My co-worker's wife and kids just came for a visit to our workplace a few minutes ago and as a result, I think I have a thought worth sharing.
His oldest son Jesse saw my iNano on the table and picked it up and hid it behind his back saying in an over-loud voice, "Well, I guess I'll be going now." Ha ha. He can keep a remarkably straight face, but it was just a joke and pretty funny. So on to the thought;
Christian giving and asking. I may be wrong in thinking this, but I have thought for a while that the Bible dictates that we should give to those who ask. Of course stewardship of what we have, and wisdom of the asker, etc.. are all necessary considerations (or at least they would seem to be), but then, what would a christian community look like if it were 'alright' to ask for things? 1) The person asking must believe that they need that which they ask for or that it would not hinder (but rather, help) the person asked from. 2) The giver must not attach any sort of resentment from being asked as they must trust that the person asking really believes they need what is asked for.
These are pretty simple "rules" and I believe work in a 'need' situation quite well. But does it also function in a non-need situation? I think this non-need idea breeds a responsibility in each person that we do not currently have. If I ask for something, and know it'll be given to me, I will be very considerate about what things I'll ask for. If I'm inconsiderate, it will not be long before I begin seeing damages for those things which I've asked from others. Our selfish natures is what makes our current status of "I earn what is mine and it is my right to have it" mindset. Community on the other hand means I don't really "own" anything, but rather am responsible for taking care of it. Sharing is a hard lesson and one that I can't see our current culture moving towards in any way. Anyone want to borrow my Nano?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
Flickr
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(138)
-
▼
March
(22)
- simply put
- crunch and run
- _)\i/(_
- limits (in a boring way)
- cold nights
- Ah, here's a good picture of them.
- bearing fruit
- poll over~!
- shareability
- tunatune
- like a duplicate!
- how do
- empathy, cars and business
- me mindful
- passing time
- on a black shirt
- concerted jumping
- chem shock!
- fields
- asking
- another one
-
▼
March
(22)
4 comments:
after furthing thinking about this, I don't really think it is reasonable to believe in such a community in today's society. Not reasonable because we are all on slightly (and sometimes not so slightly) different economic levels. These differences make a seemingly natural awkwardness in sharing our wealth, as some have less, and some have more. The "more havers" would essentially be the givers in the relationship and that is... awkward.
Growing up with a bit of asian culture, I have often found myself reacting strangely to being given something. There's a feeling of indebtedness which comes along with recieving a gift. The more costly the gift, the more humbled (and indebted) I feel. I balance this with the liberating thought that ALL we have is given to us, and God is the true "owner" of it all in the first place. It is His goodness that gives us what we have (and sometimes He gives through others). I'm still a very humbled person though. I've been given so much. I wish I could say that being humbled makes me a humble person, but that is not always who I am.
Thoughts?
That's a cool idea. You got me thinking and in my mind that concept of property would make life alot less tedious in ways. It seems to me that often there are times where it would be more convenient if people could use "other people's" stuff without needing to get permission or give things away without needing to clarify that it is a gift. Essentially a society without the necessity of contracts, law, and enforcement of those contracts and laws.
So, if society as a whole could operate that way without self destructing things could be alot simpler. However, I think we might have to pragmatically give up that concept of all property being communal when we have to be in competition with each other. I think such a society would only work in a community where people didn't mind suffering or dying for each other because they all cared for each other.
I believe it is just nano, not inano.
FINE.
Post a Comment