Do you need God to be charitable

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ribozyme said:
Also Peter Singer gives his money to charity too.
Click to expand...
Um…this man is in favor of eugenics, you do know that, right?

“He gives money to charity” is like “Hitler was nice to dogs.” It’s true, but somehow it’s just not that impressive.

And the kind of charity that comes from God, is not the same thing as generosity. It had nothing to do with it till the Victorians, who created the modern “do-gooder,” intellectually vapid church that taught salvation by social work. Or as Belloc liked to call them, “the Societies for Bothering the Poor.”

It’s the Norman pronunciation of the Latin caritas, which is a very technical term. Basically what it means is that one love, or rather desire the good, of someone no matter what they do. Hence, “Deus Caritas Est”: God is Love.
 
He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had.” (Luke (RSV) 21:1-4)

I suspect Mr Soros, and Mr Singer, and Oprah all give from their abundance. Imagine if they gave from their need, too. Imagine if all of us gave from our need. That grace, to give from ones need is a gift from God.
 
Hastrman said:
Um…this man is in favor of eugenics, you do know that, right?

“He gives money to charity” is like “Hitler was nice to dogs.” It’s true, but somehow it’s just not that impressive.

And the kind of charity that comes from God, is not the same thing as generosity. It had nothing to do with it till the Victorians, who created the modern “do-gooder,” intellectually vapid church that taught salvation by social work. Or as Belloc liked to call them, “the Societies for Bothering the Poor.”

It’s the Norman pronunciation of the Latin caritas, which is a very technical term. Basically what it means is that one love, or rather desire the good, of someone no matter what they do. Hence, “Deus Caritas Est”: God is Love.
Click to expand...
You are correct when you say Peter Singer advocates eugenics (see what he says here), but I do not think he has the malice of Adolf Hitler.

Eugenics is a complex ethical issue; I do not consider it immoral if it is done “ethically.” I fear its future applications especially when it will be available on the free market as a service that is exoribitantly priced out of the range of most potential parents.

But this thread (and this post) isn’t about the ethics of manipulating some polymer with nitrogenous aromatic rings… the purpose of my response was to defend Peter Singer.
 
ribozyme said:
You are correct when you say Peter Singer advocates eugenics (see what he says here), but I do not think he has the malice of Adolf Hitler.

Eugenics is a complex ethical issue; I do not consider it immoral if it is done “ethically.” I fear its future applications especially when it will be available on the free market as a service that is exoribitantly priced out of the range of most potential parents.

But this thread (and this post) isn’t about the ethics of manipulating some polymer with nitrogenous aromatic rings… the purpose of my response was to defend Peter Singer.
Click to expand...
I am in favor of manipulating…whatever the genes of the sex-cells are called, I forget…DNA with gene therapy. You fix the genes, you have sex normally–and no genetic disorders.

Singer is in favor of killing any fetus conceived with Down’s Syndrome–and anyone who carries such genes, if they can’t be engineered out.

Not a polymer, understand: human life. Systematically.

Not only is he utterly contemptuous of, among other people, the retarded, but he is a stinking hypocrite, who said the sick should be given palliative care and allowed to die–and then went and propped up his ailing mother’s life for months or years!

It’s all talk. He only means for his principles to be applied to those too poor to defend against them–mud races, his forebears called them; but as far as his precious self and family are concerned, it’s the Inalienable Sanctity of Life.

He’s a poser.
 
Atheists can be moral human beings. Catholics believe in the natural laws. The good that atheists do still comes from God, even if they deny his existence.

Have you ever heard the saying, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” I have no doubt that Singer wants to do good, but because he doesn’t accept the value of life, he ends up believing in something evil.😦
 
ribozyme said:
Eugenics is a complex ethical issue; I do not consider it immoral if it is done “ethically.”
Click to expand...
🤷 And ethics are founded in morals.

All humans are created in the image and likeness of God, atheists, agnostics and the faithful. All life comes from God.

