"The poor will always be with you"...so don't worry too much about them.

[PaulS]

35 minutes ago, thormas said:

Hey, are you talking about me?

I never felt attacked because I have never been one of your few, some, many, most (which is it?) Christians who misuse the text in question or decide, as you have said, "enough, no more charity." I must admit I never, ever heard that and I was surrounded by Catholics - maybe it's a Catholic thing and there are many, many, many Catholics which means your number can't be many, might be some but probably just a few :+}

 

Well, I'm sure you can read your name several times over throughout that post, so yes.  When I referred to "This in the face of many Christians proclaiming Jesus to be the best example of what it is to be fully human and in my words, to be the epitome of love", I did have you, and many other Christians in mind.  You used the term 'fully human' in a previous thread but I know many, many Christians (presumably the majority who worship Jesus anyhow) who believe and preach that Jesus was THE example of how to live one's life.

I understand you have never, ever heard among your Catholic surroundings the reference to Jesus' words being justification for not doing more for the poor - you have repeated that several times.  I think we all understand by now that you have never heard it.  Indeed there are many, many Catholics and it would seem the author of the link from the Catholic Archdioses of Cincinnati as far back as 2013 has had a different Catholic experience than you when she says "If I hear one more person take the phrase “The poor you will always have with you” out of context (almost always as an excuse to avoid asking the hard questions about poverty), I may have to scream. I have heard this statement used countless times as Jesus’ prediction of the state of the world."  Look maybe she is lying, or maybe she is simply mistaken when she portrays it as a common issue she has come across.  I don't really know - perhaps you can take it up with her.  But nonetheless, I was just showing you that hearing such excuses is not limited to my experience.

My experience is many, yours is none.  Move on, mate.

[thormas]

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

Well, I'm sure you can read your name several times over throughout that post, so yes.  When I referred to "This in the face of many Christians proclaiming Jesus to be the best example of what it is to be fully human and in my words, to be the epitome of love", I did have you, and many other Christians in mind.  You used the term 'fully human' in a previous thread but I know many, many Christians (presumably the majority who worship Jesus anyhow) who believe and preach that Jesus was THE example of how to live one's life.

I understand you have never, ever heard among your Catholic surroundings the reference to Jesus' words being justification for not doing more for the poor - you have repeated that several times.  I think we all understand by now that you have never heard it.  Indeed there are many, many Catholics and it would seem the author of the link from the Catholic Archdioses of Cincinnati as far back as 2013 has had a different Catholic experience than you when she says "If I hear one more person take the phrase “The poor you will always have with you” out of context (almost always as an excuse to avoid asking the hard questions about poverty), I may have to scream. I have heard this statement used countless times as Jesus’ prediction of the state of the world."  Look maybe she is lying, or maybe she is simply mistaken when she portrays it as a common issue she has come across.  I don't really know - perhaps you can take it up with her.  But nonetheless, I was just showing you that hearing such excuses is not limited to my experience.

My experience is many, yours is none.  Move on, mate.

Actually I was kidding and didn't want to use the DeNiro line.

Well, at least you're right on the quote about Jesus - so that's a start.....but not sure what your point is, except that you are saying what I said about 'fully human' was collaborated by all Christians. 

I am glad you actually heard what I said - never, ever, never and Cincy was now almost 7 years ago so hopefully the author helped those few/some screamers to see the light. Are you now saying thought that the author is saying it's just used to avoid the hard questions about poverty but not used as a cop-out and an excuse to say "enough, no more, no more charity?"  To be concerned or even dismayed about the seemingly intractable problem of poverty is not the same as using that to no longer be charitable in the many ways one can. 

I never thought she was lying but you have now brought up a wrinkle in what she is saying - unless this is your interpretation. Don't worry, I'll let you do the work since she is your 'witness.'

The issue was never your personal decision (I actually don't care, it is your decision whether I agree or disagree with the justification) or your experience of a few/some others (it's nice to know others with shared interests) who have made similar decisions for the same reason (the Jesus quote). The issue was that you repeatedly said it covers many and you even referred to most Christians. Such a negative generalization that slurs many/most Christians is bashing, just as similar indiscriminate generalizations about Jews or Muslims would be equally intolerable and should be opposed. Even when you walked it back to some, you immediately reversed yourself and again went to many. Now some and many are illusive amounts and even the  google references still get us only to some Christians since we are talking over 2 billion people, still to indiscriminately use many and most, gives the distinct impression that this is a typical Christian response to charity. It is not.  

