Comments on: Compassion Australia Update

By: John Weaver

John Weaver — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:13:50 +0000

Hey, Grace, can you send me you're blogs new URL so I can link to it. Thanks!

John

By: Grace

Grace — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:31:07 +0000

Okay, I can agree with that! You're right, a multifaceted approach would make much more sense, and save many more lives. I don't understand why some Christians are so against it. I thought we (Christians) were supposed to model our lives after Jesus — teaching about contraception as a way to prevent AIDS doesn't hurt anyone, and somehow I think Jesus would be in favor of saving as many lives as possible.

By: SeandBlogonaut

SeandBlogonaut — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:53:35 +0000

I don't mind if people respectfully disagree

I don't doubt that they do help people,their stance on condom use is dangerous though, when all evidence points to a multifaceted approach being the most successful in combating aids. I guess I don't see the point to saving young African lives if a large proportion of them die due to ignorance surrounding sexual matters.

By: Grace

Grace — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:48:56 +0000

(This is Anna — I have decided not to use my real name on my blog anymore and have changed the URL to reflect that)

Hm…I am hoping that the only reason this is continuing is because Compassion doesn't know what Mercy is doing. Since it hasn't been as well publicized here in the U.S., I think this is quite possible…there are a lot of individuals and organizations that still support them. Although some may know the truth, I would be willing to bet that others either don't know, or have heard but have been so deceived by Mercy that they don't believe it. Of course, I can't say whether that's the case with Compassion or not, but I hope it is.

Wess Stafford came and spoke during chapel at my school last year. He was absolutely one of my favorite chapel speakers. I believe he is an honest and genuine person who believes in what he is doing. He talked about growing up in Africa and the poverty there and watching his friends die around him. He truly cares about helping the poor, and I believe in the work that Compassion is doing.

So, I will have to respectfully disagree with your view of Compassion. =) I do hope that they learn the truth about Mercy though, and am considering writing to them myself.

By: Katie

Katie — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:56:10 +0000

Because Compassion was advertising Mercy on their website in return.

By: SeandBlogonaut

SeandBlogonaut — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:56:22 +0000

If you ran a charity in Africa for arguments sake and you received money from a warlord well known for his brutality and criminal activities (say growing drugs or selling slaves) would you take the money to help your charity? What you appear to be suggesting is that it does not matter where money comes from, how it was earned etc.

Now in regards to compassion I had hoped that the reason they had removed the information was that they were severing ties with an organisation that mistreats women.

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:15:16 +0000

So why would Mercy/ anyone involved in Mercy sponsoring Compassion kids be a bad thing? Surely money is money, food is food?

By: Katie

Katie — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:34:33 +0000

That's a really vague answer and strange wording. Shouldn't they have said that Mercy Ministries in Australia has stopped sponsoring Compassion children (if they ever were, which I'd never heard before) but that Mercy Ministries of America is still sponsoring children? You asked whether Mercy Ministries as an organisation was still a sponsor, not which specific countries were involved.