Truly Living Like Jesus?

[Yvonne]

I went away and thought about this question all day today. Several thoughts...

 

I think the problem of poverty is so very overwhelming that most people think their donation won't make a difference, so why bother. That's what I THINK, whether that's completely true or not, well...The other thing is, no matter how many "children" are financially "adopted" through charitable organizations, the problem never seems to go away - again, IMO some people might think their donations won't make a difference. I also think that as a culture (in the US anyway, I can't speak for other cultures), we've become desensitized by the pictures of poor children on ads. And, which charity gets the money? Does it go to a charity that will help end AIDS in Africa, or go build better water systems, or to educate, or to feed, or any other myriad worthy charities? As I said, I give what I can, but there's only so much to give, and so many desparate causes to which to give the money. Lastly, how are to know how much who gives to whom?

[JenellYB]

Maybe it is a question of power. Perhaps what schindler was confronting wasn't compassion, or just compassion, but his feeling of failing a test of his power? He held that choice, to choose pardon, and didn't? The Emporor was 'justified' in having the thief killed. Schindler was 'justified', but the condtions in Germany, to do as most did, don't get involved, don't risk trouble, don't give away the "power" of all you wealth, to save people seen as worthless....in the end, as he looked around at what he still had, and at the people he had saved,he was realizing he had placed others he had not saved as worth less than the material wealth he had hung onto.

 

Our culture, our society, "good responsible economic sense", tell us it is justified, right, to build ever more barns to store our wealth, where moth and rust destroy (how many lost so much in stock market crash, corporate bankrupcies, investment managment schemes and scandals?) rather than use more to do more that would benefit many more? But we are not only justified in valuing stored wealth more than other humans, we are "irresponsible" if we don't!

 

We've even stopped calling greed, greed. To strive to have as much more than you need or can even ever use has become a measure of personal worth, respected and admired, not only in cruel dictatorships but our own corporate capitalists system and society.

 

I don't know where, or even if there is any, 'right balance' in accumulated wealth vs using wealth as a power, a tool, for some better cause. I have also seen, personally known, people so obsessed with accumulating wealth, they lived in a self imposed poverty, and, of course, thoswe that live extravagantly that are miserable. I do think there is, I guess the word is virtue, in being thnakfyll, letting oneself enjoy the good that they have. I don't think it 'bad' for someone to enjoy more expensive things, like expensive restaurants, vacations to Hawaii. I don't think they should feel 'guilty' about it. Not at all.

 

But then I see people that have spent and spent so much nothing is enjoyed anymore....its never enough. Maybe that's part of the lessons of wealth, to learn what is important by finding out you can't buy it? Some of the wealthiest people I've known that were very happy actually lived very simply.

 

In our world, money IS power. Wealth IS power. Power itself is neither good nor bad. It's just power. For whatever purpose it is turned toward.

 

jenell

[JenellYB]

Yvonne, I agree. Also, I know I am quite hesitant, even cynical, about how much of money donated really goes to benefit those the giver intended it for. Bluntly, "Charities" provide a comfortable income and lifestyle for a lot of people that operate them. And a lot of the money and goods poured into poverty and disaster stricken regions ends up in the hands of political and military leaders' pockets, even funding armies that are killing the people, instead of ever getting to the people intended.

Jenell

Edited February 15, 2012 by JenellYB

[JenellYB]

Btw, "giving money away" isn't the only way wealth can be used to help others, make the world better. Using it ways that create jobs, or ust make things a little better for everybody or some people...that, too, I think is giving, or using that power, in positive ways.

 

[GeorgeW]

I am trying to understand why those who espouse Jesus as their ultimate example of how to live their life, how to do God's will, how to be most in touch with God, aren't out there busting their butts to help the needy and oppressed.

 

Paul,

 

I agree that many of us could and should do more regardless of what Jesus may have said. C.S. Lewis (although I am not a fan of apologetics including his), wrote something to the effect that we should give to the point that it is uncomfortable. Few of us, including me, do that.

 

George

[PaulS]

Paul, I agree that many of us could and should do more regardless of what Jesus may have said. C.S. Lewis (although I am not a fan of apologetics including his), wrote something to the effect that we should give to the point that it is uncomfortable. Few of us, including me, do that. George

 

Thanks for you honesty,George. Are you able to pinpoint why you don't do more when you recognise that you probably could and should?

