|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 8, 2019 15:24:39 GMT
While I do participate in scheduled charities or volunteer days my church offers, as outline in scripture as well, nearly every other time helping other. It is odd that people would think charity involves a reduction of lifestyle. You simply include charity as an ordinary cost of life (Costs include time and money) and find there is always room for it. This is why, although not a rule in Christian doctrine, setting aside a particular percentage personally, is a good way to ensure we always think of others whether religious or not. So you feel yourself square with Mark 12:41-44? It does not contradict what I said so why would it? He wasn't condemning all the others, but praising her giving attitude. People are certainly allowed and encouraged to give as much as they wish which is not the same thing as a mandate to do so...Well, in her case it kinda was since donations were expected and a poor person will never do anything but give from their need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Sept 8, 2019 15:43:00 GMT
So you feel yourself square with Mark 12:41-44? It does not contradict what I said so why would it? He wasn't condemning all the others, but praising her giving attitude. He was doing both. "They all gave of their wealth" - he is belittling their contribution, because they could well afford it. And, as usual, he was providing his disciples with an example to follow - and an example to avoid. Not in that particular passage, no, but Luke 14:33 and Luke 18:18-30 do present a mandate to do so. Not as much as they wish, mind you, but as much as they can. Poor people tend to be a lot more charitable and hospitable than rich people. They are used to share what little they have. The rich didn't get rich from sharing, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 8, 2019 16:25:27 GMT
collective heads exploding after wetting beds eroding
here in the land
of the freak
and the home of the rave
watching the followers of president trump
had become
quite the participation sport
as was
the messy clean up involved
every time someone called
with a request to
digest whole
the remaining entrails
surrounding the gaping holes
littering the landscapes
that used to be called america.
for there's nothing compares to the out and out hysteria
of rednecks frothing about
proclaiming one more recycled right
to have their baby jesus pout
in unison with
the choruses
of the ar-fifteen toting walmart shoppers
looking for ammo in
the bargain bins.
does one have to love a nation
wallowing in
three dollar nachos
and
korean made gin?
sjw 09/08/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the illumination following the discharge from the backfire.
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Sept 8, 2019 16:46:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Sept 9, 2019 3:00:16 GMT
gozBut regardless of whether I care or not, what I said is basically true. but yet you seem to think it's 'not caring' to say something that's obviously true? You do realize that it's not possible for a single person to help EVERYONE (assuming we are referring to $), right? or put it this way... a individual person is NOT expected to help EVERY SINGLE PERSON simply because it's not realistic to do so as a single person has limited resources. so your twisting things a bit. Toasted CheeseIll say this... -Yes, in the sense it falls inline with standard charity of helping others etc, which it really has nothing to do with someones sexual orientation. -No, if you mean giving approval of that kind of lifestyle, since it's a serious sin, which is is harmful to that persons eternal soul. but if you want a very basic answer... YES (since I am going to assume we are talking about helping poor people out in general). lowtacks86No one wants to be taxed to death regardless if your rich or poor. it's the democrats who want to tax everyone to death. the common person tends to view the less taxes the better. because at the end of the day... who don't want to keep more of their own money? but for some reason it seems those on the left act like if you don't tax the rich to death, your automatically against the poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Sept 9, 2019 9:18:50 GMT
No one wants to be taxed to death regardless if your rich or poor. it's the democrats who want to tax everyone to death. the common person tends to view the less taxes the better. because at the end of the day... who don't want to keep more of their own money? but for some reason it seems those on the left act like if you don't tax the rich to death, your automatically against the poor. Where does this come from? The Democrats - the left in general, in fact - are for increasing taxes on the rich, and no one else. The Republicans wax lyrical about reducing taxes, but it's usually just the wealthiest who get the tax breaks. "Trickle down economy", indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 9, 2019 12:31:25 GMT
Ill say this... -Yes, in the sense it falls inline with standard charity of helping others etc, which it really has nothing to do with someones sexual orientation. -No, if you mean giving approval of that kind of lifestyle, since it's a serious sin, which is is harmful to that persons eternal soul. but if you want a very basic answer... YES (since I am going to assume we are talking about helping poor people out in general). I didn't ask for you to preach to me about your bigoted and ignorant belief in what you think is sin, which you can't even define in rational context.
Charity isn't just monetary, but I guess you may not really understand that with your prejudiced stance regarding what you think of as sinful and ungodly.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 9, 2019 14:21:46 GMT
goz But regardless of whether I care or not, what I said is basically true. but yet you seem to think it's 'not caring' to say something that's obviously true? You do realize that it's not possible for a single person to help EVERYONE (assuming we are referring to $), right? or put it this way... a individual person is NOT expected to help EVERY SINGLE PERSON simply because it's not realistic to do so as a single person has limited resources. so your twisting things a bit. Toasted Cheese Ill say this... -Yes, in the sense it falls inline with standard charity of helping others etc, which it really has nothing to do with someones sexual orientation. -No, if you mean giving approval of that kind of lifestyle, since it's a serious sin, which is is harmful to that persons eternal soul. but if you want a very basic answer... YES (since I am going to assume we are talking about helping poor people out in general). lowtacks86 No one wants to be taxed to death regardless if your rich or poor. it's the democrats who want to tax everyone to death. the common person tends to view the less taxes the better. because at the end of the day... who don't want to keep more of their own money? but for some reason it seems those on the left act like if you don't tax the rich to death, your automatically against the poor. "No one wants to be taxed to death regardless if your rich or poor." Uh no, you're distorting what I'm actually saying. Despite what Fox News wants to tell you, GOP tax cuts typically only benefit the rich, the latest Trump tax cuts for instance will end up putting a greater burden on the middle class in the long run. Also marginal tax rate cuts (which is what you're probably thinking of) is only one of the charities the GOP gives to billionaires. With all the tax loopholes (particularly capital gains tax and estate tax) that don't really apply to middle class people, obscenely rich people often pay a lower tax bracket than Average Joe. Don't believe me? Warren Buffet says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. "but for some reason it seems those on the left act like if you don't tax the rich to death, your automatically against the poor." Uh no, if you're for upper class taxes and then whine about welfare, social security, socialized healthcare (which is standard Republican platforms), then yes you are automatically against the poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 9, 2019 15:05:31 GMT
pandering to the protoplasmic principles pertaining to purification rituals
manufacturing botox
became
the new darning socks
to a generation
caught
between the locks
of what beauty used
to rock
and what's now considered
suitable for groups
to openly mock.
