverty, when in fact we already put billions into foreign aid. Some of it makes a difference. Some of it doesn't. Some countries turn away humanitarian aid groups at the border (Such as the disgusting case of Mbeki and antiretrovirals in S. Africa).
Again, maybe I'm overanalyzing when the real point is that a individual and nation centering its mind on helping those God loves instead of acquiring more stuff is far closer to what Jesus would do.
And, to be fair, it wasn't Heather that wrote the article, it was Greg Coates -- Heather just posted it.
But organizations like The Hunger Site are "on the ground" in places, providing food to people without government assistance. I think Greg's point is that we need to think about what we do with the refund we're being given. No, I won't buy a Wii (though I'd really like to have one) -- instead, if I give my money to a relief organization, I can end hunger for a few people. A nickel will keep a child alive in Africa for one more day. $600 is a lot of nickels!
6 comments:
Some of the hostile overtones irritate me, and the logic is simplistic.
But... the core of the point is sound.
I'd like to elaborate.
The core point that is sound is that if we all spent that money on someone other than ourselves, we could make a major impact. So as you suggest, I'm going to think and pray about what I'm going to do about it.
The part that bugs me is in the details. "If our country wanted to, it could eliminate world hunger this year simply by reducing this “economic stimulus package” from $150 billion to $137 billion." I don't know if she really believes that or if she's just using a rhetorical device, but you can't eliminate world hunger until you eliminate or pacify the despotic governments that create and encourage it. She makes it sound like we do nothing to end poverty, when in fact we already put billions into foreign aid. Some of it makes a difference. Some of it doesn't. Some countries turn away humanitarian aid groups at the border (Such as the disgusting case of Mbeki and antiretrovirals in S. Africa).
Again, maybe I'm overanalyzing when the real point is that a individual and nation centering its mind on helping those God loves instead of acquiring more stuff is far closer to what Jesus would do.
And, to be fair, it wasn't Heather that wrote the article, it was Greg Coates -- Heather just posted it.
But organizations like The Hunger Site are "on the ground" in places, providing food to people without government assistance. I think Greg's point is that we need to think about what we do with the refund we're being given. No, I won't buy a Wii (though I'd really like to have one) -- instead, if I give my money to a relief organization, I can end hunger for a few people. A nickel will keep a child alive in Africa for one more day. $600 is a lot of nickels!
Agreed. I need to think long and hard about where mine will go. But it won't be a new Intel processor. :)
And I'm really glad it wasn't Heather who wrote it, because I don't want to dis your friend.
Greg and I went to college together.
Okay Erin - can't get connected to it. Can you email me the link?
Peace and Hugs,
Becca
Post a Comment