[GeorgeW]

Thanks for you honesty,George. Are you able to pinpoint why you don't do more when you recognise that you probably could and should?

 

I could give you any number of rationalizations, but if I honestly examine my conscience, the truth is more like greed, comfort, pleasure.

 

George

[PaulS]

I could give you any number of rationalizations, but if I honestly examine my conscience, the truth is more like greed, comfort, pleasure.

 

George

 

Now don't try to hide behind any flimsy excuses, George!

 

Thanks

Paul

[GeorgeW]

By the way, while we are on this subject, I don't think anyone has brought up the fish metaphor: "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime."

 

While I agree with this, I have generally seen it offered as a reason not to do something (feeding the hungry). I have seldom heard it used as a reason for why we should do something (like spend money teaching people agriculture, birth control, etc.).

 

George

[JosephM]

Paul,

 

I think you may be possibly twisting the points a bit. You say.....

Point 4: "Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe". So the fullest expression of what we believe is that we can only do so much without disturbing our comfortable lifestyle?

 

The way that we behave is the fullest expression of what we believe. Your "So" conclusion puts judgement and condemnation on that expression that to me doesn't fit. Each individual acts within the grace that is given him/her and to me wisdom dictates ones actions... guilt and condemnation is an ego concept that may work for the child but not for one that has grown beyond such.

.

All your conclusions added to the points in your original post of which i just quoted one do one and the same. I know you are looking to try to understand why everybody doesn't do all they can do to eliminate the worlds problems which to you includes giving up our comforts and doing more than we are doing now and you are trying to understand why we don't do more. Perhaps it can be asked a different way without judgement?

 

I can't speak for you or others but for me, my life is comfortable. Many others are not. Why i was born into the role i was born and they into the role they were born, i cannot say. Was i born into this role to give it all up, or give all i can, and do all i possibly can to 'fix' the world problems? If so, then it would take far more than an intellectual argument or excerpts from the Bible to convince me of that. I am confident that i am fulfilling the role i have been given and assigned and it is in a field without guilt and condemnation nor fear for the things i do not understand. In reality, i can do no more than i am doing for now else i would be doing it. All could's and should's are hypotheticals with no basis in reality. And i would be so bold to say that you are doing all that you really 'can' do for now or else you would be doing more.

 

The world to me is not broken. Yes, it is evolving as are we all, and even in the hunger and lack that appears present, it is to me as designed a perfect self regulating system. Now that is hard to accept when you look at pictures such as you have posted but nevertheless that is the way it is. I do what i do and you do what you do and others do what they do to make this what they 'see' as a 'better' place. What you and i do can be no more than the grace that is afforded us. To believe otherwise, in my view and experience, is to live in guilt and condemnation that one is in some way 'not doing' what one is supposed to, is defective/broken or insufficient as created and in that state one can not see clearly that which really needs to be done.

 

Just my thoughts on your comments,

Joseph

[JenellYB]

"By the way, while we are on this subject, I don't think anyone has brought up the fish metaphor: "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime."

 

 

That assumes there is a place to fish available, and that all the fish haven't been killed off by others' greed or carelessness.

That's a whole lot of the problem trying to apply it to the difficult situations many are in. Talking about better job training doesn't do dip-poop when there's still fewer jobs available than people seeking and willing to work them. What kind of new fishing trick do you teach people that have become too sick and disabled to work, often from the effects of the very work they've appliied themselves to most of their lives, in a system in which health care access in through work at gainful employment and an above median average income? What kind of new fishing trick do you teach people who live in such as sub-Saharan Africa, where climate change is being felt as the Sarahan desert is at an unprecedented rate swallowing up the once pastoral lands that once supported the people's simple subsistance lifestyle?

 

I'm also really hanging up on this "should" thing.....I don't think that's really "where it is" in these matters. Or, where it "should" be, lol.

 

Why is it that I never catch my spelling/grammar errors and typos when I go over my post before submitting it, and have to come back and edit it? Usually, multiple times?

