they dont need your dirty money
The uneven distribution of wealth has left many nations in desolate poverty while others in wasteful abundance. Wealthy nations have been giving aide to the developing nations to reconcile this imbalance, yet poverty is still prevalent on the national level today. Is there more that rich countries can do to upgrade the living conditions in the rest of the world? The following essay will argue that this macro, international issue can only be absolved through micro, individual means. This is fundamentally recollected as the teaching: "the man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."
The point of this paragraph is to argue that the effects of poverty draw concern on the individual and personal level: the individually orphaned children, the individually widowed, the individually sick, although collectively, they may embody a poor nation; therefore, the solution is individual, personal, and not worth the effort in leaping through the needless hoops of institutionalization. The following 3 reasons will explain why it is not a mere matter of surrendering resources to where it is lacked. Firstly, as long as the hearts of people remain corrupt, the institutions which these people comprised will be corrupt, and the monetary efforts will be debilitated. Secondly, charity is just a utility to be utilized toward expressing love (which is the manifestation of a well conditioned heart), and by itself, money is meaningless-- it holds no compassion, no emotion, and no sympathy. Lastly, it is not the system that should be using us to aid the suffering; rather it should be us utilizing the system to make that difference. The above paragraph argued that it is misleading to consider this a matter of money, for money, in itself, is part of the institutionalized hoop of economy; rather, it is about love. The connection of this point to my thesis is that it does not matter if collectively we are contributing good, if individually we aren’t any less selfish.
In conclusion, it is not to say that the institutionalized structure of government is needless to the world, because it can most effectively organize, encourage, and motivate the hearts of those being governed. However, as Paul said in 2 Corinthians, “each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion,” and as long as we keep distant and impersonal the sufferings of the collective individuals born into nations of poverty, nothing will change, b/c in the end, it is a matter of the heart. It is equally beneficial for the able to give and for the needy to recieve.
“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”
The point of this paragraph is to argue that the effects of poverty draw concern on the individual and personal level: the individually orphaned children, the individually widowed, the individually sick, although collectively, they may embody a poor nation; therefore, the solution is individual, personal, and not worth the effort in leaping through the needless hoops of institutionalization. The following 3 reasons will explain why it is not a mere matter of surrendering resources to where it is lacked. Firstly, as long as the hearts of people remain corrupt, the institutions which these people comprised will be corrupt, and the monetary efforts will be debilitated. Secondly, charity is just a utility to be utilized toward expressing love (which is the manifestation of a well conditioned heart), and by itself, money is meaningless-- it holds no compassion, no emotion, and no sympathy. Lastly, it is not the system that should be using us to aid the suffering; rather it should be us utilizing the system to make that difference. The above paragraph argued that it is misleading to consider this a matter of money, for money, in itself, is part of the institutionalized hoop of economy; rather, it is about love. The connection of this point to my thesis is that it does not matter if collectively we are contributing good, if individually we aren’t any less selfish.
In conclusion, it is not to say that the institutionalized structure of government is needless to the world, because it can most effectively organize, encourage, and motivate the hearts of those being governed. However, as Paul said in 2 Corinthians, “each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion,” and as long as we keep distant and impersonal the sufferings of the collective individuals born into nations of poverty, nothing will change, b/c in the end, it is a matter of the heart. It is equally beneficial for the able to give and for the needy to recieve.
“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”
posted by ffpaladin at 9:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home