0
   

What is Charity?

 
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 12:54 pm
Charity is a self indulgent exercise more to ease your conscious and give you that warm fuzzy feeling inside than an a concerted effort to make life more equal for your fellow man. I to give to charity but dont I just congratulate myself every darned time, what a wonderful generous soul I am..Charity is the resort of a failed society and its politics.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 01:35 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:

Charity is a self indulgent exercise more to ease your conscious and give you that warm fuzzy feeling inside than an a concerted effort to make life more equal for your fellow man. I to give to charity but dont I just congratulate myself every darned time, what a wonderful generous soul I am..Charity is the resort of a failed society and its politics.
Hi xris! But: an example of a society that doesn't have the "failed" stamp on it in your view?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 01:56 pm
@Arjuna,
None in the so called civilised world. You only see it in tribal societies. Hi to you ,how are you?
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:02 pm
@mark noble,
Yes it helps greatly.
You use the word "extension" here.
I feel I must inspects this a little.
So it is a reaching?
So it is a strivence?
So it is a learning?
So it is an education?
Now I would ask you why you would think it needs to be a "friendly" hand and not sometimes a stringent one?
Can Charity sometimes know what is best and try to enforce its self rather than just imply its self?
I don't disagree with you as I think friendly is likely to gain more bounty, but could not friendly also be seen as a weakness or shyness, where some Charity needs to absolutely and unquestioningly assert its self?
Does not Charity know what is best and also how, if the need arises, best to enforce the greater good?
Is Charity a force to be reckoned with?
Is Charity a policy, a policing?
Yes the Charity may gain from your inclusion but I do not necessarily think one can then term themselves charitable if they are doing it for recognition over supplication.
I would not say it need be a secret, but I do think a level of almost detachment needs to be practised.
But this also brings up the organisation over the individual again.
Is Charity its contributions and contributors or its solvency and conclusions?
In other words is Charity the workers or the works?
The question as to whether Charity can ever be anonymous is also there to look at?
Is Charity ever private?
Is the more private the more charitable?
I s Charity a feeling or congratulation?
Not rather a dissolution or hardship?
Is Charity meant to 'feel good'?
Not rather 'feel troubled'?
Is not it a task rather than a pleasure?

I love "I never oblige out of obligation", but should not Charity be an obligation?
Should not Charity be law?
Not all laws being comfortable, but still for the greater good are they institutionalised.
Should Charity be more of an institution than a liberty?

"Why are the burdens of the world thrust upon others?"
This is a very good question and has many answers.
But mine is, it is trust upon others because no one else is carrying a load that needs to be burdened by something or someone, else the world would collapse in a matter of hours.
Which goes some way to Charity being a duty rather than a preference.
Which I must point out Charity is still predominantly a choice because every 'Charity' is still heavily under a debt and has not yet become solvent because then the problem would be fixed and the Charitable organisation in question would no longer need to be the institution.
There would be no beggars because every need would be met.

Is Charity an institution?
What is an institution?
1.an organisation or public body founded especially for charitable or educational purposes, or as a hospital 2. derog, a hospital, old peoples home, etc regarded as an impersonal or bureaucratic organisation. 3. a custom or tradition. 4. a familiar and well known object or person. 5. the act of instituting or process of being instituted. [from Latin instituere, to establish]
What do you think is an institution?
I would go from the Latin here "to establish",
Is a Charity a message, a calling, a yeller, a cryer?
Are their ways or hearing and spreading it?
Are their ways of interpreting it?
Or would you not say the "impersonal or bureaucratic" can be forgiven for the worth of said message?
Should Charity be law?

Your interpretation of Charity is wholesome and decent.
You give because you are not entreated,
You give because of your own standard and ethic,
You give because you choose.

But what I suppose I am also asking is how do we justify what is and is not Charity?
By it being your choice does it reward you more than if it was an institution?

So what have I concluded from this response to you?
Why should Charity be a choice?
Why is Charity something that is of personal benefit first before the benefit of the need the Charity is trying to fulfil?
Who is more important the giver or the receiver?
Why do we see it as a reward?
Why do we get to be proud and gain when it may be a shame on you if you don't do as writ?
Should those who are not charitable be ashamed?
Is it Charity if it makes you "feel" good?
Is Charity the need or the deed?

Yes that is what I am sticking with most of all from this;
Should those who are uncharitable feel ashamed and in which case should Charity be not a pride?
Is Charity evolving into Duty or law?
Is Charity the need or the deed?

