dangin

Ah, a definition of "good". Well that is impossible unless you are naive. We can spend hours and thousands of pages talking about utility, reward, and averages, and still would not come up with what is objectively good.

Now, as to christian charity, and the value one receives from helping one's society . . .Let's get it on.

We are social animals, we would have no culture, society, or technological advancement without the benefits we have garnered from being a society. Just like a social pack of predators cannot bring down the much larger wildebeast or giraffe, or other super herbivore individually, thus, we cannot get to the moon, cure AIDS, make automobiles, or even produce freaking prepackaged, microwavable, instant meals as individuals. We needed the separation of labor and written language, to begin being able to store knowledge outside our own bodies, and thus pass it on from generation to generation. (we are the only species on earth that does this by the way) That is why we don't have to start from scratch every 50 years as a culture, or rely on faulty oral traditions, or songs around the hearth fire to pass on information.

So, the utility of a social order is obvious, unless I did not spell it out for you clearly enough.

Even today, when an individual could leave society, and still use all the products of that society, all the knowledge of society, and would not have to start "from scratch", that individual would still be lacking. They would lack a mate, they would lack services, medical primarily, and if they did not need medical, and they had a mate, they would still need socity for the education of their children, unless they wanted to make a separate society of their offspring, and guess what, society pops up again. So, there is pretty much no getting out of being social, unless abstinent hermit is the job description you always wanted, and then morality, ethics, and charity are moot.

So, where are we, society is good, and you have no choice but to be social, particularly if you are going to discuss charity.

Now what do get from being charitable? The simple act of bettering your society, even if done privately helps you. You feed or clothe a poor person. That person does not commit a crime out of desperation, the victim of that crime does not report it to insurance, insurance rates don't go up.

You give a gift to a school, you better the average education of some within your society, a breakthrough is made by one of them, you, and your society benefits from that breakthrough.

You smile at someone, they feel better and smile at someone else, it spreads around, and eventually improves the day of the person you cut off in traffic later, and even though they are mad, they don't go into road rage because they got smiled at earlier by a stranger.

ripples on a pond you know, and these are just the random ones.

If you are known for doing your charitable acts, then you get prestige, people like you, they smile at you and talk to you when they see you in public places. If you are in need, they are more willing to help you.

And of course if you commit a crime, you reduce your access to society. Rapists, murderers, thieves, and home invaders will have trouble landing a job, may lose their voting priveledges, will have effected credit, will have less chance of a desirable mate, and because of the decrease in access to society to them, they lose access to society for any offspring they have as well.

The above arguments are logical, nonsupernatural, and are all the thinking person needs to be "moral", "good", and even "charitable."

Christianity is the easy way out for the nonthinking person. Or the recommended way of the person who thinks no one else can think either, and so they have to have big daddy in the sky to scare everyone straight.

And as I said, these moral rules have existed as long as we have been social, just because christianity has co-opted something that is true, does not mean that christianity is the source of that truth.

E_muse

Firstly, you've simply restated that a person doing a charitable deed may benefit somehow from their act. I haven't disagreed with this at all - in fact I've agreed with it. You describe a causal link within in a society which may lead to a person, even unwittingly, improving their own quality of life through an unselfish act.

What I have said is that it seems impossible to judge the initial motivations of the donor as inherently selfish because of the benefits which they end up enjoying. You haven't actually commented on this - which was my main point.

They also seem a little idealistic to me. This seems to suggest that a 'thinking person' requires an element of selfishness to be present in order to act charitably. If true, I find that rather sad.

Also, you fail to mention that the society which you describe and rationalise is informed by religion. You present a charicature of religion which will only effect society in negative ways. Religious thinking and religious expression are bound up in this thing which you call 'society' and inform it constantly. Religion informs society and therefore informs your rationalization of it.

Sigmund Freud promoted the idea that religion is only the illusion of a father-figure (your big daddy idea), invented to shelter mankind from interal and external forces it could neither understand or control. Despite this he still said that religion is 'perhaps the most important item in the physical inventory of a civilization'.

Because your comments do not even represent a consensus humanistic view, your statement that your basic ideas are all that that people need to be 'good' etc, cannot be taken as true.

Christianity is far from being easy for many people in the world today. What you're saying here is that 'theists don't think'... period. Do you honestly expect me to take that statement seriously? It's simply and observably untrue.

I would be interested to see how you can justify the idea that an unwillingness to think is the perogative of the theistic.

The central message of the Christian gospel is freedom from fear. What you're saying here is simply inaccurate.

