It is said that we should look after one another, that we should treat people the way in which we would be treated, that we should do unto others...
But most people do not practice this philosophy.
Most people are only here to get what they can for themselves.
But is this being selfish?
Can a man give when he has nothing to give?
Or should a man give from his substance and not only from his abundance?
It is said that where much is given, much is expected.
But should we expect less from those who have less?
Should we even expect those who have nothing (Which is almost an impossibility in modern America) to contribute nothing to society, their families or even themselves?
Should we expect those with nothing to seek a higher goal than that of being consumers of goods which they cannot really afford?
Should we expect those with nothing to even comprehend the value of helping others?
Is virtue to be valued by those in the upper classes alone?
Is doing good for others something that is reserved only for those from the upper classes - or are those from the upper classes members of the upper classes because they practice doing good for others as a way of life?
We should do what the government does and that's assume no one is going help anyone. They build institutions and take tax money to promote the general welfare.
ReplyDeleteDoing good by the upper class is a tax write off. Corporations giving computers to Harlem gives them free publicity and at the same time is a tax write off.
Only people who come from a place of needing help truly understand what help can do for others. Otherwise it's called pity disguised as charity.
Everyone has something to give no matter the class. It's just those who are trying to survive do not have the free time or disposable income to make helping another priority.
Poor people help each other all the time but it's not called charity it's just called life. As I grew up giving away my old clothes to another family so they didn't have to buy new school clothes. I did this with just about everything I had from toys, to dishes, to BBQ pits, to irons, to furniture. I was a surrogate brother to countless kids, I was a make shift mechanic if someone car broke down, I was a taxi to people's mother if they needed it, sh*t my mother made me give my friends mother MY CAR when her's broke down so she could go to work.
So virtue isn't a luxury it's just we expect those with a lot to give it because they have the resources and we discount what the poor do everyday for their self and see it as petty because we don't see their situation improving.
So the story in the Bible of one giving from his substance and not just from his abundance being more just is valid?
ReplyDeleteI'm just having trouble right now getting many of the people I've helped to help other people.
These people are not poor - they just choose to spend their time and money on newer luxury goods instead of helping those who ARE where they WERE.
People always tell me that I'm dumb to help people for free - unless it is them who needs the help.
Most days, I'm just disgusted with most of the people I run in to.
The Bible is assortment of stories that over time have come to be made like they are truth. So although it's a guideline it's not valid...
ReplyDeleteWelp UBJ help the kids as they benefit no matter what you do. I stay away from adults because they know enough to help but choose not to. Some people are stubborn and you'll have to let them fall to really appreciate the value of giving and helping. But, even then they will recover and go back to their old ways. So why even worry about them just help their kids as the parents already lived their life and ended up there.
I don't think your dumb but you are looking for fruit from a barren tract of land.
If results are what you're looking for the kids will manifest the knowledge a hell of a lot faster. A kid believes what he's told an adult thinks if it will work for them. Hey you can't teach a old dog new tricks so you take their puppies and turn them into fox hounds!
Let the old people die off.