The excuse might not be limited to your experience but it still doesn't get us to many or most Christians - the operative qualifier is 'some.'

You use term such as: "Christians in general" or "Christians in the western world" or "most people really could do a lot more......why don't they (i.e. Christians)" or "shortcoming of good Christians."  This is putting Christians in the same basket and it is pejorative from the beginning (do more, shortcoming) - how does this not bash and denigrate Christians? 

Plus you say all this on a false premise or simply a misunderstanding of Christianity: we are called to love, we are all invited to follow the Way (of love) but, as previously mentioned, there is not a commandment or requirement or expectation that we must do  "everything humanly possibly" or "give every cent, all our possessions." Actually what does everything humanly possible mean and what text are you referencing? How do you envision the Mother of Jesus do everything humanly possible when she had Jesus and his brothers and sister(s), was from a small. poor village and was poor herself? Jesus called a select few to leave all and follow him but he did not have the same expectation for all. You falsely assume that all western Christians or Christians in general have all sorts of wealth or at least excess money  - not so for all. Where is the short coming for a family of 15 kids who has those kids, feed, clothes, educates them, buys a family van (new or old but new might last a good amount of years and not need as many repairs), a big house (always with an extensive honey-do list) and even takes the kids to the beach in the summer? Where and how is this a shortcoming, what do you mean when you want them to do absolutely everything humanly possible? How do you know what they already do for 'others.' Or a single Christian mother with 3 kids working a teacher's job at a teacher salary - everything humanly possible? 

You are dealing in generalizations (all Christians) and in absolutes (doing everything). What would Jesus do if he were that single mother, that family of 15, his own mother living and rising a family in Nazareth? He was none of these. 'Many' do believe in what Jesus stood for, in what Jesus was about and they are doing what is possible for them in the particularly of their actual lives. Do some have excess, could they do more? Sure seems that way. But Christians in general, even in the western world? That one is impossible to judge and the generalizations you throw are assumptions based on (of necessity) limited experience of Christian in general.

As is said down under by a few or some or many or most -, ease up a bit on the judgements Mate.

 

[thormas]

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

What are you reading into those references, Thormas!  

Again, please read the thread, Thormas.  How did I explain to Burl how I consider limits to my charity?

You don't remember your famous line about not liking quotes?  I am just pleasantly surprised that you actually have referenced others and given us sites and essays to read - much different than our last thread and a relief.

So, nothing about charity beyond money and possessions as practices in the wider world of Christianity.

[thormas]

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

 I thought if I reduce it to 'some' you might be a little moire able to discuss the matter.  Seems not.  

See you were almost there: you reduced to some (much more realistic) and then backtracked to many. Do you actually know which it is and if so, how so?

However, if you actually commit to 'some' and stick with it, that would be a vast improvement. Try it.

[Burl]

Another observation on this pericope is that it supports (not proof; only support) the historical validity of John.

The original Jesus Project (and Ehrman) both consider passages that seem antithetical (called the difficult passages in Biblical Studies) as evidence of authenticity.

The logic is if the book is a polemic or was invented, the authors would not include pericopes that did not support their belief in Jesus as the Son of God.  The only reason for including the difficult passages is that they are part of an authentic accounting.

[PaulS]

10 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually I was kidding and didn't want to use the DeNiro line.

Well, at least you're right on the quote about Jesus - so that's a start.....but not sure what your point is, except that you are saying what I said about 'fully human' was collaborated by all Christians. 

I am glad you actually heard what I said - never, ever, never and Cincy was now almost 7 years ago so hopefully the author helped those few/some screamers to see the light. Are you now saying thought that the author is saying it's just used to avoid the hard questions about poverty but not used as a cop-out and an excuse to say "enough, no more, no more charity?"  To be concerned or even dismayed about the seemingly intractable problem of poverty is not the same as using that to no longer be charitable in the many ways one can. 

I never thought she was lying but you have now brought up a wrinkle in what she is saying - unless this is your interpretation. Don't worry, I'll let you do the work since she is your 'witness.'

