Disgraceful

[Cooch]

There is not anything however that suggests you should help those who live near you before helping others. I never said it was disgraceful to help people in your own community I was simply saying in response to another poster that there is nothing to justify the view that we must give to our community before overseas.
.

Hiya Brer Dag.

I'm not going to waste time by reponding to every item where we're starting to converge, so please take it for granted that I'm not ignoring everything else.

I do agree with what you say above. The problem with CIA's position is that she's saying that it is disgraceful that we don't prioritise those overseas. If I agree with you that *everyone* is our neighbour, then my close neighbour is just as worthy a recipient as someone on the other side of the globe. It's worth noting that the Good Samaritan did not travel out of his way to find a neighbour in trouble, but ministered to the one that he came across while going (apparently) about his normal business.

I also argue that we cannot and should not be blamed for the deeds of our ancestors. We could debate at length whether and to what degree the antics of colonial powers have made life worse (or better) for modern-day third-worlders. But when it comes back to thie subject at hand, I suggest it is less than relevant.
- If previous generations had been more generous, I doubt that you would consider that a reason to excuse any lack of charity on the part of our generosity. Therefore I suggest that , equally, the lack of charity by generations and people with a historical connection only to ours, does not impose on us a moral responsibility to compensate. Particularly when the sharing our our benefits in technology, medicine, agriculture, industry and trade have given all of these peoples the potential ability to look after themselves.

That's humanity for us. Not only do we all have the potential to stuff up in a big way, but some of us will always seek to put the blame elsewhere.

Cheers.......... Pete

 

[GodsoldierClintus]

Dag is running the Salvos defence....nothing wrong with that just noting it

On overseas aid...our aid does not go to Africa...the government chooses where it goes, and even if it is at 0.7% the majority of it would still go to South East Asia. I do believe they are right and properly our neighbours.

Secondly the 0.7% is part of the Millenium Development Goals to which Australia was a signatory...amngost similiar global declarations we have signed since the 1970's. 0.7% of our GNI is billions of dollars..It is a lot of money...and it could delay say a pay rise for Australians as a whole for say at most 6 months. I say we can afford it, given that people are dying overseas from no/lack of food/ability to make food.

I really will have to argue against you on the point of child exploitation. You argue that it is our fault for not purchasing products made from child exploitation that is one of the causes of sexual slavery. If it was your child been exploited you would not say that. If it is your child that you have to sell to sustain your family I do not think your viewpoint would be the same.

Sexual slavery, and all kinds of slavery is deviant on man's greed and man's willingness to exploit another. There is NO moral ground for us to stand on and say that child exploitation is acceptable. Of course worldy reality dictates that some children will have to work and be abused. World wisdom dictates that a solution will never be possible and that's how things are.

Call me naive...I know that there will never be freedom in this world. But I will still fight for those that are oppressed. I still believe in a better future. You say that to use the word "disgraceful" is unfair on the voting Australian public. I do not believe that disgraceful is an inappropriate word for the fact that each day hundreds, thousands of people die due to poverty. Disgraceful...is the word that is used because sex trafficking is the fastest growing trade in the world. Disgraceful is the word that should be used...offensive or not. We live in plenty of abundance. We live in political security and safety. We have on of the largest private givings in the world sure...we have a lot of volunteers great. That is something to be applauded. And so we should applaud each other as part of the church for that. But there is not bigger injustice in this world then those that are born into poverty...those that are born into slavery. Here we are given the illusion that any man is equal and as long as we work hard we will "succeed" (however the world definse success). In those places...there is no equality. People die...or worst tortured...and there is no illusion of what the world is like.

I guess it comes to whether one believes we can make a difference. William Wilberforce ended slavery in a time where slaves were common. He answered his calling from God. But slavery still exists...and will continue to do so. People still die as they did back then because there is not enough food. But I guess we get to choose. Do those people die....or will someone speak for them?

There are many that suffer in Australia too...I know I don't do enough...but from the little that I offered during Christmas I still saw a world crying out and I did what little I could. I know I can do more. It's just that some of us don't think that 0.7% of GNI is really that much to give. Some of us don't buy into the propserity the rich has. Perhaps some of us occassionally get sick when we think about the food we have...and those that have not. Perhaps it is disgraceful that whilst the "First World" is struggling with obesity...the "Third world" is struggling with poverty and slavery.

I heard a really good sermon the other day...whether I'm really looking forward to judgement day. Can't say I am. Looking at all the things Jesus is going to lay before me and make me account for it all...can't say he'll be too happy. I don't know what he's going to ask...I can only go on what he's said in the bible. And it's pretty clear to me he came for those that cried out to him. There are 2 billion people crying out for us. We can ignore it, pretend not to hear it...but we know it's there. I don't think ignorance is going to be enough on that day an excuse. I don't think when he points to those that didn't know him and he says "but they stood up for the oppressed."

I don't want to be there and have him say..."I don't know you"

I have learnt...believe is not enough. Faith is different. Faith is more than just ackowledging he's real. Faith is saying well God this really sucks and it impossible, and yeah I think I know better...but if you say so.

I know that you've probably done a lot more then I have, and know a lot more. But then Christ does not measure on how much we give...rather how much it costs us. I know there might be people standing up for these campaigns for show and what not....but this is real. There's 2 billion. And I'm going to say what I need to, and I'll keep shouting if that's what God's asking of me.

 

[Cooch]

GSC....
Some valid information, and thankyou.
However the point remains valid that the primary protectors of children are - or should be - their parents.Parents who should be able to use every moral means by which to feed, provide for and protect their children. Much as we may dislike the thought, there is nothing absolutely immoral about expecting children to contribute to the family. The idea that they should not do so is of relatively recent origin and peculiar to western nations with a higher standard of living. Insisting that those who cannot afford the luxury of non-contributing family members, should shoulder this burden anyway seems somehow ..... arrogant. Regardless, it IS known that this is one cause of the selling of children into slavery.

As for the rest, it is reasonable for you to experience disgust at the consequences of a fallen world, and to seek to do something about it. However that is NOT the same as using the term in an abusive fashion towards a nation that - when all is considered - is pulling its weight.

Peter

 

[TheDag]

GSC....
Some valid information, and thankyou.
However the point remains valid that the primary protectors of children are - or should be - their parents.Parents who should be able to use every moral means by which to feed, provide for and protect their children. Much as we may dislike the thought, there is nothing absolutely immoral about expecting children to contribute to the family. The idea that they should not do so is of relatively recent origin and peculiar to western nations with a higher standard of living. Insisting that those who cannot afford the luxury of non-contributing family members, should shoulder this burden anyway seems somehow ..... arrogant. Regardless, it IS known that this is one cause of the selling of children into slavery.

As for the rest, it is reasonable for you to experience disgust at the consequences of a fallen world, and to seek to do something about it. However that is NOT the same as using the term in an abusive fashion towards a nation that - when all is considered - is pulling its weight.

Peter

Sure it is reasonable to expect children to contribute to the family. Expecting them to contribute by becoming prostitutes or being sold into slavery is not reasonable. Just as you pointed out earlier that there are other ways of giving besides financially there are different ways of contributing to the family. Some are reasonable some are not. Doing chores on the family farm is reasonable but being sold to work on someone elses farm is not.