shmoodiver wrote:the spawn of shmoo is doing 40hrs with no technology, tis her birthday tomollo too.... i got her a flash new cell phone! can't wait till she realises she can't use it for a day and a bit

turn it on and send her some texts too

bubbaa wrote:

j2hyde wrote:

pissface wrote:so, the 40 hour famine.... ... there's a version of it that doesn't involve food. - kids have to go without anything like internet, listening to music, cellphones, etc for the weekend.

Thats almost as awesome as earth hour. If pathetic tokensim can "stop" the climate from changing then I'm sure it can bring food to africa. Why not?

i think there is a subtle difference. Earth hour people seem to believe that turning lights off for an hour makes a real difference to climate change and that, as you say, pathetic tokenism somehow represents real education. A forty hour famine tries to raise money to donate to buy actual food, as well as educate. I reckon not actually eating for 40 hours (why 40? some sort of biblical thing) is far more likely to actually raise awareness than turning off lights for an hour, but even if not true awareness, the money raised has to be useful.
technology famine?. pllleeease!!

My daughter and her friend in a cage had raised $1200 by 4pm today just from passers-by giving their spare cash. By the time they finish tomorrow morning they should have raised another $500-1000. None of this goes to buy prizes or rewards, it all goes to World Vision, who use it for things like literacy development and communal health & hygiene programs in 3rd world communities. Their 40 hours of discomfort will definitely result in some improvement of quality of life for a community somewhere.

I don't think World Vision is a bible-based organisation. I think the idea of 40 hours originated because it was a weekend event for teenagers from 8pm Friday to 12pm Sunday (i.e. starts after dinner, ends before lunch): the "40" was just a nice round number.

World Vision is a Christian organisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Vision

It was founded by a Christian and it is inspired by Christian values but it's not "bible based" the way denominational aid programs are. I did some collaboration programs with World Vision when I ran a humanitarian foundation in Romania and although most of the people are Christians, I would call it an aid organisation, not a Christian organisation, because its goals are all about providing aid, not at all about publicising Christianity or proselytising.

World Vision, founded in the United States in 1950, is an international Christian relief and development organization whose stated goal is "to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God."

Yup, my point exactly: they "work with the poor for human transformation". Following Jesus and "being a witness" (Christian jargon for being a good example) is their personal motivation .

It's also important to remember that this organisational goal was written 60 years ago when it was a very different world. Since then American Christianity has pretty much separated out into those who do good works and don't talk about religion; and those who preach it all the time and support efforts to bomb any country that won't allow their economy to be dominated by McDonalds, Coke, Playboy and Citibank. World Vision is in the first category.

To put that 60 year timespan into perspective, when Harvard, Yale and Princeton were founded in the mid-17th century, they were primarily centres for the development of evangelical theology, but by the time of the Great Awakening (70-80 years later) they were all very solidly secular. So you could expect the same sort of shift in WV.

Not sure why you're trying to shoehorn them into your reality, but I think you're wrong FW.

Please note I'm not bagging World Vision - I've given them money in the past myself - but they clearly are a Christian organisation. Good on them for the work they do though.

If they're not a Christian organization then you can cover me in chocolate, roll me in coconut and push me into the parish.

Fair enough, what would Iknow - I only worked with them for a few years.

It says they are in their charter.
As for your Harvard, Yale and Princeton comments have you ever been to any one of these Ivy league campuses? They are still extremely Christian based.

fatwombat wrote:It was founded by a Christian and it is inspired by Christian values but it's not "bible based" the way denominational aid programs are. I did some collaboration programs with World Vision when I ran a humanitarian foundation in Romania and although most of the people are Christians, I would call it an aid organisation, not a Christian organisation, because its goals are all about providing aid, not at all about publicising Christianity or proselytising.

yes they are a christian organization. there is no doubting that. I percieve the organization to be not one that does all the talking, but actually does the walking of a christian faith. If you look through the new testement, you see that Jesus' heart was truely broken for the poor, the people that no one wanted anything to do with, and the people that were cast aside and rejected by society. Jesus was there for those people and thats what world vision do for the poor.

Thats why i love world vision and what they do, they are fully sold out for helping people around them and dont take their privledged lives for granted but use them to help others. and as an organization that has the lowest overheads out of any of their kind (i.e. more money goes to the people they are helping), its why they are my personal choice when i chose to sponsor a child.

As someone that has done the 40 hour famine half a dozen times, the ood famine really was not that hard, even though i eat like a horse. Technology however was the hardest, admitedly i took it the next step further and did not use lights or anything else that uses electricity.


Yeah there are some dudes that go out to raise the most to get a prize. good on them. its not the attitude that i necesarily endorse however, It does mean that world vision can help more people, and turn around more lives.

my 2c ( apologies about spelling, punctuation)

From 2005 - http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/march/18.50.html

I can't believe you googled that Oli. Overboard much

It was just a link from the Wiki page - I like to prove a point.

That's an excellent article Oli, full marks for your research. I would say that this article supports my description of it, I've extracted some quotes below (with the page number).

If you guys think "Christian organisation" is a good thing, that's terrific, we're all on the same page - I think WV is great, and I believe that Christian values can make a better society. But sadly, in a lot of places I've worked, "Christian organisation" was almost a euphemism for "American spy network" or "Western cultural imperialist propaganda organisation". And sadly, that was pretty true for many of the organisations that liked to define themselves primarily as "Christian organisation".

P2
The Problem of Careerism
Given their mainstream credibility and ecumenical outlook, some have questioned whether World Vision's passion for Christ has been diluted. These concerns are difficult to address, considering the 22,000 staff and great local variations from country to country (or even within countries).
One Asian church leader told me that in his country, "they are so large and their salaries are so much higher than those of [other] Christian organizations that many of the staff—I would say the majority—are there for the money." World Vision pays employees reasonable local salaries, which may mean paying better than the local church. Friction comes when talented people leave other Christian work to join World Vision.
P3
Hirsch says the organization often takes on young professionals who "love Jesus but don't know the Bible." They come from a wide variety of traditions, from Pentecostal to Orthodox, which complicates the task of helping them to grow. They have different vocabularies of faith, from glossolalia to incense.
P4
A cluster meeting convenes in a church: tin roof, cement floor, simple aqua-painted benches. The group is called Mayatima, or "orphans." Though they meet in a church, and most of them probably belong to a church, the group is not based on faith. Rather, it is open to anyone concerned for children affected by AIDS.
P6
Bob Pierce could have said that. But World Vision operates on a wider field than Pierce dreamed of, with a far more diverse set of partners. Its ethos is ecumenical, pragmatic, professional, and utterly confident, whether interacting with the church or with government. Other Christian relief and development organizations are undoubtedly similar, but none operates on this scale or with this level of influence.