The issue was never your personal decision (I actually don't care, it is your decision whether I agree or disagree with the justification) or your experience of a few/some others (it's nice to know others with shared interests) who have made similar decisions for the same reason (the Jesus quote). The issue was that you repeatedly said it covers many and you even referred to most Christians. Such a negative generalization that slurs many/most Christians is bashing, just as similar indiscriminate generalizations about Jews or Muslims would be equally intolerable and should be opposed. Even when you walked it back to some, you immediately reversed yourself and again went to many. Now some and many are illusive amounts and even the  google references still get us only to some Christians since we are talking over 2 billion people, still to indiscriminately use many and most, gives the distinct impression that this is a typical Christian response to charity. It is not.  

The excuse might not be limited to your experience but it still doesn't get us to many or most Christians - the operative qualifier is 'some.'

You use term such as: "Christians in general" or "Christians in the western world" or "most people really could do a lot more......why don't they (i.e. Christians)" or "shortcoming of good Christians."  This is putting Christians in the same basket and it is pejorative from the beginning (do more, shortcoming) - how does this not bash and denigrate Christians? 

Plus you say all this on a false premise or simply a misunderstanding of Christianity: we are called to love, we are all invited to follow the Way (of love) but, as previously mentioned, there is not a commandment or requirement or expectation that we must do  "everything humanly possibly" or "give every cent, all our possessions." Actually what does everything humanly possible mean and what text are you referencing? How do you envision the Mother of Jesus do everything humanly possible when she had Jesus and his brothers and sister(s), was from a small. poor village and was poor herself? Jesus called a select few to leave all and follow him but he did not have the same expectation for all. You falsely assume that all western Christians or Christians in general have all sorts of wealth or at least excess money  - not so for all. Where is the short coming for a family of 15 kids who has those kids, feed, clothes, educates them, buys a family van (new or old but new might last a good amount of years and not need as many repairs), a big house (always with an extensive honey-do list) and even takes the kids to the beach in the summer? Where and how is this a shortcoming, what do you mean when you want them to do absolutely everything humanly possible? How do you know what they already do for 'others.' Or a single Christian mother with 3 kids working a teacher's job at a teacher salary - everything humanly possible? 

You are dealing in generalizations (all Christians) and in absolutes (doing everything). What would Jesus do if he were that single mother, that family of 15, his own mother living and rising a family in Nazareth? He was none of these. 'Many' do believe in what Jesus stood for, in what Jesus was about and they are doing what is possible for them in the particularly of their actual lives. Do some have excess, could they do more? Sure seems that way. But Christians in general, even in the western world? That one is impossible to judge and the generalizations you throw are assumptions based on (of necessity) limited experience of Christian in general.

As is said down under by a few or some or many or most -, ease up a bit on the judgements Mate.

It's your defensiveness that sees what I am saying as judgement.  We haven't even got to discuss and consider or asses the whys and wherefores of limiting charity because of your issues, assertions, insults and ongoing defence about there being Christians who use Jesus' words as an excuse to limit charity (just how many is disagreed upon we all can see) and your understanding that no Christian actually stops charity at some practical point because they all just keep on giving and giving without any thought for limiting charity - in your experience apparently.  Your red herrings concerning what to debate have totally distracted from what I hoped to discuss, which is possibly your attempt to avoid the actual stuff I was hoping to get to.  Who knows.  What I do know is your counter argument is contributing nothing to a genuine debate around the question of Christians limiting their charity for whatever circumstance.

If you actually want to constructively contribute to a debate as to why many Christians do restrict their charity (for a variety of reasons), then feel free, but otherwise I have finished engaging in your dead-end argument about perceptions of numbers of how many Christians use these words of Jesus or your illogical point that people don't make some sort of logical decisions concerning when to limit their charity (which you say never happens).

[PaulS]

11 hours ago, thormas said:

So, nothing about charity beyond money and possessions as practices in the wider world of Christianity.

I will point out, again, that clearly I discuss charity as more than a money & possessions thing when in my response to Burl about where I draw my line when it comes to charity, I say "So I have a line, a point, a budget, where I say I don't want to give any more than a certain amount of money away.  My contribution in the community is less rigid and may change from week to week depending on what else is happening in my life.  My point is - I don't run myself into the ground with my time contribution and I don't spend more than my budgeted charitable contribution, so I draw a line at some point."

