The Essence Of Faith & Belief.

Christian mission to an African nation finances businesses for poor people, such as selling things in the local market. Discovered that although the business is successful, brings in money, and the new entrepreneur faithfully minds the store, the money he makes goes to drinking and gambling and prostitutes and his wife and children are still living at starvation level. Mission concludes that there's a cultural mindset that has to change before it makes sense to throw money at the problem.What do you think?

Sure, because we can make such conclusions about everyone in Africa on the basis of a bad result in a population of one. Best to just leave the entire continent alone now.Would Christians really so quickly reach the conclusion that an entire continent of people are beyond their means to help? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You really do think I'm stupid enough to make that sort of case, and that a Christian missionary organization would draw such a stupid conclusion? I guess so. It's really rather typical of you.This was an example given to illustrate years of experience with this sort of thing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think you can still feed the wife and kid; and if there's money to be thrown, throw it at them. Also, I think the polarized pastiche you describe--the industrious entrepreneur who is also a wastrel--is not so common. But the man who finds prosperity with the help of others, thinks it's his just desserts and devotes it to selfish pursuits...well, we have lots of Christians like that here, too.Family planning services for women are good, too, since nothing else so improves the economic lot of women and children.As you might imagine, I have other thoughts and feelings about Christian missions, but at present I'm mulling over Phat's response to Christ's challenge to the individual Christian. Nonetheless, I find myself asking the same question, now applied to an organization: Why so little faith in the simple, direct charitable acts prescribed by Jesus?

No, it draws a pretty distinct parallel between what we do for our own children and what God does for his children. The implication is that we should treat all people the same as we treat our children. If more Christians trusted God, they might actually DO what Jesus said: sell what they have, give to the poor and follow Him. So you wouldn't ask and receive, like Jesus said. You'd just sit and wait to receive.

Of course I spend money on myself too (though I've never been to Starbucks). But I'm the one who gets the flak when I suggest that it's okay to give money to panhandlers.

My ongoing point is that you seem to be squandering your "wisdom" on creative ways to circumvent Jesus' instructions. Instead of trying to weasel out of doing unto others, why not just do unto others?

Perhaps you could have expressed something like that. If you had, I would have challenged you to provide some evidence that so few people had been helped as to make the endeavor not worthwhile.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is no reason to question the intent of people who behave as would ringo. Whatever the result of spontaneous giving, surely nobody intends to hurt the recipient. I've given money to panhandlers, although I do not do so routinely. On the other hand, I do give money and my time to homeless people in other situations.What I am adamant about is that giving a panhandler pocket money in the hope that you will build up his self esteem and sense of self worth is a piss poor strategy.It is harder to give money effectively, but it is possible. There is no reason to challenge the bona fides of people who give away amount of money similar to and perhaps even larger than the spontaneous gifts of pocket money that you can give when you encounter people face to face.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't understand your level of suspiciousness and I don't feel like indulging it. I no longer have the original source, it was one article among many in one email publication among many I receive, I didn't save it, it simply fit in with this discussion so I wrote what I remember of it. Trying to answer such a level of distrust and suspiciousness is too much to ask. Sorry I posted it at all.

The problem here is not just a matter of evidence. The problem is that your conclusion is diametrically opposed to how Jesus has instructed us to act. And there is also the issue that Africa is very large and a huge amount of discussion is necessary before I conclude that an experiment applies to all of Africa or to an entire nation of Africa. So yes I am going to insist on details.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I wasn't disparaging ringo's giving or any other kind of giving. I was exploring the likely results of Phat's criteria for determining who merits help. I don't think he's substituting pro bono work, targeted donations or soup kitchen drudgery for spontaneous empathy.I salute all who give. I was pawing after the whiff of hypocrisy, not the scent of difference.

So you justify your suspiciousness, so what else is new.Surely we should be careful about giving to ALL who ask. Should we give money to people who use it to finance terrorism, or to organizations that abort babies?By the way, aren't you the one who has so often said it isn't a good idea just to give money without knowing how it is going to be used or something like that?

Faith, you should do what you will with your money. But you are asking questions that are not even relevant to the discussion. If you want to bring it closer to the topic, you might ask whether you should make sure that a mother has never had an abortion or divorce before you give her money. I doubt that it would occur to most of us to ask such a question.

Ridiculous questions nobody would ask because they are not relevant to the question of giving money. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.