All my best, I have had a really good time with your post.
Thank you for sending it.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:07 pm
@Letty,
And a worthy and decent contribution it is.

You propose Charity is a love, and I agree with this so have little to add to you.

But was wondering if you thought it more a religious love or a more general humanist love?

Have you read 'The Four Loves' by C.S.Lewis by any chance? I would love for the opportunity to discuss this book and concept with someone.
Also if you wished to share Scripture I would be most pleased to do so with you.
Do you know of any other Scripture citing Charity?

All my best and thank you for your reply.

0 Replies
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:19 pm
@dyslexia,
I'm not sure how to respond to this,
Do you mean to say you separate Charity from religion at all costs?
If it may be seemed a religious gift, the gift is initialised?
Is Charity a gift?
Are you saying Charity is a wholly human endeavour and hardship and no superstition should be credited?
Are you saying you are that which deserves the thanks?
Or that there need be no thanks just so long as it is not given to God, who you believe did not put the Charity in your heart so are offended if the credit goes anywhere at all?
Perhaps at that moment You were the strangers god, not a biblical one?
Thank you for your reply.
0 Replies
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:21 pm
@mark noble,
Love is all we need and Charity is how we can give it.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:33 pm
@xris,
I did not get the chance to read this before I gave my first answer to mark noble just now.
I think you will see I come to the same conclusion as you.
So do you also see that Charity should be a trial and law before you feel self congratulatory and at liberty?

I do like that you go into scale and appeasement.
But should not we "feel" guilty if we are not charitable?
What I think I hear you saying is that it is okay to appease guilt but not so as to congratulate.
Am I right?

"Charity is the resort of a failed society and its politics" This to me agrees Charity need be enforced not partook.

Thank you for your reply xris they make sense.
And sense is not always 'nice'.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:39 pm
@sometime sun,
If you have love you dont need charity. In a social responsible community no one should have hand outs. Its not a sign of goodness more of failure. I give only because my community is incapable or unwilling to provide. It has nothing to do with love only a moral responsibility. In many cases it encourages neglect and exasperates the problem. You get winners and losers ,charitable economies erupt and the entrepreneur fund raisers see opportunities to gain employment. Fading celebrities boost their public image by publicly supporting them. When the world need not rattle its tin cans, we will be civilised.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:46 pm
@sometime sun,
Sorry we appear to be out of sink..I think charity is a necessity but society should not congratulate itself on its benefits. It should ask, why it is necessary? It takes away all our responsibilities to a particular need and divorces the problem from government . It leaves those receiving this charity to the vagaries and generosity of strangers.
Arjuna
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:49 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun wrote:

But should not we "feel" guilty if we are not charitable?
"Should feel guilty" is a strange idea to me. There three choices: 1) you feel guilty, 2) you don't, or 3) you do, but like Richard III, you've lost your mind.

A person who isn't charitable might find themselves somewhere between nervous and terrified of becoming disconnected from their golden ball and chain. Reason being: just as they have turned their backs on others: they believe the world will just turn away if they find themselves beaten and left for dead on the side of the road. (Enter the Samaritan)

This fear, which is a kind of prison, can be warping to bean... ya know?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:52 pm
@Arjuna,
Guilt makes you give, if you dont feel guilty you dont feel guilty, not giving. Id love a perplexed funny face now.
Arjuna
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 03:09 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:

None in the so called civilised world. You only see it in tribal societies. Hi to you ,how are you?
I'm doing ok. I was very glad to see your name. You talked once about old plants, and plants that grow around old churches. It has stuck with me.

I agree that the tribe has virtues and civilization has left deep wounds regarding slavery and destitution. But the tribes are small. They survive. Their lives are no doubt rich in a way.

But they can't take out their ipod and listen to Yo Yo Ma. Somewhere along the line, I concluded that I am civilized. I could live in a tribal way. I've come close at times, but I was young then. Now I know: I want my Yo Yo Ma.
0 Replies
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:18 pm
@xris,
This is brill and succinct.
I agree when there is no more need for Charity then we shall be civilised.
But then we must look into the personalist Charity.
Charity as a trait, Charity as a human condition and personality, Charity as a character flaw or benefit.
That to give to Charity is also expecting that we too shall one day be in need of it. Is it paying the devil to leave you alone?
The character flaw would be those who seem always to be in need of Charity and do not know how to make their own purchase of life, or possibly that which expects to much Charity and is a glutton for attention.
And the benefit of a characters Charity would be that which the former could take advantage of and would end up being so giving the neglect themselves.
So we agree that a sociological and planetary Charity could be nullified but what about the human condition of need to be fed and need to feed?
Is Charity more a condition of a personal individual human need than it is of a population mass human need?
Could we be by not making that which is necessary to be law of morality be letting the self indulge in strangers than in each others nearest and dearest?
That does not make good sense like you,
Are we allowing the charitable organisation and need to go unfulfilled because we cannot give to our selves or ask for our selves to be given to?

