Government and Charity

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can the Governments giving be called charity or is it something else?

It is basically charitable bribery. It certainly is not Christian Charity for haven't you heard that we are no longer a Christian nation? At least not since Obama has been in charge.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is basically charitable bribery. It certainly is not Christian Charity for haven't you heard that we are no longer a Christian nation? At least not since Obama has been in charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmC3IevZiik

So how is it charity if it isn't your money your giving? Giving away other
people's money isn't costing the giver anything, it helps good will for those
receiving and those giving, but not the one losing their money so someone
else can give to another who didn't work for it.

Those that give away what they worked for are the only ones in my
opinion that are really giving to charity.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So how is it charity if it isn't your money your giving? Giving away other
people's money isn't costing the giver anything, it helps good will for those
receiving and those giving, but not the one losing their money so someone
else can give to another who didn't work for it.

Those that give away what they worked for are the only ones in my
opinion that are really giving to charity.

Would you say that corporate charity (and related things like CSR programmes), where not every single shareholder has approved of the executive's decisions, is also not really charity, in your view?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So how is it charity if it isn't your money your giving? Giving away other
people's money isn't costing the giver anything, it helps good will for those
receiving and those giving, but not the one losing their money so someone
else can give to another who didn't work for it.

Those that give away what they worked for are the only ones in my
opinion that are really giving to charity.

And, adding to FMF's query, is the inheritor of wealth capable of charitable giving?

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, Ok, let me see if I get this straight.

We have a prostitute that does not feed her family. Check.

We have someone taking the mark of the beast who feeds his family. Check.

Now if they are both on two different trains on their way to hell, one going 60 miles per hour and the other going 65 miles per hour, assuming one starts 20 miles closer to h ...[text shortened]... mm? Good question. I have no idea Suzy but I really enjoy your posts if it is any consolation.

You post and post and post and yet you can't read.

Amazing!

Originally posted by KellyJay
So how is it charity if it isn't your money your giving? Giving away other
people's money isn't costing the giver anything, it helps good will for those
receiving and those giving, but not the one losing their money so someone
else can give to another who didn't work for it.

Those that give away what they worked for are the only ones in my
opinion that are really giving to charity.

It depends on how one defines charity. One definition is aid given to those in need. So under this definition it does not matter whose money is given to those in need. I was also thinking of foreign aid provided to other governments in need in the obvious attempt to buy their cooperation. But this type of Charity is not Christian charity which is given out of love and compassion to the poor and needy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It depends on how one defines charity. One definition is aid given to those in need. So under this definition it does not matter whose money is given to those in need. I was also thinking of foreign aid provided to other governments in need in the obvious attempt to buy their cooperation. But this type of Charity is not Christian charity which is given out of love and compassion to the poor and needy.

The acts of taking away by force to give to someone else without regard
to the one losing his or her own money can only be thought of as "good"
is if a law is passed making it legal. Outside of that typically if that same
act of taking away from one to get something out of the one your giving it
to like for *votes* would be a crime.

If you join a group whose purpose is to give that is one thing, but even if
it were a group whose purpose is to make money than those within that
group would still be losing their earned income to give, which would not be
like the government doing it, again this is my opinion.

Originally posted by JS357
And, adding to FMF's query, is the inheritor of wealth capable of charitable giving?

It is the inheritor's wealth correct, their money to do with as they will?
If that is true they suffer the loss when they give it away.
As long as they are not forcing away from someone else to give the money
away I'd say it is charitable.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is the inheritor's wealth correct, their money to do with as they will?
If that is true they suffer the loss when they give it away.
As long as they are not forcing away from someone else to give the money
away I'd say it is charitable.

Yet, on this very page you say:

Those that give away what they worked for are the only ones in my opinion that are really giving to charity.

(emphasis added)

Ouch!

Originally posted by KellyJay
The acts of taking away by force to give to someone else without regard
to the one losing his or her own money can only be thought of as "good"
is if a law is passed making it legal. Outside of that typically if that same
act of taking away from one to get something out of the one your giving it
to like for *votes* would be a crime.

If you join a gro ...[text shortened]... rned income to give, which would not be
like the government doing it, again this is my opinion.

I was just trying to point out that Christian charity has a higher moral motivation than government charity or aid.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yet, on this very page you say:

Those that give away what they worked for are the [b]only ones in my opinion that are really giving to charity.

(emphasis added)

Ouch![/b]

Inheritor's money was taken by force from who?
Ouch, please what did you do look for some tiny piece of things written in
all of these pages of context to be able to find something you could twist
into something you could bad mouth?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was just trying to point out that Christian charity has a higher moral motivation than government charity or aid.

I think where I disagree with you is I think the government who only plays
with other's money doesn't play by the same rules as a Christian charities
or anyone else's charities. Business and Charities only have what they have
either been given or earned, government forces out money out of people's
pockets.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think where I disagree with you is I think the government who only plays
with other's money doesn't play by the same rules as a Christian charities
or anyone else's charities. Business and Charities only have what they have
either been given or earned, government forces out money out of people's
pockets.

You apparently disagree with one of the definitions for "charity" which I quoted from the dictionary. I am not sure that we fundamentally disagree except instead of saying it is government robbery, I understand that there are IRS tax laws that makes this so-called robbery legal. But I see the aid given to the needy people and nations as having stronger bribery motivations than Christian charitable motivations.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Inheritor's money was taken by force from who?

You didn't mention force in the sentence he quoted.

So when bank robbers decide to give away some of the money they have stolen, that is not charity?


Ouch, please what did you do look for some tiny piece of things written in all of these pages of context to be able to find something you could twist into something you could bad mouth?
Its not 'some tiny piece' its a central part of your argument. Your whole thread is asking what the specific definition of charity is and what specific details affect whether or not it is charity.
You stated in clear unambiguous English that you believe it is only charity if you have worked for the money, then a few posts later you admitted a different definition.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You apparently disagree with one of the definitions for "charity" which I quoted from the dictionary. I am not sure that we fundamentally disagree except instead of saying it is government robbery, I understand that there are IRS tax laws that makes this so-called robbery legal. But I see the aid given to the needy people and nations as having stronger bribery motivations than Christian charitable motivations.

I went back and looked I didn't see you quoting anything I'm sorry, that
is except where the Pres. was going on about we are not just a Christian
nation. If you point it out to me or I'm sorry quote it again I'll look at it.