If you read that as only referring to money and possessions then there is not much more I can say,but I think most can read that I am also referring to a time commitment (if you need the detail, I had helping with a homeless shelter and volunteering as a responder on a suicide hotline in mind).

[PaulS]

11 hours ago, Burl said:

Another observation on this pericope is that it supports (not proof; only support) the historical validity of John.

The original Jesus Project (and Ehrman) both consider passages that seem antithetical (called the difficult passages in Biblical Studies) as evidence of authenticity.

The logic is if the book is a polemic or was invented, the authors would not include pericopes that did not support their belief in Jesus as the Son of God.  The only reason for including the difficult passages is that they are part of an authentic accounting.

Burl, in your experience, do you or other Christians you know, apply some sort of logic or some sort of decision-making/reasoning process when it comes to your charity (i.e how much you are prepared to give - either in time or money or both) and do you restrict your charitably at all, for any reason whatsoever, practical or not?  This is not a judgement - this is trying to move the discussion ahead.

[PaulS]

11 hours ago, thormas said:

However, if you actually commit to 'some' and stick with it, that would be a vast improvement. Try it.

To all and sundry who are reading:  please disregard my personal experience that MANY Christians use Jesus' words as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and suffering, and simply consider that SOME Christians do so.  Clearly this is not a figment of my imagination over here in Australia and remarkably, as had been briefly referenced, people in other countries (even places such as Catholic Churches in Cincinnati) have also experienced Christians interpreting these words of Jesus' as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and misery.

But in the interests of generating a constructive discussion, let's just go with 'SOME'.  All good?

But much more importantly, let's discuss WHY Christians limit their charity - the reasons why and any logic behind such.  I am interested in how Christians understand Jesus' example and his words about love and their subsequent understanding of contributing charity (in all ways, including financial).

Please don't bother participating if you are simply going to deny that people limit their charity based on any decision-making process (Thormas) - that will really be a waste of time. 

[Burl]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

To all and sundry who are reading:  please disregard my personal experience that MANY Christians use Jesus' words as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and suffering, and simply consider that SOME Christians do so.  Clearly this is not a figment of my imagination over here in Australia and remarkably, as had been briefly referenced, people in other countries (even places such as Catholic Churches in Cincinnati) have also experienced Christians interpreting these words of Jesus' as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and misery.

But in the interests of generating a constructive discussion, let's just go with 'SOME'.  All good?

But much more importantly, let's discuss WHY Christians limit their charity - the reasons why and any logic behind such.  I am interested in how Christians understand Jesus' example and his words about love and their subsequent understanding of contributing charity (in all ways, including financial).

Please don't bother participating if you are simply going to deny that people limit their charity based on any decision-making process (Thormas) - that will really be a waste of time. 

Paul, it’s always a pragmatic choice between self and others that varies by umpteen parameters.  Is the person in a good mood?  Is it raining?  Angry? Tired? Hungry?

Any person will randomly vary their response for no reason at all.  

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, Burl said:

Paul, it’s always a pragmatic choice between self and others that varies by umpteen parameters.  Is the person in a good mood?  Is it raining?  Angry? Tired? Hungry?

Any person will randomly vary their response for no reason at all.  

I agree Burl - it would seem that most people do apply some sort of pragmatism to their charity based on any number of factors, which do include factors such as emotion, weather, physical condition and perhaps other factors outside of their control.  Apart from making pragmatic choices about their charity, some could also randomly vary their response for what appears no reason, but I suspect there is always a reason to why we think like we do, it just might not be obvious to others or even to ourselves sometimes.

Would you also agree that factors such as religious beliefs, values, ones own understanding and interpretation of Christian scriptures, as well as other personal beliefs can also be involved in this pragmatism and impact how one chooses to express or limit their charity?

[Burl]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I agree Burl - it would seem that most people do apply some sort of pragmatism to their charity based on any number of factors, which do include factors such as emotion, weather, physical condition and perhaps other factors outside of their control.  Apart from making pragmatic choices about their charity, some could also randomly vary their response for what appears no reason, but I suspect there is always a reason to why we think like we do, it just might not be obvious to others or even to ourselves sometimes.

Would you also agree that factors such as religious beliefs, values, ones own understanding and interpretation of Christian scriptures, as well as other personal beliefs can also be involved in this pragmatism and impact how one chooses to express or limit their charity?

