1)Tithing 2)Giving to your local church 3)Helping your fellow man
Does it matter if you do it in order to get into heaven?
Is it possible to be charitable out of fear of divine retribution? _______________________________________________
I think you have to be concerned with the morally relevant issue at the appropiate time. I know this isn't simple, evidenced by the fact that the words for charity and the grace of god have been swapping meanings for 3000 years.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Interesting question Irami... I'd have to say that if you are acting solely out of fear of divine retribution, then you are not acting charitably. However, just because you are obeying your perception of God's will, that does not mean that you are acting uncharitably. You can think that God wants you to do something and still do it because it's a good thing to do. This makes sense if you think God is telling you how to be happy and a good person. You don't act out of fear, but out of desire to be and do good. I think that would still be charity.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
yes. You are still making the choice to give. God does not 'make' anyone give money to charity.
I'd say if you are giving in order to 'get into heaven' you are missing the point of religion, but it would still be charity (just as Bill gates is still giving to charity even though he gets a tax break).
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
As far as the charity is concerned, I don't think they care if it's truly a charitable donation or merely a grudging or fearful one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is a common and sad fallacy to assume the obedience to God's commandments can only come from fear.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's a good thing nobody on this thread committed it.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I think that ideally, obedience for the wrong reasons can lead someone to experience and appreciate the right reasons.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't think anyone made the claim that all obedience to God comes from fear. The question was whether, in those cases where it does, does it count?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For what?
For brownie points? As deserving of worldly praise? To the person who was helped by it? Does it change a heart? Does it make a difference? Does it add points to your "Good Person" score?
1. Don't exist. 2. Vanity anyway. 3. Absolutely. 4. It can and often does. 5. Yes. 6. Who's keeping score?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
If God doesn't tell you to do it, then what is telling you to do it?
Hegemony comes in different forms -- and can be good, bad or -- more likely -- both.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
If charity is the pure love of Christ, and if you strive to live a Christ-like life, then the more successful you are at living that kind of life the more Christ-like you become (ie the more you take on the characteristics of Christ as your own, the chief of which is charity), and the more charitable (loving, desiring to serve, willing to give of yourself) you become. So then you are practicing charity, not because it's a requirement, but because it's who you are.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: For what?
For brownie points? As deserving of worldly praise? To the person who was helped by it? Does it change a heart? Does it make a difference? Does it add points to your "Good Person" score?
1. Don't exist. 2. Vanity anyway. 3. Absolutely. 4. It can and often does. 5. Yes. 6. Who's keeping score?
I believe it's meant in God's eyes.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
The question begs an answer to the nature of God itself. If God is one who requests that all men fear him (In the sense of fearing retribution), I'd say yes, a donation made from fear of retribution would be just as acceptable as any other. If God is one of love and sacrifice (Which I believe is more correct) then the person who donates out of fear has probably missed the whole point and could use a little re-direction.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yes, it is charity through God's eyes, and counted as such. God blesses us most often through the hands of others who are willing to do such service.
Charity is the essence of Christ's two great commandments--to love God and to love our neighbors like ourselves. Keeping those commandments through good acts toward our fellow human beings is our choice, and when we choose to do it, it is counted as good for us.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Irami, I don't think it's possible to buy your way into heaven, either by good deeds or with cash. I have no fear that I will be barred from heaven because I didn't tithe.
That said, tithing isn't charity because it's simply giving God what is his anyway. He said he wants 10% back. Of course, I believe everything I have is his, so tithing is simply a symbol to remind me that what I have is not really mine. It was blessed to my care. The more willingly, the more joyfully I tithe, the more I know I have remembered properly who is God. Beyond the symbology and practical application of worship and submission, it comes with a promise of greater blessings. That doesn't mean it's a ticket to heaven -- it means I'll be blessed for my obedience.
Offerings of charity are similar, but they are optional. The feelings are the same though -- as I have been entrusted with much, I give out of that abundance.
I know all that was couched in religious words, but it's how I think of it. Bottom line, I tithe and give charitably because I am very grateful for the stuff I have. It reminds me to be grateful. Gratitude cannot fail to bring joy. It's the key to joy, IMO. If it brings rewards in heaven as well, so much the better.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I was at a presentation by a prominent Jewish member of the community who was telling about his view on doing God's wishes.