I suppose you are the thinking person who can see everything clearly. You're stating that your mode of thinking is all that is required for society to function - is that right?

It comes across that you are speaking down to people and it would appear that you are in danger of becoming what you are attempting to run away from. A common phenomenon.

Society needs the law to scare everyone straight. The threat of punishment or consequences for actions. Legal consequences are not simply a punishment but also a deterrent for those who may be considering certain actions. That's why the law makes an example of people.

The fear of punishment is an integral part of society's attempts to control behaviour (amongst others).

You seem to see fear as negative. Why? It's a vital instinct in certain situations.

Attempts to control others are prevalent in society (a boss who controls his workforce through fear for example) and religion certainly does not have the monopoly on that one!

If people wish to scare and control others, they don't need God to do it. If God is not real then religion exists because of man and attempts to manipulate and control others exist because of man. This won't be rectified by simply removing God from the equation, man will simply find another rational basis for justifying his actions as it forms a part of human nature.

If people could be charitable and their motivations totally free from any selfish inclination and yet rationally less well established, which would be preferable? Your rationalization or the other?

A person who gives their life in the context of war is not acting for their own benefit are they!

I'm rather surprised by your rather idealised view of society.

Neither does the fact that they can be rationalized indicate that such actions are the product of rational thought. What is your point here?

These 'rules' are there as a result of human behaviour which is informed by..... I'd like to hear your ideas. Are you expecting me to accept them as brute fact without offering any rationale for these structures?

As for your comments on 'truths'...as far as I'm aware, rational conclusion is never presented as truth but the most meaningful rational interpretation of certain observable phenomena within a particular context and based upon limited perception.

If society is established upon a set of core values that must be guarded at all costs and which are the product of human rationalization, could we see the emergence of a form of 'secular fundamentalism'?

Layman

Well, yes, at least the aspects of who is giving any why can be.

While this is probably true, it really wasn't what I was writing about.

I'm not sure what your point is. We can assume anything--If God does exist or If he doesn't--we want to. I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you saying the charitable impulse is instinctual? Then why were so few people doing it when Christianity came along?

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

We could, but that was hardly my point. My point was a historical one--Christianity substantially altered the West's view of charity. Our modern charitable impulse is largely a result of Christianity.

Okay, but I take it you are accepting that as a historical matter Christianity transformed Roman society's perspecitves on charity. In fact, Christianity is responsible for the West's development of the idea that charity is a virtue.

Which is, of course, irrelevant to the issue at hand. Okay, humans are social beings. That doesn't mean they are--or should be--charitable beings.

The utility of social order is obvious if you have certain presumed values and ideas on what humanity should be doing.

I agree that being social is important to gaining the presumed benefits of society.

I'm not sure there is any link between having a social--what you anachronostically refer to as "to be social"--and discussing charity. Certainly not all "societies" have valued charity.

The odds of your meager contribution preventing anyone from commiting a crime, much less that that person would be prevented from performing any crime that affected you, are so astronimical that it's silly presumotion and speculation to imply that anyone's charitable giving--much less the origins of the charitable impulse in Western Society--was motivated by this consideration.

See above.

Yeah, that's why I smile at people. To save someone I don't know from road rage.

None of which explains why the Roman Empire lacked charity, why Christianity valued charity, and how Christianity changed the Roman Empire's perspective on Charity.

This is wrong. In Rome, no one thought better of you for doing charitable acts. In fact, many of my sources indicate that you would be frowned on for performing charitable acts.

I agree that societal pressure acts to discourage crime. What does that have to do with charity?

It's all a sham because almost no one is motivated by these explanations. Certainly the Romans weren't. Nor did the Christians use these explanations to transform Roman culture. It's just your attempt to come up with a nonreligious reason to appreciate the values that Christianity has actually promoted in Western Society. In fact, it just demonstrates all the more how much you--an atheist--have been affected by the Christian attitude on Charity.

Nah, you are the copycat. You've taken what Christianity has promoted-valued it, apprecitiate it--and tried to copy it. In other words, Christianity taught you this, but you can't admit that its rationale was appropriate.