Rarely.  I did know one paranoid schizophrenic who put all his money in one pocket and would blindly give to whatever.  He thought that his giving was controlled by God.   Got himself arrested when he could not pay for his groceries and knelt down in prayer at the checkout line.

Mostly people are naturally selfish and find excuses to make themselves feel less guilty.

[PaulS]

13 minutes ago, Burl said:

Rarely.  

Rarely?  That does surprise me.  So if Christians typically don't consider factors such as their religious beliefs, values, understanding of scripture and other personal beliefs when considering how much charity they may give (time and/or money) what then do you think does drive their choices?  Just the random emotional and external factors, or something else?  And I am asking only about people who are not considered to have a diagnosed mental condition such as schizophrenia or other such mental health issues.

[Burl]

Asked and answered.

[PaulS]

42 minutes ago, Burl said:

Asked and answered.

Don't be like that Burl, I am trying to have a genuine discussion with you.

If you think Christians only rarely allow religious beliefs, values, ones own understanding and interpretation of Christian scriptures, as well as other personal beliefs to be involved in this pragmatism about choosing how charitable to be, then what do you think drives their desire to be charitable?

Are you only charitable because of weather conditions or because you happen to be in a good mood some days, or as a Christian does your understanding of God play a part in your charity choices?

[Burl]

37 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Don't be like that Burl, I am trying to have a genuine discussion with you.

If you think Christians only rarely allow religious beliefs, values, ones own understanding and interpretation of Christian scriptures, as well as other personal beliefs to be involved in this pragmatism about choosing how charitable to be, then what do you think drives their desire to be charitable?

Are you only charitable because of weather conditions or because you happen to be in a good mood some days, or as a Christian does your understanding of God play a part in your charity choices?

It’s not a conversation.  It is a series of questions and I have lost interest.

[thormas]

13 hours ago, PaulS said:

I will point out, again, that clearly I discuss charity as more than a money & possessions thing when in my response to Burl about where I draw my line when it comes to charity, I say "So I have a line, a point, a budget, where I say I don't want to give any more than a certain amount of money away.  My contribution in the community is less rigid and may change from week to week depending on what else is happening in my life.  My point is - I don't run myself into the ground with my time contribution and I don't spend more than my budgeted charitable contribution, so I draw a line at some point."

If you read that as only referring to money and possessions then there is not much more I can say,but I think most can read that I am also referring to a time commitment (if you need the detail, I had helping with a homeless shelter and volunteering as a responder on a suicide hotline in mind).

With 'time contribution' (and the examples of hotline and the shelter), you have shown that one can pull back on the charitable giving of money and continue to give themselves in numerous other ways (this is what I meant - and perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been - as continuing 'to do' - the giving of self is not just money). So the Jesus quote is not a definite ending of charity as is suggested by your words (and a main point of my disagreement with you): even you are not saying "enough, no more" you are doing, giving in different ways other than money. That is the point. Many people do this, don't say 'ENOUGH' and continue to give of themselves to others in numerous ways. 

And BTW, I commend and respect you for this continued charity. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by thormas

[thormas]

13 hours ago, PaulS said:

Burl, in your experience, do you or other Christians you know, apply some sort of logic or some sort of decision-making/reasoning process when it comes to your charity (i.e how much you are prepared to give - either in time or money or both) and do you restrict your charitably at all, for any reason whatsoever, practical or not?  This is not a judgement - this is trying to move the discussion ahead.

My point was never about applying logic as I have said that such giving is in relation to the changing needs of family and/or the individual's situation. However, even when times are more difficult I have been witness (and it was my point) to a continued giving of self (as you have presented above). Perhaps it was not your intention but I took you as saying some people apply their 'logic' and say 'no more charity (at all), that is enough, no more.' It was the definitiveness that I disagreed with because one can say "I can't give"  this week, this month, this year but they still do charity in many different ways. I'm sure some or a few :+} make the decision to never give of themselves at all (some out of need, some out of greed) anymore but my position is that is not the many or most Christians. It seems that charity is baked into being Christian, just by being one there is a recognition that it is what needs to be done for others. And this is not exclusively a Christian thing.

Again, to beat a dead horse, I simply don't think and it is not my experience over decades of interaction with a hell of a lot of (although not most) Christians that they don't apply their logic to stop giving (be it money or more importantly self) completely and forever. Some, of course, but not most.