He said that for many years he hadn't understood why he was giving to charity, he just did it because he was supposed to. However, as he did more of it he began to want to do it and it began to have significance for him. He said that he thought God would look at that and say something like this:
"You didn't want to give charity. That's bad.
"But you did anyway. That's good.
"You eventually came to realize why I asked you to. That's best."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Offerings of charity are similar, but they are optional. The feelings are the same though -- as I have been entrusted with much, I give out of that abundance.
I just don't see how they can be the same but optional.
Boris,
quote: If God is one of love and sacrifice (Which I believe is more correct) then the person who donates out of fear has probably missed the whole point and could use a little re-direction.
For it to be sacrifice, don't you have to presume that it is properly yours to begin with?
quote:I think that ideally, obedience for the wrong reasons can lead someone to experience and appreciate the right reasons.
Maybe, but I don't think it's something that should be institutionalized or depended upon, lest we confuse a legal requirement for a duty.
Lupus,
quote:You are still making the choice to give. God does not 'make' anyone give money to charity.
If someone puts your everlasting soul in play, it's not really a matter of choice, is it? ________________________________
Thanks for the answers, all. I still have a question about the place of want/opinion/taste. Free will is the ability to neglect your religion. The same way that talented thieves have the ability to neglect the law. It doesn't make it at all appropriate to do so. I still don't see how this a ability to neglect your duty becomes an ability to pick and choose and do what I want.
[ November 12, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are free to choose your actions. You are not free to choose the natural consequences of your actions.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
What do consequences have to do with it, again?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
First off there is a reason that the term god fearing man every come about. It was considered for the most part a good thing.
That and yes you can be charitable out of fear for divine retribution. Have you never feared being an evil person. Remember that if you do something out of fear it is not always an unhealthy fear.
Now what It hink you are attempting to ask is it possible for a man to simply fear going to hell for the simple pain and upleasantness of it and out of this fear do good acts to go to heaven. Of course he can, most people believe that all a person requires to go to heaven is accept Jesus into your life and attempt to do good. Remember it is pretty much stated that god believes that you will do sin, every one of us. That no matter how good you are there will always be that tiny smirch on your soul.
Now it is my personal opinion that in the short term it is the action that counts, not to emotion behind it. If I save a man out of hate , love, or fear is he not still saved all the same. Emotions and reasoning on why you should perform a series of actions are more relevant to the long term. Plus technically no matter how good of a man you are, how much you give to the church, or what you tithe. If you do not accept the principles behind the actions, for christianity that is accepting christ, then you will not go to heaven. I think if you look behind what it means to accept christ you'll see it is much more than helping or kindness but a certain acceptance of what is good and what is evil.
That and I think that all came out very jumbled, not to say that jumbled is all that uncommon from me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Commandments are not the whim of a mecurial God. The commandments come from natural consequences - they are more like warning signs on a slippery road than a road block. This includes the commandment to have charity. When Paul said that without charity you are nothing, it's literal. It's not a created consequence, it's how the world works. So, we can choose our actions (be charitable/don't be charitable), but we can't choose what consequences those actions bring.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Irami, tithing is commanded. It's not optional. You can choose not to do it, of course, but you're failing to do what he has been pretty explicit about.
Offerings of charity are optional. But in my mind, the feelings involved with both tithing and charity are the same -- it's a reminder of who God is, who really owns my stuff, and how blessed I am. And for me, the result of both is the same: joy and gratitude.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If a father suggests that his child give up a toy to another less-fortunate child, is it not charity if the child decideds to do so?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
This also reminds me of a certain pet-peeve of mine and one of the major strengths I see in Islam over Christianity. The fact is Jesus never spoke a great deal about the treatment of environment/nature. Something which western society has shown a great deal. Not that I'm saying the Muslims are such better conservationists, but at least it is in their teachings.
