Obviously, inside our mighty spoiled society,
the question constantly arises,
of whether, in order to remain committed to the poor,
people must not spend money on anything extravagant,
even if said preposterous cost is attached to a gift,
to show love and respect for an extremely superior person.
Yes, one should never spew that amount of capital,
just to show reverence for any individual,
especially when it’s on a very expensive frivolous item,
and definitely while there are still destitute around,
because it’s eternally wasted revenue as it is,
doesn’t matter how much income one already doles out.
No, this stance isn’t becoming more problematic,
if we add that a caring couple gives a lot to the indigent,
generously helps at a homeless soup kitchen,
sincere friends with many poverty-stricken folks,
also assists in an international aid network,
then they ought to know better not to splurge funds,
understanding really clearer than most,
exactly how foolish such possessions actually are.
Ha, I don’t honestly worry if you wholeheartedly reject,
prior characterizations of mine alluding to this so-called anointing verse,
as being ‘ignorant, hypocritical, unperceptive, and irresponsible,’
particularly when I didn’t say people’s dedication was to equate,
donating every available penny they have on the needy,
glaringly forgetting that this argument concerns monstrous excess instead.
See, nobody mounted that sort of ludicrous defense,
only Jesus has the depraved nerve to mention these things in contradiction,
I merely warned not to strikingly waste resources,
which is normally quite simple to tell the stark variations,
except maybe to commoners in a land and time of sheer abundance,
but this is hardy anywhere near the case as it was from the written passage,
with your pitiful attack, I surely don’t assume you can comprehend,
my winning impact, leaving us indeed always having the impoverished,
painfully displayed within numerous levels of examples as well.
Sharwrong's Song 