 

[thormas]

13 hours ago, PaulS said:

To all and sundry who are reading:  please disregard my personal experience that MANY Christians use Jesus' words as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and suffering, and simply consider that SOME Christians do so.  Clearly this is not a figment of my imagination over here in Australia and remarkably, as had been briefly referenced, people in other countries (even places such as Catholic Churches in Cincinnati) have also experienced Christians interpreting these words of Jesus' as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and misery.

But in the interests of generating a constructive discussion, let's just go with 'SOME'.  All good?

But much more importantly, let's discuss WHY Christians limit their charity - the reasons why and any logic behind such.  I am interested in how Christians understand Jesus' example and his words about love and their subsequent understanding of contributing charity (in all ways, including financial).

Please don't bother participating if you are simply going to deny that people limit their charity based on any decision-making process (Thormas) - that will really be a waste of time. 

Well it was done begrudgingly but it was done, so that is good! Thank you for the clarification.

I agree that it is not a figment of your imagination there or for others elsewhere but I believe that many suggests a majority and to that I disagree given my personal experience of 'many' Catholic Christians and a few other Christians.  Also, Cincy always was a bit peculiar :+}, I must preferred Columbus, Ohio.

 

If you want now to move to the why - it seems we know why but could be worth a discussion - however, let us all avoid terms that are too all encompassing.

 

Careful now with your last line unless you really want to restart the entire issue - especially as I have already addressed that particular issue.....with impeccable logic :+}.

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, Burl said:

It’s not a conversation.  It is a series of questions and I have lost interest.

That is just gold!  We finally get to a point where maybe we can have a proper conversation around motivation and drivers for Christian charity, and you want to bail after a couple of difficult questions!  You really are a classic Burl!  

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, thormas said:

With 'time contribution' (and the examples of hotline and the shelter), you have shown that one can pull back on the charitable giving of money and continue to give themselves in numerous other ways (this is what I meant - and perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been - as continuing 'to do' - the giving of self is not just money).

It was clear I was talking also about time contribution well before you accused me (twice) of only considering charity as financial - you just didn't take the time to read my comments in the thread - probably due to your rush to defend what you thought I was attacking, or it could simply have been your failure to read thoroughly.  

Quote

So the Jesus quote is not a definite ending of charity as is suggested by your words (and a main point of my disagreement with you): even you are not saying "enough, no more" you are doing, giving in different ways other than money. That is the point. Many people do this, don't say 'ENOUGH' and continue to give of themselves to others in numerous ways.

No - the point I was raising was that many Christians (reduced to 'some' to stop your bickering, even though by any definition of the adjective 'many' means "a large number of" - which is my direct experience) do in fact use these words of Jesus  as an excuse to limit their charity.  That is clearly the experience of other people too.  You have made it abundantly clear that this is not your Catholic experience, even if it is the experience of other Catholics in other countries separate to my own.  Unfortunately you have assumed I am only talking about money, but as we have established, if you'd read my comments with more care it is clear I have am using a broader definition than you imply I am. 

Well may people give themselves in numerous ways - no argument from me as the one who mentioned that early on  - but I stand by that most, if not all, say enough at some point in that they make a conscious choice when to impose a limit on their charity (financial or otherwise).  As the idiom 'to draw a line in the sand' means to express - I think most of us have a point beyond which one will not go; a limit to what one will do or accept.  In relation to charity, that means one makes a choice where they impose a limit to their charity (financially of with their time).  I expect you do too or do you give all of your money away/work yourself to the bone with no time for yourself.  It's rhetorical - don't bother answering.

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, thormas said:

My point was never about applying logic as I have said that such giving is in relation to the changing needs of family and/or the individual's situation. However, even when times are more difficult I have been witness (and it was my point) to a continued giving of self (as you have presented above). Perhaps it was not your intention but I took you as saying some people apply their 'logic' and say 'no more charity (at all), that is enough, no more.' It was the definitiveness that I disagreed with because one can say "I can't give"  this week, this month, this year but they still do charity in many different ways. I'm sure some or a few :+} make the decision to never give of themselves at all (some out of need, some out of greed) anymore but my position is that is not the many or most Christians. It seems that charity is baked into being Christian, just by being one there is a recognition that it is what needs to be done for others. And this is not exclusively a Christian thing.

