Posted: 17 April 2019 at 8:39am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
Peter M. - you're absolutely right that people are free to spend their money as they desire, and if they donate to the restoration of a historic landmark and masterpiece - I get it.
I didn't mention spending money on oneself, though. I meant that there are a lot of good causes that could ALSO make use of 700 M euros.
I know that I'm a bleeding heart, but what of citizens of France who have no home and no food? Mr. Woodcock noted "spending £100 on a toy seems excessive " to a homeless person, who wants to know why the money can't be spent on food for them. There is a good point there.
The question comes then, why DON'T we spend more money on hungry people? Or on better health care so that people don't go bankrupt from a critical disease*? Or paying people to clean up roads, buildings, etc**?
Is it that it's not high profile enough? Is it that the cause isn't important to those people? I can't answer that; everyone has their own choices and beliefs, and their own consciences to answer to.
But, with no sarcasm intended; God caused that building to burn. Maybe He wants people to be done with it now? Maybe it's a little too blatant for worship to Him? God believers have to ask themselves THAT, too. Why would they challenge His will?
I'm not half smart enough (nor faithful enough) to answer those questions. But believers in God are. There are two sides to this coin; which one comes up heads?
*At least, that's the case here in the U.S. This question may be irrelevant in reference to a French building.
**This may also be an American problem, not international.
|