But as I have demonstrated--and you have failed to rebut--the ideal of Charity did not exist in the Roman Empire--the most advanced civilization at the time. Nor did it appear among the Greeks--another advanced ancient civilization. The reason it came to exist in the West is because of Christianity. So yes, Christianity is the source of our value--including yours--on the virtue of charity. You are just claiming to have come up with a better rationale for the value Christianity imparted to you.

dangin

E-muse

What is wrong with doing things for selfish reasons? If the end result is "moral" behavior, why is it sad that someone is motivated in their own interests. Historically speaking, we humans, as animals, evolved and succeeded purely from selfish motives. As do all animals. Selfish motives insure the protection of one's young.(passing on your genes is selfish, and there is nothing wrong with that)Selfish behavior, as I stated above, makes one willing to be social. (and there is nothing wrong with that) Being generous can be considered a selfish behavior. I work at a huge campus, I would never volunteer to do anything if I had my way, but I do volunteer to help at the xmas party, and during youth mentoring days, and on and on. Why do I do it, because my department and my job specifically thrive based on doing work for other departments. When I am out volunteering, I am making myself, and my department look good, and I am networking, and thus we get more work. Call me selfish all you want, you'll hurt my feelings (not) but I will be crying all the way to the bank. And the kids I mentor get a good day out of it, as do I, so the end result is the same, and I am proud to say that the end result is also selfish. At least I am honest about it.

And while my examples of "good" deeds bettering society to the benefit of myself may be remote, they do statistically speaking, have an effect. What is the cliche, oh yes "what goes around comes around".

Call me naive, or idealistic, but there are three ways to act towards your society. 1) negatively 2) neutrally 3) positively. Examples of negative behavior are crime, being a poor neighbor, rudeness. Examples of neutral behaviors are just minding your own business, following the law, and not really engaging anyone in anyway. Examples of positive behaviors, are charity, volunteerning, being friendly, and being a good neighbor.

Negative behavior is shortsighted and ignorant. Crime is more work than a job, if you want to do it right that is, or it winds up with the criminal losing access to socity. Being a poor neighbor creates illwill within the nearest buffer one has with society. Having a trashed lawn, a unkempt home, garbage not removed. This makes your and your neighbor's homes less valuable, it makes your neighborhood less desireable. Being rude to your neighbors insures that they will not help you, and if they see you involved in questionable behavior, they will be more likely to report you.

Neutral behavior costs you nothing, but gains you nothing. No one is going to go out of their way for you, but also no one is going to go out of their way to hurt you. It is hard to criticize this path, but particularly as you age, or get ill the neutral path has not stored up any good will among people that may make your weakened state easier.

Finally, positive behavior-your neighbors like you. If your house has a broken window and no one has seen you for a while they may investigate sooner than they would if you were a dead beat asshole. If you are ill, or incapacitated, there will be more people willing to check on you, or bring you a casserole.

I can keep listing this stuff, but it seems so self evident.

And I don't think this is a society informed by religion at all, this is a society informed by society. These interactions are the same as they are among nonlanguage using, nonreligion having animal societies. Those individuals that are more social have better success, and thus breed more, and thus raise offspring that perpetuate social behavior. I think this "rule" informs society, and this rule informs religions, since religion came from society, not the other way around.

Yes, I think you should take the statement that theists don't think seriously. Because, while they may think within the confines of their presuppositions, those very presuppositions make it impossible for them to think free of those presuppositions. (that was redundent wasn't it?)And yes, I too have presuppositions, but mine, as with most "free thinkers" are that logic and reason are the bounds of what can be examined. Theist's parameters of thought are often shrunk down from the full use of reason. Why does a theist have to go further than the morality of the bible to understand what they perceive as moral? They don't, thus they do not think completely. I have ingested that thinking, then gone on to break down the presuppositional wall, and examin more ground. Theists don't do that. They stop at the walls their religion puts up.

Then you go off on fear for a while. Obviously fear is an evolutionary mechanism, and a successful one at that. That does not mean that using it as a means of control is always right. Creating a pretense that forces fear of eternal damnation and punishment upon people, usually beginning at a very young age, is reprehensible. As a mean of social control, education(which is what I am really talking about here) is just as good. Actually education is better. You can keep the ignorant masses in line very well with hocus pocus voodoo. You cannot do that with the enlighted quite so well, yet the enlightened behave no less morally, and historically speaking often more morally than the great unwashed masses.

Keep your fear, instilled in children to make them slaves, I prefer knowledge to make them free. Both result in an ordered society. Which is better? History will tell, oh wait, it already has, over and over again. Here's a clue, it ain't religion.

People giving their lives away in war are interesting examples. To use Lincoln's verbage, a patriot giving the "last measure of devotion" is an amazing thing. But they are dying so that their side may win. Their culture, their society, the source and repository of the genetic material most like their own, whether they bred or not. Dying for one's culture serves both that culture, and the species as a whole. Whether we rationalize it or not, it is the way we are made, as all animals are made.