Again, of course people are charitable in many ways.  You were the one that said I was referring to only financial charity when I had already outlined a broader scope.  Only you can explain why you overlooked those words of mine but I suspect it was because of your rush to defend what you thought I was attacking.  And one may still give some sort of charity (eg time) when they cannot in other ways (eg financial),  yet still, those people make a choice concerning how much of any charity they can give and most/many/probably all (but don't hold me to all), have limits they choose to impose for a number of reasons.  You were denying this.

Quote

Again, to beat a dead horse, I simply don't think and it is not my experience over decades of interaction with a hell of a lot of (although not most) Christians that they don't apply their logic to stop giving (be it money or more importantly self) completely and forever. Some, of course, but not most.

You were the one who created 'completely and forever' - I never mentioned it.  I was saying that Christians, like me and others, impose limits to their charity for various reasons.  You argued they didn't - they just 'Do' were your words.  I say nonsense - they make choices. 

[PaulS]

11 hours ago, thormas said:

Well it was done begrudgingly but it was done, so that is good! Thank you for the clarification.

Not begrudgingly - I was happy to move on from your needless distraction because you don't understand the correct definition of a word.

Quote

I agree that it is not a figment of your imagination there or for others elsewhere but I believe that many suggests a majority and to that I disagree given my personal experience of 'many' Catholic Christians and a few other Christians.  Also, Cincy always was a bit peculiar :+}, I must preferred Columbus, Ohio.

I really don't care what you believe you think a word means.  I would prefer next time you check what the English language, agreed definition, of a word means before you accuse another of misusing it.  Again, just use a dictionary first and you might not need to go down an unwarranted path arguing against a view that doesn't exist.  Or here's a novel idea - next time ask the person if by using the word 'many' do they mean your understanding of it being 'majority' or are they using it as per the dictionary definition of the adjective meaning 'a lot of'.

Quote

If you want now to move to the why - it seems we know why but could be worth a discussion - however, let us all avoid terms that are too all encompassing.

Of course it was worth a discussion which is why I raised it in the first place, but to be entirely honest, for me this entire thread has been tarnished by you and Burl's behavior and incessant arguing about stuff I haven't said.  You've applied your own interpretations and wasted pages and pages with tangents.  I've had enough at this point.  Chalk that up as another 'win' if you want.  Happy to oblige.

Quote

Careful now with your last line unless you really want to restart the entire issue - especially as I have already addressed that particular issue.....with impeccable logic :+}.

I would suggest your logic in this thread has been anything but impeccable (whether you're joking or not).  No need to be careful because I have finished with this thread.  Out.

[thormas]

On 11/23/2019 at 8:34 AM, Burl said:

It’s not a conversation.  It is a series of questions and I have lost interest.

 

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

That is just gold!  We finally get to a point where maybe we can have a proper conversation around motivation and drivers for Christian charity, and you want to bail after a couple of difficult questions!  You really are a classic Burl!  

Yet, that is followed by Paul........

13 hours ago, PaulS said:

I have finished with this thread. 

......what do they say about people in glass houses?........... :+{

 

 

[thormas]

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

Not begrudgingly - I was happy to move on from your needless distraction because you don't understand the correct definition of a word.

 

Yeah, very definitely begrudgingly.....

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

I really don't care what you believe you think a word means.  I would prefer next time you check what the English language, agreed definition, of a word means before you accuse another of misusing it.  Again, just use a dictionary first and you might not need to go down an unwarranted path.........

You do have the tendency to be an angry little guy, yeow.   

But actually what you're so angry about is that I said "many suggests a majority"  and, so although I knew that I knew the meaning of the word, I gave Paul the benefit of the doubt and............wait for it........... indeed the word 'many' does mean the majority of people. Would you look at that. Amazing, I do know the English language and the definitions of words. Where can I pick up my prize for stating the obvious - well, obvious to 'most' of us.  So Paul, you not only don't like to quote scholars - as you have stated -  you obviously don't even quote the dictionary? Will wonders never cease. In the future when something only pertains to some, please avoid the use of the word many or most. 

We thank you and all the people who have toiled on dictionaries thank you.

And, thus, the path was warranted. 

Now don't go and get all angry again - it's rather unpleasant ..........