Eternity,that is the most beautiful,intelligent,and wise thing I've seen written ever on this site.Myself,I've asked why don't we take care of our own,many,many times.I have not one problem helping others,and if all countries pitched in,maybe there would be less hunger,illness,etc.But for the life of me I can't figure,why we will give everything away to others,and leave our own to suffer,with hunger,illness,and homelessness.Maybe one day we'll find the answer.God bless you,and I'm another one waiting for peace also.
2006-10-18 09:51:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by LEJIANE 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think I heard a statistic one time (it may not be completely true, but there has to be some validity to it) that if all of the "developed countries" stopped spending a rather small percentage (something like 5%) and spent that on eradicating poverty and helping third world countries...well, I can't remember exactly how it was put, but basically poverty/hunger would be greatly reduced.
With that said, I've never really thought of America as a "Christian nation," rather we have the freedom to be Christians and at least a responsibility towards the poor does fall to us, as people and as Christians. I'm willing to bet that if you were to take another statistic looking at how much people who professed Christianity would have to spend to take a hit at poverty, it would also be pretty staggeringly low. I may be wrong, but it would surprise me if it were an unreasonably high number.
2006-10-18 16:27:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by sarcrl 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
We are to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, that is the christian way. But we also we have an obligation to protect our U. S. citizens against terrorism. The people we are dealing with believe they are fighting a Holy war, and the only way they're gonna get rewarded is by killing as many infidels (us) as they can. As far as being a Christian nation, this country was founded on christian principles.
2006-10-18 16:47:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by B"Quotes 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would agree with you but are you talking about the starving here in our country or the starcing in other countries. If you are talking about our own country I would simply ask who is going to do it and how are we going to determine who is starveing. If you are talking about other countries how are we going to get the masses food if their governments either won't support our involvment or confiscate everything for their own military use. Don't forget we are not the only nation with a military nor is ours the only one growing. To assume that the world would stand by as we cut our military to nothing and not take advantage of it is nieave on your part. I would say that if you are woried about being a better christian or about helping the poor it should start with you. How much food do you waist everyday? How many meals do you eat every day? What kind of house do you live in? How often do you complain about things and not do anything yourself to help the situation?
2006-10-18 16:29:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Richmond C 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Human nature does not allow us to do the very thing that you ask.
The moment we in any country have no method of defence, that is the moment that some other country will come in and overpower us. They will pilage the land and our ways of feeding ourselves.
What we would essentially be accomplishing is feeding someone else for a short amount of time and then not only will the ones we fed be starving again, but so would our very own country now be full of starving "refugees"
It sounds good on the surface to not have to spend so much on defence, but human nature makes it impossible.
2006-10-18 16:30:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by cindy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're being naive if you think that if we just make nice and send food around the world that all the other nations will like us. Yes, feed everyone until they are dumb, fat and happy, then some radical Islamic group will come put a knife to your throat and tell you to convert or die.
As Christians we have a duty to defend our families. He who does not provide for his family (that includes safety and defence) is worse than a non-believer.
2006-10-18 16:35:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by af490 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The fact that they'd be 'less likely to attack' means that in a world of 6 billion people, someone will still be very intent on attacking. Peace can only be attained by readiness to war.
2006-10-18 16:23:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Feeding the starving is in and of itself not a bad idea. But instead of making it more then passable that our enemies would and could come in and take us over, lets instead make all of the pork barrel stuff that is always put into legislation and use that instead, I hear that it amounts to a lot more then we spend on defense each year.
2006-10-18 16:33:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because some hostile nation would come in and make us all slaves. The real world isn't this rosy, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
It is a nice thought, but that is all it is. Evil exists and if you are not willing to stand up to it, you will fall by it.
2006-10-18 16:24:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by AT 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Economics.Capitalism will not allow that.We are investing in our military which (i dont know how) will make us money.Capitalism encourages self interests which divides the nation in some sense.Individuals will have to feed the starving which I doubt!
2006-10-18 16:27:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Maikeru 4
·
0⤊
0⤋