 

And maybe the key to the answers in all of the questions above are to be found in the answer to that very last question I posed, just above this....that we are all so caught up in getting all done with what we are trying to get done before we forget what it is we are supposed to be doing that we don't pay enough attention to the little details until after we sit back and look at what we've done.

 

Jenell

Edited February 15, 2012 by JenellYB

[GeorgeW]

I'm also really hanging up on this "should" thing.....I don't think that's really "where it is" in these matters. Or, where it "should" be, lol.

 

We have a different worldview. I think there is a moral imperative, whether Jesus said it or not, for the comfortable to help the distressed.

 

George

[JenellYB]

Joseph wrote: The world to me is not broken. Yes, it is evolving as are we all, and even in the hunger and lack that appears present, it is to me as designed a perfect self regulating system. Now that is hard to accept when you look at pictures such as you have posted but nevertheless that is the way it is.

 

Maybe it's not broken, but functioning just as intended for our learning what we need to learn.

 

As (sorry, can't recall the SA Catholic preist (?) that said it, but..."Why is it that when I feed the poor, I'm called a saint. But when I ask why they are poor, I'm called a Communist?"

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

George wrote: We have a different worldview. I think there is a moral imperative, whether Jesus said it or not, for the comfortable to help the distressed.

 

But out of what does that moral imperative arise? From whence does it come? And what really IS that "moral imperative" we speak of?

 

Is it that we are supposed to accumulate the abundance that we can, even when it is coming to us at the expence of others, and then should be willing to dole back to those at whose expense it came, some small portion of it that they might at least survive?

 

Jenell

Edited February 15, 2012 by JenellYB

[soma]

I lived as a monk and had to renunciate family, name and all wordly possessions. It was a great experience, but others had to take care of me, I only had to concentrate on the spiritual. Now, I am comfortable with family and more than I need. I now have to manage the spiritual and matierial, which has helped me see the physical as spiritual or as science says everything is energy. I lived without anything in North Africa, Europe, Middle East and Asia. My heart was twisted when I had to beg in India for a week and poor people gave me half of their daily ration of food. The Muslims in Iran during their revolution protected me and in Morrocco during Ramadan fed and gave me shelter. I feel without money I communicated with a certain population and now with possessions I can reach a different population, but I feel with or without I must use my resources to expand love, service and understanding................so I may expand also in those domains.

[GeorgeW]

But out of what does that moral imperative arise? From whence does it come? And what really IS that "moral imperative" we speak of?

 

We could start with the Golden Rule or Kant's Categorical Imperative. Where do those come from? I think these are part of our genetic makeup as social animals.

 

George

[JosephM]

Just for the record.. and not to be misunderstood....

For one that believes one should go and sell all and use it to 'better' this world, i am not in opposition.

For one that believes one should become less comfortable and make others more comfortable than they are presently doing, i am not in opposition.

For one who feels they should leave family and friends and possesions for the sake of the world. i am not in opposition.

To those who feel they need to take on a life of austerity and service to mankind, i am not in opposition.

Each in peace according to his/her role and makeup, i am not in opposition.

Even to those who choose to do nothing, i am not in opposition.

 

For me, i will follow my own path and not put any burden upon the other. To the extent that i contribute to others, which is not out of necessity or grudgingly, i will not judge of myself but give only that which i am able to give from a cheerful and thankful heart.

 

Joseph

[Yvonne]

Joseph - beautfully said - wish I had said it! But then, that's my ego-centeredness speaking...

[JenellYB]

I lived as a monk and had to renunciate family, name and all wordly possessions. It was a great experience, but others had to take care of me, I only had to concentrate on the spiritual. Now, I am comfortable with family and more than I need. I now have to manage the spiritual and matierial, which has helped me see the physical as spiritual or as science says everything is energy. I lived without anything in North Africa, Europe, Middle East and Asia. My heart was twisted when I had to beg in India for a week and poor people gave me half of their daily ration of food. The Muslims in Iran during their revolution protected me and in Morrocco during Ramadan fed and gave me shelter. I feel without money I communicated with a certain population and now with possessions I can reach a different population, but I feel with or without I must use my resources to expand love, service and understanding................so I may expand also in those domains.

