At 09:18 AM 21/02/02 -0600, Lucy Masters wrote:
>I agree that we are to "take care of the poor." Where I disagree is in
>the action. We are **NOT** taking care of the poor when we increase their
>ranks. To me, "taking care of the poor" would involve liberating them
>from their dependence, teaching them (as the Chinese say) to fish - not
>giving them fish. Yes - Jesus did give them fish rather than teaching
>them to fish, but he didn't exactly become a welfare agency either. These
>were more like sporadic episodes.
>So again, I must say that working toward a world in which humans are
>healthy and living within the boundaries of their raw materials is a good
>thing. It is certainly the way "nature" would have it, and I believe God
>created all the systems in nature.
I don't think that you know what to do about the people living on the
streets of big cities. I see them regularly. When I was living in an
inner city in Europe I saw a lot of things that were very wrong, but I did
not see so many people living on the streets in far below zero (Celsius)
level. Our governments are concerned about The Economy but don't seem to
care about these people. Also, we in N.America are using far more than our
share of the available raw materials, by our power to buy things. I do
not know how to change these things, as long as we elect governments who
only care about The Economy.
In other words we don't live within the boundaries of OUR raw materials,
but use a good bit of the materials of other countries.
Jan de Koning
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 11:06:51 EST