To give or to want to give (continued, again and again)

If what matters is the act of giving it all and not its impact or lack thereof, then I need to find out how transformative and sustainable that can be. How can it be sufficient to say “it only needs to come from the heart” but the donor as a result then depends on someone else’s goodwill? And if the exercise here is to experience what it is like to let go and give away things we are attached to, then it should not be done at the expense of the needy, should it?

Yes, I can’t help but go back to pragmatism especially when it comes to the charity feast example. If giving is done strategically, then it will have longer lasting and further reaching impacts. It reinforces my feeling that people are often “poor” because of, in great part, their mindset [boy I know I am going to take some heat for saying this]. And the feast is a perfect example: if their goal is to get out of poverty and be self-sustaining and autonomous, then they should not even want this feast, and would want to direct the charity towards more impacting operations like gathering long term staples, and such. Which one (the feast or the long term planning) would feel better and more rewarding? Otherwise, it’s as if both the donor and recipient want the status quo.

If one gives from the heart, and the donation has no impact, or maybe even makes the situation worse (like rendering people dependent and assisted minded), then is it fair, is it good that the act of giving benefits only the donor? Then can it not be defined as self-indulgence? If not, then what is self-indulgence for Christians?

When the women gave her last coin to the temple, why does the story end here? What happens when she leaves the temple and goes back to her life? Does she then have the attitude “God will provide?” But I thought God only helps the ones who help themselves? Is that helping oneself to give it all out?

These are all new thoughts… I need to make sense of them; help welcome.