reply
- Feature
- Like
Charitable giving is good in that it reaches out a hand to those in need. It is bad if it makes us feel puffed up like we are doing something extraordinary rather than just what we are all called on to do for one another. It is good when we send away the price of a cup of coffee a day to a nation where even those few dollars will go a very long way. It is bad if we think it excuses us from reaching out to those right under our noses. Plus those under our noses are, well, under our noses, and we may have to do more than simply part with a buck and change a day in exchange for cards and letters that tell us what a good person we are. When we give just to feel good about ourselves, the recipient still receives much but the giver has already wrung their full reward from the action. When we give because there is a need and that is simply the end of that, both parties benefit. When we send our money away via some organization, there is alway the risk it will go astray or be eaten up with service charges. When we reach out to someone who is right there, risks are also present. I guess the question to be asked then, is do we really care or do we just want to purchase the fuzzy feelings coupled with the impression of caring without any of the risks of physically reaching out our hand? Or how many people in dire need does one have to walk across on the way to the post office with the few dollars a day to help out those in dire need far away? Don't stop giving to those far away, but also don't neglect those right under your nose. And remember that with home-grown charity it will probably cost you more, get your hands dirty, involve more commitment, more risk. But saying you care for the less fortunate and trying to justify this by simply tossing some 3rd-hand money and walking away (doesn't always, but) CAN have more to do with placating the conscience than with actual caring for your fellow human. Check out Luke 10:25-37 for another take on charitable giving.
reply
- Feature
- Like
According to Ayan Rand, altruism is NOT a moral thing. . .That non-dependent people are nothing but "parasites". . .I most definitely do not agree with this because in most cases people really do need charitable help. For example when a natural disaster occurs. Who are we to say that those people are nothing but "parasites"? Or what about the grandmother who has MS or the grandfather who is losing his memory? Are they "parasites", too because they are dependent on someone else's help? Of course I'm talking of individual cases, but in the case of charity, I do not think it's wrong. If we donate money to a charity, it is really up to the charity to do good with the good you've given then. Because an example of the US Foreign Aid, the money that is used is sometimes squandered!
reply
- Feature
- Like
What a sobering picture. Charitable giving is what we all should be doing. 1 John 5:2 says, "This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands." And Jesus commanded us to give. So many people today think only of themselves and not of others (Christians included). I've visited poor countries, and every time I come back to American I have a renewed sense of obligation to give. We have SO much and the rest of the world has so little. Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:40). We need to help Jesus out.
reply
- Feature
- Like
JustindelLeon I have had these same questions, and I have decided in my life to give to people I know directly when they are in need of help - I do not create dependency because I have not given to the same person twice...I guess, subconsciously, I have a "rule" this is a one time deal. I do not ever give to organizations, churches, etc. This is how I have resolved your questions. and you may feel differently...we are not all the same.
reply
- Feature
- Like