Secular fundamentalism? We could only be so lucky. My point is that we have been social animals for millions of years. The morality of christianity is not original to christianity. It was not thought up for or by christianity. Infact, some of the things so important to the morality of christianity are not important at all. Pornogrphy, responsible drug use, extra marital sex. These are all major no-nos according to biblical morality. But they are not really important to anyone. Why, because socially they didn't evolve to be important. When we were a lower order of primate(ah the good ol days) we were a pack of cute little monkeys, hangin in the trees, eating bugs, leaves, and the occasional other monkey. (yummy) Anyway, we cared about some things very much(the cornerstones of our monkey social order you might say). We wanted our land, we wanted our food, we wanted to make youngins, and we wanted those youngins to survive and thrive. This is the basis of our social order, and it is the main part of all social animal's social order. That is why today, assault, home invasion, murder, and theft are not only immoral, they are criminal, and masturbation, sex, and porn are not criminal(in the majority of cases). Drug use is illegal, but this is more a financial consideration, than something that is immoral because of its harm to society. You can argue that it is illegal because it "harms society" if you want, but then you have to prove that making it illegal has curtailed it's prevalence, which is clearly not the case.

Anyway, what does all this have to do with charity? Only that being charitable, engaging one's society in a positive way, is selfish, for the good of the charitable individual. Not only is that the case, but it should be advertised that way too. Your idea that charity for selfish reasons is sad is the naive view if you ask me. We are selfish, we successfully evolved because we are selfish, we remain selfish, and we do good for selfish reasons. Wallow in it. You will be more loved because of your wallowing.

Christianity claiming a "cornering of the charity market" is interesting. While it may be so, according to certain statistics, there are also statistics of christianity's anti-chrarity, or charity with strings attached.(usually those strings are: attend this prayer service, then you get your food or medicine) Also the negative psychic impact of christianity can be said to negate some of that charity. The fact that many people make a lively hood on charitable dollars(those who run and work for the charities) means that a percentage of those charitable gifts go to the support of middle and upper class people and that reduces the total.

And finally, an example. Christian Children's Fund. Let's feed the starving poor so that their misery is lessened, NOT REMOVED, so that they can live long enough to breed more humans into misery. Let's feed those in a land that cannot support them, so that we can increase the population making the demands upon that famished land. Let's use christian charity to help more be born into misery.

Are you insane, you call this charity? Let's send them condoms and education, not food, or arguably bullets would be more humane. The answer to staving hoards is not low caloric subsistence diets that makes more starving hoards. Only something so shortsighted as "christian charity" thinks this is the answer. Oh but it is a good witnessing opportunity, so let them subsist. At least when their miserable lives are over they will have been deluded into thinking they get the kingdom of heaven, when in fact they have simply been suckered and tortured by the kingdom of the liars.

dangin

Howdy Layman,

"Christianity altered the west's view of charity"

What west are you talking about? "Our modern charitable impulse is the result of christianity?" OK, where is your alternate universe control group where everything in the world is the same, but there is no christianity, and because of that there is no charity in the "West" the wealthiest group of nations on the planet?

There was no "west" before christianity, not to say that the deveolpment of europe and the founding of the new world is the result of christianity either. But this is a stretch isn't it? Like I said, where's your control group? That aside, you constantly compare between the modern "west" and the Roman Empire. Do you really think your "sources" are that solid, that you know everything that happened 1500 to 2500 years ago, and know every bit of the social order and nuance that was Roman culture. Also, what about everything before Rome, and in parts of the world other than Rome? Your historical comparison is lacking to say the least. Is there no charity in Asia? Was there no charity among the aztecs, mayans, huns, neanderthals, aboriginal south east islanders, and aboriginal americans, to name but a sliver of a few of the other cultures and eras of this planet?

Layman "Which is, of course, irrelevant to the issue at hand. Okay, humans are social beings. That doesn't mean they are--or should be--charitable beings. "

My point is that charity is one aspect of being social. It is a strategy that gains the individual benefit for myriad reasons. Far more than the examples I have already mentioned. Even you must admit that charity can be an incredibly self serving endeavor. The fact that it can be, and can be demonstrated to be, is proof enough that there are selfish reasons to engage in charity, whether one recognizes, or consciously cogitates about it or not.

