Which of the poor deserve the most help?

Ina and I have gotten interested in the creation of sustainable solutions for impoverished people. We've become interested in micro-financing -- helping people get off their feet and help themselves with very tangible solutions that will help them to earn a living doing something that is requires skill but is not entirely foreign to them. Anyway, that's a topic for another day.

I recently had my eyes opened to something that may be controversial or maybe it's just the natural human thought process.

This entry could spawn several other interesting topics that I'll probably be too lazy to write, but I wanted to at least get this thought down. Just a note.. some of this is hypothetical and by no means do I mean this to offend anyone -- the purpose is purely for thought provocation.

The idea is that people are less willing to help poor people when they know there are even more poorer people out there. They might feel like a certain group of people don't deserve their help or support because there are poorer people out there who deserve it more. They tend to have less sympathy knowing there is much worse in the world.

Whether this means they will help those poorer people is not really an issue, for them it's just a matter of principle -- that this poor person doesn't need my help as much as that other much poorer person, so therefore I will not help this marginally poor person.

For example, someone who has witnessed poverty in India or Africa might have less compassion towards someone who lives in a garbage dump because hey, at least they have *some* form of food.

Or say a person has no sympathy towards people on welfare because at least they are getting free handouts from the government, whereas the people they saw in Nicaragua were eating garbage.

I could be wrong I think it says somewhere in the bible that everyone needs compassion.

I hate this book.

I really hate this book I've been reading. It's called "Irresistable Revolution". I think the title is misleading, because to me I think I've "resisted" this revolution my entire life. The gist of the book is his interpretation of how Christ has commanded us to live.. but I'd rather prefer not to believe his way of thinking because if I do, it will wreck my life.

And I don't want to wreck my life because I like it the way it is. In fact I love it. But reading the book makes me see that certain aspects of my life should be different, there are things.. comforts, that I don't want to nor have any intention of letting go of. And that's why I hate this book because I am a person who prides himself in working hard to do things the "right way" and this book proves that I am all talk and no action.

I would recommend this book to anyone is okay with messing up their life. But if you're happy and have no intention of heeding God's call, leave this book alone. Believe me, the old saying "ignorance is bliss" applies here 100%. It kind of reminds me of Perspectives, how you can go through life not really knowing what God's *really* called you to do.

"You guys are all into that born again thing, which is great. We do need to be born again, since Jesus said that to a guy named Nicodemus. But if you tell me I have to be born again to enter the kingdom of God, I can tell you that you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor, because Jesus said that to one guy too. But I guess that's why God invented highlighters, so we can highlight the parts we like and ignore the rest."

I think what really gets me about this book is that he's laid out a foundation on how to live, how to follow Jesus -- the way Christ meant it to be.. life that is. And that I'm not willing to accept it because I'm not ready to let go of everything.. It's me admitting that I can't.. or won't live the way God has commanded us to live. And being okay with it.

I'm convinced that God did not mess up and make too many people and not enough stuff.