The answer to the OP is yes. 🙂
 
Are you referring to George Soros, the one that almost bankrupted a country trying to make money out of currency games? The one that has the Messiah complex and that uses his money to force UN policies?
 
ribozyme said:
Some people say that our charity comes from God or the Holy Spirit…

I would like to say that I’ve found one possible counterexample.

celebatheists.com/index.php?title=George_Soros

Also Peter Singer gives his money to charity too.
Click to expand...
And quite comically, unbeknownst to these two men, God is the source of their charitable actions. As the prime mover and cause of all Good, God is the cause of their giving.

Frequently, love is the very thing that causes an atheist to realize that there is something beyond themselves and something beyond the material world.
 
Sure said:
And quite comically, unbeknownst to these two men, God is the source of their charitable actions. As the prime mover and cause of all Good, God is the cause of their giving.

Frequently, love is the very thing that causes an atheist to realize that there is something beyond themselves and something beyond the material world.
Click to expand...
To be honest, Soros makes me look rather week and powerless. All I could do is read papers from the American Prospect and from policy institutes such as the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

In addition, Gates and Soros’ acts of charity elicit extreme resentment from me. Why? I do not covet any of their assets and I admire their work. For example, Bill Gates is dedicated to providing medical supplies and funding research that the markets in developed nations will not pursue to benefit those in need. Soros, on the other hand, is interested in sowing the seeds of an open society around the world. Soros uses his resources to promote the proliferation of ideas.

I have a sincere desire to eradicate poverty throughout the world and promote an open society too. The reason why there benevolent acts are evocative of such resentment is that it reminds me that I am extremely unlikely to have that level of positive impact in the world. My own resentment is directed at my own inability to significantly contribute to the utilitarian agenda of reducing suffering. I doubt that I would become a hedge fund manager commanding perhaps a billion dollars worth of assets and earning millions with a performance fee. One needs an enormous amount of funds to undertake on these long term ambitious agendas.

Furthermore, I lionize Soros for what he doesn’t do with his wealth; he doesn’t collect art, own a yacht, nor have a private jet. (I will also reiterate my remark to Warren Buffett, but not Bill Gates.) Although Soros does not live a life of rigorous austerity, he comprehends how vacuous it is to indulge in luxuries when much work needs to be done in this world. However, Soros is repulsed at the notion that he would not acquire such as fortune as that would preclude him from conducting in his charitable contributions.

I feel that those who have the means to do this should it; we need to help those that God has abandoned.

I do not know what is the best way to significantly contribute for the common good for me. I should do my work now insteado of dabbling with political issues.
 
ribozyme said:
To be honest, Soros makes me look rather week and powerless. All I could do is read papers from the American Prospect and from policy institutes such as the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

In addition, Gates and Soros’ acts of charity elicit extreme resentment from me. Why? I do not covet any of their assets and I admire their work. For example, Bill Gates is dedicated to providing medical supplies and funding research that the markets in developed nations will not pursue to benefit those in need. Soros, on the other hand, is interested in sowing the seeds of an open society around the world. Soros uses his resources to promote the proliferation of ideas.

I have a sincere desire to eradicate poverty throughout the world and promote an open society too. The reason why there benevolent acts are evocative of such resentment is that it reminds me that I am extremely unlikely to have that level of positive impact in the world. My own resentment is directed at my own inability to significantly contribute to the utilitarian agenda of reducing suffering. I doubt that I would become a hedge fund manager commanding perhaps a billion dollars worth of assets and earning millions with a performance fee. One needs an enormous amount of funds to undertake on these long term ambitious agendas.

Furthermore, I lionize Soros for what he doesn’t do with his wealth; he doesn’t collect art, own a yacht, nor have a private jet. (I will also reiterate my remark to Warren Buffett, but not Bill Gates.) Although Soros does not live a life of rigorous austerity, he comprehends how vacuous it is to indulge in luxuries when much work needs to be done in this world. However, Soros is repulsed at the notion that he would not acquire such as fortune as that would preclude him from conducting in his charitable contributions.

I feel that those who have the means to do this should it; we need to help those that God has abandoned.