Do we collectively remain uncivilised because we are afraid to civilise the individual?
Yes that one sounds best.

Thanks for the reply and hope you are in no need of charity,
Unless charity is a needed human condition and we all need it to be given and or to give it to ourselves and each other personally?
Perhaps Charity is love after all?
A needy love to be sure, but a love none the less?

Great to see you.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:23 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun wrote:

Yes it helps greatly.
So what have I concluded from this response to you?
Why should Charity be a choice?
Why is Charity something that is of personal benefit first before the benefit of the need the Charity is trying to fulfil?
Who is more important the giver or the receiver?
Why do we see it as a reward?
Why do we get to be proud and gain when it may be a shame on you if you don't do as writ?
Should those who are not charitable be ashamed?
Is it Charity if it makes you "feel" good?
Is Charity the need or the deed?

Yes that is what I am sticking with most of all from this;
Should those who are uncharitable feel ashamed and in which case should Charity be not a pride?
Is Charity evolving into Duty or law?
Is Charity the need or the deed?

All my best, I have had a really good time with your post.
Thank you for sending it.




Hi My Good Friend,
Charity must be a choice, or else it becomes a tax.
Depends how you classify "Charity". I helped a friend that didn't ask for my help, so his trip (out of his own pocket) would be less expensive for him - So he could enjoy it more - And the kids could have some refreshments maybe. I didn't do it for me (if that's possible), unless seeing his smile and receiving his handshake, which was not pre-expected, was indeed to my benefit? I did enjoy them though, needless to say.
Giver/receiver importance = Neither.
I didn't see it as a reward. Even though I was rewarded.
Pride is shame, Sun. I have none.
Nobody, but the proud, need be ashamed.
Charity is "sharing". If one feels good giving to the needy - It is still "Sharing".
Need or deed? If it helps, it helps.

To voice out loud that you are charitable is to be prideful, but even so, it is still "Being charitable".
To keep it to oneself is to be humble, but still "being charitable".
To give to charity out of obligation is pretentious, in the least.

Shine On Sun
xxx
Mark...
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:24 pm
@xris,
Absolutely,
Charity of the spirit aside,
to solve a dire planetary need should not be contingent upon the kindness of strangers.
It should be the Duty and law of State to take care of those who need caring for.
There should be no need to appeal to peoples generosity, it should be a requirement and if need be taken from, not begged for.

Do people like begging?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 04:47 pm
@sometime sun,
Hi Sun,
Just so you know. My friend Mark wont be joining us on this forum. He does not want to be open to the profanity and lewdness that so often attends.
Neither will Chris - for similar reasons. Or Adrian and stewart, come to think of it............Nick too.

xxx
Mark...
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:27 pm
@Arjuna,
A strange idea no doubt.
We all usually feel guilty about something or something.
Human trait that needs exercising exorcising.
Part of the ego?
I could easily say I think "should" feel guilty is because we gotta feel guilty about something why not about something congenial like not being charitable.?
But that may just be me. (sun smile)

Your posts always have layers, I love this,
I would say yes people can often covet the strangest things about themselves and the rest of the mass.
Self reliance can come at the cost of a prison of the most glittering variety.

We see in Luke 10:27 through 10:37 the Samaritan.

Well not to disagree with Jesus but I find our neighbours are those who would be in need of our Charity and love regardless of what they would be willing or not to do for us, our neighbours are, be they only one step to your side or one step within.
But I do get the point that Charity is both a compassion and a mercy and a practice of self.
And also for me a spiritual absence or lessening of naturally present or acquired guilt.
But I feel guilty and only envy those who have come to be at peace with theirs at the cost of no other but for the benefit of the other.

All my best, great to see you.
0 Replies
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:36 pm
@xris,
But should you feel guilty for simply not giving?
I do.
Never mind, there is no point in answering this question as I am bored with it and me already. (sun scrunches his nose)
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:58 pm
I call bullshit to anyone who is saying charity equals love or the other way around. I have never personally met anyone who loved unconditionally. Not a single person that I have ever met was.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is Charity?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 09:43:27