As I said to e-muse above. The examples of charity or moral behavior I listed in my several posts above are but a few examples. When you actually talk about performing these "good" acts within the tiny portion of society that you frequent,(your neighbors, co-workers, family, friends, religious, and fraternal organizations)The impact of being known as a "good", "moral", and "charitable" person increases dramatically. The idea that this behavior will come back around to visit you in a positvie way also becomes not only likely, but almost statistically assured. These acts going out in the general population, are also possible of coming back and visiting benefit upon you. All in all it is a compelling reason to behave this way, no god needed.

And now I'm rereading your Rome stuff again. Did you just come through a worm whole in time from Ancient Rome? You sure do list a lot of moral absolutes about Roman culture that you cannot possibly claim to be absolute. But I already covered this.

Layman: "It's all a sham because almost no one is motivated by these explanations. Certainly the Romans weren't. Nor did the Christians use these explanations to transform Roman culture. It's just your attempt to come up with a nonreligious reason to appreciate the values that Christianity has actually promoted in Western Society. In fact, it just demonstrates all the more how much you--an atheist--have been affected by the Christian attitude on Charity. "

Don't you see, what I am talking about is millions upon millions of years of social, and evolutionary impact upon the creation of our minds, and our social order. You are comparing one culture with another, and claiming the impact of one religion upon the differences between those cultures. Pardon me if I find it amusing that you are arguing from within a bubble of less than one half of one percent of our specie's behavior. And I am the one who is rationalizing according to you. And as I wrote to E-muse above, I don't really recognize the "value" of christian charity. Christian Charity is an oxymoron if you ask me.

And if christianity taught me anything related to morality, or charity, I would give to those sadistic torturers who feed the starving masses in the third world, Or I would feel ashamed at my lifestyle choices that christianity cosider's immoral, but which culture doesn't care one whit about. I can't really be said to be copycating something when the basis of my morality and worldview predates the thing I am accused of copying. Nice try though.

And as to your last statement, as I already said, mine is older than yours, nyah-nyah. And also, I pointed out your inability to be absolute about the moral absolutes of the Romans, or Greeks. You also fail to take into account any other cultures or influences on our society. And your whole argument comes crashing down if anyone cares to point out an ancient society that is charitable, as you define it. Finally, christian charity is, as demonstrated by the christians children's fund, any other feed the starving fund, and any charity that demands submission to christ before the charitable deed is performed, counter productive. But the dollar amounts that you cite are so nice, I can see why you would be swayed into this simple-minded argument.

Ron Garrett

A couple of quick comments.

I would first point out that the growth of charity in the United States has paralleled the growth of the US economy. Sociologists have long since examined the impact of the protestant ethic on US economic power, so I won't bother with this issue.

Jesus learned the importance of charity in his own Jewish faith. But Christianity, unlike Judaism, borrowed enough pagan elements to compete with the cults in fomrs and ideas already extant in the Roman empire of the day, something Jews never attempted to do. Thus we can rightly credit Christianity with popularizing the Jewish charitable imperative.

It is no surprise that religions whose popularity is driven to a large degree by desire for extended family and a social safety net should attract people who both feel the need to share and fear they will some day be in need themselves. Though that communal aspect of the cult was lost early on, the practice of charity has remained normative in the cult. In churches like the LDS giving is quite disciplined and aimed specifically at the support of its members and programs. In mainline denominations it is less disciplined and in my experience often rather poorly managed and targeted.

The fact is that Christianity as a system of truth and cosmology is false and fraudulent, as many here would agree, but I do not therefore deny that Christians do some good with a portion of the billions they drain out of the public economy via tax exemption.

However, (and this matter deserves my further study)I suspect that if church income and properties were taxed like the businesses they are, the public coffers might swell far beyond the contributions these organizations make to charity, and we could then fund homeless shelters without turning "down-and-outers" into babbling superstitious idiots in the bargain. Just the millions spent on Benny Hinns Orlando mansion could fund a rescue mission of considerable size in any city. Jan Crouch's jewelry, or her husbands breeding stallions could do the same I am sure.

I would also point out that most CHristian charity work began in earnest during the Christian Liberal era before WWI when the church felt it could transform Earth into heaven. Today the Christian dialogue is dominated by elements far more concerned with making converts before the end of the world than with making positive changes that help the needy. All the years I received Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority junk mail, I don't recall a single mention of the homeless or the hungry. I seem to recall that Beverly LaHaye's Concerned Women for America were mostly concerned with wiping out the Gay Rights movement, not with feeding anyone.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

Layman

What do you mean? There is no alternatve universe control group. Nor did I claim that if there was no Christianity there would be no Charity. I'm saying that Christianity is the cultural factor that reshaped the existing pagan Roman/Greek culture into one that valued charity, much as we know it today: providing assistance to those in need, hungary, poor, etc., out of charity rather than the expectation of gaining a political or economic return.