That and a major fault I find in the commandments and a lot of christianity as a whole is that yes there are certain paths to destruction which come out of such practices. Here is what I shall say many times the greatest goods and cultural advancements have come from people who were rather militant and not meek at all. The fact that our Chaplain in our unit is basically urging us on to go out and KATN , but oh yeah be good and kind. I didn't know there was a clause in thou shalt not kill that said it was all right for me to do so because my commanding officer told me to do so.
That and in my honest opinion that god or church should never force me to pay tithe, or tell me that it is a good idea so to speak. If they were any kind of church with leadership they would simply have to show me how such an act would be amazingly good. It is in my opinion that most organizations which require certain social services of myself without making me want to do it in the first place are rather flawed. If god and church is great then he should need no explicit order to do so, but simply your love of him would compell you to act in such a manner.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tres, if the father suggests, it is charity. If the father gives his own toy to the child to play with and then *tells* (not suggests) her to give it to someone else, it is not charity -- it is obedience.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote: I still have a question about the place of want/opinion/taste.
That's the whole question of modernity isn't it? How does aesthetics undermine reason (and vice versa) and modernity become fraught with both?
Taste and opinion are such modern concepts [I have no idea what 'want' means in this context].
----- As a huge aside:
I've found that I've grown tired of philosophical/religious/political conversations that focus around absolutes and/or trying to get at the essences of things.
Life is praxis firmly rooted in community and dialogical relationships. How that all plays out is much more interesting to me (at the moment).
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
What if you donate to charity for the serotonin (and possibly dopamine) release? Or whatever causes the "warm fuzzies"?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Tres, if the father suggests, it is charity. If the father gives his own toy to the child to play with and then *tells* (not suggests) her to give it to someone else, it is not charity -- it is obedience.
Charity and obedience are mutually exclusive? You can't tell someone to be charitable?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What if a man tell his child to find a toy to give to charity? The child can grudgingly obey and give a broken toy from the sandbox, or he can happily give his best toy, thinking of the joy that the child who receives it will feel.
[ November 12, 2004, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jeni, again, I don't see why those two are different. I'm not so sure that charity is optional. Did God command one, and merely hint at the other? And if it's God doing the hinting, how is that any less of a command.
______________________________________________
Zal,
The way we speak and think say volumes about how the world opens up to us. What has changed in the last 3000 years is a good indication of where we are going, why, and what sense it makes.
I think we have some late-modern vestigial skin that we haven't gotten rid of. I think it's causing us to live a lie. And I think it's got to do with the conflation of opinion/belief and religion. They are distinct, and I think that we are in a bad way when we forget that.
[ November 12, 2004, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
This isn't one of those supposedly ivory tower questions. There are thorny and important issues that go along with misunderstanding the bonds of religion.
For example, if my kid likes throwing food at the dinner table. He/she knows that I'm going to love him/her regardless of how many carrots he/she throws. And there aren't going to be any consequences, either way. Does that mean it's up to the child's opinion, whether to continue to throw the food.
A medium-sized example, if I hire some full-time workers, and I don't want to offer them health insurance. I know they can't get a job anywhere else; I know that if they leave, I can find new help; and I know that there isn't a law on the books that says I have to pay for their healthcare. I also know that the Christian thing to do is pay for their healthcare. Is it up to my opinion, whether to ignore the bonds of religion. Do you love your neighbor, but only when you feel like it?
A large example, three years ago, Julian Bond said that the Bush Administration, "(Bush) has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."
These aren't the nicest comments. I have a lot of respect for Bond. I'm even jealous of his felicitous linguistic style. He is the chairman of the NAACP, and Bush famously declined the invitation to speak at the NAACP conference. Bond doesn't like or approve of Bush, yet he invited the President to the conference inspite of this. Bush doesn't like or approve of Bond, so he snubbed the conference.
With all of the work that the NAACP has done inspite of the government, I don't know if decency and dignity of the office of the President allows the President not go to the conference because he didn't like being called names. This also goes for Bush's screened town hall events over the campaign season.
He was obliged to attend, despite his ability to refuse, preference, or opinion, and his binds are not concerned with a fear of any consequence, natural or otherwise. If understanding religion means ignoring this, than religion is a word without sense.
This cuts both ways. As a man who is pro-choice, this understanding has complex implications. How does anything that matters become an issue of preference?