(NEWSER) – A community in British Columbia is feeling warm and fuzzy after a homeless man's generosity inspired residents not once but twice over the past two weeks. First, the unidentified man with little to his name found a suitcase with $2,000 in it on a street in Victoria, but turned over the cash to police believing it was "the right thing to do," authorities tell the CBC.
As the story spread, Mike Kelly of website Victoria Buzz began fundraising to help the guy out and donations flooded in, totaling $5,000—including $255 donated by kids who'd opened a lemonade stand, CTV News reports. But finding the Langford man in his 60s proved difficult.
"It's not easy tracking down a person of no fixed address and no phone, but I kept trying," says officer Alex Bérubé. "I was touched by the story."
After hours of searching on and off the clock, Bérubé finally found him on Monday and told him of the money that was his if he wanted it; he didn't.
"Instead of asking how to collect it, he asked me how to donate it" to a local homeless shelter, Our Place, and other food service providers for homeless people, Bérubé says.
Officers told the man to think over his decision, but when he visited a police branch the next day, his choice was the same. In a handwritten letter, he described his intentions for the money—though he also made one small, additional request: He asked for a job. Kelly says he plans "to do everything I can to help find him a job that fits his personal situation" and is soliciting help. (A 5-year-old recently brought a homelessman to tears.)
Dug up this article thanks to something posted by a user who goes by the screen name "Prof" here on the forums. I couldn't find anything more on whether or not this man's request for a job has been granted or fulfilled. Apparently a story like this isn't as "newsworthy" as riots, movie stars and other pressing things we're supposed to know about. There's not a lot of information on the guy but his actions alone in his example seem to betray some kind of wisdom or excellence of character. I sort of wonder, if this guy was the wisest man in the world, would any of us even be able to spot it? In what is perhaps my own romanticism I sort of imagine him giving up on society as if to say to us all that we're all nothing more than fools. Is he perhaps a modern day Diogenes?
Gary Childress wrote:Is he perhaps a modern day Diogenes?
Or dare I say it, Jesus? I'm a non-believer myself but I was brought up in the Christian tradition and this part of the Christian message is a part worth hanging on to. If only god would keep his interfering nose out of things humanity would get along just fine.
Dalek Prime wrote:Wise men generally blend with the crowd.
Good point. It's a tragic paradox of humans. Those who are the least suitable for leadership are the very ones who seek it (and get it).
I have a theory that there is something inherently wrong with people who seek office; people who think they have all the answers, and can solve all the problems.
Dalek Prime wrote:Wise men generally blend with the crowd.
Good point. It's a tragic paradox of humans. Those who are the least suitable for leadership are the very ones who seek it (and get it).
I have a theory that there is something inherently wrong with people who seek office; people who think they have all the answers, and can solve all the problems.
I don't think they think they have all the answers, I think they are only interested in their self-interest.
Gary Childress wrote:Is he perhaps a modern day Diogenes?
Or dare I say it, Jesus? I'm a non-believer myself but I was brought up in the Christian tradition and this part of the Christian message is a part worth hanging on to. If only god would keep his interfering nose out of things humanity would get along just fine.
Jesus of course had disciples and went around proclaiming himself divine. Again there's not much to go on about this guy but I wonder if he does the same or if he leads a more private life, tending to and cultivating his own soul. In any case he certainly seems to have set a remarkable example for the rest of us.
Gary Childress wrote:
Jesus of course had disciples and went around proclaiming himself divine.
Don't believe everything you read, Gary. Don't forget Jesus had a shrewd PR agent in Saul of Tarsus and Jesus himself was a very pious Jew. It is utterly inconceivable that he would have made such a claim on his own behalf because this would have been the ultimate blasphemy which would have cost him his immortal soul. Furthermore Jesus was executed by the Romans and not by the Jews and the Romans had a very strict policy of never interfering in the religious affairs of their subject populations. If he'd been guilty of blasphemy under Jewish law he could have been quite legally stoned to death by the Jewish authorities and not crucified under Roman law. Crucifixion was a form of execution which the Romans only used as a means of putting down political insurrection and not for any other offence. The "son of god" bullshit was an after-market embellishment which in fact was never officially recognised by the Roman church until centuries after Christ's death. It never ceases to astonish me how little many Christians actually know about the history of their own religion.
Gary Childress wrote:
Jesus of course had disciples and went around proclaiming himself divine.
Don't believe everything you read, Gary. Don't forget Jesus had a shrewd PR agent in Saul of Tarsus and Jesus himself was a very pious Jew. It is utterly inconceivable that he would have made such a claim on his own behalf because this would have been the ultimate blasphemy which would have cost him his immortal soul. Furthermore Jesus was executed by the Romans and not by the Jews and the Romans had a very strict policy of never interfering in the religious affairs of their subject populations. If he'd been guilty of blasphemy under Jewish law he could have been quite legally stoned to death by the Jewish authorities and not crucified under Roman law. Crucifixion was a form of execution which the Romans only used as a means of putting down political insurrection and not for any other offence. The "son of god" bullshit was an after-market embellishment which in fact was never officially recognised by the Roman church until centuries after Christ's death. It never ceases to astonish me how little many Christians actually know about the history of their own religion.
I haven't studied much about Christianity, mainly because I'm not a Christian, rather an agnostic. Thanks for the lesson.
I wasn't trying to present myself as a know-all pedagogue, Gary, just trying to set the record straight on a matter of historical fact. This particular history is one I spent a lot of time researching many years ago for a series of articles which I was working on at the time. You may also be interested to know that virgin births were ten a penny in Roman Judea. "God done it" was the default explanation for inconvenient teenage pregnancies.
Obvious Leo wrote:I wasn't trying to present myself as a know-all pedagogue, Gary, just trying to set the record straight on a matter of historical fact. This particular history is one I spent a lot of time researching many years ago for a series of articles which I was working on at the time. You may also be interested to know that virgin births were ten a penny in Roman Judea. "God done it" was the default explanation for inconvenient teenage pregnancies.
Nothing wrong with knowing what you are talking about. You seem like a well educated and learned person, much more so than myself.
Gary Childress wrote:
Jesus of course had disciples and went around proclaiming himself divine.
Don't believe everything you read, Gary. Don't forget Jesus had a shrewd PR agent in Saul of Tarsus and Jesus himself was a very pious Jew. It is utterly inconceivable that he would have made such a claim on his own behalf because this would have been the ultimate blasphemy which would have cost him his immortal soul. Furthermore Jesus was executed by the Romans and not by the Jews and the Romans had a very strict policy of never interfering in the religious affairs of their subject populations. If he'd been guilty of blasphemy under Jewish law he could have been quite legally stoned to death by the Jewish authorities and not crucified under Roman law. Crucifixion was a form of execution which the Romans only used as a means of putting down political insurrection and not for any other offence. The "son of god" bullshit was an after-market embellishment which in fact was never officially recognised by the Roman church until centuries after Christ's death. It never ceases to astonish me how little many Christians actually know about the history of their own religion.
I haven't studied much about Christianity, mainly because I'm not a Christian, rather an agnostic. Thanks for the lesson.
An agnostic who studies the object of his ignorance tends to veer towards atheism.
The man's action was maybe unbelievable to many of us but, that man know and understand the word of God. Isn't he deserve much respect than those corrupt official.