I'm not comparing the Roman Empire with the modern west to prove Chritianity's influence on charity. I'me comparing the ancient Roman Empire before Christianity, during Christianity's spread, and when Christianity became dominant. Then I also discussed some modern examples to show that the ideal was still in existence, and that Christianity is still heavily involved in it.

No one can know every bit of nuance of ancient Roman culture. No one can know every bit of nuance of modern culture. Nor is such an absurd level of knowledge necessary to support my argument here.

What bout it? They weren't part of my argument. I'm not claiming that Christianity tranformed Asian culture into one that valued the virtue of Charity as we know it in the West. My point was pretty clear: Christianity transformed Roman and Greek culture from one that did not value charity to one that did. And that transformation remains with us today in the West.

You have failed to demonstrate that the benefit is contributor specific. But what's really wrong with this argument is that it's irrelevant. I am assuming that charity is a "good" thing--whatever evil motives you may imagine. But whether you think charity is evil or not, the reality of Christianity's encouragement of it remains.

And as I explained above, during ancient Rome, there was no social benefit to providing "Charity" because the dominant pagan culture did not value Charity. Indeed, many of the leading pagan writers thought it could be a bad thing. When the pagan Emperor Julian sought to encourage pagans to follow the Christian example of charity, he was largely unsuccesful.

What are you talking about?

Actually, I am not doing that. I'm analyzing Roman culture pre-and and post-Christian dominance. I'm comparing the same culture before and after Christian influence. The only reason I discussed modern culture was to show that the Christian ideal which changed Roman culture is still with us.

If feeding the hungary, rescuing abandoned babies, sheltering the homeless, are not of value to you, then so be it. It wasn't my intent to try and justify such activities to skeptics.

The copycating is limited to the issue of charity, which you seemed to be accepting as good on a general level (although you criticize certain specifics). You have attempted to demonstrate the virtue of Charity by using nonreligious "logic." But the only reason you feel the need to do so is that you were born and raised in a culture that values "charity." And that culture's value of charity is a result of Christian influence.

[quote]And as to your last statement, as I already said, mine is older than yours, nyah-nyah. And also, I pointed out your inability to be absolute about the moral absolutes of the Romans, or Greeks. You also fail to take into account any other cultures or influences on our society. [QUOTE]

If you have evidence that my presentation on ancient Rome's value on charity is wrong, please present it. Otherwise, you're just hoping I'm wrong and saying I don't have absolute knowledge. I've presented leading historians on this issue, as well as primary evidence. You've prevented wishful thinking.

Not in the least, for I have not claimed that Christianity is the only way a society could come to value Charity. I've argued that Christianity is the way that Rome, and the West, have come to value charity. Obviously the Jews did. Perhaps others. It's actually pretty irrelevant. You must prove that the ancient Roman world before Christianity valued Charity as much as the ancient Roman world did after Christianity's influence. That would disprove my argument.

I see no vice in feeding starving people. Sorry you do. But it's pretty irrelevant anyway. I'm sure there have been misguided charitable efforts. No doubt about it. But I think our society is better off with the idea that we should selflessly assist those in need than by one that sees no virtue--indeed sees vice--in providing assistance to those in need.

dangin

Goddamn Ron!! Testify, Amen, you go boy, halleluja, music to my ears and all that. Always a pleasure to read your posts. I almost felt the spirit moving within me. Oh wait, that was the chimichanga from lunch. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: dangin ]</p>

Layman

[quote]Originally posted by Ron Garrett:
You do realize that Benny Hinn's salary is taxed don't you? And he pays property taxes on his house. Ditto for Jan Crouch's jewerly. She or her husban paid taxes on the money used to buy it. I'm not sure about her husband's breeding stallions, but if it wasn't taxed then it's because its a side business, not because he's a preacher.

As I've demonstrated, Christian charity was in full force during its earliest stages. I could also list off several Christian inspired charitable efforts throughout the intervening time. True, much of Christianity's concern is on spiritual salvation, but that has always been the case. The Salvation Army is still expending hundreds of millions in charitable aid. As is the YMCA, and the Red Cross.

But I can agree that Christianity should return to its roots, and those churches who do not should once again place this issue on the front burner of its agena.