 

And yet, as you say, others took care of you. Your needs WERE met through others. Even those poor, for whom, unlike yourself, it wasn't by their volunatry choice, shared what little they had with you. You were cared for. Made it. Even when without money, you had resources. Options.

 

That many do not. And do not survive. Your own experience did not take you to where they are, and where they live every day, without choice or option.

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

Joseph, understood, and agree. It is only ourselves, each of us, that we must address our judgments and efforts.

Yet also, do we each make up one of the cells of the entire body. As each cell does, is the whole body's well-being affected. That is at a different level of perception, perspective, we might say. Yet both interact and effect the other.

 

Jenell

[GeorgeW]

Joseph,

 

I would not try to compel you to do anything in terms of voluntary charity. That is your choice.

 

However, as a voter, I would vote to compel you to pay taxes for programs that will assist those in need. This would include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the like.

 

George

[JenellYB]

And please, I hope none take me as criticizing, judging others, how others live and make choices. Just trying to honestly work toward the core, the heart of it. I know some of what I'm saying is to hit hard, not pulling the punch, but I have and am trying to hit myself as well as any other. Maybe more than any other.

 

Jenell

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

I would not try to compel you to do anything in terms of voluntary charity. That is your choice.

 

However, as a voter, I would vote to compel you to pay taxes for programs that will assist those in need. This would include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the like.

 

George

 

George,

 

Yes, that is a privilege you have been given here in this country to compel others to support the ruling class choices. And that is part of the social order of societies in general. That is its function and perhaps rightly so...

 

Personally, i have no wish to compel anyone to support another and i would leave that choice up to the individual but that is not the case here. So while i might differ in my view, i still willingly comply but not as one compelled. You cannot compel me to do anything beyond my own choices. Society can only present me with those choices.

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

So while i might differ in my view, i still willingly comply but not as one compelled. You cannot compel me to do anything beyond my own choices. Society can only present me with those choices.

 

'Compel' was probably not a good choice of words. Maybe 'require' would be better.

 

George

[PaulS]

Paul,

 

I think you may be possibly twisting the points a bit. You say.....

 

 

The way that we behave is the fullest expression of what we believe. Your "So" conclusion puts judgement and condemnation on that expression that to me doesn't fit. Each individual acts within the grace that is given him/her and to me wisdom dictates ones actions... guilt and condemnation is an ego concept that may work for the child but not for one that has grown beyond such.

.

All your conclusions added to the points in your original post of which i just quoted one do one and the same. I know you are looking to try to understand why everybody doesn't do all they can do to eliminate the worlds problems which to you includes giving up our comforts and doing more than we are doing now and you are trying to understand why we don't do more. Perhaps it can be asked a different way without judgement?

 

I can't speak for you or others but for me, my life is comfortable. Many others are not. Why i was born into the role i was born and they into the role they were born, i cannot say. Was i born into this role to give it all up, or give all i can, and do all i possibly can to 'fix' the world problems? If so, then it would take far more than an intellectual argument or excerpts from the Bible to convince me of that. I am confident that i am fulfilling the role i have been given and assigned and it is in a field without guilt and condemnation nor fear for the things i do not understand. In reality, i can do no more than i am doing for now else i would be doing it. All could's and should's are hypotheticals with no basis in reality. And i would be so bold to say that you are doing all that you really 'can' do for now or else you would be doing more.

 

The world to me is not broken. Yes, it is evolving as are we all, and even in the hunger and lack that appears present, it is to me as designed a perfect self regulating system. Now that is hard to accept when you look at pictures such as you have posted but nevertheless that is the way it is. I do what i do and you do what you do and others do what they do to make this what they 'see' as a 'better' place. What you and i do can be no more than the grace that is afforded us. To believe otherwise, in my view and experience, is to live in guilt and condemnation that one is in some way 'not doing' what one is supposed to, is defective/broken or insufficient as created and in that state one can not see clearly that which really needs to be done.

 

Just my thoughts on your comments,

Joseph

 

Thanks Joseph.

 

I think I understand your point - although I might be beating myself up about needing to do more, the fact that I'm not doing more is because at present I can't, that's exactly why I'm not doing more.

 

Perhaps there's a distinction though between not being able to do more, and maybe telling ourselves there's not much more we can do, when in fact there is?