I do not know what is the best way to significantly contribute for the common good for me. I should do my work now instead of dabbling with political issues.
Click to expand...
What the heck are you talking about? If you do not believe in God then I can understand that you are trying to make some of your feelings and standards based on some other reason. However, you should not use the idea of God to explain suffering. If you believe in God, after spending so much time in this forum, you should know better.
 
Cristiano said:
What the heck are you talking about? If you do not believe in God then I can understand that you are trying to make some of your feelings and standards based on some other reason. However, you should not use the idea of God to explain suffering. If you believe in God, after spending so much time in this forum, you should know better.
Click to expand...
I’m a little baffled, too. :confused: I guess that’s why we’re all here…😉
 
Cristiano said:
What the heck are you talking about? If you do not believe in God then I can understand that you are trying to make some of your feelings and standards based on some other reason. However, you should not use the idea of God to explain suffering. If you believe in God, after spending so much time in this forum, you should know better.
Click to expand...
Or maybe we are reaching ribo.🙂
 
ribozyme said:
To be honest, Soros makes me look rather week and powerless. All I could do is read papers from the American Prospect and from policy institutes such as the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

In addition, Gates and Soros’ acts of charity elicit extreme resentment from me. Why? I do not covet any of their assets and I admire their work. For example, Bill Gates is dedicated to providing medical supplies and funding research that the markets in developed nations will not pursue to benefit those in need. Soros, on the other hand, is interested in sowing the seeds of an open society around the world. Soros uses his resources to promote the proliferation of ideas.

I have a sincere desire to eradicate poverty throughout the world and promote an open society too. The reason why there benevolent acts are evocative of such resentment is that it reminds me that I am extremely unlikely to have that level of positive impact in the world. My own resentment is directed at my own inability to significantly contribute to the utilitarian agenda of reducing suffering. I doubt that I would become a hedge fund manager commanding perhaps a billion dollars worth of assets and earning millions with a performance fee. One needs an enormous amount of funds to undertake on these long term ambitious agendas.

Furthermore, I lionize Soros for what he doesn’t do with his wealth; he doesn’t collect art, own a yacht, nor have a private jet. (I will also reiterate my remark to Warren Buffett, but not Bill Gates.) Although Soros does not live a life of rigorous austerity, he comprehends how vacuous it is to indulge in luxuries when much work needs to be done in this world. However, Soros is repulsed at the notion that he would not acquire such as fortune as that would preclude him from conducting in his charitable contributions.

I feel that those who have the means to do this should it; we need to help those that God has abandoned.
I do not know what is the best way to significantly contribute for the common good for me. I should do my work now insteado of dabbling with political issues.
Click to expand...
According to your bio, you think Soros is God…so basically, you think Soros is helping the ones that Soros has abandoned.
Keep studying and reading these forum…you are still young…there is hope for you still.
 
Ribozyme lamented:
I do not know what is the best way to significantly contribute for the common good for me.
Click to expand...
Mother Teresa pointedly reminded us:
[sign]If you can’t feed a hundred people feed just one.

In this life we cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love.

It is not the magnitude of our actions but the amount of love that is put into them that matters
[/sign]
 
Ribozyme may be interested in this article by Dinesh D’Souza. “Who Cares?: The Moral Instinct.”

[sign]In the Christian view, morality is given by God but recognizable through moral reasoning and conscience; consequently, one does not have to be Christian or even religious to know the difference between right and wrong. The Christian explanation for morality shares with the Darwinian view a skeptical or low view of human nature. Immanuel Kant put it very well when he wrote, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” Consequently it is very difficult to live a moral life without God’s help. We appeal to God for grace or divine assistance to help us live better and more virtuous lives than we are capable of living on our own. Great sacrificial figures like Mother Teresa and Maximilian Kolbe have always recognized this, and attributed their actions to a divine force larger than themselves.[/sign]

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0237.htm
 
following your basic argument it would be impossible for a child to do basic arithmatic without a sound basis in FZC Set Theory, and advanced logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top