sjw 09/09/19 inspired at this very moment in time by what used to be considered acceptable in certain circles.
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 9, 2019 21:18:16 GMT
goz But regardless of whether I care or not, what I said is basically true. but yet you seem to think it's 'not caring' to say something that's obviously true? You do realize that it's not possible for a single person to help EVERYONE (assuming we are referring to $), right? or put it this way... a individual person is NOT expected to help EVERY SINGLE PERSON simply because it's not realistic to do so as a single person has limited resources. so your twisting things a bit. Toasted Cheese Ill say this... -Yes, in the sense it falls inline with standard charity of helping others etc, which it really has nothing to do with someones sexual orientation. -No, if you mean giving approval of that kind of lifestyle, since it's a serious sin, which is is harmful to that persons eternal soul. but if you want a very basic answer... YES (since I am going to assume we are talking about helping poor people out in general). lowtacks86 No one wants to be taxed to death regardless if your rich or poor. it's the democrats who want to tax everyone to death. the common person tends to view the less taxes the better. because at the end of the day... who don't want to keep more of their own money? but for some reason it seems those on the left act like if you don't tax the rich to death, your automatically against the poor. It increasing seems that you have not actually read and certainly NOT understood the OP. You have totally missed the whole point and don't even have the wit or understanding to realise it. I accused you of 'conditional' charity and not universal charity. You have attempted to derail the thread with a red herring of the impossibility of helping numbers whereas I was talking about types of people you seem to dismiss of worthy of your 'charity'. Jesus preached that all were equal and worthy of charity for people to give it when they come across need. This is what I am taking issue with. Toasted Cheese asked you if you would give charity to homosexuals and you grudgingly and 'CONDITIONALLY' ANSWERED HIM ACCORDING TO YOUR PREJUDICE. The deepening hole of the uncaring for people you don't agree with or don't like. I am referring to the modern day hypocrisy of the Catholic/Christian church amongst others. I mentioned some of the other possible categories that might not meet your charitable options in the OP. Care to address that? It covers people who, in your hypocrisy, would classify as 'sinners'.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 10, 2019 11:31:48 GMT
Karl AkselWhile I would argue comparison is not belittling and especially since no one could hear him, belittling is not condemnation. The primary benefit of cherry picking is the avoidance of context. Unfortunately I never developed the habit of reading one sentence out of a chapter. The full discussion: So if we are take Jesus statement literally, I suppose we are supposed to hate family too? I'm supposed to be looking for ways to get persecuted (Or find a really big cross to carry around) Clearly the context is Jesus telling people that they need to be prepared to give up everything for their faith. Same thing regarding Luke 18 The point is the man was not willing to do this, not that all of his disciples were broke and homeless which was clearly not the case. That's not really accurate. Charities benefit more from rich people than poor people. There's no reason to pretend rich and middle class are not charitable. It creates a fake class war. However, what is true is that the poor give a greater percentage of their "wealth" if not dollar amount which is why Jesus was commending her. It's all good if for the right reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Sept 10, 2019 22:15:35 GMT
Karl Aksel While I would argue comparison is not belittling I have no idea why you would say that. One of the most common ways of belittling is precisely by way of comparison. But of course it is. If you do not intend to condemn, you would not belittle, either. When you belittle someone for something, you are admonishing them for not being as good as they could be. The primary benefit of cherry picking is the avoidance of context. Unfortunately I never developed the habit of reading one sentence out of a chapter. <snip> The point is the man was not willing to do this, not that all of his disciples were broke and homeless which was clearly not the case.[/quote] My point precisely. He was not willing to go further. And it stands to reason, does it not, that you go as far as you're willing to. Meaning, if you're willing to go further, you do go further. Charities benefit more from rich people because rich people are rich - not because rich people are more charitable. They are not. As I said, and indeed as Jesus said, they give of their wealth. The poor, however, give when they cannot afford to give. They share their already insufficient means, because they already know what it is like to be poor. I notice the change even in myself, from when I was a poor student to being rather more affluent now. When I was a student, I gave more frequently to charities, and I was constantly broke. Now, I'm nowhere near broke - and while my contributions to charity are greater in terms of sheer amount of money, my donations are nowhere near as frequent. If I was to be as charitable now as I was back then, I would have to downgrade my living conditions, because I wouldn't be able to afford them. Instead, I only donate from my surplus, and it's more for my conscience than anything. And that means they are more charitable by nature.
|
|
