Over at Dan Trabue's blog, he often (almost always) posts that which provokes a response from me. Now and then (almost always) he rebukes me for my observations, conclusions and perspectives on whatever topic, issue or report compels them. Kinda goofy considering there's a place at the end inviting comments.
But this time, as his recent posts here and here involve family, specifically his kids, I thought it best I post my wonderment here instead of there.
Now, first of all, I want to reiterate what a wonderful thing I believe it to be that his kids popped for the trip for the family to take that marvelous vacation. I'm truly envious of him as well as very much happy for him. How very cool indeed!
Now here's the "but"....
How is this remarkable good fortune not an example of "over-consumerism" against which Dan so often preaches? Did he not make his position on the subject well known to his kids? Did they ignore his teachings about simple living? Was he informed of their plans before the arrangements were set so that he could gently reject their plans, encouraging them to instead make a donation to the poor in his name as a better use of the money so that Dan would not have to bear the shame of having more than so many unfortunates?
I only mean this with just a tad bit of snark. After all, it isn't like such an expenditure wouldn't fall within the boundaries of opulence and hyper-consumption. It's neither a need nor a simple pleasure to take such a trip. I personally have no problem with enjoying the fruits of one's labor to experience as much of the world God created as money allows. That would be nice stuff of all kinds, including Lamborghinis, large estates, a fine wardrobe, fine dining and of course, European vacations (if not a second or third residence there).
But not Dan. He doesn't believe we're to have more than we need. And that's the problem here, because who needs to go to Europe for a vacation? Did I say how cool I think it is that he got to go, and to go courtesy of his kids? Way cool! Good for him. But by his own beliefs, shouldn't he be ashamed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
206 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206There's only one way of saying what is quite clear;
"Because YOU say there are no rules for simple living, then that lets YOU do whatever you want and call it simple living. In the absence of rules, YOU decide for yourself what constitutes simple."
There is no doubt about what this suggests, either personally or for all. No rules means that one can do what one likes and call it simple living. I could own the Biltmore estate and all of it's original land acreage, two jets, fourteen cars and sit on 10 billion dollars that I spend on the most luxurious things and still say I'm living simply (or attempting to) because there are no rules, no definitions, no parameters that are not totally subjective.
OR, I can live in a hut, walk to work, survive on rice and water, but have a big screen TV, fancy duds or buy anything that appeals to me and still proclaim myself a devotee of simply living.
OR, I can be a progressive, left-wing blogger from Louisville who takes a European vacation and pretends it's not extravagant enough to depart from my simply living philosophy because I didn't stay in 5-star hotels and fly 1st class. No rules...simple living is whatever you want it to mean at any given time based on what you need it to mean at that given time.
How is this incorrect?
I'm going to try a slightly different way to try to understand this.
When you are faced with making a decision as whether or not something is consistent with your "simple lifestyles ", who makes that decision?
Me.
Thank you for confirming what I've been saying for days.
I'm not sure why that was so difficult. But now that's settled.
Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me."
I'm sure your think you're making a profound statement by posting this passage, feo. But as is your history, the impression you make is on yourself alone. Feel free to explain the relevance, or see it deleted because it isn't. I'll give you a day or two.
Post a Comment